query_id
stringlengths 32
32
| query
stringlengths 7
4.81k
| positive_passages
listlengths 1
23
| negative_passages
listlengths 10
100
| subset
stringclasses 7
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1dc93a20b611cb9de2466782bce5ebc4
|
How do we know the number of shorted shares of a stock?
|
[
{
"docid": "98634ad20792e08f87659493195a9884",
"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.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b932b0d181fe36d3fdcc9450f3209b67",
"text": "\"The reason for selling a stock \"\"short\"\", is for when you believe the stock value will decrease in the near future. Here is an example: Today Exxon-Mobile stock is selling for $100 / share. You are expecting the price to decrease, so you want to short the stock, which means your broker (i.e. eTrade, etc) allows you to borrow shares without paying money, and those shares are transferred into your account, and then you sell them and receive money for the sale. But you didn't actually own those shares, you only borrowed them, so you need to return the shares to your broker sometime in the future. Let's say you borrow 10 shares @ $100, and you sell them at the market price of $100, you receive $1,000 in your account. But you owe your broker 10 shares, which you need to return sometime in the future. A few days later, the share price has decreased to $80. Now you can buy 10 shares from the market at a total cost of $800. You get 10 shares, and return those shares to your broker. Since you originally took in $1,000, and you just paid out $800, you keep a resulting profit of $200\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3b31f6ff09ba86956fe3909c37414b4",
"text": "\"As the other answer said, the person who owns the lent stock does not benefit directly. They may benefit indirectly in that brokers can use the short lending profits to reduce their fees or in that they have the option to short other stocks at the same terms. Follow-up question: what prevents the broker lending the shares for a very short time (less than a day), pocketing the interest and returning the lenders their shares without much change in share price (because borrowing period was very short). What prevents them from doing that many times a day ? Lack of market. Short selling for short periods of time isn't so common as to allow for \"\"many\"\" times a day. Some day traders may do it occasionally, but I don't know that it would be a reliable business model to supply them. If there are enough people interested in shorting the stock, they will probably want to hold onto it long enough for the anticipated movement to happen. There are transaction costs here. Both fees for trading at all and the extra charges for short sale borrowing and interest. Most stocks do not move down by large enough amounts \"\"many\"\" times a day. Their fluctuations are smaller. If the stock doesn't move enough to cover the transaction fees, then that seller lost money overall. Over time, sellers like that will stop trading, as they will lose all their money. All that said, there are no legal blocks to loaning the stock out many times, just practical ones. If a stock was varying wildly for some bizarre reason, it could happen.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "005ae68f6b6c32c422f0c8118e17c5a7",
"text": "There is no difference. When dealing with short positions, talking about percentages become very tricky since they no longer add up to 100%. What does the 50% in your example mean? Unless there's some base amount (like total amount of the portfolio, then the percentages are meaningless. What matters when dealing with long and short positions is the net total - meaning if you are long 100 shares on one stock trade and short 50 shares on another, then you are net long 50 shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2136d2107d301d8ce67bde3c860700d0",
"text": "\"There are two primary reasons shares are sold short: (1) to speculate that a stock's price will decline and (2) to hedge some other related financial exposure. The first is acknowledged by the question. The second reason may be done for taxes (shorting \"\"against the box\"\" was once permitted for tax purposes), for arbitrage positions such as merger arbitrage and situations when an outright sale of stock is not permitted, such as owning restricted stock such as employer-granted shares. Why would a shareholder lend the investor the shares? The investor loaning his stock out to short-sellers earns interest on those shares that the borrower pays. It is not unusual for the annualized cost of borrowing stock to be double digits when there is high demand for heavily shorted shares. This benefit is however not available to all investors.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f505ea025ad3b724d57c8c6297ce71a",
"text": "When you buy a stock, the worst case scenario is that it drops to 0. Therefore, the most you can lose when buying a stock is 100% of your investment. When you short a stock, however, there's no limit on how high the stock can go. If you short a stock at 10, and it goes up to 30, then you've lost 200% on your investment. Therefore shorting stocks is riskier than buying stocks, since you can lose more than 100% of your investment when shorting. because the price might go up, but it will never be as big of a change as a regular price drop i suppose... That is not true. Stocks can sometimes go up significantly (50-100% or more) in a very short amount of time on a positive news release (such as an earnings or a buyout announcement). A famous example occurred in 2008, when Volkswagen stock quintupled (went up 400%) in less than 2 days on some corporate news: Porsche, for some reason, wants to control Volkswagen, and by building up its stake has driven up the price. Hedge funds, figuring the share price would fall as soon as Porsche got control and stopped buying, sold a lot of VW shares short. Then last weekend, Porsche disclosed that it owned 42.6 percent of the stock and had acquired options for another 31.5 percent. It said it wanted to go to 75 percent. The result: instant short-squeeze. The German state of Lower Saxony owns a 20 percent stake in VW, which it said it would not sell. That left precious few shares available for anyone else. The shorts scrambled to cover, and the price leaped from about €200, or about $265, to above €1,000.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98e3bfb692726eb17aedb4ba794c9489",
"text": "In order to short a stock, you have to borrow the number of shares that you're shorting from someone else who holds the shares, so that you can deliver the shares you're shorting if it becomes necessary to do so (usually; there's also naked short selling, where you don't have to do this, but it's banned in a number of jurisdictions including the US). If a stock has poor liquidity, or is in high demand for shorting, then it may well be impossible to find anyone from whom it can be borrowed, which is what has happened in this instance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2f7ad0541af31f8d8438cfa6e0f8f23",
"text": "In less than two decades, more than half of all publicly traded companies have disappeared. There were 7,355 U.S. stocks in November 1997, according to the Center for Research in Security Prices at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. Nowadays, there are fewer than 3,600. A close look at the data helps explain why stock pickers have been underperforming. And the shrinking number of companies should make all investors more skeptical about the market-beating claims of recently trendy strategies. Back in November 1997, there were more than 2,500 small stocks and nearly 4,000 tiny “microcap” stocks, according to CRSP. At the end of 2016, fewer than 1,200 small and just under 1,900 microcap stocks were left. Most of those companies melted away between 2000 and 2012, but the numbers so far show no signs of recovering. Several factors explain the shrinking number of stocks, analysts say, including the regulatory red tape that discourages smaller companies from going and staying public; the flood of venture-capital funding that enables young companies to stay private longer; and the rise of private-equity funds, whose buyouts take shares off the public market. For stock pickers, differentiating among the remaining choices is “an even harder game” than it was when the market consisted of twice as many companies, says Michael Mauboussin, an investment strategist at Credit Suisse in New York who wrote a report this spring titled “The Incredible Shrinking Universe of Stocks.” That’s because the surviving companies tend to be “fewer, bigger, older, more profitable and easier to analyze,” he says — making stock picking much more competitive. Consider small-stock funds. Often, they compare themselves to the Russell 2000, an index of the U.S. stocks ranked 1,001 through 3,000 by total market value. “Twenty years ago, there were over 4,000 stocks smaller” than the inclusion cutoff for the Russell 2000, says Lubos Pastor, a finance professor at the University of Chicago. “That number is down to less than 1,000 today.” So fund managers have far fewer stocks to choose from if they venture outside the index — the very area where the best bargains might be found. More money chasing fewer stocks could lead some fund managers to buy indiscriminately, regardless of value. Eric Cinnamond is a veteran portfolio manager with a solid record of investing in small stocks. Last year, he took the drastic step of shutting down his roughly $400 million mutual fund, Aston/River Road Independent Value, and giving his investors their money back. “Prices got so crazy in small caps, I fired myself,” he says. “My portfolio was 90% in cash at the end, because I couldn’t find anything to buy. If I’d kept investing, I was sure I’d lose people their money.” He adds, “It was the hardest thing I’ve ever done professionally, but I didn’t feel I had a choice. I knew my companies were overvalued.” Mr. Cinnamond hopes to return to the market when, in his view, values become attractive again. He doesn’t expect recent conditions to be permanent. The evaporation of thousands of companies may have one enduring result, however — and it could catch many investors by surprise. Most research on historical returns, points out Mr. Mauboussin, is based on the days when the stock market had twice as many companies as it does today. “Was the population of companies so different then,” he asks, “that the inferences we draw from it might no longer be valid?” So-called factor investing, also known as systematic or smart-beta investing, picks hundreds or thousands of stocks at a time based on common sources of risk and return. Among them: how big companies are, how much their shares fluctuate, how expensive their shares are relative to asset value and so on. But the historical outperformance of many such factors may have been driven largely by the tiniest companies — exactly those that have disappeared from the market in droves. Before concluding that small stocks or cheap “value” stocks will outrace the market as impressively as they did in the past, you should pause to consider how they will perform without the tailwinds from thousands of tiny stocks that no longer exist. The stock market has more than tripled in the past eight years, so the eclipse of so many companies hasn’t been a catastrophe. But it does imply that investing in some of the market’s trendiest strategies might be less profitable in the future than they looked in the past.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c214d560ed54ea4495c8526b2894adf6",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d502149a85e0fe587f5e0b9b1570ba9c",
"text": "It this a real situation or is it a made up example? Because for a stock that has a last traded priced of $5 or $6 and volume traded over $4M (i.e. it seems to be quite liquid), it is hardly likely that the difference from bid to ask would be as large as $1 (maybe for a stock that has volume of 4 to 5 thousand, but not for one having volume of 4 to 5 million). In regards to your question, if you were short selling the order would go in exactly the same as if you were selling a stock you owned. So your order would be on the ask side and would need to be matched up with a price on the bid side for there to be a trade.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3123290e32d907c6d91f25b639be154",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cfb787181731c3db190ce83e73934f7",
"text": "You can't. If there was a reliable way to identify an undervalued stock, then people would immediately buy it, its price would rise and it wouldn't be undervalued any more.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0781f8a4ea12589a43b6447b9e7066ea",
"text": "\"To summarize, there are three basic ways: (3) is the truly dangerous one. If there is a lot of short interest in a stock, but for some reason the stock goes up, suddenly a lot of people will be scrambling to buy that stock to cover their short position -- which will drive the price up even further, making the problem worse. Pretty soon, a bunch of smart rich guys will be poor guys who are suddenly very aware that they aren't as smart as they thought they were. Eight years ago, such a \"\"short squeeze\"\", as it's called, made the price of VW quadruple in two days. You could hear the Heinies howl from Hamburg to Haldenwanger. There are ways to protect yourself, of course. You can go short but also buy a call at a much higher price, thereby limiting your exposure, a strategy called a \"\"straddle\"\", but you also reduce your profit if you guessed right. It comes down to, as it always does, do you want to eat well, or to sleep well?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c04be15b6800d5c5717ebe50622497f3",
"text": "\"You can't do this automatically; you want to understand whether the drop is from a short-term high. is likely to be a short-term low, or reflects an actual change in how folks expect the company to do in the future. Having said that, some people do favor a strategy which resembles this, betting on what are known as \"\"the dogs of the Dow\"\" in the assumption that they're well trusted but not as strongly sought and therefore perhaps not bid up as strongly. I have no opinion on it; I'm just mentioning it for comparison.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f40ce647ec1934ec570d35784baa2775",
"text": "James Roth provides a partial solution good for stock picking but let's speed up process a bit, already calculated historical standard deviations: Ibbotson, very good collection of research papers here, examples below Books",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb5918e849d1e717ad6b71c9f01f57f8",
"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.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
44d497047792dbc1e14fac6511176b06
|
What is a trade exchange and are they reputable or not?
|
[
{
"docid": "40360b49e289a7118e858513501b2fb8",
"text": "I think this is off topic, but here is a stab: So these are cashless. It could be a way to smooth out the harsh reality of capitalism (I overproduced my product, I have more capacity than I can sell) and I can trade those good to other capitalists who similarly poorly planned production or capacity. Therefore the market for a system like is limited to businesses that do not plan well. Business that plan production or capacity to levels they can already sell for cash do not need a private system to offload goods. Alternatives to such a system include: (I don't know how many businesses are really in this over production / over capacity state. If my assumption that it isn't many is wrong, my answer is garbage.) This is a bartering system with a brokerage. I think we have historically found that common currencies create more trade and economic activity because the value of the note in your pocket, which is the same type of note in my pocket, is common and understood. Exchange rates typically slow down trade. (There are many other reasons to have different currency or notes on a global sale, but the exchange certainly is a hurdle to clear.) This brokerage is essentially adding a new currency (in a grand metaphor). And that new currency is only spendable on their brokerage, which is of limited use to society as a whole, assuming that society as a whole isn't a participating member of that brokerage. I can't really think of why this type of exchange is better than the current system we have now. I wouldn't invest in this as a business, or invest in this as a person looking for opportunity.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0c2c9c130645d49832b4a83c7a1b772d",
"text": "I don't know if vanilla beans are traded on any organized exchange, and if they are, it's probably extremely obscure and very hard to access without having both of a lot of money and in-country connections. Edit: no, they're not. So there is no real way to short them. https://www.ft.com/content/e0e2fc16-28db-11e7-bc4b-5528796fe35c?mhq5j=e2",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bc83aba8d1e3c106be922149a80c466",
"text": "This guy is literally proposing a bucket shop. Trades against customers and copy their trades. No centralized clearing (it's not executing trades at all). And he thinks these are good things that customers should get him for. Scam. And a very old one at that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1f971e5df4506e6bc1077d7753c9161",
"text": "\"No, I'm sorry, but the fact that exchanges allow \"\"pay to play\"\" privelege to scalp orders is fairly well established at this time. It's skirts law simply because the exchanges don't profit *directly* from it. I understand that folks are upset that SEC is looking into turning off this free money faucet, but harranguing Katsayuma for opening a fair exchange that shuns the practice is a point of contention for me.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce47a05f533def8a477949d494e2707e",
"text": "Have you looked at OptionsHouse? They charge $2.95 per trade and are one of the lowest when it comes to fees. Bare bones interface, but fast execution.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "728e392d990ee0646c3ba5fc4c399afe",
"text": "\"You might consider learning how the \"\"matching\"\" or \"\"pairing\"\" system in the market operates. The actual exchange only happens when both a buyer and a seller overlap their respect quotes. Sometimes orders \"\"go to market\"\" for a particular volume. Eg get me 10,000 Microsoft shares now. which means that the price starts at the current lowest seller, and works up the price list until the volume is met. Like all market it trades, it has it's advantages, and it's dangers. If you are confident Microsoft is going to bull, you want those shares now, confident you'll recoup the cost. Where if you put in a priced order, you might get only none or some shares. Same as when you sell. If you see the price (which is the price of the last completed \"\"successful\"\" trade. and think \"\"I'm going to sell 1000 shares\"\". then you give the order to the market (or broker), and then the same as what happened as before. the highest bidder gets as much as they asked for, if there's still shares left over, they go to the next bidder, and so on down the price... and the last completed \"\"successful\"\" trade is when your last sale is made at the lowest price of your batch. If you're selling, and selling 100,000 shares. And the highest bidder wants 1,000,000 shares you'll only see the price drop to that guys bid. Why will it drop (off the quoted price?). Because the quoted price is the LAST sale, clearly if there's someone still with an open bid on the market...then either he wants more shares than were available (the price stays same), or his bid wasn't as high as the last bid (so when you sale goes through, it will be at the price he's offering). Which is why being able to see the price queues is important on large traders. It is also why it can be important put stops and limits on your trades, een through you can still get gapped if you're unlucky. However putting prices (\"\"Open Orders\"\" vs \"\"(at)Market Orders\"\") can mean that you're sitting there waiting for a bounce/spike while the action is all going on without you). safer but not as much gain (maybe ;) ) that's the excitement of the market, for every option there's advantages...and risks... (eg missing out) There are also issues with stock movement, shadowing, and stop hunting, which can influence the price. But the stuff in the long paragraphs is the technical reasons.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa201189bdfec5bd9d4e1380f29f863d",
"text": "Most investors vote with their wallets. I expect ZERO glitches from a trading platform. If someone was actually causing trades to fail maliciously, their reputation would immediately suffer and their business would dry up over night. You can't just play dumb and not respond to a button click. I can watch and replay the traffic I'm sending out to their server and see if they are responding to verify this. If their system goes down and has no redundancy, that is their fault and opens them to lawsuits. No trading platform could withstand scrutiny from its users if it was dishonest in the scenario you imagine.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "746fadc47e6606d3a1730a15c59391f2",
"text": "I just finished a high frequency trading project. Individuals can do it, but you need a lot of capital. You can get a managed server in Times Square for $1500/month, giving you access to 90% of the US exchanges that matter, their data farms are within 3 milliseconds of distance (latency). You can also get more servers in the same building as the exchanges, if you know where to look ;) thats all I can divulge good luck",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b20c6a5a5c7ade576e954c164b0a7253",
"text": "How easy is it to take out your money? To they offer any trading? Do you have to put more money up on your own to trade with? This seems pretty sketchy. I am currently working at a prop trading firm and although some sketchy firms require you to make a deposit, most legit ones do not. Not to mention their commissions are incredibly high (I interviewed at another sketchy firm but only charges a couple cents for commission). >most of the time you get rebates on them If it is not explicitly stated in the contract of how they decide your rebates than don't expect much. Most of the trading industry is build around taking advantage of people where people's word soon becomes meaningless unless it is in writing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41734e5f71ad45eb45327676b3ef67da",
"text": "\"The success rate is terrible. At the same time, what are the success rate for any business endeavor? Isn't it something like 80% of startups fail in the first 5 years? That's not far off for the success of traders. Just like all the success cliches say, it comes down to how bad you want it. What will you sacrifice to be a successful trader? How much will you work to be a successful trader? Will you accept the pain and failure it takes to be a trader? Who cares if \"\"soandso\"\" can do it? If you want it, you should be saying, \"\"I will do it because I say so\"\". Only you know if you're willing to take the risk. At the same time, you're a college student, what's the worst that will happen if it doesn't work out? Check out /r/getmotivated...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a5c671699b2c194916502a7a365a692",
"text": "\"I think you're right that these sites look so unprofessional that they aren't likely to be legitimate. However, even a very legitimate-looking site might be a fake designed to separate you from your money. There is an entire underground industry devoted to this kind of fakery and some of them are adept at what they do. So how can you tell? One place that you can consult is FINRA's BrokerCheck online service. This might be the first of many checks you should undertake. Who is FINRA, you might ask? \"\"The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is the largest independent regulator for all securities firms doing business in the United States.\"\" See here. My unprofessional guess is, even if a firm's line of business is to broker deals in private company shares, that if they're located in the U.S. or else dealing in U.S. securities then they'd still need to be registered with FINRA – note the \"\"all securities firms\"\" above. I was able to search BrokerCheck and find SecondMarket (the firm @duffbeer703 mentioned) listed as \"\"Active\"\" in the FINRA database. The entry also provides some information about the firm. For instance, SecondMarket appears to also be registered with the S.E.C.. You should also note that SecondMarket links back to these authorities (refer to the footer of their site): \"\"Member FINRA | MSRB | SIPC. Registered with the SEC as an alternative trading system for trading in private company shares. SEC 606 Info [...]\"\" Any legitimate broker would want you to look them up with the authorities if you're unsure about their legitimacy. However, to undertake any such kind of deal, I'd still suggest more due diligence. An accredited investor with serious money to invest ought to, if they are not already experts themselves on these things, hire a professional who is expert to provide counsel, help navigate the system, and avoid the frauds.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f98342a46aadd4f3c7192e8b9415206c",
"text": "For starters, that site shows the first 5 levels on each side of the book, which is actually quite a bit of information. When traders say the top of the book, they mean just the first level. So you're already getting 8 extra levels. If you want all the details, you must subscribe to the exchange's data feeds (this costs thousands of dollars per month) or open an account with a broker who offers that information. More important than depth, however, is update frequency. The BATS site appears to update every 5 seconds, which is nowhere near frequently enough to see what's truly going on in the book. Depending on your use case, 2 levels on each side of the book updated every millisecond might be far more valuable than 20 levels on each side updated every second.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d410df70f15fa6b3c0b7476264502873",
"text": "Yeah, it can be a scam. Lots of unscrupulous companies try to generate commissions by encouraging frequent trading - I can't recall the term they use right now, but I don't like to use these people for advice. My bank has 100 free trades per year for each account, which is more than enough for me to never pay a commission.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cf001967728581cbc9cf897c10f6944",
"text": "\"I've never used them myself, but Scottrade might be something for you to look at. They do $7 internet trades, but also offer $27 broker assisted trades (that's for stocks, in both cases). Plus, they have brick-and-morter storefronts all over the US for that extra \"\"I gotta have a human touch\"\". :-) Also, they do have after hours trading, for the same commission as regular trading.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b047dc87c3ad4c48201382f49eba180a",
"text": "Oanda.com is a very respectable broker. They don't offer ridiculous leverage options of 200 to 1 that prove the downfall of people starting out in Forex. When I used them a few years back, they had good customer service and some nice charting tools.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8bc5ac6fc7eafb3ec03c29d82e651ec",
"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.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
069bcafdcd9c6c876da5ce47fe756d4a
|
How do rich people guarantee the safety of their money, when savings exceed the FDIC limit?
|
[
{
"docid": "f0042193f945e999cc51ee7b75a7469d",
"text": "They might not have to open accounts at 12 bank because the coverage does allow multiple accounts at one institution if the accounts are joint accounts. It also treats retirement accounts a separate account. The bigger issue is that most millionaires don't have all their money siting in the bank. They invest in stocks, bonds, government bonds, international funds, and their own companies. Most of these carry risk, but they are diversified. They also can afford advisers to help them manage and protect their assets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f0d2806fddac004c3cdc11e569e2489",
"text": "\"Rich people use \"\"depositor\"\" banks the same way the rest of us use banks; to keep a relatively small store of wealth for monthly expenses and a savings account for a rainy day. The bulk of a wealthy person's money is in investments. Money sitting in a bank account is not making you more money, and in fact as Kaushik correctly points out, would be losing value to inflation. Now, all investments have risk; that's why interest exists. If, in some alternate universe, charging interest were illegal across the board, nobody would loan money, because there's nothing to be gained and a lot to lose. You have to make it worth my while for me to want to loan you my money, because sure as shootin' you're going to use my loan to make yourself wealthier. A wealthy person will choose a set of investments that represent an overall level of risk that he is comfortable with, much like you or I would do the same with our retirement funds. Early in life, we're willing to take a lot of risk, because there's a lot of money to be made and time to recover from any losses. Closer to retirement, we're much more risk-averse, because if the market takes a sudden downturn, we lose a significant portion of our nest egg with little hope of regaining it before we have to start cashing out. The very wealthy have similar variances in risk, with the significant difference that they are typically already drawing a living from their investments. As such, they already have some risk aversion, but at the same time they need good returns, and so they must pay more attention to this balancing act between risk and return. Managing their investments in effect becomes their new job, once they don't have to work for anyone else anymore. The money does the \"\"real work\"\", and they make the executive decisions about where best to put it. The tools they use to make these decisions are the same ones we have; they watch market trends to identify stages of the economic cycle that predicate large movements of money to or from \"\"safe havens\"\" like gold and T-debt, they diversify their investments to shield the bulk of their wealth from a sudden localized loss, they hire investment managers to have a second pair of eyes and additional expertise in navigating the market (you or I can do much the same thing by buying shares in managed investment funds, or simply consulting a broker; the difference is that the wealthy get a more personal touch). So what's the difference between the very wealthy and the rest of us? Well first is simple scale. When a person with a net worth in the hundreds of millions makes a phone call or personal visit to the financial institutions handling their money, there's a lot of money on the line in making sure that person is well looked-after. If we get screwed over at the teller window and decide to close our acocunts, the teller can often give us our entire account balance in cash without batting an eyelid. Our multimillionaire is at the lower end of being singlehandedly able to alter his banks' profit/loss statements by his decisions, and so his bank will fight to keep his business. Second is the level of control. The very wealthy, the upper 1%, have more or less direct ownership and control over many of the major means of production in this country; the factories, mines, timber farms, software houses, power plants, recording studios, etc that generate things of value, and therefore new wealth. While the average Joe can buy shares in these things through the open market, their investment is typically a drop in the bucket, and their voice in company decisions equally small. Our decision, therefore, is largely to invest or not to invest. The upper 1%, on the other hand, have controlling interests in their investments, often majority holdings that allow them far more control over the businesses they invest in, who's running them and what they do.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aaa8aad4c12291860d68cfacd8f7b6ed",
"text": "I found out there is something called CDARS that allows a person to open a multi-million dollar certificate of deposit account with a single financial institution, who provides FDIC coverage for the entire account. This financial institution spreads the person's money across multiple banks, so that each bank holds less than $250K and can provide the standard FDIC coverage. The account holder doesn't have to worry about any of those details as the main financial institution handles everything. From the account holder's perspective, he/she just has a single account with the main financial institution.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb4d887a729760610520284af03e61a8",
"text": "Most people who have over $250,000 in liquid cash savings would not want to start putting their money into regular savings accounts in different banks, especially with interest rates as ridiculously low as they are now in 2014-15. People with money will want to diversify their investments in ways that will potentially earn them more money, and they can also afford to seek the advice of financial planners who can help them do this wisely. Even if you decide to put $250,000 into various accounts at different banks, I wouldn't necessarily trust that the FDIC will be able to help you recover your money in the event that your banks go under. The amount of money available to the FDIC to cover such losses pales in comparison to the actual amount of money that Americans have in their bank accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa8cc03843dd6506bc631e247fd19868",
"text": "Even assuming hypothetically that you are able to split money in different bank accounts to get full coverage and all your accounts are in top ranking financial institutions in USA, you can not rely on FDIC if all or most of those banks go broke. Because FDIC just has a meagre 25 billion dollars to cover all bank accounts in the USA. And you know the amount of bank deposits in USA run in at least a trillion of dollars. US Deposits & FDIC Insurance figures",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d4e2ae1a529e77472855bdaa6f802a7",
"text": "The FDIC has been pretty good at recovery lost money from failed banks. The problem is the temporary loss from immediate needs. The best thing for anyone to do is diversify in investments and banks with adequate covered insurance for all accounts. Immediate access to available cash is always a priority that should be governed by the money manager in this case yourself.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fdc0c096584047dd029d2407e86289d",
"text": "With a lot excess cash you eventually have two goals: Since interest on cash bank deposits does not exceed inflation and you have currency risk, you may want to get into other asset classes. Options that might be, but not limited to are:",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b3a7ea7a18655ce93d4b616d9b56a7dc",
"text": "To store $1 milion in a bank with full FDIC insurance currently requires 4 separate bank accounts, each at 250k. It's not that difficult, particularly if you are married and your spouse can have 2 in his/her name. (This is dependent on the FDIC limit; they raised it to 250k after the 2008 crash).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf3bc8530ff8a4c61381016dc51ebae5",
"text": "In most cases of fraud, your liability is limited to $50 if you report it within certain number of days (I think 2). After that the liability grows to something like $500. You are covered even if your negligence has caused the breach. In addition VISA guarantees credit cards - in most cases you have 0 liability. Finally checking & savings accounts are FDIC insured up to $250,000 in case the bank goes bankrupt. The $250,000 is a total for all accounts at the given bank. It's up to you to report and ask for refund though and sometimes you have to jump through hoops to get it but usually it's fairly straightforward and it usually takes only 2 or 3 days.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0813109a518c4556c2b14a0b0b8bc4ff",
"text": "The FDIC insures deposits up to $250,000 per depositor, per bank, for each ownership category. The ownership categories are: You and a spouse could collectively have $750,000 of insured deposits at a single bank if you each had a single account, and a joint account together.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30036900c61f555fd1276bf5e10425c8",
"text": "\"Why would a bank buy government bonds? Why couldn't they just deposit their money in another bank instead? Generally, banks are limited by laws and regulations about how much they must set aside as reserves. Of the money they receive as deposits, they may loan a certain amount, but must keep some as a reserve (this is called \"\"fractional reserve banking\"\"). Different countries have a different amount that they must set aside in reserves. In countries where bank deposits are guaranteed, there is almost always some upper limit to how much is guaranteed. The amount of money that a bank would deposit in another bank would be far greater than the guarantee.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ddd515b9ee7e1314156eac28ec463373",
"text": "Remind me again who held and was willing to loan out that debt? The investor classes partly created the risk environment that they now want protection from. convenient. If they're going to sit on their savings, they're going to comparatively lose more to inflation, so what you think will happen probably wouldn't happen. And even if they do, savings don't receive preferential tax treatment anyways.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef15667412971eea6b43a973276ba24b",
"text": "In the US, pension benefits promised by employers are tightly regulated by a law called ERISA. One of the requirements is that money be deposited in a trust that is out of the reach of the employer and the employer's creditors, so even if the employer falls on hard times or goes bankrupt, the money to pay the pensions is still there. In addition, the benefits are guaranteed by the federal government through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (usually called the PBGC). Relative to most investments, pensions are a safe bet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "336b6996b017bb551981361ee8664699",
"text": "You don't mention how much money you are talking about but one option is to use reward checking accounts that are FDIC/NCUA insured. They pay 3-4% interest but generally have a few requirements such as 10-12 debit card transactions and sometimes require direct deposit as well as a limit of 10-50k deposits earning the top rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af8d1a231445e40ec2269437e4e6821e",
"text": "http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/index.html FDIC currently insures up to $250,000. (I would have put that as a comment to Jeffery but it says it was locked.) You don't want to put all your eggs in one basket. If you shop around, and keep shopping all the time you can keep your accounts in a single place so long as that single place provides the best deal. Don't have any loyalty to your banking institutions because they don't have any loyalty to you. Also, having lots of accounts means you are familiar with lots of institutions, so you are likely better at shopping around. Things I consider. For fewer institutions: For more institutions:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3be5d3a72a70dcebc60ef2851f5f9a6",
"text": "And set to get higher. Wait until the super rich start eating the poorer super rich. We don't even know what the 1% really has because the sample sizes are so small. We do know there's trillions in offshore accounts but we don't know who owns it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8953063491a0162c87cdf123213b6f1a",
"text": "I think it's because there are people who build entire wealth-gain strategies around certain conditions. When those conditions change, their mechanism of gaining wealth is threatened and they may take a short term loss as they transform their holdings to a new strategy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2be2bbdb0a7ff1bfde794353ad8c0e0",
"text": "\"You can store millions of dollars in deposit accounts, you just lose the explicit FDIC guarantee. So you look for rock-solid banks. Bankrate.com has \"\"Safe and Sound Ratings\"\" that show the relative strength of various banks. You put your excess deposits in those banks, and you are pretty safe. Note that in addition to the explicit FDIC guarantee, there is now an implicit guarantee that certain institutions have been deemed too \"\"big to fail\"\", and will be backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government, without regard to the capitalization of the bank. Bank of America, for example, is not well capitalized and is carrying billions of dollars of \"\"assets\"\" that have little or no value. Yet government policy keeps the bank afloat and your deposits secure. Another strategy is to use municipal money market accounts, which provide secure (but not guaranteed) deposit-like accounts as well as a tax benefit. If you have > $1M in liquid assets, you probably need a financial professional and attorney advising you to make sure that you are aware of and are controlling for risk in a way consistent with your longer-term goals.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88f929d4ba467b6a84f2f43272191d01",
"text": "I didn't realize that! Thanks for the correction. A bit of google-fu provided this: >[Stolen funds may be covered by what's called a banker's blanket bond, which is a multi-purpose insurance policy a bank purchases to protect itself from fire, flood, earthquake, robbery, defalcation, embezzlement and other causes of disappearing funds. In any event, an occurrence such as a fire or bank robbery may result in a loss to the bank but should not result in a loss to the bank's customers.](http://www.fdic.gov/consumers/consumer/information/fdiciorn.html)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cfb8eb76f144b9bc12d00e547c5e16c9",
"text": "\"I'd refer you to Is it true that 90% of investors lose their money? The answer there is \"\"no, not true,\"\" and much of the discussion applies to this question. The stock market rises over time. Even after adjusting for inflation, a positive return. Those who try to beat the market, choosing individual stocks, on average, lag the market quite a bit. Even in a year of great returns, as is this year ('13 is up nearly 25% as measured by the S&P) there are stocks that are up, and stocks that are down. Simply look at a dozen stock funds and see the variety of returns. I don't even look anymore, because I'm sure that of 12, 2 or three will be ahead, 3-4 well behind, and the rest clustered near 25. Still, if you wish to embark on individual stock purchases, I recommend starting when you can invest in 20 different stocks, spread over different industries, and be willing to commit time to follow them, so each year you might be selling 3-5 and replacing with stocks you prefer. It's the ETF I recommend for most, along with a buy and hold strategy, buying in over time will show decent returns over the long run, and the ETF strategy will keep costs low.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ac5ffe36c101ca43bf5aead9409f206",
"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.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
51f0c58e7381e7be6fa11b281a240c95
|
How should we organize our finances to effectively plan and prepare for an retirement in next 10 years?
|
[
{
"docid": "af0b1df1287ed9403409abff8d5d9e1c",
"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!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04dbc3d8c973ff716a1a53823f0aa77e",
"text": "The biggest issue is your lack of diversification. Your real estate investments have performed quite well so far, but you have also likely enjoyed a period of unprecedented growth that is not sustainable. In the long term, stocks have always outperformed real estate investments, which tend to track more closely to the inflation rate. You need more balance for when when the real estate market cools off. You don't mention tax-deferred retirement savings accounts. You should prioritize your attention to these to keep your income tax low. Consider selling one of your investment properties if you can't adequately fund the 401k.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9260b267d593f6be555fafa6752bc74e",
"text": "Part of the difficulty in this sort of planning is that you are also betting on future tax rates and comparing them with current taxes. If you are in a low tax bracket now, but expect to be in a higher one when you take the money out, it is better to pay the taxes now. If you are in a high tax bracket now, but expect to be in a lower one when you retire/take the money out, then it is better to defer the taxes until then. If you think that future sessions of Congress will decide to tax withdrawals from Roth accounts, then you should contribute to traditional accounts. The problem is that you don't know with certainty what the future will bring. So you have to make educated guesses about what might happen, and what you can do now to protect yourself from it. Ideally, plan so that even if the bad things happen, you will be reasonably comfortable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "883e13003661c691b6adae423ffef8b1",
"text": "\"A diversified portfolio (such as a 60% stocks / 40% bonds balanced fund) is much more predictable and reliable than an all-stocks portfolio, and the returns are perfectly adequate. The extra returns on 100% stocks vs. 60% are 1.2% per year (historically) according to https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/saving-investing/model-portfolio-allocations To get those average higher stock returns, you need to be thinking 20-30 years (even 10 years is too short-term). Over the 20-30 years, you must never panic and go to cash, or you will destroy the higher returns. You must never get discouraged and stop saving, or you will destroy the higher returns. You have to avoid the panic and discouragement despite the likelihood that some 10-year period in your 20-30 years the stock market will go nowhere. You also must never have an emergency or other reason to withdraw money early. If you look at \"\"dry periods\"\" in stocks, like 2000 to 2011, a 60/40 portfolio made significant money and stocks went nowhere. A diversified portfolio means that price volatility makes you money (due to rebalancing) while a 100% stocks portfolio means that price volatility is just a lot of stress with no benefit. It's somewhat possible, probably, to predict dry periods in stocks; if I remember the statistics, about 50% of the variability in the market price 10 years out can be explained by normalized market valuation (normalized = adjusted for business cycle and abnormal profit margins). Some funds such as http://hussmanfunds.com/ are completely based on this, though a lot of money managers consider it. With a balanced portfolio and rebalancing, though, you don't have to worry about it very much. In my view, the proper goal is not to beat the market, nor match the market, nor is it to earn the absolute highest possible returns. Instead, the goal is to have the highest chance of financing your non-financial goals (such as retirement, or buying a house). To maximize your chances of supporting your life goals with your financial decisions, predictability is more important than maximized returns. Your results are primarily determined by your savings rate - which realistic investment returns will never compensate for if it's too low. You can certainly make a 40-year projection in which 1.2% difference in returns makes a big difference. But you have to remember that a projection in which value steadily and predictably compounds is not the same as real life, where you could have emergency or emotional factors, where the market will move erratically and might have a big plunge at just the wrong time (end of the 40 years), and so on. If your plan \"\"relies\"\" on the extra 1.2% returns then it's not a reasonable plan anyhow, in my opinion, since you can't count on them. So why suffer the stress and extra risk created by an all-stocks portfolio?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "965d9616ee586392bf3c15fe87b224a4",
"text": "Buy low and sell high. Right now stocks are cheap (or at least cheapish). If you wait for better forecasts, the price will be higher. They might go down still farther, but no one knows for sure when that will happen, or where the bottom is -- despite what the talking heads on TV say. Remember that what you really care about is sell price minus purchase price (plus dividends, but I'll ignore that). What happens between the time you buy and the time you sell is irrelevant financially, but can be important psychologically. If it was me, and you are sure you won't need the money for at least 10 years, or better still 15-20, I would buy some index funds. Pick something that you are comfortable with (some are more aggressive/risky than others), and then only look at it a few times a year, if that much. Only do this as long as you are sure that you won't sell if the market drops further. That is a guaranteed way to lose money. This is what I've been doing for my retirement funds for 15 years, and its worked well so far.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7776d8529615f03d3a1ff066204e2e5",
"text": "I have a similar plan and a similar number of accounts. I think seeking a target asset allocation mix across all investment accounts is an excellent idea. I use excel to track where I am and then use it to adjust to get closer (but not exactly) to my target percentages. Until you have some larger balances, it may be prudent to use less categories or realize that you can't come exactly to your percentages, but can get close. I also simplify by primarily investing in various index funds. That means that in my portfolio, each category has 1 or 2 funds, not 10 or 20.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ca5a07dbc9252168d91b1abc00a1885",
"text": "Great questions -- the fact that you're thinking about it is what's most important. I think a priority should be maximizing any employer match in your 401(k) because it's free money. Second would be paying off high interest debt because it's a big expense. Everything else is a matter of setting good financial habits so I think the order of importance will vary from person to person. (That's why I ordered the priorities the way I did: employer matching is the easiest way to get more income with no additional work, and paying down high-interest debt is the best way to lower your long-term expenses.) After that, continue to maximize your income and savings, and be frugal with your expenses. Avoid debt. Take a vacation once in a while, too!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7db85a99ebe1994875cee8e6b6cc37f",
"text": "The metric I prefer is net worth, minus the value of your home, then divide by your annual expenses. The house is subtracted because you need to live somewhere, so its worth isn't part of retirement savings. I divide by expenses to create result that really answers how close one is to being able to retire. The target is to have 25X your required spending gap. Note, as you close in on retirement, and social security is still in place, you can use it in your planning. If I were in my 20s or 30s today, I wouldn't use it in my numbers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb86b8366e07682b4dbd0b23f812c833",
"text": "First priority is to set up an emergency fund of 6 months expenses. If you're going to be making ~30k a year, then that means you'll probably want to put away about 10k of it in a savings account or something else similarly liquid. After that, paying off your student loans probably makes the most sense depending on the rate. My general rule of thumb (and I'm sure others will disagree with me) is to pay off debts that are >=6.0% first before investing. Paying off debt is a risk-free return on your money, which makes it pretty valuable. It'll let you direct more of your monthly income into retirement savings, too. After that, open up a Roth IRA. You can put a maximum of $5500 in it for this year. I like Betterment, but Wealthfront has a similar service.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "103d0790419c515f5130b810367cdce0",
"text": "It's tough to avoid the discussion of taxes. Matthew's answer was excellent but of course, tax was part of the discussion. In an article I wrote a while back, The 15% solution, I described how one can optimize taxes paid by using Roth (401 or IRA) while at a marginal 15%, and carefully transition to pretax to avoid the 25% bracket. It's possible to effectively save money from a 25% rate and withdraw it at 0%. (Zero is what one pays for the first $20K of a couple's income, this is the combined standard deduction and personal exemptions.) It would take $500K at retirement to produce the $20,000 withdrawal at a 4% rate. Keep in mind, this is a moving target as the numbers edge up each year. With no match, I'd consider the Roth IRA. But I also agree, paying higher interest debt first is a wise priority.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b784ec1dea306580bf823cccf1b7d1b8",
"text": "\"Your retirement plan shouldn't necessarily be dictated by your perceived employment risks. If you're feeling insecure about your short-term job longevity and mid-career prospects, you will likely benefit from a thoughtful and robust emergency fund plan. Your retirement plan is really designed to fund your life after work, so the usual advice to contribute as much as you can as early as you can applies either way. While a well-funded retirement portfolio will help you feel generally more secure in the long run (and worst case can be used earlier), a good emergency fund will do more to address your near-term concerns. Both retirement and emergency fund planning are fundamental to a comprehensive personal finance plan. This post on StackExchange has some basic info about your retirement options. Given your spare income, you should be able to fully fund an IRA and your 401K every year with some left over. Check the fees in your 401K to determine if you really want to fully fund the 401K past employer matching. There are several good answers and info about that here. Low-cost mutual funds are a good choice for starting your IRA. There is a lot of different advice about emergency funds (check here) ranging from x months salary in savings to detailed planning for each of your expenses. Regardless of which method you chose, it is important to think about your personal risk tolerance and create a plan that addresses your personal needs. It's difficult to live life and perform well at work if you're always worried about your situation. A good emergency plan should go a long way toward calming those fears. Your concern about reaching mid-life and becoming obsolete or unable to keep up in your career may be premature. Of course your mind, body, and your abilities will change over the years, but it is very difficult to predict where you will be, what you will be doing, and whether your experience will offset any potential decrease in your ability to keep up. It's good to think ahead and consider the \"\"what-ifs\"\", but keep in mind that those scenarios are not preordained. There isn't anything special about being 40 that will force you into a different line of work if you don't want to switch.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56290eb39d292df78b8af33f4e308903",
"text": "Mostly you nailed it. It's a good question, and the points you raise are excellent and comprise good analysis. Probably the biggest drawback is if you don't agree with the asset allocation strategy. It may be too much/too little into stocks/bonds/international/cash. I am kind of in this boat. My 401K offers very little choices in funds, but offers Vanguard target funds. These tend to be a bit too conservative for my taste, so I actually put money in the 2060 target fund. If I live that long, I will be 94 in 2060. So if the target funds are a bit too aggressive for you, move down in years. If they are a bit too conservative, move up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e464172e7f74d337e511ec0d5a64b47",
"text": "For a more philosophical way to approach this, consider money saved as the opposite of money owed: This philosophy works for things which you may be able to borrow for (computer, car, house), but also for things you can't borrow for (retirement, giving to your kids, etc.). As others have mentioned, the 10% suggestion is for retirement, but the actual number depends on your lifestyle. As you can see in this chart, saving 10% of your income means you'll need to work for 51.4 years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a920cb7e7d5d27b8b43bfecb5f41516",
"text": "The 10K in savings and money market is equal to about 1.5 months of income for emergency funds. You should add additional funds to this account over the next few years to let that increase to 3 to 6 months of monthly expenses. This money should be kept secure so that it will be there when you need it. Growth is not the primary function for this account. Investment at this stage should be for retirement. This means take advantage of 401K matching if it is available. You will have to determine if Roth or regular makes the most sense for you. In general the lower your current tax bracket the more sense Roth makes for you. If you want an IRA again decide which type. Also remember that you have until the tax deadline to make a contribution so you can decide to use a refund to fund the IRA. IRAs and 401Ks are just account types with some rules attached. They can be invested in everything from CD's to individual stocks depending on how aggressive you want to be.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2af54e9f869b44c4f65083b7c30d1f2d",
"text": "Though I do think it is important to have a diversified portfolio for your retirement, I also think it's more important to make sure you are at no point touching this money until you retire. Taking money out of your retirement early is a sure fire way to get in a bad habit of spending this money when you need a little help. Here's a tip: If you consider this money gone, you will find another way to figure out your situation. With that said, I also would rather not put a percentage on this. Start by building your emergency fund. You'll want to treat this like a bill and make a monthly payment to your savings account each month or paycheck. When you have a good nine times your monthly income in here, stop contributing to this fund. Instead start putting the same amount into your IRA instead. At this point you should no longer have to add to your emergency fund unless there is a true emergency and you are replacing that money. Keep in mind that the amount of money in your emergency fund changes significantly in each situation. Sit down with your bills and think about how much money you would need in the event you lost your job. How long would you be out of work? How many bills do you have each month that would need to be covered?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c44b08854a031354dbe1f6080139836",
"text": "A Budget is different for every person. There are families making $40K/yr who will budget to spend it all. But a family making $100K of course will have a different set of spending limits for most items. My own approach is to start by tracking every cent. Keep a notebook for a time, 3 months minimum. Note, for homeowners, a full year is what it takes to capture the seasonal expenses. This approach with help you see where the money is going, and adjust accordingly. The typical goal is to spend less than you make, saving X% for retirement, etc. The most important aspect is to analyze how much money is getting spent on wasteful items. The $5 coffee, the $10 lunch, the $5-$7 magazines, etc. One can decide the $5 coffee is a social event done with a friend, and that's fine, so long as it's a mindful decision. I've watched the person in front of me at the supermarket put 4 magazines down on the counter. If she has $20 to burn, that's her choice. See Where can I find an example of a really basic family budget? for other responses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6b490195aee0c5351658b1edfd90ba3",
"text": "If you're referring to investment hedging, then you should diversify into things that would profit if expected event hit. For example alternative energy sources would benefit greatly from increased evidence of global warming, or the onset of peak oil. Preparing for calamities that would render the stock market inaccessible, the answer is quite different. Simply own more of things that people would want than you need. A list of possibilities would include: Precious metals are also a way to secure value outside the financial markets, but would not be readily sellable until the immediate calamity had passed. All this should be balanced on an honest evaluation of the risks, including the risk of nothing happening. I've heard of people not saving for retirement because they don't expect the financial markets to be available then, but that's not a risk I'm willing to take.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
305f0500a10e9f83d601aaefa9545b19
|
I'm getting gouged on prices for medical services when using my HSA plan. How to be billed fairly?
|
[
{
"docid": "cbe3a03af5d76667f495282e9f00ae5c",
"text": "The big difference for me under the High deductible plan has been that instead of paying the co-pay, now I am now responsible for the negotiated rate until I reach the deductible limit. The HSA is only a way to funnel medical payments through a tax free account the insurance company and the doctor don't care about the HSA. If we go out-of-network, then I am responsible for the full rate, but they only count the negotiated rate as a credit against the out of pocket/deductible. This big difference makes it very important to pick a doctor in-network. For your example: I would have paid $50 under the PPO, but $200 under the high deducible plan. If I go out-of-network I would have to pay whatever the doctor want me to pay, but the insurance company would only credit me $200 against my deductible. I can pull the extra $350 from the HSA. It is hard to get good pricing information from some doctors, but the price difference for me has been so large that in-network is the only way to go. For prescriptions the high deductible plan has been worse, because we pay the full price with no discounts for the medicine, until we reach the plan deductible. That makes the cost of the prescriptions as much as 10x's more expensive. In fact the annual cost of our prescriptions all but guarantees that we hit the deductible each year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "394e2c739f4870cd08159d90823caba2",
"text": "\"I had an HSA for two or three years. I found very routinely that my insurance company had negotiated rates with in-network providers. So as I never hit the deductible, I always had to pay 100% of the negotiated rate, but it was still much less than the providers general rate. Sometimes dramatically so. Like I had some blood and urine tests done and the general rate was $450 but the negotiated rate was only $40. I had laser eye surgery and the general rate was something like $1500 but the negotiated rate was more like $500. Et cetera. Other times it was the same or trivially different, like routine office visits it made no difference. I found that I could call the insurance company and ask for the negotiated rate and they would tell me. When I asked the doctor or the hospital, they either couldn't tell me or they wouldn't. It's possible that the doctor's office doesn't really know what rates they've agreed to, they might have just signed some contract with the insurance company that says, yes, we'll accept whatever you give us. But either way, I had to go to the insurance company to find out. You'd think they'd just publish the list on a web site or something. After all, it's to the insurance company's advantage if you go to the cheapest provider. With a \"\"regular\"\" non-HSA plan, they're share of the total is less. Even with an HSA plan if you go to a cheaper provider you are less likely to hit the deductible. Yes, medical care in the U.S. is rather bizarre in that providers routinely expect you to commit to paying for their services before they will tell you the price. Can you imagine any other industry working this way? Can you imagine buying a car and the dealer saying, \"\"I have no idea what this car costs. If you like it, great, take it and drive it home, and in a few weeks we'll send you a bill. And of course whatever amount we put on that bill you are legally obligated to pay, but we refuse to tell you what that amount will be.\"\" The American Medical Association used to have a policy that they considered it \"\"unethical\"\" for doctors to tell patients the price of treatment in advance. I don't know if they still do.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77de1f0828136343b16e6cd31563932d",
"text": "First, as noted in the comments, you need to pay attention to your network providers. If you are unable to pay exorbitant prices out of pocket, then find an in-network medical provider. if you are unhappy with the in-network provider list (e.g. too distant or not specialists), then discuss switching to another plan or insurer with your employer or broker. Second, many providers will have out of pocket or uninsured price lists, often seen in outdated formats or disused binders. Since you have asked for price lists and not been provided one, I would pursue it with the practice manager (or equivalent, or else a doctor) and ask if they have one. It's possible that the clinic has an out of pocket price list but the front line staff is unaware of it and was never trained on it. Third, if you efforts to secure a price list fail, and you are especially committed to this specific provider, then I would consider engaging in a friendly by direct negotiation with the practice manager or other responsible person. Person they will be amenable to creating a list of prices (if you are particularly proactive and aggressive, you could offer to find out of pocket price lists from other clinics nearby). You could also flat out ask them to charge you a certain fee for office visits (if you do this, try to get some sort of offer or agreed price list in writing). Most medical practices are uncomfortable asking patients for money, so that may mean flat refusal to negotiate but it may also mean surprising willingness to work with you. This route is highly unpredictable before you go down it, and it's dependent on all sorts of things like the ownership structure, business model, and the personalities of the key people there. The easiest answer is to switch clinics. This one sounds very unfriendly to HSA patients.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3611f0cf679453771729193f9c0d55b5",
"text": "\"As others have mentioned, you avoid \"\"payroll taxes\"\" (Medicaid, Social Security, etc) by using pre-tax money rather than post-tax money. However, there is one benefit to getting your own privately held one: you can choose the service provider. A previous employer's HSA charged $4/month, and did not allow me to invest in any funds unless I had over $4k in my account. However, a single year's maximum contribution is less than $4k, so it was stuck in a money market account perpetually. The tax saving probably is larger than both your monthly fees and your investment gains, but the HSA provider's rules are another (fairly-opaque) consideration.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3772f20a1d02c1a4ae8fc6aef9e9d331",
"text": "\"You can deduct what you pay for your own and your family's health insurance regardless of whether it is subsidized by your employer or not, as well as all other medical and dental expenses for your family, as an itemized deduction on Schedule A of Form 1040, but only to the extent that the total exceeds 7.5% of your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) (10% on tax returns for year 2013 onwards). As pointed out in KeithB's comment, you cannot deduct any health insurance premium (or other medical expense) that was paid for out of pre-tax dollars, nor indeed can you deduct any medical expense to the extent that it was paid for by the insurance company directly to hospital or doctor (or reimbursed to you) for a covered expense; e.g. if the insurance company reimbursed you $72 for a claim for a doctor's visit for which you paid $100 to the doctor, only $28 goes on Schedule A to be added to the amount that you will be comparing to the 7.5% of AGI threshold, and the $72 is not income to you that needs to be reported on Form 1040. Depending on other items on Schedule A, your total itemized deductions might not exceed the standard deduction, in which case you will likely choose to use the standard deduction. In this case, you \"\"lose\"\" the deduction for medical expenses as well as all other expenses deductible on Schedule A. Summary of some of the discussions in the comments Health care insurance premiums cannot be paid for from HSA accounts (IRS Pub 969, page 8, column 2, near the bottom) though there are some exceptions. Nor can health care insurance premiums be paid from an FSA account (IRS Pub 969, page 17, column 1, near the top). If you have a business on the side and file a Schedule C as a self-employed person, you can buy medical insurance for that business's employees (and their families too, if you like) as an employment benefit, and pay for it out of the income of the Schedule C business, (thus saving on taxes). But be aware that if you have employees other than yourself in the side business, they would need to be covered by the same policy too. You can even decide to pay all medical expenses of your employees and their families too (no 7.5% limitation there!) as an employment benefit but again, you cannot discriminate against other employees (if any) of the Schedule C business in this matter. Of course, all this money that reduced your Schedule C income does not go on Schedule A at all. If your employer permits your family to be covered under its health insurance plan (for a cost, of course), check whether you are allowed to pay for the insurance with pre-tax dollars. The private (non-Schedule C) insurance would, of course, be paid for with post-tax dollars. I would doubt that you would be able to save enough money on taxes to make up the difference between $1330/month and $600/month, but it might also be that the private insurance policy covers a lot less than your employer's policy does. As a rule of thumb, group insurance through an employer can be expected to offer better coverage than privately purchased insurance. Whether the added coverage is worth the additional cost is a different matter. But while considering this matter, keep in mind that privately purchased insurance is not always guaranteed to be renewable, and a company might decline to renew a policy if there were a large number of claims. A replacement policy might not cover pre-existing conditions for some time (six months? a year?) or maybe even permanently. So, do consider these aspects as well. Of course, an employer can also change health insurance plans or drop them entirely as an employment benefit (or you might quit and go work for a different company), but as long as the employer's health plan is in existence, you (and continuing members of your family) cannot be discriminated against and denied coverage under the employer's plan.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9683095ddab1e14148cdb3672a3ab112",
"text": "You should start by calling the clinic and asking them to tell you how the visit was coded. Some clinics have different billing codes based on the complexity of the visit. If you have one thing you are seeing the doctor about, that could be coded differently than if you have 4 things you are seeing the doctor about. In fact, even if you are there just for one ailment, but while you are there you happen to ask a few quick questions about other possible ailments, the doctor could decide to use the billing code for the higher complexity. If when speaking to the billing department it is determined that the visit is using a higher complexity billing code (and a higher charge as a result), you could then request that it be re-coded with the lower complexity visit. Realize if you request that they will probably have to first get approval from the doctor that saw you. Note: I am basing this answer on first hand experience about 6 months ago in Illinois, where the situation I described happened to me because I asked some unrelated questions about other possible ailments at the end of a visit to an after hours clinic. The billing department explained that my visit was coded for 4 issues. (3 of them were quick questions I asked about at the end of the visit, one of which she referred me to another doctor. My additional questions probably extended the visit by 3-4 minutes.) In my case I never got the bill reduced, mainly due to my own laziness and my knowing that I would hit my deductible anyway this year. Of course I can't say for sure if this is what happened in your case, or even if this practice is widespread. This was the first and only time in my life that I encountered it. As a side note, your primary doctor would likely rarely ever bill you for a more complex visit, as it likely wouldn't lead to much repeat business. As for your last question regarding your credit: if the provider decides to lower the price, and you pay the lower price, this in no way can affect your credit. Surprising Update: When I called the billing office months ago, I had asked if they could confirm the code with the doctor, and I was told they would look into it. I never heard back, never followed up, and assumed that was the end of it. Well, today I got a call back (months later) and was informed that they had re-coded the visit which will result in a lower charge! It's still pending the insurance adjustment but at some point in the future I expect to receive either a credit on my next statement or a check in the mail. (The price difference pre-insurance in my case has gone from $359 to $235.) Update: I did receive a check for the difference. The check was dated July 20, 2016, which is just over 2 months after the phone call informing me I would receive it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aab74dea0e7ee708091bd0e41aaae7ca",
"text": "\"Wait...what? Do you live in backwards land? They've let free market reign in healthcare that is why prices are through the roof. The healthcare industry is immune to antitrust, and negotiating with government programs. There is no such thing as \"\"preventing single payer programs......it only works if there is a SINGLE overriding singlepayer program (yes they wont pass it), anything else doesnt over come the problems of a fractured buying pool. Things they legislate is \"\"No negotiating policy\"\" ....and no.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b05aaea6f5def5d0f295abd38d46e00c",
"text": "The price the provider charges you is the amount he would like to get for his services. Let's take an example, you do a blood test at a lab, and they charge you 1200.00$ If you have insurance, and the provider has a contract with that insurance (meaning 'they take them'), the contract limits what they can charge and what the will get. For the example, that might be 21.56$. This is what the insurance pays them (or what you pay them, if you have deductible). Note that if you have no insurance, you owe them 1200.00$. They are typically willing to negotiate that you only pay maybe 850.00$, but it still will be much higher than the insurance price. Why? The reason is that the insurance-agreed payment of 21.56$ does not cover their cost (but the insurance forces them to make that contract or basically be out of business). Let's say for example they need 26.56$ to make a living on it; so they lose 5.00$ on every insured customer. One in 235 customers has no insurance, and his price is calculated as 26.56+235*5.00 = ~1200.00$, so his bill covers the losses for all insured 'under-payers' (all numbers are examples made up to illustrate the math the provider does). My bloodwork typically comes between 800 and 1400, and gets reduced to around 20: so the numbers are not completely off. The ratio and concept works for doctors and hospitals the same, just not as significant a difference.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c8ca4077f27a86a88ff81a4d00b991b",
"text": "I bought Health Insurance for myself after a period without it, and my premiums were not terrible. I was a 27 year old man, living in California, no preexisting conditions, and I paid approximately 90$ a month. This was for a standard Health Insurance plan. However, when I moved back to NY a little while later, insurance companies wanted almost $500/month for catastrophic coverage. So, from personal experience, my answer is that price varies widely by state. Different states have different regulations as to what Health Insurance Companies need to cover and at what price. In NY, Health Insurance companies can't charge different rates according to age. Also, in NY, there is a price spiral, where the price is so high, few people buy it, so they have to raise the price because not enough well people are in the pool, so fewer people buy it.... To test it out, go to an online insurance broker, like ehealthinsurace, and put in your proposed information, including that you haven't been covered for a period. This way you will know.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10dad58de53089d15cf755545b887fc9",
"text": "\"There really isn't any good ways that I'm aware of. (The exception is in New York or California, where hospitals must post prices.) The law sets price floors on many procedures by setting Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates. As a result, the \"\"list price\"\" for a given procedure is dramatically inflated, and various health insurers negotiate rates somewhere in the middle. I'd recommend talking to the business offices or financial counselors at medical groups that you do business with. Ask about \"\"self pay discounts\"\" or other programs appropriate for folks in your position.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07bc2c7918c691c5b0e5749c90b126ab",
"text": "This will likely cause either (a) running out of funds in HSA #2, as the aggregate $6500 limit is nearing (b) an over-contribution situation between HSA #1 and HSA #2. .... 2014 HSA contributions are under the limit by $3000. 2015 expenses currently sit at about $3000. The solution is to stop putting money into HSA #2 so that you don't go over the aggregate limit for this tax year; But then using the money in HSA #1 to pay the medical costs. If the person making the contribution had the ability to put money into either HSA then they should have the ability to spend that money from either account. I realize the goal of the April transaction was to be able to effectively put $9500 into the HSA system in CY 2015. With the transaction that missed the deadline by seconds that opportunity is lost. But any medical costs that can be paid with money in HSA #1 should be paid for with money from that account. You don't have to keep funds in HSA #1, while worrying about HSA# 2 running out of funds. The beauty of an HSA is that you can continue to pay medical expenses out of an account for years after you no longer have a High deductible insurance plan. It can even be used in retirement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "318d1517ba7429f4cad193d5cae9c59d",
"text": "If you are disputing the size of the charge for specific services, like you think that they overcharged for lab work, you can try disputing it with the business office staff at the doctor's office. If, on the other hand, you just think that the overall bill is too expensive then you really only have one option. You can ask if they will reduce the bill for you. Most hospitals and clinics I've dealt with have programs set up for this, but you usually access them by filling out paperwork demonstrating financial hardship (along with supporting documents). It never hurts to ask. But with the services already rendered the only person with an interest in reducing the bill is you. The reduction, if any, will probably depend on what the clinic thinks your ability to pay is compared with the cost to them of pursuing you for payment, as well as the amount of funding they have for bill reduction. When I worked in the financial services office of a hospital a $400 bill would not even have been reviewed for discounting-- the balance would be too low to devote staff time to reviewing. It's frustrating, and even asking in advance might not have given you accurate (or any!) information on what the cost of the visit would be, so your ability to shop around is limited. Unfortunately, that doesn't give you any additional options in this case.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "103e788a721ad7bd848850ab6c53da9d",
"text": "You can't roll her HSA account into yours, but you can roll her HSA account into another HSA account that is hers. A $5 per month fee for an HSA account is ridiculous. Find another account that has no fees, and move the money there. I suggest talking to your local credit union.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8faeaeb7d78b24749f2e3f0d57201e74",
"text": "\"Michael McGowan's answer is correct. The HDHP is like conventional insurance -- it is not like a \"\"health care plan\"\" that we're all used to. I.e. you don't want to have it pay out -- if it pays out, something bad has happened to you. (Just like you hope to never make a claim on your homeowner's, disability, or AD&D insurance -- that means something bad happened to you.) There are minor exceptions -- some HDHPs may cover preventive care, immunizations, etc to some extent. The bonus in the case of the HDHP is that you get to put money to cover the deductible into a tax deferred account. The HSA is effectively a self insurance fund with the HDHP as backup. Here's a concrete example. Say you have an HDHP with a $2500 deductible. The monthly premium is $500. You put $3000 into your HSA. Scenario 1: You remain mostly healthy throughout the year. You have a single doctor's visit, the doctor's office submits a claim to your insurance. The insurance doesn't pay because you haven't met your deductible, and you get a bill for $150. You write the doctor a check for $150 out of your HSA. Here, you've spent $6000 on your HDHP premiums, contributed $3000 to your HSA, and spent $150 of that on health care. At the end of the year, your HSA balance is $2850. In the following year, assume you plan to contribute another $3000 to your HSA. You can increase your deductible on the HDHP to $5000 (since you'll have $6000 in your HSA to cover out of pocket costs) and your monthly premium might go down to $400. Scenario 2: You are hospitalized for a week. The hospital submits a $15000 claim to your insurance. The insurance pays $12500 since your deductible is met after $2500. The hospital sends you a bill for $2500 for the balance. You write a check to the hospital out of your HSA. Again, you've spent $6000 on your HDHP premiums and contributed $3000 to your HSA. At the end of the year, your HSA balance is $500. Scenario 3: You are hospitalized for two days in December 2011, and then again for two days in January 2012. Your deductible reset on January 1, 2012. The hospital submits two claims to your insurance: one in 2011 for $5000 and one in 2012 for $5000. The insurance company pays $2500 on the first one and you get a bill for the other $2500. Same thing for the second one -- you've got to meet the deductible all over again. You write the hospital a check from your HSA to pay the first one. Then you've only got $500 left in your HSA. But you were planning to make another $3000 HSA contribution for 2012 anyway, so you make the contribution, write a $2500 check to pay the second bill, and you've now got a balance of $1000 in your HSA -- and since you've met the deductible for 2012 you should have no more out of pocket expenses. (Assuming your plan doesn't have copays.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28fbd6147331296e24091a48b5f615a7",
"text": "It is important to understand that when or before you received services from your medical provider(s), you almost certainly signed a document stating that you understand that you are fully responsible for the entire bill, even though the provider may be willing to bill the insurer on your behalf as a service. In almost all cases, this is the arrangement, so it is very unlikely that you will be able to dispute the validity of the bill, since you did receive the service and almost certainly agreed to be fully responsible for the payments. With regard to the discounts, your medical provides have likely contracted with your insurer to provide services at a certain price or discount level, so I would base all of your negotiations with the providers and/or the collectors on those amounts. They can't legitimately bill you for the full amount since you are insured by a company they have a contract with, and you are not self-pay/uninsured, and the fact that they haven't been paid by your insurer doesn't change that, because the discount likely depends on the contact they have with your insurer and not whether or not they are billed/paid by your insurer. Please note - this is a common arrangement, but I'd recommend that you verify this with your insurer. Unfortunately, payment in 90+ days is often typical by insurance standards, so it's not yet clear to me whether or not your insurer has broken any laws such as a Prompt Pay law, or violated the terms of your policy with them (read it!). However, you need to find out which claims rep/adjuster is handling your claims and follow up with them until the payments are made. It's not personal, so make this person's life miserable until it is done and call them so often that they know it's you by the caller ID. I would also recommend contacting the collector(s), and letting them know that you don't have the money and so will not be able to pay, provide them with copies of the EOBs that state that the insurance company plans to pay the providers, and then ignore their calls/letters until the payments are made. When they call, simply reiterate that you don't have the money and that your insurance company is in the process of paying the bills. You have to expect that you will be dealing with a low-paid employee that is following a script. You are just the next person on their robo-call list, and they are not going to understand that you don't have a pile of money laying around with which to pay them, even if you tell them repeatedly. Make sure that you at no point give them access to any of your financial accounts, such as a checking or savings account, or a debit card - they will access it and clean you out. It is likely that your insurance provider will pay the providers directly since they were likely billed by the providers originally. If the providers have sold the debt to the collectors (and are not just employing a collector for debt they still own), you may have to follow up with the providers as well and make sure that the collection activity stops, since the providers may also need to forward the payments to the collectors once they are paid by the insurance company. Of course, if the insurer refuses to pay the claims, at that point I would recommend meeting with a lawyer to seek to force them to pay.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64c4ccde4ee50cfa5b1328ff7781c804",
"text": "\"I had a similar issue take place at a hospital when the repeatedly billed the \"\"wrong me\"\" -- a stale insurance record left behind from when I was a dependent on my parent's insurance a decade earlier. They ended up billing me for anesthesia when I had a major surgery (everything else was billed to the correct insurance.) The outsourced billing people were pretty unhelpful (not usually the case with hospitals), so I became the squeaky wheel. I sent certified letters, had my priest rattle the cage (it was a Catholic hospital) and eventually talked myself into a meeting with the VP of Finance, who started paying attention when the incompetence of his folks became apparent. Total cost: $0 + my time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92684484641f09e228eeba932d866970",
"text": "HSA rules are different in some regards than deductions allowable under Pub 502 which deals with medical expenses deductible in Schedule A of your tax return. Pub 969 governs HSA's and similar reimbursement plans, and the guidelines are as follows: Insurance premiums. You can’t treat insurance premiums as qualified medical expenses unless the premiums are for: -Long-term care insurance. -Health care continuation coverage (such as coverage under COBRA). -Health care coverage while receiving unemployment compensation under federal or state law. -Medicare and other health care coverage if you were 65 or older (other than premiums for a Medicare supplemental policy, such as Medigap). Since your wife is still being treated like an employee for health benefits, and you are not on COBRA, thus not eligible for a deduction. You may qualify under the unemployment provision depending on the cause of her disability.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5209b3b8266ca522fdb34aa7dc6fe7e",
"text": "\"Calling this \"\"strange\"\" is an understatement. I'd call it illegal. You can't pay healthcare premiums with HSA funds while you are employed (unless you are on COBRA), and if you over contribute you pay a 6% tax on the overage unless you correct it. Furthermore, overage contributed by an employer must be treated as taxable wages, so they'd be better off just calling it a bonus and writing you a normal check. At least that way you wouldn't have to pay the 6% penalty on top of taxable wages.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
90d1120e12418292c643b9553bdeb804
|
18 year old making $60k a year; how should I invest? Traditional or Roth IRA?
|
[
{
"docid": "f7248e5f1cf5574fcfe75e702e39347a",
"text": "\"1) Usually, the choice between Traditional vs. Roth is whether you believe that your tax rate will be higher or lower in the future than it is now. Your income is probably in the 25% bracket now. It's hard to say whether that should be considered \"\"high\"\" or \"\"low\"\". Some people advocate Roth only for 15% bracket; but your income would probably go into higher brackets in the future, so Roth may be preferable from this point of view. Roth IRA also has another advantage that the principal of contributions can be taken out at any time without tax or penalty, so it can serve as an emergency fund just as well as money in taxable accounts. Given that you may not have a lot of money saved up right now, this is useful. 2) In a sense, it's nice to have a mix of Traditional and Roth when you withdraw to hedge against uncertainty in future tax rates and have the option of choosing whichever one is advantageous to withdraw when you need to withdraw. That said, you will likely have many years of access to a 401k and high income in your future working years, in which you can contribute to a Traditional 401k (or if no access to 401k, then Traditional IRA), so a mix will almost certainly happen even if you go all Roth IRA now. 3) I think that depends on you, whether you are a hands-on or hands-off kind of investor.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de995a46c0bcc6bbe0657fa820a0816b",
"text": "With this level of income, you might consider a Solo 401(k). It would allow you a much higher level of contributions and is more appropriate for your savings than the limited IRA deposits. It also offers a considerable number of options not available for IRAs. A loan for example.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9608373ac4641fd3bf118810516a650",
"text": "\"In asnwer to your questions: As @joetaxpayer said, you really should look into a Solo 401(k). In 2017, this allows you to contribute up to $18k/year and your employer (the LLC) to contribute more, up to $54k/year total (subject to IRS rules). 401(k) usually have ROTH and traditional sides, just like IRA. I believe the employer-contributed funds also see less tax burden for both you and your LLC that if that same money had become salary (payroll taxes, etc.). You might start at irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans and go from there. ROTH vs. pre-tax: You can mix and match within years and between years. Figure out what income you want to have when you retire. Any year you expect to pay lower taxes (low income, kids, deductions, etc.), make ROTH contributions. Any year you expect high taxes (bonus, high wage, taxable capital gains, etc.), make pre-tax payments. I have had a uniformly bad experience with target date funds across multiple 401(k) plans from multiple plan adminstrators. They just don't perform well (a common problem with almost any actively managed fund). You probably don't want to deal with individual stocks in your retirement accounts, so rather pick passively managed index funds that track various markets segments you care about and just sit on them. For example, your high-risk money might be in fast-growing but volatile industries (e.g. tech, aerospace, medical), your medium-risk money might go in \"\"total market\"\" or S&P 500 index funds, and your low-risk money might go in treasury notes and bonds. The breakdown is up to you, but as an 18 year old you have a ~50 year horizon and so can afford to wait out anything short of another Great Depression (and maybe even that). So you'd want generally you want more or your money in the high-risk high-return category, rebalancing to lower risk investments as you age. Diversifying into real estate, foreign investments, etc. might also make sense but I'm no expert on those.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "16ed6dab292e7202b621d0760d331256",
"text": "529 College Savings Plans exist, which allow for tax-free savings for educational expenses, but I think you expect to go back to school too quickly for them to be worth the hassle. (They're more designed for saving for college for your kids.) Other than an IRA, you don't have many options for tax-advantaged accounts. In addition, since you plan to return to school, you should keep money around for that. Don't put that money in anything too volatile or hard to access. Since you don't plan on doing anything with the 80k in CDs right now, you can get away with higher risk with that money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "644c22f68a53d92c00380b254bfeb7ee",
"text": "I think others have made the key points. Let me just add: As others have pointed out, the traditional IRA is better if your tax rate in retirement is lower than it is when you are building the account. The Roth IRA is better if your tax rate in retirement is higher. For most people, your income in retirement will be lower than your income in most of your working years. On top of that, a significant percentage of your income will come from Social Security, which is generally not taxed, and so the tax rate you pay on the remaining income will be lower still. If you're just starting out, if you're in your 20s, it's likely that your income will go up significantly in the next couple of decades and so you might be making more in retirement that you are now, and so the Roth is probably your better bet. But if you're in your 40s or 50s you are probably making your peak income, you will have much less in retirement, and the traditional IRA is likely better. If your income is well above average and you are saving enough to have a retirement income well above average, then social security may be a very small part of your retirement and my comments on that may not be relevant to you. It's true that tax rates could change in the future. But will they go up or down? It's also possible that the laws about retirement accounts will change. If you think you have some insight into what will happen in the future you may want to take that into account when making plans. But politics is very hard to predict.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2870c9e1f1eec7050ab5afae2c2df29",
"text": "Other people have pointed this out, but there are a few considerations in whether you should do a Roth or Traditional IRA, such as: One of the major arguments for using a Traditional IRA is that you can (at least in theory) afford to contribute more money initially than you'd be able to afford if you were using a Roth IRA. While this is, in theory, true, I'm not at all convinced that using a Traditional IRA will actually cause people to contribute more to it. Realistically, how many people will actually contribute, say, $500 more to their IRA because they knew that their contribution for this year will save them $500? To know if this is the case, consider the last time that you actually invested some of your tax refund in your retirement account; I haven't seen any actual statistics on this, but I'm guessing that very few people do this. Please see other people's answers for details on the mathematics behind that. The second argument for contributing to a Traditional IRA is if you expect your future income tax rate to be lower than your current tax rate for some reason - e.g. due to a change in government policy (e.g. replacing income taxes with Value Added Tax or something like that), the fact that you're doing the contribution relatively close to when you're planning on withdrawing it, etc. Please see this question for more discussion about this. Keep in mind that, while a Traditional IRA saves you tax money this year, a Roth IRA saves you money when you withdraw it, so it's not really a question of paying taxes on $5000 now or $5000 later, it's a question of paying taxes on $5000 now vs., for example, $50,000 later (or however much the money's grown by the time you withdraw it). Maybe the Traditional IRA is still worth it, though, if there are changes to tax policy or you end up with a lot more money in your Traditional IRA due to being able to contribute more.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b7c6c045d2c03f178cd96160cd32d98",
"text": "For a young person with good income, 50k sitting in a savings account earning nothing is really bad. You're losing money because of inflation, and losing on the growth potential of investing. Please rethink your aversion to retirement accounts. You will make more money in the long run through lower taxes by taking advantage of these accounts. At a minimum, make a Roth IRA contribution every year and max it out ($5500/yr right now). Time is of the essence! You have until April 15th to make your 2014 contribution! Equities (stocks) do very well in the long run. If you don't want to actively manage your portfolio, there is nothing wrong (and you could do a lot worse) than simply investing in a low-fee S&P 500 index fund.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ded7a0f62acf3829c0a21b9aa318525f",
"text": "\"Since your 401k/IRA are maxed out and you don't need a 529 for kids, the next step is a plain ol' \"\"Taxable account.\"\" The easiest and most hassle-free would be automatic contributions into a Mutual Fund. Building on poolie's answer, I think mutual funds are much more automatic/hassle-free than ETFs, so in your case (and with your savings rate), just invest in the Investor (or Admiral) shares of VEU and VTI. Other hassle-free options include I-Bonds ($5k/year), and 5-year CDs.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8139827df5aa181c2aa883974232b178",
"text": "Something that's come up in comments and been alluded to in answers, but not explicit as far as I can tell: Even if your marginal tax rate now were equal to your marginal tax rate in retirement, or even lower, a traditional IRA may have advantages. That's because it's your effective tax rate that matters on withdrawls. (Based on TY 2014, single person, but applies at higher numbers for other arrangements): You pay 0 taxes on the first $6200 of income, and then pay 10% on the next $9075, then 15% on $27825, then 25% on the total amount over that up to $89530, etc. As such, even if your marginal rate is 25% (say you earn $80k), your effective rate is much less: for example, $80k income, you pay taxes on $73800. That ends up being $14,600, for an effective rate in total of 17.9%. Let's say you had the same salary, $80k, from 20 to 65, and for 45 years saved up 10k a year, plus earned enough returns to pay you out $80k a year in retirement. In a Roth, you pay 25% on all $10k. In a traditional, you save that $2500 a year (because it comes off the top, the amount over $36900), and then pay 17.9% during retirement (your effective tax rate, because it's the amount in total that matters). So for Roth you had 7500*(returns), while for Traditional the correct amount isn't 10k*(returns)*0.75, but 10k*(returns)*0.821. You make the difference between .75 and .82 back even with the identical income. [Of course, if your $10k would take you down a marginal bracket, then it also has an 'effective' tax rate of something between the two rates.] Thus, Roth makes sense if you expect your effective tax rate to be higher in retirement than it is now. This is very possible, still, because for people like me with a mortgage, high property taxes, two kids, and student loans, my marginal tax rate is pretty low - even with a reasonably nice salary I still pay 15% on the stuff that's heading into my IRA. (Sadly, my employer has only a traditional 401k, but they also contribute to it without requiring a match so I won't complain too much.) Since I expect my eventual tax rate to be in that 18-20% at a minimum, I'd benefit from a Roth IRA right now. This matters more for people in the middle brackets - earning high 5 figure salaries as individuals or low 6 figure as a couple - because the big difference is relevant when a large percentage of your income is in the 15% and below brackets. If you're earning $200k, then so much of your income is taxed at 28-33% it doesn't make nearly as much of a difference, and odds are you can play various tricks when you're retiring to avoid having as high of a tax rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19f9a0f8c9f6abd42a257e6869e6b3b8",
"text": "\"This may be more of a comment than an answer, but it's too long for a comment. Perhaps the Stackexchange Gods will forgive my impudence. That said: Even with the tax penalties, it can be to your advantage to put money into a \"\"retirement\"\" account and withdraw it before retirement. The trick is: Is the amount of the tax penalty more than the benefit of untaxed compound growth? For example, just to make up some numbers: Suppose you have $1000 of gross income to invest. You are considering whether to invest in an ordinary, non-tax favored account, or a classic IRA. Either way you will get 10% returns. Your tax rate, both when you put the money in and when you take it out, is 15%. There is a 10% tax penalty for early withdrawal. With an ordinary account you will pay 15% tax off the top, so you are only investing $850. Then each year 15% of your returns are paid in taxes, so your net return is 8.5%. But when you withdraw the money there are no additional taxes. With an IRA you do not pay any taxes up front, so you can invest the entire $1000. You collect 10% each year with no taxes. When you withdraw, you pay 15% plus the 10% penalty equals 25%. So after 5 years, the ordinary account would yield $850 x 1.085^5 = $1504. The IRA would yield $1000 x 1.1^5 x 0.75 = $1208. The tax penalty hurts. You are better to use the ordinary account. But if you could leave your money in for 25 years, then the ordinary account would yield $850 x 1.085^25 = $7687. The IRA would yield $1000 x 1.1^25 x 0.75 = $8126. The IRA, even with the tax penalty, is better. Of course my numbers are just made up. What your tax bracket is, what returns you get, and how long you think you might leave the money in the investment, all vary.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51ec965a4eec4d21850e5055c1062b74",
"text": "\"This is an excellent topic as it impacts so many in so many different ways. Here are some thoughts on how the accounts are used which is almost as important as the as calculating the income or tax. The Roth is the best bang for the buck, once you have taken full advantage of employer matched 401K. Yes, you pay taxes upfront. All income earned isn't taxed (under current tax rules). This money can be passed on to family and can continue forever. Contributions can be funded past age 70.5. Once account is active for over 5 years, contributions can be withdrawn and used (ie: house down payment, college, medical bills), without any penalties. All income earned must be left in the account to avoid penalties. For younger workers, without an employer match this is idea given the income tax savings over the longer term and they are most likely in the lowest tax bracket. The 401k is great for retirement, which is made better if employer matches contributions. This is like getting paid for retirement saving. These funds are \"\"locked\"\" up until age 59.5, with exceptions. All contributed funds and all earnings are \"\"untaxed\"\" until withdrawn. The idea here is that at the time contributions are added, you are at a higher tax rate then when you expect to withdrawn funds. Trade Accounts, investments, as stated before are the used of taxed dollars. The biggest advantage of these are the liquidity.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c391f7aeb49230c8b33d05ddb683ed91",
"text": "Is investing in a Roth retirement account only better if you will be in a higher tax bracket in retirement? If you are pushing up against the contribution limits, a Roth account may allow you to save more money in tax-advantaged accounts. In your example, you are putting $100 pre-tax in a traditional account vs $85 post-tax in a Roth account. But if there are limits, and the limits are the same for traditional or Roth accounts (as they currently are for US 401(k) accounts), you can effectively put more into a Roth account, where the limit applies to the post-tax amount, than a traditional account, where the limit applies to the pre-tax amount. If so, is there any case in which a traditional retirement account is better than a Roth account? It is smart to have some money in a traditional account, because the first amount of money you earn or withdraw each year (up to the standard deduction) is taxed at 0%, which is probably less than your current rate. And the next bit of money is taxed at only 10%, which may also be less than your current marginal rate. Of course, things may change by the time you retire, but it is probably safe to assume that we will still have some kind of progressive (income bracketed) tax structure.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65145beacef7b0c43b871f77760ba90b",
"text": "While the other answers are good, I wanted to expand a little on why I feel a ROTH is a bad way to go unless you are young. First, let's pretend you have a 25% tax rate. And your investments will go up 5% per year for 10 years. You contribute 6% of income for one year. You can do a traditional or a roth 401k/IRA. Here's the math: Traditional: 6% of income invested. Grows at 5% for 10 years. Taxed at 25% on withdrawl. = (Income * 6%) * (1.05 ^ 10) * (100% - 25%) = (Income * 6%) * 1.63 * .75 = 7.33% of your original income - but this is after taxes ROTH: Taxes taken out of income. Then 6% of that goes into the fund(s). Still grows at 5% for 10 years. Not taxed at withdrawl. = (Income * (100% - 25%) * 6%) * (1.05 ^ 10) = (Income * 75% * 6%) * 1.63 = 7.33% of your original income - again this is after taxes. Look familiar? They are the same. It's the simple transitive property of mathematics. So why do a traditional vs. a ROTH? The reason is that your tax bracket changes. This changes because your income changes. Say when you retire you plan to have your home or vehicle paid for. You expect to be able to live on $50,000 per year. This means when you make MORE than $50,000 you should do a traditional plan and when you make less than this you should do a ROTH plan. Example: You make $100,000 and your upper bracket is now 30%. You save 30% by doing a traditional and then pay back 10, 20, and 30% as you withdraw a salary of $50,000. Traditional = better. Example: You make $30,000 annually. Your upper bracket is 20%. You pay 20% on a roth. Then you withdraw funds to get to $50,000 anually and never pay the higher bracket. Roth = better. ROTH advocates typically bring up tax rates. Of course they will go up they insist. So you always should do a ROTH. Not so fast. Taxes have gone down in recent years (No one please start a political debate with me. Some went up, some went down, but overall, federal income rates dropped). Even if taxes rose 5%, a traditional will still be better than a ROTH in many cases.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d87a2b16c8b9a3e20c78e655d806c20e",
"text": "Both types of plans offer a tax benefit. A traditional IRA allows you to invest pre-tax money into the account and it grows tax free. Once you withdraw the money it then gets taxed as though it were income based on the amount you withdraw for that calendar year. A Roth IRA has you invest post-tax money and also grows tax free. However, when you make withdraws in retirement that money is then tax free. Neither plan is right for everybody. If you have a very high income now and plan on being in a smaller tax bracket later when you'll be making withdraws then the traditional IRA is better. If you will be in a higher bracket later, then the Roth IRA will serve you more. Depending on the way you manage your retirement investing you can likely invest in both if you are unsure as to which would be better. The same type of investments should be able to be nested within each type.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d109090ba05e855c9985aee6d8e11fed",
"text": "\"I don't think the advice to take lots more risk when young makes so much sense. The additional returns from loading up on stocks are overblown; and the rocky road from owning 75-100% stocks will almost certainly mess you up and make you lose money. Everyone thinks they're different, but none of us are. One big advantage of stocks over bonds is tax efficiency only if you buy index funds and don't ever sell them. But this does not matter in a retirement account, and outside a retirement account you can use tax-exempt bonds. Stocks have higher returns in theory but to have a reasonable guarantee of higher returns from them, you need around a 30-year horizon. That is a long, long time. Psychologically, a 60/40 stocks/bonds portfolio, or something with similar risk mixing in a few more alternative assets like Swenson's, is SO MUCH better. With 100% stocks you can spend 10 or 15 years saving money and your investment returns may get you nowhere. Think what that does to your motivation to save. (And how much you save is way more important than what you invest in.) The same doesn't happen with a balanced portfolio. With a balanced portfolio you get reasonably steady progress. You can still have a down year, but you're a lot less likely to have a down decade or even a down few years. You save steadily and your balance goes up fairly steadily. The way humans really work, this is so important. For the same kind of reason, I think it's great to buy one fund that has both stocks and bonds in there. This forces you to view the thing as a whole instead of wrongly looking at the individual asset class \"\"buckets.\"\" And it also means rebalancing will happen automatically, without having to remember to do it, which you won't. Or if you remember you won't do it when you should, because stocks are doing so well, or some other rationalization. Speaking of rebalancing, that's where a lot of the steady, predictable returns come from if you have a nice balanced portfolio. You can make money over time even if both asset classes end up going nowhere, as long as they bounce around somewhat independently, so you'll buy low and sell high when you rebalance. To me the ideal is an all-in-one fund that aims for about 60/40 stocks/bonds level of risk, somewhat more diversified than stocks/bonds is great (international stock, commodities, high yield, REIT, etc.). You can just buy that at age 20 and keep it until you retire. In beautiful ideal-world economic theory, buy 90% stocks when young. Real world with human brain involved: I love balanced funds. The steady gains are such a mental win. The \"\"target retirement\"\" funds are not a bad option, but if you buy the matching year for your age, I personally wish they had less in stocks. If you want to read more on the \"\"equity premium\"\" (how much more you make from owning stocks) here are a couple of posts on it from a blog I like: Update: I wrote this up more comprehensively on my blog,\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df4eb1f3883678b9cb8397aa325b41e2",
"text": "\"I'm going to discuss this, in general, as specific investment advice isn't allowed here. What type of account is the $60K in now? I mean - Is it in a 401(k), IRA or regular account/CD/money market? You are still working? Does your company offer any kind of matched 401(k)? If so, take advantage of that right up the level they'll match. If not, are you currently depositing to pretax IRAs? You can't just deposit that $60K into an IRA if it isn't already, but you can put $11k/yr ($5 for you, $6K for hubby if you make $11K or more this year.) Now, disclaimer, I am anti-annuity. Like many who are pro or con on issues, this is my nature. The one type of annuity I actually like is the Immediate Annuity. The link is not for an end company, it shows quotes from many and is meant as an example. Today, a 65 yr old man can get $600/mo with a $100K purchase. This is 7.2%, in an economy in which rates are sub 3%. You give up principal in exchange for this higher annual return. This is a viable solution for the just-retired person whose money will run out when looking at a 4-5% withdrawal but 1% CD rate. In general, these products are no more complex that what I just described, unlike annuities sold to younger fold which combine high fees with returns that are so complex to describe that most agents can't keep their story straight. Aside from the immediate flavor, all other annuities are partial sold (there's a quote among finance folk - \"\"annuities are sold, not bought\"\") based on their tax deferral features. I don't suspect you are in a tax bracket where that feature has any value to you. At 48/54, with at least 10 years ahead of you, I'd research 'diversification' and 'asset allocation'. Even $60K is enough to proper invest these funds until you retire and then decide what's right for you. Beginners' Guide to Asset Allocation, Diversification, and Rebalancing is an interesting introduction, and it's written by the SEC, so your tax dollars paid for it. Some months ago, I wrote Diversifying to Reduce Risk, which falls short of a complete discussion of asset allocation, but it does illustrate the power of being in a stock/bond mix. The ups and downs were reduced significantly compared to the all stock portfolio. (for follow up or to help others reply to you, a bit more detail on the current investments, and how you are devastated, eg was there a huge loss from what you had a few years ago?) Edit - The original poster hasn't returned. Posted the question and left. It's unfortunate as this was someone who would benefit from the dialog, and the answers here can help others in a similar position, but I feel more discussion is in order for the OP. Last, I caught a downvote on my reply today. I take no offense, but curious which part of my answer the DVer disagreed with.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57d4f1523f9fd61903f121d578b425fb",
"text": "I recommend saving for retirement first to leverage compound interest over a long time horizon. The historical real return on the stock market has been about 7%. Assuming returns stay at 7% in the future (big assumption, but don't have any better numbers to go off of), then $8,000 saved today will be worth $119,795 in 40 years (1.07^40*8000). Having a sizable retirement portfolio will give you peace of mind as you progress through life and make other expenditures. If you buy assets that pay you money and appreciate, you will be in a better financial position than if you buy assets that require significant cash outflows (i.e. property taxes, interest you pay to the bank, etc.) or assets that ultimately depreciate to zero (a car). As a young person, you are well positioned to pay yourself (not the bank or the car dealership) and leverage compound interest over a long time horizon.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "352358b9f75579a59051d758b0f79fab",
"text": "$4,000 is a relatively small amount in the grand scheme of retirement. I think you should decide in general whether a Traditional or Roth makes more sense for you (with the intent that you will continue contributing to it in the future), and then treat the $4,000 like you would any other contribution.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3043c6c89153f655a90375415dcbd19f
|
How are the $1 salaries that CEOs sometimes take considered legal?
|
[
{
"docid": "2fe00a78dd66de649ffcfa0dfa140ba1",
"text": "\"Part of your first link has this statement that I suspect you are missing: However, Section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA provides an exemption from both minimum wage and overtime pay for employees employed as bona fide executive, administrative, professional and outside sales employees. Note that executive is in that list. As for the additional note: To qualify for exemption, employees generally must meet certain tests regarding their job duties and be paid on a salary basis at not less than $455 per week. Generally which means, \"\"in most cases; usually.\"\" is not a universal qualifier and thus exceptions can exist. I'd imagine that restricted stock could be a way around some of the rules as there would be a monetary value there in the case of the stock for companies of a particular size.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0cd1fa6506e3c07c3f9878d3fc99f34",
"text": "\"Even under the executive exemption, see Exemption for Executive Employees Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Section 13(a)(1) as defined by Regulations, 29 CFR Part 541, it seems that a minimum compensation is required. To qualify for the executive employee exemption, all of the following tests must be met: The employee must be compensated on a salary basis (as defined in the regulations) at a rate not less than $455 per week... etc. There is one other possibility under FLSA Section 13(a)(1), as a \"\"bona fide exempt executive\"\". Exemption of Business Owners Under a special rule for business owners, an employee who owns at least a bona fide 20-percent equity interest in the enterprise in which employed, regardless of the type of business organization (e.g., corporation, partnership, or other), and who is actively engaged in its management, is considered a bona fide exempt executive.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6d0d30fbd25325bcf5393073ef1bf6b",
"text": "\"Taxable fringe benefits are included in taxable wages for the purpose of FLSA. So when those executives get to use company cars or company jets that value is \"\"wage\"\" even if it isn't salary.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9af4a08018b84cf30918a7759f1d1f51",
"text": "I'll agree to that. They are definitely manipulations that end up with unintended consequences. Even the idea of tying stock to the CEO's salary was intended to make the CEO think long term, but what happened is that they figured out how to game the system. Which is unfortunate, especially since the employees end up taking the brunt of that. Need a stock boost? Lay off some people, buy back some stock or announce something.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49116813bdaca2a97e43c13f41359d5c",
"text": "The CEO of a public company can, and often does, buy (and sell) the stock of his company. In fact, frequently the stock of the company is part of the compensation for the CEO. What makes this legal and fair is that the CEO files with the SEC an announcement before he buys (or sells) the stock. These announcements allow us 'in the dark' people enough warning ahead of time. See, for example, the trades of UTX stock by their public officers. As for trading on information about other companies, if I am not mistaken... that is why Martha Stewart wound up in prison. So, yeah, it does happen. I hope it is caught more often than not. On a related note, have you seen the movie 'Wall Street' with Charlie Sheen and Michael Douglas?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ad5b8a7665f87f4c1a7685590461e7f",
"text": "This is tax fraud, plain and simple. I recently wrote an article The Step Transaction Doctrine, in which I explain that a series of events may each be legal, but aggregate to one transaction and the individual steps are ignored. In this case, it goes beyond that, by accepting $5/mo you are already outside the tax code. As littleadv noted, you can't work for a legitimate business for free and not expect to have some kind of issue. The $14K/yr gift isn't a bona fide gift, but ties to that work.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "926f7fc3c121c94c19503886feaa9538",
"text": "He said base salary. Most executive compensation is bonuses, awards, and long term incentives that vastly outweigh the actual cash they receive. Just check out a large company's proxy statement. Walmart's CEO received less than $3 million in cash last year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "229b1729af55e45a236e8630da828e92",
"text": "I have no idea where this lie started and why it is perpetuated. A CEOs only fiduciary duty is to maintain shareholder value. Not increase it maintain it. If the stock price remains at $100 for 20 years congrats it’s been maintained and you’ve fulfilled your fiduciary duty",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d566ddfa53fc8dedee7b7add94e91ae5",
"text": "I'm guessing you're talking about options given to employees. The company can issue stock options at whatever strike price it wants. The difference between the strike price and the actual market value is considered income to the employee. You can get the options at $0 strike just as well (although companies generally just give RSUs instead in this case).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d737b1ec367bd04433444f7c48e9571f",
"text": "It is totally legal but it just has to be reported like income. Granted the IRS will probably not catch it. I work for a large company I get little gift cards all the time and they add the dollar value as income for taxes on my paycheck. It is a little annoying because I think it is kind of shit that a dollar value of a gift card is treated as the same value as real money, but they are amazon gift cards so better than cash to me.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1649617dc85a5c9b69fe9840f4e87f17",
"text": "\"The crazy thing about this is that $30 million in annual salary and compensation really isn't the end of the story for rich guys. I worked for a REIT a few years back and the guy that founded that REIT made a few million in salary a year. I thought the number seemed a bit low for his lifestyle. He had many properties in the US for his own personal use (around 6-8 BIG homes). He also had a garage that was insane. He had over 25 very expensive cars. My co-workers would say \"\"Nick is airing out his garage\"\" when he drove one to work every day for a month without driving the same vehicle twice in one month. It turns out he owned 30 million shares of stock that paid him $1.00 per share per year. So while his annual compensation was \"\"only\"\" a few million per year, his dividend income was many, many, times that. Think about that next time you see a CEO's annual income and you think that it really isn't as much as you expect.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d38594a9dbf07bb6c67cc028f8152b96",
"text": "\"If we take only the title of the question \"\"can the CEO short the stock\"\": It was probably different before Enron, but nowadays a CEO can only make planned trades, that is trades that are registered a very long time before, and that cannot be avoided once registered. So the CEO can say \"\"I sell 100,000 shares in exactly six months time\"\". Then in six months time, the CEO can and must sell the shares. Anything else will get him into trouble with the SEC quite automatically. I don't know if shorting a stock or buying options can be done that way at all. So it's possible only in the sense of \"\"it's possible, but you'll be in deep trouble\"\". Selling shares or exercising share options may indicate that the company's business is in trouble. If the sale makes that impression and everyone else starts selling because the CEO sold his shares, then the CEO may be in trouble with the board of directors. Such a sale would be totally legal (if announced long time ahead), but just a bad move if it makes the company look bad. Shorting sales is much worse in that respect. If the CEO wants to buy a new car, he may have to sell some shares (there are people paid almost only in share options), no matter where the share price is going. But shorting shares means that you most definitely think the share price is going to drop. You're betting your money on it. That would tend to get a CEO fired, even if it was legal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9916e6bff9f39a8ec5d5757c264d083",
"text": "This is the correct answer and is a concrete way to start to work on be legitimate problem of the income gap between the 1% and the rest of the population. Ive tried, but never been able to justify the compensation earned by the fortune 100 CEOs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a485d7ee72ef0fae0ccd52cda6c1a37d",
"text": "There is a funny story about that. If you were visiting Apple and Jobs was taking you to lunch in the cafe - he would insist on paying. Employees, get to checkout and have their badge scanned and the cost of the food is deducted from their paycheck. So why did Steve always insist on treating for lunch? He was enjoying all he (and guests) could eat for $1 a year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d9863faefe4a32970bf766757a3854b",
"text": "\"tl;dr: Prosecutors probably thing they can't meet the \"\"reasonable doubt\"\" standard, and the deck is heavily stacked against lawsuits. The whole running the company into the ground part is legal. It's stupid, but no different than any bad boss that pits employees against each other. Just on a much grander scale. The real estate thing is extremely shady. However, when you're the boss of a company, It's not considered theft to do business with another company you own. The truth is Sears is drowning in debt. The CEO offered an easy out. They sell the property, and only pay reduced rent. It also means closing stores is easier, and Sears is on the decline. So, on its own, it's shady, but not the worst way of getting quick cash. The fact that the CEO is responsible for that decline is what pushes things into potential legal trouble. It's essentially a complicated form of theft. One where if Sears goes bankrupt too early (before 2020 or so), his real estate business can't handle it and burns. However, these sorts of executive theft are almost never prosecuted. The best chance would be a shareholder lawsuit, but it would have to be against the entire board for supporting him. Then you run into the issue that, while the board is \"\"elected\"\", the laws governing it allow for tricks that make the Russian election look sterling in comparison.\\* Basically, if a CEO is backed up by the board, and not doing something blatantly illegal, they can probably get away with it. Board elections tend to be rigged to the point that having a member that cares about the company, and all the minor shareholders is laughable. \\* In addition to how the candidates are chosen, votes are cast, etc..., etc... many companies have several types of shares. Some of which have no voting power, and some of which count for many times the vote of a normal share.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4babe885cc0b9c925ba104bf0a8636c8",
"text": "\"Nope, its not legal. Easy to explain: If you know something that isn't public known (\"\"inside\"\") it's called insider trading. Hard to prove (impossible), but still illegal. To clarify: If the CEO says it AND its known in public its not illegal. In any case the CEO could face consequences (at least from his company).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "949fc768dba52d0febfd534e468933d7",
"text": "Indirect exchange (the common units of which are called 'money') is not debt (though the commodity of indirect exchange may be debt). Physical gold is not debt (it is mined, not conjured into existence from someone's promise of future goods). Gold-backed paper currency is gold debt. Indirect exchange is an extension of barter, not a replacement. The advantage of indirect exchange over direct exchange is that it solves the coincident of wants problem. (Alice may want a telescope, but Charlie doesn't want 500 apples for it. Alice finds out that Charlie would trade the telescope for 1 unit of gold. Alice then finds Bob who is willing to trade 1 unit of gold for 500 apples. Alice then trades with Bob and then trades with Charlie to get what she wants.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cbf6046e290aff0c298d409f0eaf7fa9",
"text": "As you have income from Business / Profession, you would need to use form ITR4S",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cbb993c3b92255784f9f54c58eaae4f1
|
How hard for US customers make payments to non-resident freelancer by wire transfer?
|
[
{
"docid": "486420b297d6d92642fa8c90ebcd3bc2",
"text": "\"Can you tell me please, is it really hard to make international wire transfer for payment my job and can i resolve this problem without using third party services? This is mostly a barrier, the form at times is quite complicated. For Russia, one has to enter \"\"Purpose of remittance\"\" ... at times select intermediate banks, give BIC and other details. This can become unnerving to people who are not used to it. The other option you can try is set-up a credit card gateway and get funds via cards.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2190cf18cdde2e8a1cdaa6bdf6594688",
"text": "For most major banks, wire transfers are simple, if expensive, to arrange. For example, I can initiate an international wire transfer from my online banking portal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5706a76e215eb414bc676ff79db9c98f",
"text": "I would look for an alternative wire transfer service that will charge less. I use ofx, but note that they don't do transfers to roubles. The rate adjusts by amount being transferred and there is a $15 fee for under $5000. Upside is it is bank-to-bank. 2 days tops.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac8abccf51bd6ddeaff31ce498e4be7b",
"text": "\"You are right in insisting upon a proper B2B contract in any business relationship. You wish to reduce your risk and be compensated fairly. In addition to the cost and complexity of international wire transfers, the US companies may also be considering the fact that as an international contractor in a relatively hard-to-reach jurisdiction, payments to you place the company at higher risk than payments to a domestic contractor. By insisting upon PayPal or similar transmitters, they are reducing their internal complexity and reducing their financial exposure to unfulfilled/disputed contract terms. Therefore, wire payments are \"\"hard\"\" in an internal business sense, as well as in a remittance transfer reporting sense. The internal business procedure will likely be the hardest to overcome--changing risk management is harder than filling out forms.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c09e0ca4cba8ddc88883306ee7d79eac",
"text": "\"This sounds like a FATCA issue. I will attempt to explain, but please confirm with your own research, as I am not a FATCA expert. If a foreign institution has made a policy decision not to accept US customers because of the Foreign Financial Institution (FFI) obligations under FATCA, then that will of course exclude you even if you are resident outside the US. The US government asserts the principle of universal tax jurisdiction over its citizens. The institution may have a publicly available FATCA policy statement or otherwise be covered in a new story, so you can confirm this is what has happened. Failing that, I would follow up and ask for clarification. You may be able to find an institution that accepts US citizens as investors. This requires some research, maybe some legwork. Renunciation of your citizenship is the most certain way to circumvent this issue, if you are prepared to take such a drastic step. Such a step would require thought and planning. Note that there would be an expatriation tax (\"\"exit tax\"\") that deems a disposition of all your assets (mark to market for all your assets) under IRC § 877. A less direct but far less extreme measure would be to use an intermediary, either one that has access or a foreign entity (i.e. non-US entity) that can gain access. A Non-Financial Foreign Entity (NFFE) is itself subject to withholding rules of FATCA, so it must withhold payments to you and any other US persons. But the investing institutions will not become FFIs by paying an NFFE; the obligation rests on the FFI. PWC Australia has a nice little writeup that explains some of the key terms and concepts of FATCA. Of course, the simplest solution is probably to use US institutions, where possible. Non-foreign entities do not have foreign obligations under FATCA.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d404e48a37707fb85892c3a278a7bd5",
"text": "I can only imagine the regulatory difficulty you're going through, and for that I empathize. First, bankers everywhere mostly do not know if a bank policy is due to regulation or internal rules. Other banks may be more flexible, but only the most reputable should be used. Re Paypal, they first deposit 1 USD and then withdraw it, but things may be different in Cyprus. Also, Paypal now has debit cards, so if Paypal is permitted to issue cards in Russia then it could presumably be used in Cyprus. Again, local regulation notwithstanding. Paypal now has phone support at the very back of their site, so I suggest a call to them. In countries that permit, Western Union can be used to wire money into an account from cash. The Bitcoin route should be used as a last resort. You could wake up tomorrow losting 25% easy. The regulations are a distant second compared to this problem. With all of the above methods, there will be varying delays from days to weeks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1b56254525ee1a4d3bd61ecf5a539da",
"text": "Before answering specific question, you are liable to pay tax as per your bracket on the income generated. I work with my partner and currently we transfer all earning on my personal bank account. Can this create any issue for me? If you are paying your partner from your account, you would need to maintain proper paperwork to show the portion of money transferred is not income to you. Alternatively create a join Current Account. Move funds there and then move it to your respective accounts. Which sort off account should be talk and by whose name? Can be any account [Savings/Current]. If you are doing more withdrawls open Current else open Savings. It does not matter on whos name the account is. Paperwork to show income matters from tax point of view. What should we take care while transfering money from freelance site to bank? Nothing specific Is there any other alternative to bank? There is paypal etc. However ultimately it flows into a Bank Account. What are other things to be kept in mind? Keep proper record of actual income of each of you, along with expenses. There are certain expenses you can claim from income, for example laptop, internet, mobile phone etc. Consult a CA he will be able to guide and it does not cost much.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "457d622371d738723f400eaa2f67c280",
"text": "frostbank.com is the closest thing I've found, so accepting this (my own) answer :) EDIT: editing from my comment earlier: frostbank.com has free incoming international wires, so that's a partial solution. I confirmed this works by depositing $1 (no min deposit requirement) and wiring $100 from a non-US bank. Worked great, no fees, and ACH'd it to my main back, no problems/fees. No outgoing international wires, alas.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd6817e4cdc5230ba683aa08909bea15",
"text": "I would certainly hope to make the transfer by wire - the prospect of popping cross the border with several million dollars in the trunk seems... ill fated. I suppose I'm asking what sort of taxes, duties, fees, limits, &c. would apply Taxes - None. It is your money, and you can transfer it as you wish. You pay taxes on the income, not on the fact of having money. Reporting - yes, there's going to be reporting. You'll report the origin of the money, and whether all the applicable taxes have been paid. This is for the government to avoid money laundering. But you're going to pay all the taxes, so for transfer - you'll just need to report (and maybe, for such an amount, actually show the tax returns to the bank). Fees - shop around. Fees differ, like any other product/service costs on the marketplace.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2570c173435745bdfc94803f83bc1151",
"text": "Take a look at Transferwise. I find them good for currency conversions and paying people in India from a US bank account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd3098f5ce3f088f602a2d1842ad0caa",
"text": "Opening Bank Account in US without physically being present is difficult. I'm having number of clients in USA to pay for my work, but I’m really confused to get money from my clients to my saving bank account. You can get money via PayPal or if they are repeat customers, ask them to send via remittance services like Money2India or Remit2India etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a336e432920f71cf5cf7ca918fa8eb41",
"text": "I have a bank account in the US from some time spent there a while back. When I wanted to move most of the money to the UK (in about 2006), I used XEtrade who withdrew the money from my US account and sent me a UK cheque. They might also offer direct deposit to the UK account now. It was a bit of hassle getting the account set up and linked to my US account, but the transaction itself was straightforward. I don't think there was a specific fee, just spread on the FX rate, but I can't remember for certain now - I was transfering a few thousand dollars, so a relatively small fixed fee would probably not have bothered me too much.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8af78310fdf6b53a1da087176b4ca5c",
"text": "\"My recommendation is to shop around for a bank that handles wire transfers in a more sensible manner. Many wire transfers are set up so that you do not need to go physically into a branch. The wire transfer system I use has me initiate the transfer online, then call a dedicated number with a pin to authorise the transaction (24/7/365). I'm on the other side of the world from where the money \"\"is\"\" initially - no branch visit required.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b198461ba3b9f14c0cfd3e01b893a69",
"text": "I don't believe they're right. For international wire transfers you'd need either IBAN or SWIFT codes. I don't think any US bank participates in the IBAN network (mostly Europe and the Far East), so SWIFT is they way to go with the US. Credit unions frequently don't know what and how to do with international transactions because they don't have them that often. Some don't even have SWIFT codes of their own (many, in fact) and use intermediaries to receive money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2870b87c3099cd3f536f33c2ba009d71",
"text": "Yes, a business account at Chase bank offers free incoming wire transfer fees when you keep a minimum balance of over 100k. It's the only one I have found.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c9b27a19b0086ba941085e3b3ad0c19",
"text": "\"A couple of thoughts and experiences (Germany/Italy): First of all, I recommend talking to the Belgian bank (and possibly to a Dutch bank of your choice). I have similar conditions for my German bank accounts. But even though they talk about it as salary account (\"\"Gehaltskonto\"\") all they really ask for is a monthly inflow of more than xxxx € - which can be satisfied with an automatic direct transfer (I have some money automatically circulating for this reason which \"\"earns\"\" about 4% p.a. by saving fees). In that case it may be a feasible way to have a Belgian and a Dutch bank account and set up some money circulation. Experiences working in Italy (some years ago, SEPA payments were kind of new and the debits weren't implemented then): My guess with your service providers is that they are allowed to offer you contracts that are bound to rather arbitrary payment conditions. After all, you probably can also get a prepaid phone or a contract with a bill that you can then pay by wire transfer - however, AFAIK they are allowed to offer discounts/ask fees for different payment methods. Just like there is no law that forces the store around your corner to accept credit cards or even large EUR denominations as long as they tell you so beforehand. AFAIK, there is EU regulation saying your bank isn't allowed to charge you more for wire transger to foreign country within the SEPA zone than a national wire transfer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d494f736c2fe7c90d149b3ec3bbbcc0f",
"text": "There are several ways to minimize the international wire transfer fees: Transfer less frequently and larger amounts. The fees are usually flat, so transferring larger amounts lowers the fee percentage. 3% is a lot. In big banks, receiving is usually ~$15. If you transfer $1000 at a time, its 1.5%, if you transfer $10000 - it's much less, accordingly. If you have the time - have them send you checks (in US dollars) instead of wire transferring. It will be on hold for some time (up to a couple of weeks maybe), but will be totally free for you. I know that many banks have either free send and/or receive. I know that ETrade provides this service for free. My credit union provides if for free based on the relationship level, I have a mortgage with them now, so I don't pay any fees at all, including for wire transfer. Consider other options, like Western Union. Those may cost more for the sender (not necessarily though), but will be free for the receiver. You can get the money in cash, or checks, which you can just deposit on your regular bank account. For smaller amounts, it should be much cheaper than wire transfer, for example - sending $500 to India costs $10, while wire transfer is $30.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d9579caffe876adaaec0604f08c7549",
"text": "Currency exchange is rather the norm than the exception in international wire transfers, so the fact that the amount needs to be exchanged should have no impact at all. The processing time depends on the number of participating banks and their speeds. Typically, between Europe and the US, one or two business days are the norm. Sending from Other countries might involve more steps (banks) which each takes a bit of time. However, anything beyond 5 business days is not normal. Consider if there are external delays - how did you initiate the sending? Was it in person with an agent of the bank, who might have put it on a stack, and they type it in only a day later (or worse)? Or was it online, so it is in the system right away? On the receiver side, how did you/your friend check? Could there be a delay by waiting for an account statement? Finally, and that is the most common reason, were all the numbers, names, and codes absolutely correct? Even a small mismatch in name spelling might trigger the receiving bank to not allocate the money into the account. Either way, if you contact the sender bank, you will be able to make them follow up on it. They must be able to trace where they money went, and where it currently is. If it is stuck, they will be able to get it ‘unstuck’.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56736602f21db5d09956941769bd03aa",
"text": "\"I think the issue here is the rules say that \"\"relevant current events in finance\"\" are acceptable when (I think) that wording is too loose. \"\"Current events in finance\"\" is just very, very general, and anything related to central banking, monetary or fiscal policy, global austerity, analysis of index movements, sovereign defaults (and speculation thereof) qualifies a \"\"current events in finance\"\" - so technically, the rules aren't being broken. I think that having the language tightened a bit would help set the subreddit tone a little more accurately.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7034c7d5abcbbe4578b5fd5887163df9
|
Will a credit card issuer cancel an account if it never incurs interest?
|
[
{
"docid": "fbdffe4a8f914bd761a715600ff38b15",
"text": "While technically true, a card issuer can cancel your card for almost any reason they want, it's highly unlikely they'll cancel it because you pay your bills! There are many, many people out there that pay their bills in full every month without ever paying a cent in credit card interest. I wouldn't ever purposefully incur any interest on a credit card. Related anecdote: I used to have a credit card that I only used for gas purchases because they gave 5% off for fuel. The issuer eventually discontinued the program (I assume because people like me took advantage of it.) So while they didn't cancel my card, the bonus eventually went away. I miss that card. My conclusion: if you can take advantage of promotional rates, by all means, go for it. You don't owe them any favors. Enjoy it as long as it lasts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83f6fc006957f8732e3190769ef95d2b",
"text": "Remember, the card company gets a percentage at the time of purchase, as well as any interest you let them collect from you. Yes, they're still making a profit on our accounts, and they can always hope that at some point we'll run up a high enough bill to be willing to pay some interest. They may kill completely inactive cards, since they need a bit of income to pay for processing the account. But if you're actively using it, they aren't very likely to tell you to go away (though they may change which plan(s) they offer you).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce8df3b5edca7c3e7cf625537995bd2f",
"text": "Credit card companies are businesses. Businesses will make any decision that makes them money. So does it make them money to cancel your account? It's a simple cost-benefit analysis: you having an account with them will probably give them some benefit for very little cost to them. The only real cost associated with an open account is someone who uses the card but doesn't pay, but they're pretty sure you won't be doing that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6a60c618fd71bab36039cec4b9b3479",
"text": "\"I would think it extremely unlikely that an issuer would cancel your card for having an ADB of approximately zero. The issuer charges the vendor that accepts a card a percentage of the transaction (usually up to ~3%, AMEX is generally higher) - so they are making money even if you carry no balance on your card (the specific language for various vendor-side (acceptor) credit card agreements boils down to \"\"we are essentially giving you, the vendor, a short-term loan and you will pay us for it). This why you see credit-card minimum purchase amounts at places like hot-dog stands - they're getting nailed on the percentage. This is also why, when given the choice between \"\"Debit or Credit\"\" for a particular card, I choose where to put the hit on the company I like less - the retailer or the bank.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70cbde4e59f8d13443d6583130e5122e",
"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.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef4ca974efeceed7a18e5432039f3b5f",
"text": "Technically, yes but, in practice, no. I use a card for everything and pay it off every month. Sometimes, several times a month depending on how the month is going. In the last 10 years, I've paid a total of $8 in interest because I legitimately forgot to pay my balance before the statement came out when I was out of town. I wasn't late, I just didn't beat the statement and had a small interest charge that I couldn't successfully argue off. In the same time period, I've had one card cancelled at the banks request. The reason was that I hadn't used it in two years so they cancelled me. I never pay annual fees, I get cards with great rewards programs and I (almost) never pay interest. If your bank cancels your card because you're too responsible, find a better bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90db26b89e8f2d04c74b31b6bfdaecf1",
"text": "\"When you buy something with your credit card, the store pays a fee to the credit card company, typically a base fee of 15 to 50 cents plus 2 to 3% of the purchase. At least, that's what it was a few years back when I had a tiny business and I wanted to accept credit cards. Big chain stores pay less because they are \"\"buying in bulk\"\" and have negotiating power. Just because you aren't paying interest doesn't mean the credit card company isn't making money off of you. In fact if you pay your monthly bill promptly, they're probably making MORE off of you, because they're collecting 2 or 3% for a month or less, instead of the 1 to 2% per month that they can charge in interest. The only situation I know where you can get money from a credit card company for free is when they offer \"\"convenience checks\"\" or a balance transfer with no up-front fee. I get such an offer every now and then. I presume the credit card company does that for the same reason that stores give out free samples: they hope that if you try the card, you'll continue using it. To them, it's a marketing cost, no different than the cost of putting an ad on television.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f7337587c0c3c21534212f935bd1a75",
"text": "No, they won't cancel it because you pay your card on time. When a company offers a promotion like that they are banking on making money on average, not in every case. On average including all the benefits including transaction fees, deals for partnering with best buy, etc. Of course some people pay their credit card in full each month and never incur interest charges. However, credit card companies more than cover that with other people who aren't responsible. If it wasn't worth while they would end the card program or change it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "263b081812f14bbb807c1546864299e7",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3333d869722843e63a4782d30d9e231f",
"text": "Some years ago a call center operator told me a bit more than they probably should have. They like to see a lot of money go through the card, but very little staying on the card. Yes, they make money on the interest but one card defaulting blows away the profit on a lot of other cards. The 3% take from the merchants is both reliable and up-front, not 6 months down the line when (and if) you pay the interest. So if you want to make your credit card company happy, pay your bills in full every month. I have credit far beyond my actual means because I run work expenses on my personal card, I was told they didn't care (and had already guessed) that it wasn't my money. The point was I was handling things in a way they liked. Not quite at Palladium status, but cards with $200 annual fees are mine for the asking, and I haven't paid interest since the early 1990's.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba5b7274a04a768d3faedd8fe82590a8",
"text": "I've got a card that I've had for about 25 years now. The only time they charged me interest I showed it was their goof (the automatic payment failed because of their mistake) and they haven't cancelled it. No annual fee, a bit of cash back. The only cards I've ever had an issuer close are ones I didn't use.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "013e7bbdcf2f60f8c14ed6aeb7d90a95",
"text": "\"This is most likely protecting Square's relationship with Visa/Mastercard/AMEX/etc. Credit card companies typically charge their customers a much higher interest rate with no grace period on cash advances (withdrawals made from an ATM using a credit card). If you use Square to generate something that looks like a \"\"merchandise transaction\"\" but instead just hand over a wad of banknotes, you're forcing the credit card company to apply their cheaper \"\"purchases\"\" interest rate on the transaction, plus award any applicable cashback offers†, etc. Square would absolutely profit off of this, but since it would result in less revenue for the partner credit card companies, that would quickly sour the relationship and could even result in them terminating their agreements with Square altogether. † This is the kind of activity they are trying to prevent: 1. Bill yourself $5,000 for \"\"merchandise\"\", but instead give yourself cash. 2. Earn 1.5% cashback ($75). 3. Use $4,925 of the cash and a $75 statement credit to pay your credit card statement. 4. Pocket the difference. 5. Repeat. Note, the fees involved probably negate any potential gain shown in this example, but I'm sure with enough creative thinking someone would figure out a way to game the system if it wasn't expressly forbidden in the terms of service\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe5cc026007dcec1e20591574cf671a4",
"text": "Nothing happens. A bank is a business; your relationship with the bank doesn't change because your visa or immigration status changes. Money held in the account is still held in the account. Interest paid on the account is still taxable. And so on. If the account is inactive long enough, abandoned account rules may apply, but that still has nothing to do with your status.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b78bdc8bb32ac7995eaa0d89932e56dc",
"text": "I read Q#4 as Will $250 in one account earn more interest than $250 in five accounts? in which case Excel says no, assuming a constant interest rate for all accounts. I dunno if the same holds true for banks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44af6e62a7fd75f9cf9513658df55b90",
"text": "Trick question dude. Can't be done. Sorry to tell you. I've been hit with this. Credit card companies do not make money on these customers. Why does Amex have an annual fee on all cards and an abnormally large transaction fee for merchants? Because they don't allow you to carry a balance (On traditional cards). Meaning they don't make money on interest, like the customers in question here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c9c75c629be6d5071b24dbc148034f2",
"text": "Please realize that your issuer can close the account for any number of reasons. Inactivity is one, as having a credit line open costs them money and if you never charge anything, the company doesn't get any transaction fees from vendors nor does the company get to charge you any interest. An occasional charge is likely to keep your card from being closed automatically, but it is not a guarantee. Another reason they may close the account is that you have other bad marks show up on your credit score, or their criteria for offering you the card change so you no longer match their target demographic. I have a credit card issued by my credit union that I have not used for a couple of years. They will not close the card account because my other accounts are still very profitable for them. If I were not an otherwise profitable customer, I wouldn't be surprised if they closed my credit card account. If you are serious about keeping the account open, you should probably have more than a trivial amount of usage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "386fd11dd18a3fd9cb22b2a151054c16",
"text": "As noted above, this is likely going to need (several) lawyers to straighten out. I am not a lawyer, but I think one should be retained ASAP. However, in the meantime: The authorized user should not be making any charges. Continuing to do so at this point may be a criminal offense. For the protection of any other heirs, this should be brought to the attention of the credit card issuer and law enforcement authorities. As it stands, the account holder's estate will be liable for the full debt, and the authorized user's estate would be untouched. Of course, all this could change if other heirs challenge the estate and file civil suits, in which case it's likely that both estates will be eaten up with legal fees anyway.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7a54ca9b45f248ad3c03b5eb173e2a2",
"text": "There are three parties involved here: there's the store that issued you the card, then they have some bank that's actually handling the account, and there is some network (VISA, MasterCard, etc.) that the transactions go through. So one avenue to consider is seeing whether all three are aware of you canceling the card.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1345b65ced89ddf7e9442434148c23c0",
"text": "\"No. That's pretty unlikely. Card issuers typically base your rate on your credit score. Paying down debt reduces your percent of available credit used, and improves your score until you are in the 1-20% range. That's optimum. To this issuer, you are one of a million customers, there's no emotion in this, just numbers to them. For what it's worth, if a card issuer raises your rate, you are permitted to \"\"not accept\"\" the rate, stop using the card for new charges, and pay at the current rate. Of course this doesn't apply to zero interest deals, only to increases to your regular rate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43e4ed84fdb1f925cabfef36d8b03482",
"text": "\"Whether or not the specific card in question is truly 0% interest rate for the first 12 months, such cards do exist. However, the bank does make money out of it on the average: Still, 12 months of not having to think about paying the bill. Nice. This is exactly what they want you to do. Then in 12 months, when you start thinking about it, you may find out that you don't have the cash immediately available and end up paying the (usually very large) interest. It is possible to game this system to keep the \"\"free\"\" money in investments for the 12 months, as long as you are very careful to always follow the terms and dates. Because even one mishap can take away the small profits you could get for a 12 month investment of a few thousand dollars, it is rarely worth the effort.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1dd16c51a192bd86dd1e305c0d2e9542",
"text": "The answer is the next sentence from the Wikipedia article: The precise manner in which interest is charged is usually detailed in a cardholder agreement which may be summarized on the back of the monthly statement. Your previous question on credit card interest rates quotes the sentence after this. You have to review what the agreement for your card says. Also keep in mind the bank wants to make money from you. The more interest and fees they collect, they better they like you. If enough card holders adjust their behavior, to minimize interest and fees; the bank will then adjust the credit card agreement to get money a different way. Yes, you are right it would seem fair to only charge interest on the smaller amount, but that doesn't allow the credit card issuer to maximize profits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3773ece8f5c0f31e1ec6b511369b4a61",
"text": "Consider the following scenario at a small business: As a business owner I have 10k in the bank at the moment. I have a one time expense of 4k that will not directly impact the growth of my business. I can choose to pay the 4k out of the 10 in the bank and then put the rest towards business growth. Assuming a 10% annual return on capital at the end of this transaction I am left with $6,600. Now if instead I chose to pay the 4k with a business credit card I have that only carries a 7.9% interest rate what would happen is that I incur a 4k balance that I have to pay off in a year and put 10k towards my business. Now, this is a simplified case that does not take into account the effective interest on the card and the minimum monthly payments. That being said, what happens in the end of the year is that I owe $4316 to my credit card but I now have 11k in the bank, due to business growth. That leaves me with $6,684 after a year's worth of operations, which is better than my original $6,600. This is a small scale scenario though, but the basic idea is that if you can put the money towards growth that is better than the interest you are paying to the card, you win. The risks of course include missing a payment and incurring a penalty, not being able to grow your money at the rate you thought, and so on. Hope this explains things a bit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f87c0172005cce4fdc0e30b72e4f8a1",
"text": "If the bank wants to close your account, they will do just that. Having a small ongoing balance isn't going to prompt them to keep it open. Typically, the risk is for a card with zero usage to be closed, as it's a cost to them to keep the account open, and it has no revenue. To avoid this, it's a good idea to use that card or cards for a regular purchase, say, gasoline. A non-impulse buy, and just pay in full to avoid interest. There's no need to keep a balance accruing interest. Keep in mind - A bill contains a month of charges. The bill for December is issued on the 31st, but due January 25th or so. When you pay it in full you do not have zero balance, you have the charges from January. This accomplishes your goal, will no interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72d7a6d216b4547673d4a2207c7bb6c9",
"text": "Whether or not you have money in your account will not necessarily stop them withdrawing the money, and it certainly won't stop them attempting to withdraw the money. There are two possible scenarios when they attempt to withdraw the money (as they surely will): I think you are just lucky they haven't attempted the withdrawal yet. Put the necessary money into your account now if you possibly can, and consider this a slightly expensive lesson learned about following the Ts and Cs when cancelling services.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4667ca0b508c1213651893932ccb69e",
"text": "\"Understood. But based on the OP, it's not categorically clear what they were refusing. If they refused to quote the balance and/or refused to take a phone payment that was otherwise in keeping with the cardholder agreement (i.e., the cardmember called the correct number for phone payments and balance-checking, etc), then yeah, they were not only being unreasonable, but also violating the contract. What I read as ambiguous is whether the cardholder was specifically asking for the *payoff* balance/amount, and whether they were following process for phone-payments and balance-checking, etc. IOW, it's not necessarily \"\"illegal\"\" and might not even be unreasonable for the customer-service number to have different departments for balance-checking and phone-payments versus card-cancellation. It's not falsifiably clear from the OP that the cardholder was not asking the person on the other end of the phone for categorical statements of fact that they were obligated to make. I'm not accusing anyone of lying or saying that the CC company was acting reasonably, I'm just saying that language such as **\"\"They do not provide mid-cycle payoff quotes\"\"** is not evidence that they were doing any kind of funny-business.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0821dcd83a9983f7199d0359f5617117",
"text": "\"There is no good proxy for VIX, because it is a completely made-up value. Most listed options trade on an underlying security. I can therefore choose to buy either the stock, or a future or option on that stock. In this way, the future and option are derivatives in that they derive their value (in part) based on something else, in this case the stock price as of now. VIX is a different entity altogether. It is based on the volatility of the market, using \"\"market expectation of near term volatility conveyed by stock index option prices\"\". But the FAQ goes on to state that they are adding factors into the formula. So right away there is no one equity/stock that you can hold that will necessarily match the VIX in any significant way, because it is not directly based on stocks, but indirectly through other options and computations. In effect, therefore, the VIX in indeed only available through its options, and is not observable (tradable) in and of itself.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d6ac07be9b9f1568dcb541792fd77f6a
|
Which credit card is friendliest to merchants?
|
[
{
"docid": "0a84d9ac4bc17b2abe46675a8f89df9c",
"text": "Cash is king. PIN-based debit transactions are cheap. In terms of credit cards, a regular (ie. not a gold card) with no rewards has the lowest rates. Bigger merchants with lots of card volume likely have better deals that make the differences less pronounced.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2fd4321bf828bffd3c5cb194d8081c6",
"text": "Please don't waste any more time feeling bad for merchants for the charges they incur. I don't know who supported the lobby for this rule, but issuers no longer can demand that merchants accept all transactions (even the unprofitable ones). I discussed this at length on my blog. Merchants accept credit cards for one reason, and one reason only: it brings them more business. More people will buy, and on average they'll buy more. They used to take the occasional hit for someone buying a pack of gum with a credit card, but they don't have to anymore. The new law restricts issuers from imposing minimum transactions that are less than $10. I use a rewards card wherever possible. I get a cheaper price. In most cases I don't care what the merchant has to pay. They've already factored it into their prices. But if you are concerned, then as fennec points out in his comment, cash is the way to go.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d19b0103e3bdf6e7390cbfafdd26fa66",
"text": "Accepting cash isn't free to the merchant's either. It needs to be counted, reconciled, stored, and taken to the bank each day. There is a certain amount that needs to be on-hand, not in the bank earning interest. There is more of a worry about employees taking cash from the register. There is the chance of inadvertently accepting counterfeit currency. I'm not sure how the cost of cash compares to the cost of accepting credit card, but there is a cost that cannot be ignored.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b853421a575ea6105a8dea6baec6e29",
"text": "From experience, Mastercard and Visa charge vendors about the same (around 2%-5%) while American Express and Diners Club are astonishingly expensive (6%-10%) and you'll find that few small retailers are very comfortable accepting these. The variation comes from the volume of trade that vendors provide. A big retailer will negotiate a very low rate while smaller businesses will be hit with higher charges.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56e3871e37ab13e6f1243588f2f7f8be",
"text": "Back when they started, Discover undercut Visa and Amex fees by about a point. This was also true when I worked for a mail-order computer retailer in the '90s: if a customer asked us which credit cards we took, we were told to list Discover first (and AmEx last) because Discover had the lowest merchant charges. Possibly this is no longer true today, but for quite a while it was a significant selling point of the Discover card to merchants, and a reason why many did sign on. (A reason some stores did not sign on was that Discover was owned by Sears, and many businesses that competed with Sears didn't like the idea of sending any of their profits to the competition.) Today, Discover also owns Diners Club and the fees for those cards are higher.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f701108a459b9a53b0321a57a73b2e3",
"text": "Merchants that accept American Express should have decided that the extra costs are worth the increased business (many business travelers only have an Amex Corporate Card). To complain about people actually using it after they've explicitly decided to accept it is a sign that they made the wrong decision, or that they are very short-sighted. No one is forcing them to take a particular card.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "17e6cb39363323512e4c56d5b0e5e694",
"text": "Credit cards and debit cards make up the bulk of the transactions in the US. Visa and Mastercard take a percentage of each credit card transaction. For the most part, this fee it built into the price of what you buy. That is, you don't generally pay extra at the grocery store if you use a credit card (gasoline purchases are a notable exception here.) If you were getting something like 2% of a third of all the retail transactions in the US, you'd probably not want to rock the boat too much either. Since there is little fraud relative to the amount of money they are taking in, and it can often be detected using statistical analysis, they don't really stand to gain that much by reducing it through these methods. Sure they can reduce the losses on the insurance they provide to the credit card consumer but they risk slowing down the money machine. These companies want avoid doing something like reducing fraud by 0.5% revenues but causing purchases with the cards drop by 1%. More security will be implemented as we can see with the (slow) introduction of chip cards in the US but only at a pace that will prevent disruption of the money machine. EMV will likely cause a large drop in CC fraud at brick-and-mortar stores but won't stop it online. You will likely see some sort of system like you describe rolled out for that eventually.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb5d9d9e02c33392ccae4b67b32b3344",
"text": "Those extra treat points have to come from somewhere, and they come from American Express charging merchants a higher percentage than Visa or Mastercard. So it's less attractive for those merchants to accept it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "620a5771bda356a45fa859b57aeae7f0",
"text": "The banks don't have to pay for credit card rewards. The merchants end up footing the bill. The merchants that accept credit cards pay from 2-4% in fees on the credit card purchase. Those fees go to support the rewards programs. The merchants also take on most of the risk during a credit card transaction (although the credit card companies would have you believe otherwise). If a thief uses a stolen card to purchase a camera from Mike's Camera Shop for instance, any funds the merchant received will be taken away from the merchant. In addition, the merchant will be hit with a chargeback fee (usually around $20-$60). Finally, since the card was stolen, the merchant will never get their merchandise returned, so Mike's Camera is out the camera as well. No camera, no funds, and a $60 fee to boot. The credit card issuers make $60 on the chargeback fees and have no liability.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22fe7f8483b829b7ac590f3debdbf69a",
"text": "I would say minimal price differences. Stores will need to remain competative, and the difference (if any) will likely be to cover the cost of the transaction that Visa and other card companies charge them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f8fdb88265a450bd73776328c783283",
"text": "Thanks for the info! It seems the consolidation option is the best; switching to the new merchant services provider and getting the discount from our POS on gift card software Can you give me a but more info about the customer loyalty/marketing info?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d1b5fd24a8e63382d7e89adc5f8419e",
"text": "How you can pay your rent is really up to your landlord. They are, however, unlikely to take a credit card, for at least two reasons. Firstly they are unlikely to have the means to take electronic payment Second, and more importantly, merchants get charged a percentage of the transaction. These fees can be quite high to them for premium cards like travel and gold cards; three, four or even five percent of the value of the transaction. This is sometimes why you see cash discounted pricing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34b428b4393f4ea8ffddd550e0bb6792",
"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).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1a4f629b9f84b57d881ce45744b69b0",
"text": "Psychology Today had an interesting article from July 11, 2016, in which they go through the psychological aspects of using cash vs. a credit card. This article cites a 2008 paper in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied that found: “the more transparent the payment outflow, the greater the aversion to spending or higher the ‘pain of paying’ …leading to less transparent payment modes such as credit cards and gift cards (vs. cash) being more easily spent or treated as play or ‘monopoly money.’” The article cites a number of other studies that are of interest on this topic as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea6705d66b1d82c46a23d71d6c73fe2f",
"text": "If you don't carry a balance, there is no disadvantage. Merchants pay less for their in-house credit, so there are often incentives for you to use the store card. The perils of opening a credit card hurting your credit score are way overblown in general, if you have good to excellent credit. If you have excellent credit, there is no material effect on your ability to borrow. You'll get knocked down a few points when you open the card, but as long as you're not on a credit application frenzy there isn't an issue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c553a96ad85be276c9f6d08f0d6e555",
"text": "\"This might not be the answer you are looking for, but the alternative to \"\"don't patronize these merchants\"\" is this: DO patronize these merchants, and pay cash. Credit cards are convenient. (I use a credit card often.) However, there is no denying that they cost the merchants an incredible amount in fees, and that our entire economy is paying for these fees. The price of everything is more than it needs to be because of these fees. Yes, you get some money back with your rewards card, but the money you get back comes directly from the store you made the purchase with, and the reward is paid for by increasing the price of everything you buy. In addition, those among us that do not have the credit score necessary to obtain a rewards card are paying the same higher price for goods as the rest of us, but don't get the cash back reward. Honestly, it seems quite fair to me that only the people charging purchases to a credit card should have to pay the extra fee that goes along with that payment processing. If a store chooses to do that, I pay cash instead, and I am grateful for the discount.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fee4c2ada624f9f9dfd3cf43e073b65",
"text": "There are different ways of credit card purchase authorizations. if some choose less secure method it's their problem. Merchants are charged back if a stolen card is used.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36320d5d3ef4f2c73640925da28ba1b3",
"text": "Generally, credit card networks (as opposed to debit/ATM cards that may or may not have Visa/MC logos) have a rule that a merchant must accept any credit card with their logo. Visa rules for merchants in the US say it explicitly: Accept all types of valid Visa cards. Although Visa card acceptance rules may vary based on country specific requirements or local regulations, to offer the broadest possible range of payment options to cardholder customers, most merchants choose to accept all categories of Visa debit, credit, and prepaid cards.* Unfortunately the Visa site for China is in Chinese, so I can't find similar reference there. You can complain against a merchant who you think had violated Visa rules here. That said, its not a law, its a contract between the merchant processor and the Visa International organization, and merchants are known to break these rules here and there (most commonly - refusing to accept foreign cards, including in the US). Also, local laws may affect these contracts (for example, in the US it is legal to set minimum amount requirements when accepting credit cards). This only affects credit card processing, and merchants that don't accept credit cards may still accept debit cards since those work in different networks, under a different set of rules. Those who accept credit cards, are also required to accept debit cards (at least if used as credit).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3333d869722843e63a4782d30d9e231f",
"text": "Some years ago a call center operator told me a bit more than they probably should have. They like to see a lot of money go through the card, but very little staying on the card. Yes, they make money on the interest but one card defaulting blows away the profit on a lot of other cards. The 3% take from the merchants is both reliable and up-front, not 6 months down the line when (and if) you pay the interest. So if you want to make your credit card company happy, pay your bills in full every month. I have credit far beyond my actual means because I run work expenses on my personal card, I was told they didn't care (and had already guessed) that it wasn't my money. The point was I was handling things in a way they liked. Not quite at Palladium status, but cards with $200 annual fees are mine for the asking, and I haven't paid interest since the early 1990's.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59c059e2ba0fce0f151b8282b6b3615a",
"text": "It is not only merchants that charge for credit card purchases but also service providers. Have you looked at your phone bill lately and even your Council Rates. Most of them charge a small %, usually about 1% on Matercard and Visa, and closer to 2% on Diners, Amex and American Express cards. However, the merchants and service providers that do charge a fee for credit card use, must also provide alternative ways of paying to their customers, so that the customer has the choice to either pay or avoid paying this fee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f34b5a00e27f0cd229ddb1bd5f026e18",
"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) ;)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fbddd49b257785eaf4c05b9548b0ea48
|
When filing for an NOL, do you have to file the amended previous years' returns after the NOL return?
|
[
{
"docid": "7d12a52d03a621e3d9f0f92a4ca323b5",
"text": "Your CPA doesn't need to file anything, so don't worry about him being sidetracked. You are the one doing the filing. Since the amended returns have to be filed on paper, you'll actually go and mail a package to the IRS (each return in a separate envelope). The reason the CPA suggests to file the amended returns after the current one, is to ensure the NOL is registered in the system before the amended returns are processed. The IRS doesn't have to automatically accept the amended returns, and if there's no NOL on the current year they may just bounce the amended returns back to you. Keep in mind that since you haven't filed your return by the due date (including extensions), you're now unable to forego the carry-back. I don't know if you discussed this with your CPA, but you're allowed, if you chose so, to not apply the NOL to prior years, and instead to apply it forward for the next 20 years (or until it runs out). Depending on your income pattern, that might have been something you could have considered, but you can only chose this if you file a statement before the due date (with extensions), which is now passed.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "34d57c7a08a5dd688d106df63ac97be0",
"text": "If for any tax year, you were eligible to make deductible contributions to a Traditional IRA, and did make the contributions in timely fashion, then there is no need to file Form 8606 for that year. Form 8606 (which tracks your basis in the IRA) is needed if Form 8606 is also needed if",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ff48ab59c694db453df646f2d03e011",
"text": "\"If you're \"\"living off the land\"\" and make no money, then you don't have to file. Though you might be able to actually make money through credits and the like if you do file. If you've lost more than you've made, then you'll probably need to file since someone will have needed to report that they paid you (W-2 or 1099-MISC). If the IRS receives a form saying that you made X and you don't file, they aren't going to just take your word for it that you lost more than you made, right? That, and if you want a refund, you'll almost certainly need to file to get it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5bb48681b5df3512b1d651714b729d6",
"text": "When you itemize your deductions, you get to deduct all the state income tax that was taken out of your paycheck last year (not how much was owed, but how much was withheld). If you deducted this last year, then you need to add in any amount that you received in state income tax refunds last year to your taxes this year, to make up for the fact that you ended up deducting more state income tax than was really due to the state. If you took the standard deduction last year instead of itemizing, then you didn't deduct your state income tax withholding last year and you don't need to claim your refund as income this year. Also, if you itemized, but chose to take the state sales tax deduction instead of the state income tax deduction, you also don't need to add in the refund as income. For whatever reason, Illinois decided that you don't get a 1099-G. It might be that the amount of the refund was too small to warrant the paperwork. It might be that they screwed up. But if you deducted your state income tax withholding on last year's tax return, then you need to add the state tax refund you got last year on line 10 of this year's 1040, whether or not the state issued you a form or not. Take a look at the Line 10 instructions starting on page 22 of the 1040 instructions to see if you have any unusual situations covered there that you didn't mention here. (For example, if you received a refund check for multiple years last year.) Then check your tax return from last year to verify that you deducted your state income tax withholding on Schedule A. If you did, then this year add the refund you got from the state to line 10 of this year's 1040.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de9f45b8acc39f4bc9c42744ee75b90b",
"text": "I remember reading in an earlier version of Pub 590 (or possibly the Instructions for Form 8606) that timely contributions for Year X to an IRA are deemed to have been made on January 1 of Year X regardless of when they were actually made, but I don't seem to be able to find it now in current versions of Pubs 590a or 590b and so cannot include a citation of chapter and verse. Be that as it may, the calculations on on Form 8606 Part I effectively track basis on an annual basis rather than on a daily basis, and so the fact that the Traditional IRA has a zero balance (and basis 0 too) at some time during the year doesn't matter in the least. In detail (though you didn't ask for it) Note that the whole $6500 that you put in remains non-deductible in its entirety, but you owe taxes on only $93,900 of that $100K that you rolled over into a Roth IRA and not on the whole $100K as you were assuming would have been the case. So, in effect, of that $6500 nondeductible contribution to your Traditional IRA, you did really get to deduct $6100 from your taxable income for 2016, and make only a $400 nondeductible contribution, exactly equal to your basis in your Traditional IRA as per the Form 8606 calculations. I can only assume that the software package that you are using reproduces the above calculations exactly and does what the IRS says you must do on Form 8606 rather than what you get by tracking the basis on a daily basis. IRS regulations and instructions are not necessarily the same as what the tax law says; they are interpretations of the tax law based on what the IRS understands the tax law to say. People have challenged various specific IRS regulations and interpretations as being different from what the law says in Tax Court and been successful in some cases and failed in others. If you believe that tracking basis on a daily basis is what the law says (instead of just being reasonable and rational: reasonableness and rationality are not required either of Congress in the laws that they write or the IRS regulations that interpret the laws), you should take up the matter with the IRS or the Tax Court.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9cf63e0a6b14a3f437fae3eb24f15d04",
"text": "\"Can I write off the $56,000 based on demand letters? Or do I need to finish suing him to write-off the loss? No and no. You didn't pay taxes on the money (since you didn't file tax returns...), so what are you writing off? If you didn't get the income - you didn't get the income. Nothing to write off. Individuals in the US are usually cash-based, so you don't write off income \"\"accrued but never received\"\" since you don't pay taxes on accrued income, only income you've actually received. Should I file the 2012 taxes now? Or wait until the lawsuit finishes? You should have filed by April 2013, more than a year ago. You might have asked for an extension till October 2013, more than half a year ago. Now - you're very very late, and should file your tax return ASAP. If you have some tax due - you're going to get hit with high penalties for underpaying and late filing. If the lawsuit finishes in 2014, does it apply to the 2012 taxes? Probably not, but talk to your lawyer. In any case - it is irrelevant to the question whether to file the tax return or not. If because of the lawsuit results something changes - you file an amended return.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd10d90ffdb55b8ff054948c6a6d2926",
"text": "\"You will be filing the exact same form you've been filing until now (I hope...) which is called form 1040. Attached to it, you'll add a \"\"Schedule C\"\" form and \"\"Schedule SE\"\" form. Keep in mind the potential effect of the tax and totalization treaties the US has with the UK which may affect your filings. I suggest you talk to a licensed EA/CPA who works with expats in the UK and is familiar with all the issues. There are several prominent offices you can find by Googling.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d1e1dcc1720a7572a82eaa13e92c8cb",
"text": "\"Your employer can require a W8-BEN or W-9 if you are a contractor, and in some special cases. I believe this bank managing your stock options can as well; it's to prove you don't have \"\"foreign status\"\". See the IRS's W-9 instructions for details.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d8e6721496b0d8ad288f2a00eb81a13",
"text": "It matters because that is the requirement for the 83(b) selection to be valid. Since the context is 83(b) election, I assume you got stocks/options as compensation and didn't pay for them the FMV, thus it should have been included in your income for that year. If you didn't include the election letter - I can only guess that you also didn't include the income. Hence - you lost your election. If you did include the income and paid the tax accordingly, or if no tax was due (you actually paid the FMV), you may try amending the return and attaching the letter, but I'd suggest talking to a professional before doing it on your own. Make sure to keep a proof (USPS certified mailing receipt) of mailing the letter within the 30 days window.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9d65921f3dd4bb75d269ea1873d8ddf",
"text": "The default is FIFO: first in - first out. Unless you specifically instruct the brokerage otherwise, they'll report that the lot you've sold is of Jan 5, 2011. Note, that before 2011, they didn't have to report the cost basis to the IRS, and it would be up to you to calculate the cost basis at tax time, but that has been changed in 2011 and you need to make sure you've instructed the brokerage which lot exactly you're selling. I'm assuming you're in the US, in other places laws may be different.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4153a684b44027e27bd1175a20260689",
"text": "\"Federal tax refund is taxes you've overpaid. What you're saying is that this year you overpaid less than before. I don't understand why you see this is as a bad thing. Optimal situation is when you have no refunds and no taxes due on tax day, but it is really hard to get there. But the closer you can get - the better, which means that reducing your refund should be your goal. In any case, \"\"Federal Tax Refund\"\" is meaningless, what you need to look at is your actual taxes due. This is the number you should be working to reduce. Is it possible to shift the amounts on a W-2 (with correct adjustments) to tax all of your wages, instead of leaving some of it deducted pre-tax? Why would you want to pay more tax? If your goal is to have a refund (I.e.: it is your way of forcing yourself to save), then you need to recalculate the numbers and adjust your W4 taking the (pre-tax) FSA into account. If it is not the goal, then you should be looking at the total taxes owed, not the refund, and adjust your W4 so that your withholding would cover the taxes owed as closely as possible. And to answer your question, after all this - of course it is possible. But it is wrong, and will indeed likely to trigger an audit. You can write whatever you want on your tax return, but in the end of it, you sign under the penalty of perjury that what you filled is the correct information. Perjury is a Federal felony, and knowingly filing incorrect tax return is fraud (especially since your motive is to gain, even though you're not actually gaining anything). Fraudulent tax returns can be audited any time (no statute of limitations).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d814567aa5f5a1eaf61596718a3f55d",
"text": "If you didn't receive the money in 2012 or have constructive receipt you really can't claim the income. If the company is going to give you a 1099 for the work they aren't going to give you one until next year and if you claim it this year you will have a hard time explaining the income difference. On the other hand if this isn't miscellaneous income, but rather self employment income and expenses you should be able to claim the expenses in 2012 and if you have a loss that would carry over to 2013. Note it is possible to use an accrual basis if you are running a business (which would allow you to do this), but it is more complex than the cash accounting individual tax payers use.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7774c2bceeeac395e113b4bb31b43ee7",
"text": "Many of the custodians (ie. Schwab) file for an extension on 1099s. They file for an extension as many of their accounts have positions with foreign income which creates tax reporting issues. If they did not file for extension they would have to send out 1099s at the end of January and then send out corrected forms. Obviously sending out one 1099 is cheaper and less confusing to all. Hope that helps,",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ba0fc654895d48fb795dea7fe3b64af",
"text": "Yes, use a separate Form 8829 for each home used for business during the year. The top of 8829 includes that exact instruction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2d0ad1b83d45313a4dadac2270bbb42",
"text": "\"no, good questions my friend. when did you do this rollover? if it was this year, your firm should have forms that you can fill out to \"\"undo\"\" the roth conversion - only earnings on your investments will be taxed, and everything gets rolled over to a traditional IRA. not fun for tax filing but... you can also leave them as is and pay the taxes (usually only a good option if it's a low income year for the filer). i would consult your tax advisor regardless in this situation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c14d942d1cffc6f843d1aefbbc04b1f5",
"text": "\"1099's and other official tax forms are often reported to the IRS by the issuer, whether or not you include a copy in your return. You should not neglect to include this income in your 2016 return in an attempt to balance out the two tax years. It's up to you whether or not you feel like filing an amended 2015 return to recover over-payment of taxes from that tax year. You have up to three years to amend tax returns using form 1040X. Since you couldn't have furnished a 1099 for this when you filed your 2015 return (otherwise you wouldn't be in receipt of it for tax year 2016), I'm assuming you reported it simply as \"\"Other Income\"\" and therefore would have been [over] taxed your marginal rate on it. From irs.gov: When to amend a return. You should file an amended return if you need to correct your filing status, number of dependents, total income, tax deductions or tax credits. The instructions for Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, list additional reasons to amend a return.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7d4694058cc53c504bcbfea1ecd1e7d9
|
Are Index Funds really as good as “experts” claim?
|
[
{
"docid": "6e4f01017045a7b9ef74ebae91eacf5a",
"text": "\"I actually love this question, and have hashed this out with a friend of mine where my premise was that at some volume of money it must be advantageous to simply track the index yourself. There some obvious touch-points: Most people don't have anywhere near the volume of money required for even a $5 commission outweigh the large index fund expense ratios. There are logistical issues that are massively reduced by holding a fund when it comes to winding down your investment(s) as you get near retirement age. Index funds are not touted as categorically \"\"the best\"\" investment, they are being touted as the best place for the average person to invest. There is still a management component to an index like the S&P500. The index doesn't simply buy a share of Apple and watch it over time. The S&P 500 isn't simply a single share of each of the 500 larges US companies it's market cap weighted with frequent rebalancing and constituent changes. VOO makes a lot of trades every day to track the S&P index, \"\"passive index investing\"\" is almost an oxymoron. The most obvious part of this is that if index funds were \"\"the best\"\" way to invest money Berkshire Hathaway would be 100% invested in VOO. The argument for \"\"passive index investing\"\" is simplified for public consumption. The reality is that over time large actively managed funds have under-performed the large index funds net of fees. In part, the thrust of the advice is that the average person is, or should be, more concerned with their own endeavors than they are managing their savings. Investment professionals generally want to avoid \"\"How come I my money only returned 4% when the market index returned 7%? If you track the index, you won't do worse than the index; this helps people sleep better at night. In my opinion the dirty little secret of index funds is that they are able to charge so much less because they spend $0 making investment decisions and $0 on researching the quality of the securities they hold. They simply track an index; XYZ company is 0.07% of the index, then the fund carries 0.07% of XYZ even if the manager thinks something shady is going on there. The argument for a majority of your funds residing in Mutual Funds/ETFs is simple, When you're of retirement age do you really want to make decisions like should I sell a share of Amazon or a share of Exxon? Wouldn't you rather just sell 2 units of SRQ Index fund and completely maintain your investment diversification and not pay commission? For this simplicity you give up three basis points? It seems pretty reasonable to me.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22a624586462392a84b59b2656031d90",
"text": "Why would it not make more sense to invest in a handful of these heavyweights instead of also having to carry the weight of the other 450 (some of which are mostly just baggage)? First, a cap-weighted index fund will invest more heavily in larger cap companies, so the 'baggage' you speak of does take up a smaller percentage of the portfolio's value (not that cap always equates to better performance). There are also equal-weighted index funds where each company in the index is given equal weight in the portfolio. If you could accurately pick winners and losers, then of course you could beat index funds, but on average they've performed well enough that there's little incentive for the average investor to look elsewhere. A handful of stocks opens you up to more risk, an Enron in your handful would be pretty devastating if it comprised a large percentage of your portfolio. Additionally, since you pay a fee on each transaction ($5 in your example), you have to out-perform a low-fee index fund significantly, or be investing a very large amount of money to come out ahead. You get diversification and low-fees with an index fund.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc8f593c174368c4c817cd8ea5e13e90",
"text": "Picking yourself is just what all the fund managers are trying to do, and history shows that the majority of them fails the majority of the time to beat the index fund. That is the core reason of the current run after index funds. What that means is that although it doesn’t sound so hard, it is not easy at all to beat an index consistently. Of course you can assume that you are better than all those high-paid specialists, but I would have some doubt. You might be luckier, but then you might be not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "217b83c42b6d95a98edc02217db6d947",
"text": "The point of buying an index fund is that you don't have to pick winners. As long as the winners are included in the index fund (which can include far more than 500 stocks), you benefit on average because of overall upward historical market performance. Picking only the top 50 capitalized stocks in the S&P 500 does not guarantee you will successfully track the S&P 500 index because the stocks in the tail can account for an outsized amount of overall growth; the top 50 stocks by market capitalization change over time, and these stocks are not necessarily the stocks that perform better. As direct example, the 10 year average annual return for the S&P top 50 is 4.52%, while the 10 year average annual return for the S&P 500 is 5.10%. Issues of trading and balancing to maintain these aside, these indices are not the same.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b39b705716edf980e950a2be747a7b36",
"text": "\"Two main points to answer this in my opinion. First, most people don't start with say half a million dollar to buy all the stocks they need in one shot but rather they accumulate this money gradually. So they must make many Buys in their lifetime. Similarly, most people don't need to withdraw all their investment in one day (and shouldn't do this anyway as it cuts the time of investment). So there will be many Sells. Performing a single buy or sell per year is not efficient since it means you have lots of cash sitting doing nothing. So in this sense, low cost indexing lets you quickly invest your money (and withdraw it when needed after say you retire) without worrying about commission costs each time. The second and most important point to me to answer this is that we should make a very clear distinction between strategy and outcome. Today's stock prices and all the ups and downs of the market are just one possible outcome that materialized from a virtually uncountable number of possible outcomes. It's not too hard to imagine that tomorrow we hear all iPhones explode and Apple stock comes crashing down. Or that in a parallel universe Amazon never takes off and somehow Sears is the king of online commerce. Another item in the \"\"outcome\"\" category is your decisions as a human being of when to buy and sell. If that exploding iPhone event does occur, would you hold on to your stocks? Would you sell and cut your losses? Does the average person make the same decision if they had $1000 invested in Apple alone vs $1M? Index investing offers a low cost strategy that mitigates these uncertainties for the average person. Again here the key is the word \"\"average\"\". Picking a handful of the heavyweight stocks as you mention might give you better returns in 30 years, but it could just as easily give you worse. And the current data suggest the latter is more likely. \"\"Heavyweights\"\" come and go (who were they 30 years ago?) and just like how the other 450 companies may seem right now as dragging down the portfolio, just as easily a handful of them can emerge as the new heavyweights. Guaranteed? No. Possible? Yes. Jack Bogle is simply saying low cost indexing is one of the better strategies for the average person, given the data. But nowhere is it guaranteed that in this lifetime (e.g. next 30 years) will provide the best outcome. Berkshire on the other hand are in the business of chasing maximum outcomes (mid or short term returns). It's two different concepts that shouldn't be mixed together in my opinion.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a9e3e301321b3674f2d82b887ba6c30",
"text": "\"Comparing index funds to long-term investments in individual companies? A counterintuitive study by Jeremy Siegel addressed a similar question: Would you be better off sticking with the original 500 stocks in the S&P 500, or like an index fund, changing your investments as the index is changed? The study: \"\"Long-Term Returns on the Original S&P 500 Companies\"\" Siegel found that the original 500 (including spinoffs, mergers, etc.) would do slightly better than a changing index. This is likely because the original 500 companies take on a value (rather than growth) aspect as the decades pass, and value stocks outperform growth stocks. Index funds' main strength may be in the behavior change they induce in some investors. To the extent that investors genuinely set-and-forget their index fund investments, they far outperform the average investor who mis-times the market. The average investor enters and leaves the market at the worst times, underperforming by a few percentage points each year on average. This buying-high and selling-low timing behavior damages long-term returns. Paying active management fees (e.g. 1% per year) makes returns worse. Returns compound on themselves, a great benefit to the investor. Fees also compound, to the benefit of someone other than the investor. Paying 1% annually to a financial advisor may further dent long-term returns. But Robert Shiller notes that advisors can dissuade investors from market timing. For clients who will always follow advice, the 1% advisory fee is worth it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0c0764029404e59244d50be1b159dad",
"text": "\"Here is my simplified take: In any given market portfolio the market index will return the average return on investment for the given market. An actively managed product may outperform the market (great!), achieve average market performance (ok - but then it is more expensive than the index product) or be worse than the market (bad). Now if we divide all market returns into two buckets: returns from active investment and returns from passive investments then these two buckets must be the same as index return are by definition the average returns. Which means that all active investments must return the average market return. This means for individual active investments there are worse than market returns and better then market returns - depending on your product. And since we can't anticipate the future and nobody would willingly take the \"\"worse than market\"\" investment product, the index fund comes always up on top - IF - you would like to avoid the \"\"gamble\"\" of underperforming the market. With all these basics out of the way: if you can replicate the index by simply buying your own stocks at low/no costs I don't see any reason for going with the index product beyond the convenience.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d69b994e0a8ea32c8004d3ddd9d6c9a",
"text": "A lot of it boils down to these key points:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc7049dedd2b6a9084368e230498afc2",
"text": "\"Simply put, you cannot deterministically beat the market. If by being informed and following all relevant news, you can arrive at the conclusion that company A will likely outperform company B in the future, then having A stocks should be better than having B stocks or any (e.g., index based) mix of them. But as the whole market has access to the very same information and will arrive at the same conclusion (provided it is logically sound), \"\"everybody\"\" will want A stocks, which thus become expensive to the point where the expected return is average again. Your only options of winning this race are to be the very first to have the important information (insider trade), or to arrive at different logical conclusions than the rest of the world (which boils down do making decisions that are not logically sound - good luck with that - or assuming that almost everybody else is not logically sound - go figure).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a5c828411013510f191bb0f58be880db",
"text": "I'm not 100% familiar with the index they're using to measure hedge fund performance, but based on the name alone, comparing market returns to *market neutral* hedge fund returns seems a bit disingenuous. That doesn't mean the article is wrong, and they have a point about the democratization of data, but still.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd66966f0541ccfd05860777d41fc257",
"text": "Eh using a benchmark that's designed for Hedge Funds is a little different. I was guessing the other comment was referring to SPX or similar for the 10%. Most people don't understand HF as investment vehicles. They are meant to be market neutral and focused on absolute returns. Yes, you can benchmark them against each other / strategy but most people here seem to think that HFs want to beat the S&P 500.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94307b9b712f8bbbbda71d1a4df93e87",
"text": "\"If I invest in index funds or other long term stocks that pay dividend which I reinvest, they don't need to be worth more per share for me to make a profit, right? That is, if I sell part of the stocks, it's GOOD if they're worth more than I bought them at, but the real money comes from the QUANTITY of stocks that you get by reinvesting your dividends, right? I would say it is more the other way around. It is nice to get dividends and reinvest them, but overall the main gain comes from the stocks going up in value. The idea with index funds, however, is that you don't rely on any particular stock going up in value; instead you just rely on the aggregate of all the funds in the index going up. By buying lots of stocks bundled in an index fund, you avoid being too reliant on any one company's performance. Can I invest \"\"small amounts\"\" (part of paycheck) into index funds on a monthly basis, like €500, without taking major \"\"transaction fees\"\"? (Likely to be index fund specific... general answers or specific answers using popular stocks welcomed). Yes, you can. At least in the US, whether you can do this automatically from your paycheck depends on whether you employer has that set up. I don't know that work in the Netherlands. However, at the least, you can almost certainly set up an auto-invest program that takes $X out of your bank account every month and buys shares of some index fund(s). Is this plan market-crash proof? My parents keep saying that \"\"Look at 2008 and think about what such a thing would do to your plan\"\", and I just see that it will be a setback, but ultimately irrelevant, unless it happens when I need the money. And even then I'm wondering whether I'll really need ALL of my money in one go. Doesn't the index fund go back up eventually? Does a crash even matter if you plan on holding stocks for 10 or more years? Crashes always matter, because as you say, there's always the possibility that the crash will occur at a time you need the money. In general, it is historically true that the market recovers after crashes, so yes, if you have the financial and psychological fortitude to not pull your money out during the crash, and to ride it out, your net worth will probably go back up after a rough interlude. No one can predict the future, so it's possible for some unprecedented crisis to cause an unprecedented crash. However, the interconnectedness of stock markets and financial systems around the world is now so great that, were such a no-return crash to occur, it would probably be accompanied by the total collapse of the whole economic system. In other words, if the stock market dies suddenly once and for all, the entire way of life of \"\"developed countries\"\" will probably die with it. As long as you live in such a society, you can't really avoid \"\"gambling\"\" that it will continue to exist, so gambling on there not being a cataclysmic market crash isn't much more of a gamble. Does what I'm planning have similarities with some financial concept or product (to allow me to research better by looking at the risks of that concept/product)? Maybe like a mortgage investment plan without the bank eating your money in between? I'm not sure what you mean by \"\"what you're planning\"\". The main financial products relevant to what you're describing are index funds (which you already mentioned) and index ETFs (which are basically similar with regard to the questions you're asking here). As far as concepts, the philosophy of buying low-fee index funds, holding them for a long time, and not selling during crashes, is essentially that espoused by Jack Bogle (not quite the inventor of the index fund, but more or less its spiritual father) and the community of \"\"Bogleheads\"\" that has formed around his ideas. There is a Bogleheads wiki with lots of information about the details of this approach to investing. If this strategy appeals to you, you may find it useful to read through some of the pages on that site.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4afd5945bcc615ebbc57c903f5eff5cc",
"text": "From an article I wrote a while back: “Dalbar Inc., a Boston-based financial services research firm, has been measuring the effects of investors’ decisions to buy, sell, and switch into and out of mutual funds since 1984. The key finding always has been that the average investor earns significantly less than the return reported by their funds. (For the 20 years ended Dec. 31, 2006, the average stock fund investor earned a paltry 4.3 average annual compounded return compared to 11.8 percent for the Standard & Poor’s 500 index.)” It's one thing to look at the indexes. But quite another to understand what other investors are actually getting. The propensity to sell low and buy high is proven by the data Dalbar publishes. And really makes the case to go after the magic S&P - 0.09% gotten from an ETF.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d551a112c05e7e4ad3cf68a202c506dc",
"text": "That is such a vague statement, I highly recommend disregarding it entirely, as it is impossible to know what they meant. Their goal is to convince you that index funds are the way to go, but depending on what they consider an 'active trader', they may be supporting their claim with irrelevant data Their definition of 'active trader' could mean any one or more of the following: 1) retail investor 2) day trader 3) mutual fund 4) professional investor 5) fund continuously changing its position 6) hedge fund. I will go through all of these. 1) Most retail traders lose money. There are many reasons for this. Some rely on technical strategies that are largely unproven. Some buy rumors on penny stocks in hopes of making a quick buck. Some follow scammers on twitter who sell newsletters full of bogus stock tips. Some cant get around the psychology of trading, and thus close out losing positions late and winning positions early (or never at all) [I myself use to do this!!]. I am certain 99% of retail traders cant beat the market, because most of them, to be frank, put less effort into deciding what to trade than in deciding what to have for lunch. Even though your pension funds presentation is correct with respect to retail traders, it is largely irrelevant as professionals managing your money should not fall into any of these traps. 2) I call day traders active traders, but its likely not what your pension fund was referring to. Day trading is an entirely different animal to long or medium term investing, and thus I also think the typical performance is irrelevant, as they are not going to manage your money like a day trader anyway. 3,4,5) So the important question becomes, do active funds lose 99% of the time compared to index funds. NO! No no no. According to the WSJ, actively managed funds outperformed passive funds in 2007, 2009, 2013, 2015. 2010 was basically a tie. So 5 out of 9 years. I dont have a calculator on me but I believe that is less than 99%! Whats interesting is that this false belief that index funds are always better has become so pervasive that you can see active funds have huge outflows and passive have huge inflows. It is becoming a crowded trade. I will spare you the proverb about large crowds and small doors. Also, index funds are so heavily weighted towards a handful of stocks, that you end up becoming a stockpicker anyway. The S&P is almost indistinguishable from AAPL. Earlier this year, only 6 stocks were responsible for over 100% of gains in the NASDAQ index. Dont think FB has a good long term business model, or that Gilead and AMZN are a cheap buy? Well too bad if you bought QQQ, because those 3 stocks are your workhorses now. See here 6) That graphic is for mutual funds but your pension fund may have also been including hedge funds in their 99% figure. While many dont beat their own benchmark, its less than 99%. And there are reasons for it. Many have investors that are impatient. Fortress just had to close one of its funds, whose bets may actually pay off years from now, but too many people wanted their money out. Some hedge funds also have rules, eg long only, which can really limit your performance. While important to be aware of this, that placing your money with a hedge fund may not beat a benchmark, that does not automatically mean you should go with an index fund. So when are index funds useful? When you dont want to do any thinking. When you dont want to follow market news, at all. Then they are appropriate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84af74fe96101aba83d1b6e7c3bc8013",
"text": "I think you can do better than the straight indexes. For instance Vanguard's High Yield Tax Exempt Fund has made 4.19% over the past 5 years. The S&P 500 Index has lost -2.25% in the same period. I think good mutual funds will continue to outperform the markets because you have skilled managers taking care of your money. The index is just a bet on the whole market. That said, whatever you do, you should diversify. List of Vanguard Funds",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb28cf4e4e06bf5115246d92fa92e80b",
"text": "\"There's a huge difference between \"\"can an anverage person make a profit on the stock market\"\" and \"\"can an average person get rich off the stock market\"\". It is certainly possible for an average person to profit, but of course you are unlikely to profit as much as the big Wall Street guys. An S&P 500 index fund, for instance, would be a pretty good way to profit. People with high-powered tools may make a lot of money picking individual stocks, and may even make some choices that help them when the market is down, but it's difficult to see how they could consistently make money over the long term without the S&P 500 also going up. The same applies, to varying extents, to various other index funds, ETFs, and mutual funds. I agree with littleadv that there is no single \"\"right\"\" thing for everyone to do. My personal take is that index funds are a good bet, and I've seen a lot of people take that view on personal finance blogs, etc. (for whatever that's worth). One advantage of index funds that track major indexes (like the S&P 500) is that because they are and are perceived as macro-indicators of the overall economic situation, at least you're in the same boat as many other people. On one level, that means that if you lose money a lot of other investors are also losing money, and when large numbers of people start losing money, that makes governments take action, etc., to turn things around. On another level, the S&P 500 is a lot of big companies; if it goes down, some of those big companies are losing value, and they will use their big-company resources to gain value, and if they succeed, the index goes up again and you benefit. In other words, index funds (and large mutual funds, ETFs, etc.) make investing less about what day-trading wonks focus on, which is trying to make a \"\"hot choice\"\" for a large gain. They make it more about hitching your wagon to an extremely large star that is powered by all the resources of extremely large companies, so that when those companies increase their value, you gain. The bigger the pool of people whose fortunes rise and fall with your own, the more you become part of an investment portfolio that is (I can't resist saying it) \"\"too big to fail\"\". That isn't to say that the S&P 500 can't lose value from time to time, but rather that if it does go down big and hard and stay there, you probably have bigger problems than losing money in the stock market (e.g., the US economy is collapsing and you should begin stockpiling bullets and canned food).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3ad56de12a1e57eee094f285039e940",
"text": "\"I hope a wall of text with citations qualifies as \"\"relatively easy.\"\" Many of these studies are worth quoting at length. Long story short, a great deal of research has found that actively-managed funds underperform market indexes and passively-managed funds because of their high turnover and higher fees, among other factors. Longer answer: Chris is right in stating that survivorship bias presents a problem for such research; however, there are several academic papers that address the survivorship problem, as well as the wider subject of active vs. passive performance. I'll try to provide a brief summary of some of the relevant literature. The seminal paper that started the debate is Michael Jensen's 1968 paper titled \"\"The Performance of Mutual Funds in the Period 1945-1964\"\". This is the paper where Jensen's alpha, the ubiquitous measure of the performance of mutual fund managers, was first defined. Using a dataset of 115 mutual fund managers, Jensen finds that The evidence on mutual fund performance indicates not only that these 115 mutual funds were on average not able to predict security prices well enough to outperform a buy-the-market-and-hold policy, but also that there is very little evidence that any individual fund was able to do significantly better than that which we expected from mere random chance. Although this paper doesn't address problems of survivorship, it's notable because, among other points, it found that managers who actively picked stocks performed worse even when fund expenses were ignored. Since actively-managed funds tend to have higher expenses than passive funds, the actual picture looks even worse for actively managed funds. A more recent paper on the subject, which draws similar conclusions, is Martin Gruber's 1996 paper \"\"Another puzzle: The growth in actively managed mutual funds\"\". Gruber calls it \"\"a puzzle\"\" that investors still invest in actively-managed funds, given that their performance on average has been inferior to that of index funds. He addresses survivorship bias by tracking funds across the entire sample, including through mergers. Since most mutual funds that disappear are merged into existing funds, he assumes that investors in a fund that disappear choose to continue investing their money in the fund that resulted from the merger. Using this assumption and standard measures of mutual fund performance, Gruber finds that mutual funds underperform an appropriately weighted average of the indices by about 65 basis points per year. Expense ratios for my sample averaged 113 basis points a year. These numbers suggest that active management adds value, but that mutual funds charge the investor more than the value added. Another nice paper is Mark Carhart's 1997 paper \"\"On persistence in mutual fund performance\"\" uses a sample free of survivorship bias because it includes \"\"all known equity funds over this period.\"\" It's worth quoting parts of this paper in full: I demonstrate that expenses have at least a one-for-one negative impact on fund performance, and that turnover also negatively impacts performance. ... Trading reduces performance by approximately 0.95% of the trade's market value. In reference to expense ratios and other fees, Carhart finds that The investment costs of expense ratios, transaction costs, and load fees all have a direct, negative impact on performance. The study also finds that funds with abnormally high returns last year usually have higher-than-expected returns next year, but not in the following years, because of momentum effects. Lest you think the news is all bad, Russ Wermer's 2000 study \"\"Mutual fund performance: An empirical decomposition into stock‐picking talent, style, transactions costs, and expenses\"\" provides an interesting result. He finds that many actively-managed mutual funds hold stocks that outperform the market, even though the net return of the funds themselves underperforms passive funds and the market itself. On a net-return level, the funds underperform broad market indexes by one percent a year. Of the 2.3% difference between the returns on stock holdings and the net returns of the funds, 0.7% per year is due to the lower average returns of the nonstock holdings of the funds during the period (relative to stocks). The remaining 1.6% per year is split almost evenly between the expense ratios and the transaction costs of the funds. The final paper I'll cite is a 2008 paper by Fama and French (of the Fama-French model covered in business schools) titled, appropriately, \"\"Mutual Fund Performance\"\". The paper is pretty technical, and somewhat above my level at this time of night, but the authors state one of their conclusions bluntly quite early on: After costs (that is, in terms of net returns to investors) active investment is a negative sum game. Emphasis mine. In short, expense ratios, transaction costs, and other fees quickly diminish the returns to active investment. They find that The [value-weight] portfolio of mutual funds that invest primarily in U.S. equities is close to the market portfolio, and estimated before fees and expenses, its alpha is close to zero. Since the [value-weight] portfolio of funds produces an α close to zero in gross returns, the alpha estimated on the net returns to investors is negative by about the amount of fees and expenses. This implies that the higher the fees, the farther alpha decreases below zero. Since actively-managed mutual funds tend to have higher expense ratios than passively-managed index funds, it's safe to say that their net return to the investor is worse than a market index itself. I don't know of any free datasets that would allow you to research this, but one highly-regarded commercial dataset is the CRSP Survivor-Bias-Free US Mutual Fund Database from the Center for Research in Security Prices at the University of Chicago. In financial research, CRSP is one of the \"\"gold standards\"\" for historical market data, so if you can access that data (perhaps for a firm or academic institution, if you're affiliated with one that has access), it's one way you could run some numbers yourself.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cd20273e0629c4575627b1c7bed9f18",
"text": "\"i know that hedge funds shouldn't be compared with index funds. they do different things. they serve different functions. but when the headline is they are reporting big gains, and then they report that \"\"Ken Griffin’s main Wellington and Kensington funds at Citadel rose almost 7 percent.\"\" YTD, and \"\"Andreas Halvorsen’s Viking and an equity-focused quantitative fund at Renaissance are up more than 9 percent this year through July\"\" as reporting \"\"Big Gains\"\" it's a little silly when an index fund like SCHB is up 10.7% YTD with an ER of 0.03.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20e5cfc13dc16a19aef4dc3ba03eba08",
"text": "\"Let me start by giving you a snippet of a report that will floor you. Beat the market? Investors lag the market by so much that many call the industry a scam. This is the 2015 year end data from a report titled Quantitive Analysis of Investor Behavior by a firm, Dalbar. It boggles the mind that the disparity could be this bad. A mix of stocks and bonds over 30 years should average 8.5% or so. Take out fees, and even 7.5% would be the result I expect. The average investor return was less than half of this. Jack Bogle, founder of Vanguard, and considered the father of the index fund, was ridiculed. A pamphlet I got from Vanguard decades ago quoted fund managers as saying that \"\"indexing is a path to mediocrity.\"\" Fortunately, I was a numbers guy, read all I could that Jack wrote and got most of that 10.35%, less .05, down to .02% over the years. To answer the question: psychology. People are easily scammed as they want to believe they can beat the market. Or that they'll somehow find a fund that does it for them. I'm tempted to say ignorance or some other hint at lack of intelligence, but that would be unfair to the professionals, all of which were scammed by Madoff. Individual funds may not be scams, but investors are partly to blame, buy high, sell low, and you get the results above, I dare say, an investor claiming to use index funds might not fare much better than the 3.66% 30 year return above, if they follow that path, buying high, selling low. Edit - I am adding this line to be clear - My conclusion, if any, is that the huge disparity cannot be attributed to management, a 6.7% lag from the S&P return to what the average investor sees likely comes from bad trading. To the comments by Dave, we have a manager that consistently beats the market over any 2-3 year period. You have been with him 30 years and are clearly smiling about your relationship and investing decision. Yet, he still has flows in and out. People buy at the top when reading how good he is, and selling right after a 30% drop even when he actually beat by dropping just 22%. By getting in and out, he has a set of clients with a 30 year record of 6% returns, while you have just over 11%. This paragraph speaks to the behavior of the investor, not managed vs indexed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7fbd96694deb9cdb0de005f541ce5f6e",
"text": "Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Are they? Maybe not all the time! If you had invested in an index fund tracking the S&P500 at the start of 2000 you would still be behind in terms of capital appreciation when taking inflation into considerations. Your only returns in 13.5 years would have been any dividends you may have received. See the monthly chart of the S&P500 below. Diversification can be good for your overall returns, but diversification simply for diversification sake is as you said, a way of reducing your overall returns in order of smoothing out your equity curve. After looking up indexes for various countries the only one that had made decent returns over a 13.5 year period was the Indian BSE 30 index, almost 400% over 13.5 years, although it also has gone nowhere since the end of 2007 (5.5 years). See monthly chart below. So investing internationally (especially in developing countries when developed nations are stagnating) can improve your returns, but I would learn about the various international markets first before plunging straight in. Regarding investing in an Index fund vs direct investment in a select group of shares, I did a search on the US markets with the following criteria on the 3rd January 2000: If the resulting top 10 from the search were bought on 3rd January 2000 and held up until the close of the market on the 19th June 2013, the results would be as per the table below: The result, almost 250% return in 13.5 years compared to almost no return if you had invested into the whole S&P 500 Index. Note, this table lists only the top ten from the search without screening through the charts, and no risk management was applied (if risk management was applied the 4 losses of 40%+ would have been limited to a maximum of 20%, but possibly much smaller losses or even for gains, as they might have gone into positive territory before coming back down - as I have not looked at any of the charts I cannot confirm this). This is one simple example how selecting good shares can result in much better returns than investing into a whole Index, as you are not pulled down by the bad stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f13a3951eaed94fefa8904790031778",
"text": "The idea behind investing in index funds is that you will not under perform the market but also at the same time not over perform against the market either. It is meant for those (majority of the investing population) who do not or cannot invest more time in actively researching different investment options. So even considering for a moment that the yields on the index funds will drop significantly in the future, since the fund is supposed to be replication of the whole market itself, the market too can be assumed to be giving significantly lower future yields. In my opinion the question that you ask is confusing/contradictory because, its like pegging the fund performance to an avg and then asking if it will be higher or lower in the future. But rather its always going to be exactly the average, even if the absolute yields turn higher or lower",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cd4e8d8a1414e978825d104b7c83b25",
"text": "Not better companies, they pick the largest market cap companies which isn't guaranteed to be the best. If they were so much better than there would be a much bigger difference between the S&P 500 and the vanguard total stock market fund: http://quotes.morningstar.com/chart/fund/chart?t=VTSMX&region=usa&culture=en-US But as you can see above there is barely any difference in the gains between S&P and the total stock market fund",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "140b6fef7c8594dd3f234a710c425ab0",
"text": "\"YES.. Management fees cut directly into your profits. A fund which achieves 8% growth but costs 1% to maintain delivers only 7% to you. Compounded over years, even a relatively small difference can add up to a significant amount of money. This is one of the advantages index funds have. They may not be as \"\"sophisticated\"\" as human-managed funds, but their expense ratio is so much lower that the end result for the investor is often as good as or better than the more expensive products. In fact, at least one study found that, for each category they researched, low expense ratio was a better predictor of good return on investment than anything else they looked at. That doesn't mean cheapest is always best or most expensive is always worst .... but it does mean you should be very, very sure an expensive fund really is that much better before choosing it. And sticking with simple index funds may be a perfectly reasonable choice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4ab5e53638af9a16dfdee22e011d0c8",
"text": "If you just took money and banking you should probably be aiming for the sales end of the job. The trading end they're going to want you to know about option spreads (I remember my old Prof said [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black%E2%80%93Scholes) was always good to know for finance interviews), annuities, financial statement analysis, and all that fun stuff. Either way flaunt your other skills and knowledge as well - accounting, technology, blah blah blah",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
27994ae19f70792fa98150e8ecadd834
|
Depositing a check with a DBA on the title
|
[
{
"docid": "cb123ade4ccc7cfac85eccb067143e41",
"text": "Assuming it's your business, endorse the check as yourself and your DBA name, payable to your personal account",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1884d09a6e7e4786e5ba73997559dc1b",
"text": "In the united states, they may request a check written by the bank to the other party. I have had to make large payments for home settlements, or buying a car. If the transaction was over a specified limit, they wanted a cashiers check. They wanted to make sure it wouldn't bounce. I have had companies rebate me money, and say the maximum value of the check was some small value. I guess that was to prevent people from altering the check. One thing that has happened to me is that a large check I wanted to deposit was held for a few extra days to make sure it cleared. I wouldn't have access to the funds until the deadline passed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8763fc2c07ef25982bf35c895dd7557",
"text": "\"There are at least a couple problems: Your friend may not manage money well and so may not have enough money in the account. Check bounces. They get charged a fee. You get charged a fee. You have to chase after the friend to get the fee paid. The friend was cheap about the regular fees and doesn't want to pay this much higher fee. Your \"\"friend\"\" may really be a crook. The check is no good. Perhaps it's written under a false identity such that you are attempting to cash a stolen/forged check. You cash it. They take the money and disappear. You get charged with participating in the crime, go to jail, and now have a criminal record (worst case). My quick thought is that if you don't know the person well enough to know the home address, you don't know the person well enough to cash checks. In general, I would view this the same as a loan. When loaning to a friend, you should never loan more than you are willing to lose. Note that an actual loan would be safer. If you loan $50 to a friend, at worst you're out $50. If you deposit a fraudulent check, you did something illegal. You will have to be convincing when you tell your story to the police. If they don't believe you, they could charge you. A couple bad breaks and you could go to jail.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45430766fd9e2a4c81c5db997ceef669",
"text": "The advice above is generally good, but the one catch I haven't seen addressed is which specific laws apply. You said that you are in Arkansas, but the dealer is in Texas. This means that the laws of at least two different states are in play, possibly three if the contract contains a clause stating that disputes will be handled in a certain jurisdiction, and you are going to have to do some research to figure out what actually applies. One thing that may significantly impact this issue is whether you were in TX or AR when you signed the contracts. If you borrowed the money in TX, and the lender is in TX, then it is almost certain that the laws of Texas will govern. However, if you were living in AR at the time you acquired the loan, particularly if you were in AR when you signed the papers, you have a decent case for claiming that the laws of Arkansas govern. I don't know enough about either state to know if one is more favorable to the consumer than the other, but it is a question you really want to have answered. That said, I would be shocked if any state did not have provisions requiring the lender to provide a copy of the terms and a detailed statement of the account and transaction history upon request. Spend some time on the web site of the Texas attorney general and/or legislator (because that is where the lender is, they are more likely to respect Texas law) to see if you can track down any specific laws or codes that you can reference. You might also look into the federal consumer protection laws, though I can't think of one off hand that would apply in the scenario you have described. Then work on putting together a letter asking them to provide a copy of the contract and a full history of the account. As others noted, make sure you send it certified/return receipt, or better yet use a private carrier such as fedex, and check the box about requiring a signature. Above all you need to get the dialog transferred to a written form. I can not stress this point enough. Everything you tell them or ask for from here out needs to be done in a written format. If they call you about anything, tell them you want to see their issue/offer in writing before you will consider it. You do not necessarily need a lawyer to do any of this, but you do need to know the applicable laws. Do the research to know what your legal standing is. Involve a lawyer if you feel you need to, but I have successfully battled several large utility companies and collection agencies into behaving without needing one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8d9a264811e3392550bcf41ffb67dda",
"text": "buy a cashiers check with the cash (a CRT will be nec if over 10 K) and deposit the cashiers check",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8901ebcbe588b9b70a36bb5f84f71a5",
"text": "\"You're a partnership. You should ask the money to be paid to the partnership. You'll have to fill partnership income tax return (form 1065) and each of you will get a K-1 schedule with your own personal portion of the income. For example, you're Adam, Ben and Clara. You work together on a project and are being paid. You get a check for $300 issued to \"\"Adam, Ben and Clara, DBA ABC Partnership\"\". You don't have to have a DBA, it just makes it easier to show you as a single entity. You then deposit the check to an account you set up for your partnership, and from that account you transfer $100 to each of you. Year end, you file form 1065, showing $300 income, and attach K-1 for each of the partners showing $100 income. That $100 income will flow to your individual tax returns. The overhead here is setting up a partnership account, potentially making a DBA, and filing the extra tax return. That's the proper way to do it, especially if it is something you're going to do regularly. For a one-time thing, one of you can get paid, report it as income on his/her Schedule C, and issue 1099 to the rest of you for your parts, and deduct the amount as his/her expense. Here, the overhead is Schedule C for each of you (instead of Schedule E if handling it as a partnership), extra 1099 forms (instead of 1065 and K-1s), and a risk of one partner defrauding the others (depends on how much you trust each other). With proper documentation, each of these is equally legal, and tax-wise the costs are the same (i.e.: either way you pay the same taxes). With partnership the overhead is a bit more expensive (DBA+1065 extra cost), but in the long term it will make your life easier if you do this kind of thing regularly. You may want to consider setting up your partnership as a LLC/LLP (depending on what your State allows), but that would require State paperwork and potentially more fees.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e777d2a86f7c8909f956cb2d086fbfa0",
"text": "\"Depending on where you are, you may be able to get away with filing a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" document with your local government, and then having the bank call the county seat to verify this. There is generally a fee for processing/recording/filing the DBA form, of course. But it's useful for more purposes than just this one. (I still need to file a DBA for my hobby work-for-pay, for exactly this reason.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0ba3a3f52735f9f8f5be47d45351fa7",
"text": "\"If you wish to lend them the money, make the check payable to the order of \"\"loan\"\", not directly to your son or daughter.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9dc9debd5d052930eabc49b7000d8de0",
"text": "The person writing the check has already signed and endorsed it. The depositer's signature is not to confirm the check's validity, but to demonstrate that the check was depisited to the correct Fred Smith's account, and permit charges to be brought if, eg, Fred Bonzo Smith tries to steal Fred Gnorph Smith's check.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a851a49cd357b224216792c74b6ab41d",
"text": "Many businesses will request that you get a bank-issued check for large amounts of money. The exception is often in cases where you're not going anywhere: you can write a 50,000 check for a deposit on a new house, and you'll never have a problem, but a car dealer will probably request a counter check for the same sum.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02a058752d659ec81be42f03e06b6ccb",
"text": "Savings accounts have lower fees. If you don't anticipate doing many transactions per month, e.g. three or fewer withdrawals, then I would suggest a savings account rather than a checking account. A joint account that requires both account holder signatures to make withdrawals will probably require both account holders' signature endorsements, in order to make deposits. For example, if you are issued a tax refund by the U.S. Treasury, or any check that is payable to both parties, you will only be able to deposit that check in a joint account that has both persons as signatories. There can be complications due to multi-party account ownership if cashing versus depositing a joint check and account tax ID number. When you open the account, you will need to specify what your wishes are, regarding whether both parties or either party can make deposits and withdrawals. Also, at least one party will need to be present, with appropriate identification (probably tax ID or Social Security number), when opening the account. If the account has three or more owners, you might be required to open a business or commercial account, rather than a consumer account. This would be due to the extra expense of administering an account with more than two signatories. After the questioner specified interest North Carolina in the comments, I found that the North Carolina general banking statutes have specific rules for joint accounts: Any two or more persons may establish a deposit account... The deposit account and any balance shall be as joint tenants... Unless the persons establishing the account have agreed with the bank that withdrawals require more than one signature, payment by the bank to, or on the order of (either person on) the account satisfys the bank's obligation I looked for different banks in North Carolina. I found joint account terms similar to this in PDF file format, everywhere, Joint Account: If an item is drawn so that it is unclear whether one payee’s endorsement or two is required, only one endorsement will be required and the Bank shall not be liable for any loss incurred by the maker as a result of there being only one endorsement. also Joint accounts are owned by you individually or jointly with others. All of the funds in a joint account may be used to repay the debts of any co-owner, whether they are owed individually, by a co-owner, jointly with other co-owners, or jointly with other persons or entities having no interest in your account. You will need to tell the bank specifically what permissions you want for your joint account, as it is between you and your bank, in North Carolina.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc46bad77cc109cfa403d08ea54ba070",
"text": "If they bring cash, meet at your bank to verify. If they want to use cashiers check, meet them at their bank. Large amounts use wires directly to your acct and verify (not only received, but deposited) before handing over the title/keys.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6654e2df896eda68dbf3c8da9c17bbfb",
"text": "I've done this, though with a loan company rather than a bank. We agreed on price, drove to the loan company's office (the seller having notified them in advance), I gave them the money, got the title, and they gave the balance to the seller. Important point is that you get the signed-off title from the lienholder.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "074ea5e57c752ea120f2017f3eceb057",
"text": "\"You cant! There is the risk that between the time you get the check and the time you get to the bank that you will be murdered, have a heart attack, stroke, or aneurysm too. And they are probably more likely than the bank going out of business between the time you deposit the money and get access to it. Prior to accepting the check I would do the following: Get a lawyer that specializes in finance and tax law. There are some steps you can take to minimize your tax exposure. There is little you can do about the immediate tax on the winnings but there are things you can do to maximize the return of your money. You will want to do what you can to protect that money for yourself and your family. Also create or revise your will. This is a lot of money and if something happens to you people from your family and \"\"friends\"\" will come out of the woodwork trying to claim your money. Make sure your money goes where you want it to in the event something happens to you. Get a financial planner. This money can either make you or break you. If you plan for success you will succeed. If you trust yourself to make good decisions with out a plan, in a few years you will be broke and wondering what happened to your money. Even at 1% at 20million dollars that is 200k a year in interest... a pretty good income by itself. You do not have to save every penny but you can plan for a nice lifestyle that will last, if you plan and stick to your plan. Do research and know what bank you are going to deposit the money in. Talk to the bank let them know of your plans so they can be ready for it. It is not every day that they get a 20 million dollar deposit. They will need to make plans to handle it. If you are going to spread the money out among several banks they can prepare for that too. When choosing that bank I would look for one where their holdings are significantly more than you are depositing. I would not really go with one of the banks that was rescued. They have already shown that they can not handle large sums of money and assuming they will not screw it up with my money is not something I would be comfortable with. There were some nice sized banks that did not need a bail out. I would choose one of them.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ead7105d38ca69bb114bef6a04725d95",
"text": "\"Your friend probably cannot deposit the check to your U.S. bank account. U.S. banks that I've worked with will not accept a deposit from someone who is not an owner of the account. I don't know why not. If some stranger wants to make unauthorized deposits to my account, why should I object? But that's the common rule. You could endorse the check, your friend could then deposit it to his own account or cash it, and then transfer the money to you in a variety of ways. But I think it would be easier to just deposit the check in your account wherever it is you live. Most banks have no problem with depositing a foreign check. There may be a fairly long delay before you can get access to the money while the check clears through the system. I don't know exactly what you mean by a \"\"prize check\"\", but assuming that this is taxable income, yes, I assume the U.S. government would want their hard-earned share of your money. These days you can pay U.S. taxes on-line if you have a credit card. If you have not already paid U.S. taxes for the year, you should make an \"\"estimated payment\"\". i.e. you can't wait until April 15 of the next year, you have to pay most or all of the taxes you will owe in the calendar year you earned it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31c281eb2eb9a00f332080b149465ff9",
"text": "Years ago, I had a tenant who bounced a check now and then. I started going to the bank where his account was. With my ID they were agreeable to cashing the check against his account. The teller first checked his balance and only cashed when there were enough funds. One time he was $10 short. I wrote a deposit slip and added the $10 it took to clear the check. As they say, your mileage may vary, I hear some banks won't even break a large bill for a non customer.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6c526b004a7393dd0a8075b3ee90243d
|
What should I consider when factoring fluctuating exchange rates into risk/return of overseas stock trading?
|
[
{
"docid": "7e2700c8f97122b868a4a0ebfbcc9257",
"text": "Which of these two factors is likely to be more significant? There is long term trend that puts one favourable with other. .... I realise that I could just as easily have lost 5% on the LSE and made 5% back on the currency, leaving me with my original investment minus various fees; or to have lost 5% on both. Yes that is true. Either of the 3 scenarios are possible. Those issues aside, am I looking at this in remotely the right way? Yes. You are looking at it the right way. Generally one invests in Foreign markets for;",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "db7a27bf0afb30d12a004f760578f6a8",
"text": "\"is there anything I can do now to protect this currency advantage from future volatility? Generally not much. There are Fx hedges available, however these are for specialist like FI's and Large Corporates, traders. I've considered simply moving my funds to an Australian bank to \"\"lock-in\"\" the current rate, but I worry that this will put me at risk of a substantial loss (due to exchange rates, transfer fees, etc) when I move my funds back into the US in 6 months. If you know for sure you are going to spend 6 months in Australia. It would be wise to money certain amount of money that you need. So this way, there is no need to move back funds from Australia to US. Again whether this will be beneficial or not is speculative and to an extent can't be predicted.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3200217e7939b7c9eb0a82e4a1124feb",
"text": "Here is the technical guidance from the accounting standard FRS 23 (IAS 21) 'The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates' which states: Exchange differences arising on the settlement of monetary items or on translating monetary items at rates different from those at which they were translated on initial recognition during the period or in previous financial statements shall be recognised in profit or loss in the period in which they arise. An example: You agree to sell a product for $100 to a customer at a certain date. You would record the sale of this product on that date at $100, converted at the current FX rate (lets say £1:$1 for ease) in your profit loss account as £100. The customer then pays you several $100 days later, at which point the FX rate has fallen to £0.5:$1 and you only receive £50. You would then have a realised loss of £50 due to exchange differences, and this is charged to your profit and loss account as a cost. Due to double entry bookkeeping the profit/loss on the FX difference is needed to balance the journals of the transaction. I think there is a little confusion as to what constitutes a (realised) profit/loss on exchange difference. In the example in your question, you are not making any loss when you convert the bitcoins to dollars, as there is no difference in the exchange rate between the point you convert them. Therefore you have not made either a profit or a loss. In terms of how this effects your tax position; you only pay tax on your profit and loss account. The example I give above is an instance where an exchange difference is recorded to the P&L. In your example, the value of your cash held is reflected in your balance sheet, as an asset, whatever its value is at the balance sheet date. Unfortunately, the value of the asset can rise/fall, but the only time where you will record a profit/loss on this (and therefore have an impact on tax) is if you sell the asset.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ee5094a258ae0377d39f8cdcfb21087",
"text": "\"Tricky question, basically, you just want to first spread risk around, and then seek abnormal returns after you understand what portions of your portfolio are influenced by (and understand your own investment goals) For a relevant timely example: the German stock exchange and it's equity prices are reaching all time highs, while the Greek asset prices are reaching all time lows. If you just invested in \"\"Europe\"\" your portfolio will experience only the mean, while suffering from exchange rate changes. You will likely lose because you arbitrarily invested internationally, for the sake of being international, instead of targeting a key country or sector. Just boils down to more research for you, if you want to be a passive investor you will get passive investor returns. I'm not personally familiar with funds that are good at taking care of this part for you, in the international markets.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0f0da2c0e5a4bfa04bda19efad7eb01",
"text": "There are some ETF's on the Indian market that invest in broad indexes in other countries Here's an article discussing this Be aware that such investments carry an additional risk you do not have when investing in your local market, which is 'currency risk' If for example you invest in a ETF that represents the US S&P500 index, and the US dollar weakens relative to the indian rupee, you could see the value if your investment in the US market go down, even if the index itself is 'up' (but not as much as the change in currency values). A lot of investment advisors recommend that you have at least 75% of your investments in things which are denominated in your local currency (well technically, the same currency as your liabilities), and no more than 25% invested internationally. In large part the reason for this advice is to reduce your exposure to currency risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90b990119812669ab920916a9ac08514",
"text": "\"When you invest in an S&P500 index fund that is priced in USD, the only major risk you bear is the risk associated with the equity that comprises the index, since both the equities and the index fund are priced in USD. The fund in your question, however, is priced in EUR. For a fund like this to match the performance of the S&P500, which is priced in USD, as closely as possible, it needs to hedge against fluctuations in the EUR/USD exchange rate. If the fund simply converted EUR to USD then invested in an S&P500 index fund priced in USD, the EUR-priced fund may fail to match the USD-priced fund because of exchange rate fluctuations. Here is a simple example demonstrating why hedging is necessary. I assumed the current value of the USD-priced S&P500 index fund is 1,600 USD/share. The exchange rate is 1.3 USD/EUR. If you purchase one share of this index using EUR, you would pay 1230.77 EUR/share: If the S&P500 increases 10% to 1760 USD/share and the exchange rate remains unchanged, the value of the your investment in the EUR fund also increases by 10% (both sides of the equation are multiplied by 1.1): However, the currency risk comes into play when the EUR/USD exchange rate changes. Take the 10% increase in the price of the USD index occurring in tandem with an appreciation of the EUR to 1.4 USD/EUR: Although the USD-priced index gained 10%, the appreciation of the EUR means that the EUR value of your investment is almost unchanged from the first equation. For investments priced in EUR that invest in securities priced in USD, the presence of this additional currency risk mandates the use of a hedge if the indexes are going to track. The fund you linked to uses swap contracts, which I discuss in detail below, to hedge against fluctuations in the EUR/USD exchange rate. Since these derivatives aren't free, the cost of the hedge is included in the expenses of the fund and may result in differences between the S&P500 Index and the S&P 500 Euro Hedged Index. Also, it's important to realize that any time you invest in securities that are priced in a different currency than your own, you take on currency risk whether or not the investments aim to track indexes. This holds true even for securities that trade on an exchange in your local currency, like ADR's or GDR's. I wrote an answer that goes through a simple example in a similar fashion to the one above in that context, so you can read that for more information on currency risk in that context. There are several ways to investors, be they institutional or individual, can hedge against currency risk. iShares offers an ETF that tracks the S&P500 Euro Hedged Index and uses a over-the-counter currency swap contract called a month forward FX contract to hedge against the associated currency risk. In these contracts, two parties agree to swap some amount of one currency for another amount of another currency, at some time in the future. This allows both parties to effectively lock in an exchange rate for a given time period (a month in the case of the iShares ETF) and therefore protect themselves against exchange rate fluctuations in that period. There are other forms of currency swaps, equity swaps, etc. that could be used to hedge against currency risk. In general, two parties agree to swap one quantity, like a EUR cash flow, payments of a fixed interest rate, etc. for another quantity, like a USD cash flow, payments based on a floating interest rate, etc. In many cases these are over-the-counter transactions, there isn't necessarily a standardized definition. For example, if the European manager of a fund that tracks the S&P500 Euro Hedged Index is holding euros and wants to lock in an effective exchange rate of 1.4 USD/EUR (above the current exchange rate), he may find another party that is holding USD and wants to lock in the respective exchange rate of 0.71 EUR/USD. The other party could be an American fund manager that manages a USD-price fund that tracks the FTSE. By swapping USD and EUR, both parties can, at a price, lock in their desired exchange rates. I want to clear up something else in your question too. It's not correct that the \"\"S&P 500 is completely unrelated to the Euro.\"\" Far from it. There are many cases in which the EUR/USD exchange rate and the level of the S&P500 index could be related. For example: Troublesome economic news in Europe could cause the euro to depreciate against the dollar as European investors flee to safety, e.g. invest in Treasury bills. However, this economic news could also cause US investors to feel that the global economy won't recover as soon as hoped, which could affect the S&P500. If the euro appreciated against the dollar, for whatever reason, this could increase profits for US businesses that earn part of their profits in Europe. If a US company earns 1 million EUR and the exchange rate is 1.3 USD/EUR, the company earns 1.3 million USD. If the euro appreciates against the dollar to 1.4 USD/EUR in the next quarter and the company still earns 1 million EUR, they now earn 1.4 million USD. Even without additional sales, the US company earned a higher USD profit, which is reflected on their financial statements and could increase their share price (thus affecting the S&P500). Combining examples 1 and 2, if a US company earns some of its profits in Europe and a recession hits in the EU, two things could happen simultaneously. A) The company's sales decline as European consumers scale back their spending, and B) the euro depreciates against the dollar as European investors sell euros and invest in safer securities denominated in other currencies (USD or not). The company suffers a loss in profits both from decreased sales and the depreciation of the EUR. There are many more factors that could lead to correlation between the euro and the S&P500, or more generally, the European and American economies. The balance of trade, investor and consumer confidence, exposure of banks in one region to sovereign debt in another, the spread of asset/mortgage-backed securities from US financial firms to European banks, companies, municipalities, etc. all play a role. One example of this last point comes from this article, which includes an interesting line: Among the victims of America’s subprime crisis are eight municipalities in Norway, which lost a total of $125 million through subprime mortgage-related investments. Long story short, these municipalities had mortgage-backed securities in their investment portfolios that were derived from, far down the line, subprime mortgages on US homes. I don't know the specific cities, but it really demonstrates how interconnected the world's economies are when an American family's payment on their subprime mortgage in, say, Chicago, can end up backing a derivative investment in the investment portfolio of, say, Hammerfest, Norway.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d0b360de7d5745d006ae345e6072492",
"text": "The value of the asset doesn't change just because of the exchange rate change. If a thing (valued in USD) costs USD $1 and USD $1 = CAN $1 (so the thing is also valued CAN $1) today and tomorrow CAN $1 worth USD $0.5 - the thing will continue being worth USD $1. If the thing is valued in CAN $, after the exchange rate change, the thing will be worth USD $2, but will still be valued CAN $1. What you're talking about is price quotes, not value. Price quotes will very quickly reach the value, since any deviation will be used by the traders to make profits on arbitrage. And algo-traders will make it happen much quicker than you can even notice the arbitrage existence.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c7b4c73d0cfa05f6db8ec14315332e2",
"text": "Suppose you're a European Company, selling say a software product to a US company. As much as you might want the US company to pay you in Euros they might insist (or you'll lose the contract) that you agree pricing in USD. The software is licensed on a yearly recurring amount, say 100K USD per year payable on the 1st January every year. In this example, you know that on the 1st Jan that 100K USD will arrive in your USD bank account. You will want to convert that to Euros and to remove uncertainty from your business you might take out an FX Forward today to remove your currency risk. If in the next 9 months the dollar strengthens against the Euro then notionally you'll have lost out by taking out the forward. Similarly, you've notionally gained if the USD weakens against the EURO. The forward gives you the certainty you need to plan your business.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83d9ae6ad60870a09c431cbe4c9498a1",
"text": "\"I suggest that you're really asking questions surrounding three topics: (1) what allocation hedges your risks but also allows for upside? (2) How do you time your purchases so you're not getting hammered by exchange rates? (3) How do you know if you're doing ok? Allocations Your questions concerning allocation are really \"\"what if\"\" questions, as DoubleVu points out. Only you can really answer those. I would suggest building an excel sheet and thinking through the scenarios of at least 3 what-ifs. A) What if you keep your current allocations and anything in local currency gets cut in half in value? Could you live with that? B) What if you allocate more to \"\"stable economies\"\" and your economy recovers... so stable items grow at 5% per year, but your local investments grow 50% for the next 3 years? Could you live with that missed opportunity? C) What if you allocate more to \"\"stable economies\"\" and they grow at 5%... while SA continues a gradual slide? Remember that slow or flat growth in a stable currency is the same as higher returns in a declining currency. I would trust your own insights as a local, but I would recommend thinking more about how this plays out for your current investments. Timing You bring up concerns about \"\"timing\"\" of buying expensive foreign currencies... you can't time the market. If you knew how to do this with forex trading, you wouldn't be here :). Read up on dollar cost averaging. For most people, and most companies with international exposure, it may not beat the market in the short term, but it nets out positive in the long term. Rebalancing For you there will be two questions to ask regularly: is the allocation still correct as political and international issues play out? Have any returns or losses thrown your planned allocation out of alignment? Put your investment goals in writing, and revisit it at least once a year to evaluate whether any adjustments would be wise to make. And of course, I am not a registered financial professional, especially not in SA, so I obviously recommend taking what I say with a large dose of salt.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4339890815d1bd9b8804bd8772f1081f",
"text": "Although not technically an answer to your question, I want to address why this is generally a bad idea. People normally put money into a savings account so that they can have quick access to it if needed, and because it is safe. You lose both of these advantages with a foreign account. You are looking at extra time and fees to receive access to the money in those australian accounts. And, more importantly, you are taking on substantial FX risk. Since 2000 the AUD exchange rate has gone from a low of 0.4845 to a high of 1.0972. Those swings are almost as large as the swings of the S&P. But, you're only getting an average return of 3.5%, instead of the average return people expect with stocks of 10%. A better idea would be to talk to a financial adviser who can help you find an investment that meets your risk tolerance, but gives you a better return than your savings account. On a final thought, the exception to this would be if you plan on spending significant time in Australia. Having money in a savings account there would actually allow you to mitigate some of your FX risk by allowing you to decide whether to convert USD when you are travelling, or using the money that you already have in your foreign account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19e63ae5bc64b1b6708549f389a6c615",
"text": "International exchange rates are arbitraged. If I exchange A for B for C and then back to A again, I'll end up with the same amount ex trade fees. Assume this isn't the case. Clearly if I'd gain, someone else loses and I'd make millions by rapidly exchanging. Now assume that I'd lose money on that route. That must be because the reverse route, A->C->B->A gains money. (Again, assuming no fees) So in this case you'd just look at fees. (And as Ganesh points out, that may include future fees)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eda543db876b5d150a730688db867bef",
"text": "This is called currency speculation, and it's one of the more risky forms of investing. Unless you have a crystal ball that tells you the Euro will move up (or down) relative to the Dollar, it's purely speculation, even if it seems like it's on an upswing. You have to remember that the people who are speculating (professionally) on currency are the reason that the amount changed, and it's because something caused them to believe the correct value is the current one - not another value in one direction or the other. This is not to say people don't make money on currency speculation; but unless you're a professional investor, who has a very good understanding of why currencies move one way or the other, or know someone who is (and gives free advice!), it's not a particularly good idea to engage in it - while stock trading is typically win-win, currency speculation is always zero-sum. That said, you could hedge your funds at this point (or any other) by keeping some money in both accounts - that is often safer than having all in one or the other, as you will tend to break even when one falls against the other, and not suffer significant losses if one or the other has a major downturn.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93ed9100864a8c4146441b8c7bc0dab5",
"text": "Now, is there any clever way to combine FOREX transactions so that you receive the US interest on $100K instead of the $2K you deposited as margin? Yes, absolutely. But think about it -- why would the interest rates be different? Imagine you're making two loans, one for 10,000 USD and one for 10,000 CHF, and you're going to charge a different interest rate on the two loans. Why would you do that? There is really only one reason -- you would charge more interest for the currency that you think is less likely to hold its value such that the expected value of the money you are repaid is the same. In other words, currencies pay a higher interest when their value is expected to go down and currencies pay a lower interest when their value is expected to go up. So yes, you could do this. But the profits you make in interest would have to equal the expected loss you would take in the devaluation of the currency. People will only offer you these interest rates if they think the loss will exceed the profit. Unless you know better than them, you will take a loss.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac0ce3b2e0c026f80b68a29b373f2481",
"text": "Any time you are optimizing a portfolio, the right horizon to use for computing the statistics you will use for optimization (expected return, covariance, etc.) will be the same as your rebalance/trading frequency. If you expect your trading strategy to trade once a day, you should use daily data for optimization. Ditto for monthly or quarterly. If at all possible you should use statistics across the board that are computed at the same frequency as your trading. Regarding currency pricing, I see no reason you can't take the reported prices and convert them to whatever currency you want using that day's foriegn exchange rate. Foreign exchange rates are available for free at the Fed and elsewhere. Converting prices from one currency to another is not rocket science. Since you are contemplating putting actual money behind this, note that using data to compute statistics is less reliable for lower statistical moments. The mean (expected return) is the first moment, so using historical returns is extremely unreliable at predicting future returns. The variances and covariances are second moments, they are better. Skewness and kurtosis, yet better. The fact that the expected return can't reliably be estimated from past returns is the major downfall of the Markowitz method (resulting portfolios are often very crazy and will depend critically on the data period you use to set them up). There are approaches to fixing this, such as Black-Litterman's (1992) method, but they get complicated fast.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8a85fd74968db82a68d08b94722c7d6",
"text": "There are short-term and long term aspects. In the long term, if you live and work in Australia and plan to continue doing both indefinitely, you might as well move all your cash investments there. There would be no point bearing the exchange rate risks. It may be worth keeping the account open with just enough credit to stop it being shut down. There is no point needing to (think about) filing foreign tax returns just because you have an account earning a small amount of interest. In the short term, I think the more important question is practicality rather than exchange rate risk. You want to have enough cash in both countries that if you suddenly have to pay say an apartment deposit or a bill, you won't be caught short. So I would leave at least a few thousands dollars in a US bank account until at least a couple of months after the move, when I was sure everything was settled. Good luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f37da9c64177f790479271443715f132",
"text": "\"It is not clear to me why you believe you can lose more than you put in, without margin. It is difficult and the chances are virtually nil. However, I can think of a few ways. Lets say you are an American, and deposit $1000. Now lets say you think the Indian rupee is going to devalue relative to the Euro. So that means you want to go long EURINR. Going long EURINR, without margin, is still different than converting your INRs into Euros. Assume USDINR = 72. Whats actually happening is your broker is taking out a 72,000 rupee loan, and using it to buy Euros, with your $1000 acting as collateral. You will need to pay interest on this loan (about 7% annualized if I remember correctly). You will earn interest on the Euros you hold in the meantime (for simplicity lets say its 1%). The difference between interest you earn and interest you pay is called the cost of carry, or commonly referred to as 'swap'. So your annualized cost of carry is $60 ($10-$70). Lets say you have this position open for 1 year, and the exchange rate doesnt move. Your total equity is $940. Now lets say an asteroid destroys all of Europe, your Euros instantly become worthless. You now must repay the rupee loan to close the trade, the cost of which is $1000 but you only have $940 in your account. You have lost more than you deposited, using \"\"no margin\"\". I would actually say that all buying and selling of currency pairs is inherently using margin, because they all involve a short sale. I do note that depending on your broker, you can convert to another currency. But thats not what forex traders do most of the time.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4aee3383ae3da8c096303c30452512a6
|
Good book-keeping software?
|
[
{
"docid": "eac19c1373a32c96cbcee5fa90b8b640",
"text": "You can try Wave Accounting. Its a free software for Small Business and web-based. http://waveaccounting.com/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b32304b701b8d58dafd682346da54418",
"text": "The short answer is that there are no great personal finance programs out there any more. In the past, I found Microsoft Money to be slick and feature rich but unfortunately it has been discontinued a few years ago. Your choices now are Quicken and Mint along with the several open-source programs that have been listed by others. In the past, I found the open source programs to be both clunky and not feature-complete for my every day use. It's possible they have improved significantly since I had last looked at them. The biggest limitation I saw with them is weakness of integration with financial service providers (banks, credit card companies, brokerage accounts, etc.) Let's start with Mint. Mint is a web-based tool (owned by the same company as Quicken) whose main feature is its ability to connect to nearly every financial institution you're likely to use. Mint aggregates that data for you and presents it on the homepage. This makes it very easy to see your net worth and changes to it over time, spending trends, track your progress on budgets and long-term goals, etc. Mint allows you to do all of this with little or no data entry. It has support for your investments but does not allow for deep analysis of them. Quicken is a desktop program. It is extremely feature rich in terms of supporting different types of accounts, transactions, reports, reconciliation, etc. One could use Quicken to do everything that I just described about Mint, but the power of Quicken is in its more manual features. For example, while Mint is centred on showing you your status, Quicken allows you to enter transactions in real-time (as you're writing a check, initiating a transfer, etc) and later reconciles them with data from your financial institutions. Link Mint, Quicken has good integration with financial companies so you can generally get away with as little or as much data entry as you want. For example, you can manually enter large checks and transfers (and later match to automatically-downloaded data) but allow small entries like credit card purchases to download automatically. Bottom line, if you're just looking to keep track of where you are at, try Mint. It's very simple and free. If you need more power and want to manage your finances on a more transactional level, try Quicken (though I believe they do not have a trial version, I don't understand why). The learning curve is steep although probably gentler than that of GnuCash. Last note on why Mint.com is free: it's the usual ad-supported model, plus Mint sells aggregated consumer behaviour reports to other institutions (since Mint has everyone's transactions, it can identify consumer trends). If you're not comfortable with that, or with the idea of giving a website passwords to all your financial accounts, you will find Quicken easier to accept. Hope this helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7b4f03d1e0956ca87f51146a917da16",
"text": "I like Quicken for personal use, and they have a small business edition if you don't want to move into QuickBooks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1094d051d0888469d5c8772a8afb6621",
"text": "Best Linux software is PostBooks. It is full double entry, but there is definitely a learning curve. For platform-agnostic, my favorite is Xero, which is web-based. It is full double entry balance sheet, the bank reconciliation is a pleasure to use, and they are coming out with a US version this summer. Easy to use and does everything I need.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dcdc56495aaab112d02642395551384d",
"text": "I like using Mint.com to track my expenses. It makes it very easy to watch my budget and monitor my spending.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bd97258d1b20e9f8a7ebe78e6c47401",
"text": "I think Peachtree is a double entry system",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b8225a226cca95fffba690e478dac98",
"text": "\"Xero and WaveAccounting can make things easy, but they also have their limitations. I've used both for short periods of time but found both of them to be lacking. While the \"\"ease\"\" is appealing, the ability to drill into the details and get good reports is the downfall of both of these accounting systems. QuickBooks may seem like the easy answer here, but it really is the best for getting the power you want without getting too complicated.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ccda6b515f09fe101f3d7e6ccb0150d",
"text": "You should consider Turbocash. It's a mature open-source project, installed locally (thick client).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaa2180e94ca419c10d2db37381389b7",
"text": "I'm not directly affiliated with the company (I work for one of the add-on partners) but I can wholeheartedly recommend Xero for both personal and business finances. Their basis is to make accounting simple and clean, without sacrificing any of the power behind having the figures there in the first place.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83d6c28d4622fb508060d7800e780c4a",
"text": "You can try manager.io. It has a desktop, cloud and server edition that should fit your needs.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6227665539adcf4ff59654255a8cf00c",
"text": "\"You Need A Budget is a nice budgeting tool that works on the desktop. It is more focused on manual entry and budgeting over auto-downloading and categorizing. It does support downloading transactions from banks and then importing the transaction files. You mentioned having \"\"trust issues\"\" with a bank and this would be safe as you don't enter your credentials into the app. It also has a mobile app that works well. Not exactly what you are looking for, but it would work in India and be safe if you have an untrustworthy bank and it would allow you to import transactions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3d454d4eac15d202c95e8a03bd20526",
"text": "I use GNUCash. It's a bit more like Quickbooks than plain Quicken, but it's not all that complicated. Probably the most difficult part is understanding the idea of income accounts. Benefits: For short term planning, I use scheduled transactions. If I'm spending more than I have, it'll show up here. Every paycheck and dollar spent or invested is recorded with the exact date I anticipate it will happen, 30 days in advance. If that would overdraw my checking account, the Future Minimum Balance field will go negative and red. This lets me move float to higher interest savings and retirement funds, and avoids overdraft fees or other mishaps. By looking 30 days ahead in detail, I have enough time to transfer from illiquid assets. For longer term planning, I keep a spreadsheet around that plans out annual expenses. If I'm spending more than I earn, it shows up here. I estimate everything: expenses, savings, taxes, and income. I need this because I have a lot of expenses that are far less frequent than monthly or paycheck-ly. The beauty of it is that once I've got it in place, I can duplicate the sheet and consider tweaks for say taking a new job or moving, or even just changing an insurance plan (probably less relevant for those with access to NHS). Especially when moving to take a new job, it's not as straightforward as comparing salaries, and thus having a document for the status quo to start from lets you focus on the parts that changed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf7662a065b8944e12c197ad5175fda5",
"text": "\"A few practical thoughts: A practical thing that helps me immensely not to loose important paperwork (such as bank statements, bills, payroll statement, all those statements you need for filing tax return, ...) is: In addition to the folder (Aktenordner) where the statements ultimately need to go I use a Hängeregistratur. There are also standing instead of hanging varieties of the same idea (may be less expensive if you buy them new - I got most of mine used): you have easy-to-add-to folders where you can just throw in e.g. the bank statement when it arrives. This way I give the statement a preliminary scan for anything that is obviously grossly wrong and throw it into the respective folder (Hängetasche). Every once in a while I take care of all my book-keeping, punch the statements, file them in the Aktenordner and enter them into the software. I used to hate and never do the filing when I tried to use Aktenordner only. I recently learned that it is well known that Aktenordner and Schnellhefter are very time consuming if you have paperwork arriving one sheet at a time. I've tried different accounting software (being somewhat on the nerdy side, I use gnucash), including some phone apps. Personally, I didn't like the phone apps I tried - IMHO it takes too much time to enter things, so I tend to forget it. I'm much better at asking for a sales receipt (Kassenzettel) everywhere and sticking them into a calendar at home (I also note cash payments for which I don't have a receipt as far as I recall them - the forgotten ones = difference ends up in category \"\"hobby\"\" as they are mostly the beer or coke after sports). I was also to impatient for the cloud/online solutions I tried (I use one for business, as there the archiving is guaranteed to be according to the legal requirements - but it really takes far more time than entering the records in gnucash).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "373453bfdda9cd829423f219990f07f2",
"text": "I see that at work too. People too ignorant to use Excel to store financial information so they hand you a sheet of paper with 20 ticker tape receipts from a ticker tape calculator showing how they added up numbers as support for a transaction...really? How much money is this costing the company on an annual basis?! Ticker tape fades, our soft documents are backed up off site nightly... EDIT: There are a lot of jobs (private and public sector) that are simply obsolete but people cling to them anyway because of politics and general organizational-disorganization.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "810435c5809639511389c5fc99eb133e",
"text": "\"While Googling answers for a similar personal dilemma I found Mvelopes. I already have a budget but was looking for a digital way for my husband and I to track our purchases so we know when we've \"\"used the envelope\"\". It's a free app.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "446d9213a8f4ea94a44d0e75bf123e7b",
"text": "\"Mint is one alternative. If you want the raw data in CSV format, you can use \"\"Export\"\" feature under\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ab84a4012b949349f3fa5c4f201402e",
"text": "I use iBank for Mac to keep track of my expenses. I also use the iPhone version since they can sync over Wi-Fi and I can capture expenses right on the spot instead of trying to remember what I spent on when I turn on my laptop.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f4c85a0ec524834a22e73607839809b",
"text": "I wrote a small Excel-based bookkeeping system that handles three things: income, expenses, and tax (including VAT, which you Americans can rename GST). Download it here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d50c2156d049c162fca11446aa0de00",
"text": "If held in one savings account, how can I easily manage what percentage is planned for which purpose? I used a spreadsheet for some years, but found it clumsy for everyday use. Thus I wrote some software which my wife and I use for our short-term as well as long-term planning, available at http://budgeter.sourceforge.net. It specifically helps with splitting the money in one or several accounts into logical categories. (The software is not the most user-friendly ever, so there may be better suggestions that follow, but it works well for us. Please feel free to suggest improvements to it as well.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f30604cdaf6d233b808313a4423f3974",
"text": "I currently use Moneydance on my Mac. Before that I had used Quicken on a PC until version 2007. It is pretty good, does most simple investment stuff just fine. It can automatically download prices for regular stocks. Mutual funds I have to input by hand.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2762d545460a22c939b7c8db3bd238a",
"text": "\"Uh, have you tried google docs? Start off simple. Other than that, for the moment I use GNUCash. Some day I might try to write my own, but for now it works well enough. I have a number of scheduled transactions in GNUCash, and it records them days in advance. You talk about \"\"I should have how much money\"\", but GNUCash offers a slightly better format: Future Minimum Balance. If you want to know whether you can spend money in an account without triggering a chain reaction, that's the number you want. Being web-based so that it can be accessed from any OS. GNUCash is cross platform, with Windows, OSX and Linux clients. It also supports mysql/postgres database backends, so while it's not \"\"Web based\"\", you can keep your data \"\"in the cloud\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e3aeb1e220e254a1b835e73c9e24e8b",
"text": "\"Since this is a cooperative I'm guessing your partners may want to be able to view the books so another key point you may want to consider is collaboration. QuickBooks desktop has all of these same issues because it is meant to be used on a single desktop. We're in an age of mobile devices, and especially in a business like landscaping it would be nice if certain aspects of record keeping could be done at the point and time where they are incurred. I'd argue you want a Software as a Service (SaaS) accounting package as opposed to \"\"accounting software\"\" which might come on a CD in the form of QuickBooks, Sage and others. Additionally, most of these will also have guides to help make sure you are properly entering your records. Most of these SaaS products also have customer success teams to help you along should you need assistance. Depending on the level of your subscription you may get more sophisticated handling of taxes, customized invoices or integrated payroll. Your goal is to keep accurate records so you can better run your business and maintain obligations like filing taxes. You're not keeping the records just to have them. Keep them in a place where they will work for you and provide the insights and functionality that will help your business grow and become successful. Accounting software will always win in this scenario over a spreadsheet. FULL DISCLAIMER: I work for Kashoo, a simple cloud accounting product designed for small businesses. But the points I mention above are true for Xero, QuickBooks Online and Wave as well as Kashoo. And if you really want expertise to go with the actual software consider service providers with a platform like: Indinero, Bench, easyrecordbooks or Liberty Accounting.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bbda03f837541c501058d5c2e9831a5",
"text": "Given your needs, GNUcash will do swimmingly. I've used it for the past 3 years and while it's a gradual learning process, it's been able to resolve most stuff I've thrown at it. Schedule bills and deposits in the calendar view so I can keep an eye on cash flow. GNUcash has scheduled payments and receipts and reconcilation, should you need them. I prefer to keep enough float to cover monthly expenses in accounts rather than monitor potential shortfalls. Track all my stock and mutual fund investments across numerous accounts. It pulls stock, mutual and bond quotes from lots of places, domestic and foreign. It can also pull transaction data from your brokers, if they support that. I manually enter all my transactions so I can keep control of them. I just reconcile what I entered into Quicken based on the statements sent to me. I do not use Quicken's bill pay There's a reconciliation mode, but I don't use it personally. The purpose of reconcilation is less about catching bank errors and more about agreeing on the truth so that you don't incur bank fees. When I was doing this by hand I found I had a terrible data entry error rate, but on the other hand, the bayesian importer likes to mark gasoline purchases from the local grocery store as groceries rather than gas. I categorize all my expenditures for help come tax time. GNUcash has accounts, and you can mark expense accounts as tax related. It also generates certain tax forms for you if you need that. Not sure what all you're categorizing that's helpful at tax time though. I use numerous reports including. Net Worth tracking, Cash not is retirement funds and total retirement savings. Tons of reports, and the newest version supports SQL backends if you prefer that vs their reports.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c77381fb773ed6ce8484d1c26dc4212",
"text": "\"There are tonnes, and tonnes of things out there, but you have to be careful what you search for. Be specific about what you want. If you search for \"\"time sheet\"\" for example, you'll just get a bucket of stuff having to do with stylesheets, because there's more of that around. The most common type of small tool for tracking time is usually a timer-type thing that runs as a widget, gadget, or System Tray tool. You have to click it on, then off again, and the nice ones produce a usable output file. CSV, or XLS, or some such. There are tools that track what documents you have open, when you opened them, and when you closed them, and you can sort it out from there. They're a bit resource-heavy, so be careful if you have a low power system. Quickbooks has a little utility that will make file which can be imported into your accounting. Quickbooks is NOT for the average business person. You almost have to be a bookkeeper to get the most out of it. On the other hand, you can have a bookkeeper set it up for you, and at the end of the year your taxes are a one button affair. For Windows software I like to use the site snapfiles.com. It's always been reliable, the rating systems are pretty accurate, they mostly maintain their own copies of the software, they test for viruses, and the let you specify a \"\"freeware only\"\" search ;-) For Mac software I like versiontracker.com. If you're a massive freeware user, like me, sign up for an account, so you can receive alerts regarding updates, and such. Currently I do most of my computer-based organization on a Mac with piece of software by CircusPonies.com called NoteBook. There's a command to insert the time, date, or both, and I just use that when I have a need to record elapsed time. I have even run across (and I forget the name) a piece of software for tracking time on Windows, which had multiple timers which you could set so either they were allowed to run concurrently (lawyers), or only one would run at a time. Anyway… Personally I think freeware is fun, but be careful. It's still the wild frickin west out there. If you don't trust the site you're downloading from, scan it with your anti-virus software before you install it, create a Restore Point, do a full, offsite backup of all your hard drives, unplug your computer from the Internet, send your wife to her mother's, lock the kids in the basement, cross your fingers, and phone the local bishop for a dispensation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensation_(Catholic_Church)).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6f9d20330413449160f7a9aee60bbfa",
"text": "If you can set up automatic payments (like direct debits in the UK) and you can be disciplined enough to not spend the money on something else then this can be a good way of building/improving your credit rating. Banks / Lenders like it when they see you have previously taken, and repaid, credit. This can help you get better finance deals etc. in the future. Update: as noted in the comments France had a different financial system and people do not have credit ratings, so this point isn't valid in France",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e6903c905863382e2941dc07108c6a28
|
Is it possible to borrow money to accrue interest, and then use that interest to pay back the borrower + fees?
|
[
{
"docid": "69ae83f670a7244134f490f66f43f59a",
"text": "No. The WSJ prime rate is 4.25%, even the Fed prime rate is 1.75%, way above the 1.20% you'll be making from your savings account. If you are high worth individual with great credit history, the bank might give you a personal loan at 4.25%. They won't care what you do with it as long as they get their payments. If you are not that creditworthy, they'll ask for a collateral, you can mortgage your house for example. It ends up being the sames thing, you get your money and do what you want with it. If you can make more than the interest rate the bank gave you, great, you made profit. The bank however won't agree to lend you money at 0.6% (1/2 of the 1.2% APY your savings account will bring). Why would they when they can loan that at prime rate of 4.25%?? The closest you can get to something like this is if you are a hot-shot wall street money manager with track record of making big profits. In that case the bank might put some money in your fund for you to manage, but that's not something a regular person can do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e25fcd5b89b415a0f9310d96fdd581a2",
"text": "\"Your plan as proposed will not work, because it goes against how banks make money. Banks make money in two ways: (1) Fees [including account fees, investment advice fees, mortgage application fees, etc.]; and (2) Interest Rate Spread. They borrow money for x%, and they lend it out for x+y%. In a simple form, someone gives the bank a deposit, and earns 1%. The bank turns around to the next person in line and loans the money to them for 4%. You are asking them to turn the interest rate spread into a cost instead of their main source of profit: You are asking the bank to borrow money from another person paying them 1.2% interest, and then loan the money to you, paying you 0.6% interest and keeping 0.6% for themselves. The bank would lose money doing this. Technically yes, you can borrow from a bank and invest it in something earning above the 4% interest they will charge you. You can then pay the bank's interest off of your earnings, and make some profit for yourself. BUT this carries an inherent risk: If your investment loses money, you still owe the bank, effectively increasing the negative impact of your investment. This tactic is called \"\"Leveraging\"\"; you can look it up on this site or on google. It is not something you should do if you do not fully understand the risks you are taking on. Given that you are asking this question, I would suggest tactfully that you are not yet well informed enough to make this sort of investment. You run serious risk of losing everything if you over-leverage (assuming the banks will even lend you money in the first place).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9995f39a64da432da936cff80e0fefde",
"text": "\"There are many flaws with your idea. Say I want to borrow $225,000.00 to accrue interest on a 1.20% APY account. I promise ... that I cannot withdraw nor touch the account by legal contract. If you break the contract and lose the money, the lender is out the money. They can take you to court and will win, but if you don't have the money, then they don't get paid. (You can't squeeze water out of a rock even if a judge orders you to.) By sharing the interest with me on a loan, they keep a percentage that they'd normally get... If you're \"\"investing\"\" the money at 1.2%, and the lender gets some amount less than that, then they are getting much less than they \"\"normally\"\" get. Lenders typically get somewhere from 5-15% on loans. The money can also be used to fund a stock/trading account. Regardless of whether I profit, I pay interest on the loan and split the profit shares 24/7. How can the lender lose with legal enforcing? Again, if you lose the money, no amount of legal enforcing can force you to pay money that you don't have. Even if you go to jail for fraud the lender still doesn't get paid. Simply, no bank would ever agree to this.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d9a776d08c206dacd7cec3133072133",
"text": "\"With (1), it's rather confusing as to where \"\"interest\"\" refers to what you're paying and where it refers to what you're being paid, and it's confusing what you expect the numbers to work out to be. If you have to pay normal interest on top of sharing the interest you receive, then you're losing money. If the lending bank is receiving less interest than the going market rate, then they're losing money. If the bank you've deposited the money with is paying more than the going market rate, they're losing money. I don't see how you imagine a scenario where someone isn't losing money. For (2) and (3), you're buying stocks on margin, which certainly is something that happens, but you'll have to get an account that is specifically for margin trading. It's a specific type of credit with specific rules, and you if you want to engage in this sort of trading, you should go through established channels rather than trying to convert a regular loan into margin trading. If you get a personal loan that isn't specifically for margin trading, and buy stocks with the money, and the stocks tank, you can be in serious trouble. (If you do it through margin trading, it's still very risky, but not nearly as risky as trying to game the system. In some cases, doing this makes you not only civilly but criminally liable.) The lending bank absolutely can lose if your stocks tank, since then there will be nothing backing up the loan.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e6a05a201fa315f59ff8f24e7e0a57ce",
"text": "One of many things to consider is that in the United States student loan interest is tax deductible. That fact could change the math enough to make it worth putting A's money elsewhere depending on his interest rate and income bracket.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5248e0a577f68808f7f7d876323e419",
"text": "When you get a loan (car, home, student) the lending company (bank) give the (auto dealer, previous home owner, school) money. You as the borrow promise to pay this money back with interest. So in your case the 100,000 you borrow requires a payment for principal and interest of ~965 per month. After 240 payments you will have paid the bank ~231,605. So who got the ~131,000 in interest. The bank did. It was used to pay interest to the people who made deposits into the bank. It was also used to pay the expenses of the bank: salaries, retirement, rent, electricity, computers, etc. If the bank is a company with investors they may have to pay dividends to them to. Of course not all loans are successfully paid back, so some of the payment goes to cover the loans that are in default. In many cases loans are also refinanced, or the house is sold long before the 20-30 year term is up. In these cases the amount of interest received for that loan is much less than anticipated, but the good news is that it can be loaned out again.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a30438a8e0fe678ad8874732fadef31",
"text": "In short, your scenario could work in theory, but is not realistic... Generally speaking, you can borrow up to some percentage of the value of the property, usually 80-90% though it can vary based on many factors. So if your property currently has a value of $100k, you could theoretically borrow a total of $80-90k against it. So how much you can get at any given time depends on the current value as compared to how much you owe. A simple way to ballpark it would be to use this formula: (CurrentValue * PercentageAllowed) - CurrentMortgageBalance = EquityAvailable. If your available equity allowed you to borrow what you wanted, and you then applied it to additions/renovations, your base property value would (hopefully) increase. However as other people mentioned, you very rarely get a value increase that is near what you put into the improvements, and it is not uncommon for improvements to have no significant impact on the overall value. Just because you like something about your improvements doesn't mean the market will agree. Just for the sake of argument though, lets say you find the magic combination of improvements that increases the property value in line with their cost. If such a feat were accomplished, your $40k improvement on a $100k property would mean it is now worth $140k. Let us further stipulate that your $40k loan to fund the improvements put you at a 90% loan to value ratio. So prior to starting the improvements you owed $90k on a $100k property. After completing the work you would owe $90k on what is now a $140k property, putting you at a loan to value ratio of ~64%. Meaning you theoretically have 26% equity available to borrow against to get back to the 90% level, or roughly $36k. Note that this is 10% less than the increase in the property value. Meaning that you are in the realm of diminishing returns and each iteration through this process would net you less working capital. The real picture is actually a fair amount worse than outlined in the above ideal scenario as we have yet to account for any of the costs involved in obtaining the financing or the decreases in your credit score which would likely accompany such a pattern. Each time you go back to the bank asking for more money, they are going to charge you for new appraisals and all of the other fees that come out at closing. Also each time you ask them for more money they are going to rerun your credit, and see the additional inquires and associated debt stacking up, which in turn drops your score, which prompts the banks to offer higher interest rates and/or charge higher fees... Also, when a bank loans against a property that is already securing another debt, they are generally putting themselves at the back of the line in terms of their claim on the property in case of default. In my experience it is very rare to find a lender that is willing to put themselves third in line, much less any farther back. Generally if you were to ask for such a loan, the bank would insist that the prior commitments be paid off before they would lend to you. Meaning the bank that you ask for the $36k noted above would likely respond by saying they will loan you $70k provided that $40k of it goes directly to paying off the previous equity line.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77d204a01aa381794682d8311a8a933d",
"text": "\"Borrowing to invest is almost always a bad idea. You'd have to take out an unsecured loan, which has a higher interest rate, or a secured loan and put at risk whatever you are securing the loan with. You need some means to make payments on the loan, or if interest is being added to the balance then take the compounding effect into account with regards to the cost of the money and how much you will really end up owning. In order to come out ahead you need to 'invest' in something that will yield a return that is higher than the cost of borrowing the money, such high yields always come with higher risk, meaning that you will actually GET that return is less and less of a sure thing.. so now you are talking about the 'chance' to make money, Or a chance your 'investment' could fail, perhaps badly. Meaning you could well do nothing but end up in debt with little to nothing to show for it. If someone claims to have a 'sure thing' and is encouraging you to borrow money to invest in it, I'd be checking their back for a fin and remembering the lyrics \"\"when the shark bites ... scarlet billows start to spread\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "efb67fdb36add186c2b1c0a521abe042",
"text": "If they have borrowed money without paying it back, what makes you think you could get interest paid? The problem that you face first is to make clear to them that a loan is a loan. As long as they can get free money off you, they will keep borrowing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d98fbc6f95845296f3b6efb947d9d778",
"text": "If it is a business loan, the borrower would be able to claim a deduction for any interest paid on the loan and the lender would include the interest earned as part of their taxable income. You need to be careful on what you do and don't include as income. If the repayments made to you by the borrower in a year is $10,000 but only $8,000 of that is interest and the other $2,000 is part of the principal being returned to the lender, then you would only claim $8,000 as your income and the borrower would only claim $8,000 as a business deduction. Of course if it is interest only, then you and the borrower would use the full $10,000.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60b52ce239d29324e0aacd35c82de6e3",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "790bd1aa9a78f54d3bd90c4c236277fd",
"text": "\"There are two things I can think of that might be different in other countries: Until 2013, American Express, Visa and MasterCard prevented businesses from charging extra for credit card usage, and credit card surcharges still illegal in several states. Since credit card companies add a surcharge to credit card purchases, and merchants can't pass that onto credit card users, they just make everyone pay extra instead. Since everyone gets charged the credit card surcharge, you might as well use a credit card and recoup some of that via \"\"rewards\"\" points. Almost all credit cards here have grace periods, where you won't be charged interest if you pay back your loans in full within some period of time (at least 21 days). This makes credit cards attractive to people who don't need a loan, but like the convenience that credit cards provide (not carrying cash, extra insurance, better fraud protection). Apparently grace periods aren't required by law here, so this might be common in other countries as well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41f9066e5d2ad503b9ba9017aad63d7b",
"text": "\"Money relationships are the opposite of friend relationships. That's why there's so much danger in loaning money to a friend - if the transaction doesn't work out well for one of you, it can destroy the friendship. Many of the answers here suggest you be prepared for the possibility that your friend will not pay you back. This is called a \"\"gift\"\". Give your friend the money, and trust that they will feel grateful. That gratitude will create generosity, and they will in turn seek to give gifts to you and to others in your circle. If you're not ready to give money to your friend, then you're better off not doing it. If you are ready to give money to your friend, then do it without expectation of return.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eafcee4e844d3264b7139caa74e2ecd8",
"text": "\"As others have said: unless you can find someone willing to make a zero-interest loan, the answer is no. If you can figure out how to turn a \"\"0% for first N months\"\" credit card offer onto a leveraged investment or something of that sort -- seems unlikely -- maybe.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b000a97892cc975d572e05f9af9505f",
"text": "This is very much possible and happens quite a lot. In the US, for example, promotional offers by credit card companies where you pay no interest on the balance for a certain period are a very common thing. The lender gains a new customer on such a loan, and usually earns money from the spending via the merchant fees (specifically for credit cards, at least). The pro is obviously free money. The con is that this is usually for a short period of time (longest I've seen was 15 months) after which if you're not careful, high interest rates will be charged. In some cases, interest will be charged retroactively for the whole period if you don't pay off the balance or miss the minimum payment due.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8b3cd9cdfce940bc2eec7386cf28b95",
"text": "He would spend it into the economy that is accepting his dollars. As an example, the apple maker might borrow $100 with $10 interest for the deer shank, then later on get the $100 back from the deer hunter in trade for 150 apples, and then pay this $100 to the banker. Now the apple maker still needs $10 to pay off his loan. The banker says he'll trade his $10 in interest profit for 15 apples, now the apple maker can resolve his debt without further borrowing. The difference between spending interest earnings and issuing a loan is that when the banker is spending, they are getting something for their own use, when they are issuing the loan, they aren't getting anything but the promise to repay that loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e480d3236692273886be154a8499ced",
"text": "\"I read up on it and saw that the IRS can \"\"charge\"\" the loan provider on interest even if the loan provider doesn't charge interest, but this is normally mitigated by the 0% interest being considered a gift and as long as it's below X amount your fine. Yes, this sums it up. X is the amount of the gift exemption, the $14K. However, you must differ between loan with no interest and loan with no paying back. With loan with no interest you're still giving a statutory gift of the IRS mandated minimum interest. However, the principal is expected to be repaid to you and you must show that this expectation is reasonably fulfilled. If you cannot (i.e.: you gave a \"\"loan\"\" with no intention of it being paid back), then the IRS will recharacterize the whole amount as the gift, and you'll be on the hook for gift tax for the amounts above the exemption. What defines a loan vs a gift in terms of the IRS, is it simply that the loan will be paid back, or is it only considered a loan if a promisary note is made? As I said - you must be able to show that the loan is indeed a loan, even if it is with no interest. I.e.: it is being repaid, it is treated as a loan by all parties, and is not an attempt to evade gift tax. Promissory note is not a must, but will definitely be helpful in showing that. But without the de-facto repayment of the loan, it will be hard to argue that it is not a gift, even if you have a promissory note. That means, you should make a loan in such a way that the borrower will (begin) repaying it reasonably soon, so that you can show payment schedule being followed and money moving back to you. Reasonably soon is not of course defined in a statute, so do consult with a EA/CPA licensed in your state on how to structure the loan so that it will not appear as an attempt to evade the gift tax. Are there any limits on how big a loan can be? No, but keep in mind that even with statutory interest charges (published by the IRS monthly, see the link), with large enough loan you can exceed the gift tax exemption. Also, keep in mind that interest is taxable income to you. Even if you gift it back (i.e.: the statutory interest).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4414e027b470e0bbfd52df49d5900c61",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d34007d3ff18343f2d2a187102c0548",
"text": "\"A few thoughts: You said, To me it makes sense that if he accidentally put his own money in when he wasn't supposed to, he could just take it out and pay the tax on it and be fine. In this case, he would be putting his own after-tax money in, and wouldn't be able to deduct it, so the act of putting it in and taking it back out in the same tax year would be as if the transaction never occurred at all. He would not have to \"\"pay the tax on it\"\". As for this question: Is there any penalty to his employer if they contribute to an HSA on his behalf, knowing that he is not eligible, and that the money will be an excess contribution? It's good that your son is prepared to treat it as regular income and pay the appropriate taxes. However, the employer should be the one doing that. They should be treating it as regular income and taking out FICA and paying their end of FICA too. If they aren't doing that, technically they are breaking the law. The employer really shouldn't be making the contributions at all, and if they ever bothered to correct this, this article suggests that the employer may be legally allowed to drain the HSA account and take their money back out of it, but only for the same tax year. Apparently they can do this without your son's consent. If that's true, it may make sense to withdraw all money from that account immediately as soon as the money arrives, since they cannot take the money back if it is no longer there. Once the money leaves the HSA account the employer has no choice but to change it to income and if they don't, your son must declare it as such (which it sounds like he is prepared to do). This doesn't really answer your question of whether or not the employer can be penalized- I would assume yes, but not too badly. The worst case scenario for them would probably be just having to pay all the back FICA on those funds if they aren't doing so already. Maybe an interest penalty as well. All that being said, I'd recommend talking to an accountant. The most important thing you want to be sure of is that your son cannot possibly be liable for any wrongdoing. Particularly I would get confirmation on pulling money out of the HSA that you know shouldn't be there in the first place, just to make sure there is no possible way to get dinged for that.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
469960a575acb8bb80d19461b8e31822
|
Are there any Social Responsibility Index funds or ETFs?
|
[
{
"docid": "82f557e3bc6679dec9faab7b6e58cc05",
"text": "Vanguard offers an index fund. Their FTSE Social Index Fund. For more information on it, go here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "046d9cdbbb9b9aa2eb877b718d47e705",
"text": "Try this site for the funds http://www.socialinvest.org/resources/mfpc/ I'm not aware of any etfs. I'm sure some exist though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44d1af6d4395f2c235888d5616012479",
"text": "TIAA-Cref has their Social Choice Equity Fund, which is a Large Blend primarily equity fund that invests given the following consideration: The Fund primarily invests in companies that are screened by MSCI Inc. (“MSCI”) to favor companies that meet or exceed certain environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) criteria. The Fund does this by investing in U.S. companies included in one or more MSCI ESG Indices that meet or exceed the screening criteria described below. Prior to being eligible for inclusion in the MSCI ESG Indices, companies are subject to an ESG performance evaluation conducted by MSCI, consisting of numerous factors. The ESG evaluation process favors companies that are: (i) strong stewards of the environment; (ii) devoted to serving local communities where they operate and to human rights and philanthropy; (iii) committed to higher labor standards for their own employees and those in the supply chain; (iv) dedicated to producing high-quality and safe products; and (v) managed in an exemplary and ethical manner. https://www.tiaa.org/public/offer/products/mutual-funds/responsible-investing",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a88f190b9a34215e9598fa911b24648",
"text": "There is the iShares Jantzi Social Index Fund.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5cc462f14c7eb5e444e024987746662",
"text": "\"Look at the Calvert Funds. They have a variety of \"\"socially responsible\"\" funds with published selection standards. Beware of mixing personal politics with business.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f104aaaa262a368acdac8f46ddc2c436",
"text": "Index funds: Some of the funds listed by US SIF are index funds. ETFs: ETFdb has a list, though it's pretty short at the moment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65d63f2d360544b545ad1ec39c769653",
"text": "At the other end of the spectrum is the VICEX fund. it invests in industries such as tobacco, gaming, defense/weapons, liquor and other companies whose products or services are widely considered not to be socially responsible",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6d27696136ba1887f2e334a643403052",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88edd029ff0f292e8b015f2b0773a604",
"text": "\"Vanguard has a Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund. Their web page says \"\"Some individuals choose investments based on social and personal beliefs. For this type of investor, we have offered Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund since 2000. This low-cost fund seeks to track a benchmark of large- and mid-capitalization stocks that have been screened for certain social, human rights, and environmental criteria. In addition to stock market volatility, one of the fund’s other key risks is that this socially conscious approach may produce returns that diverge from those of the broad market.\"\" It looks like it would meet the qualifications you require, plus Vanguard funds usually have very low fees.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59b058bcdbb701d92ee0a1c7554b96c5",
"text": "The short answer to your question is yes. Index funds are about the easiest and most efficient diversified way to invest your money. Vanguard's are among the cheapest and best. Be aware, though, that passive income doesn't mean you do nothing for your money. In the case of investing, what you are doing is bearing risk. That is, you are being paid (on average) to put your money in a situation where you may lose money. If you keep your eye on the long-term prize, then when (not if) you sustain losses in your investment account, you will have the patience to leave the money in there. I'm a little confused by your wording about increasing your salary. Normally we think of index funds as a way to increase our wealth. If you are making new investments, presumably you have more salary than you need right now. Normal index funds will reinvest dividends automatically, so you will see the value of your investments rise but will not see any cash flows per se unless you are selling your holdings. If you want actual cash coming out of your investment, you can use ETF's to achieve the same type of investment and treat the dividends as a supplement to your income. Note, however, that some gains in your ETF will be in the form of capital gains and some will be dividends. Think more like 2% year per in dividend payments and the rest in capital gains. If your objective is to save for retirement, please consider investing through an IRA, Roth IRA, or through your 401(k). No need to give uncle sam a gift from your hard-earned money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0918254a089cca9fd94fee63324ec519",
"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.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "625a988bfb55940701a041358b283f3b",
"text": "Some of the ETFs you have specified have been delisted and are no longer trading. If you want to invest in those specific ETFs, you need to find a broker that will let you buy European equities such as those ETFs. Since you mentioned Merrill Edge, a discount broking platform, you could also consider Interactive Brokers since they do offer trading on the London Stock Exchange. There are plenty more though. Beware that you are now introducing a foreign exchange risk into your investment too and that taxation of capital returns/dividends may be quite different from a standard US-listed ETF. In the US, there are no Islamic or Shariah focussed ETFs or ETNs listed. There was an ETF (JVS) that traded from 2009-2010 but this had such little volume and interest, the fees probably didn't cover the listing expenses. It's just not a popular theme for North American listings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "788e2922438931125a014bc6c0e69ede",
"text": "Banks and energy are fundamental requirements for modern civilisation, and there are plenty of both who contribute a great deal to society's well-being, but I do know where you are coming from. The nature of the system we have is that the largest organisations tend to attract the most ruthless leaders who are prepared to screw over people and the environment in pursuit of their own selfish interest. Sociopaths cunning enough to not get caught out are rewarded and those who prioritise social benefits over the growth of their organisation are out-competed and make themselves less relevant. In theory, that should be kept in check by culture of social responsibility, a strong free press and good government, but those things have been eroding for a long time. There are mutual funds who seek to invest only in ethical companies. Ethics are subjective, so there's always the possibility that you'd disagree with their choices, or they make errors of judgement, but it's a better option than a fund that only considers returns. You've got a better chance that it is run by people who think ethics are important, so they might not see their clients as muppets to be fleeced (like Goldman Sachs apparently does). Alternatively, you could invest in a fund that contributes to growing a developing nation's economy, or only invests in renewable energy, or agriculture, or whatever you consider important.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b90dc3f316e64f6d93f0fd4e355334d",
"text": "An index fund is inherently diversified across its index -- no one stock will either make or break the results. In that case it's a matter of picking the index(es) you want to put the money into. ETFs do permit smaller initial purchases, which would let you do a reasonable mix of sectors. (That seems to be the one advantage of ETFs over traditional funds...?)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74ccaa6350c9ba08aed19a0257ccad94",
"text": "In the United States investing towards donation is a great idea because you can donate appreciated securities directly rather than donating cash. Notice how much this can benefit you: So you get to both (a) donate untaxed money and then (b) deduct that unrealized money from your income total on your tax return. With the above in mind, a good strategy for investing towards this type of donation would be to pick securities that are likely to increase in market value but not likely to produce any other sort of income. So bonds (which produce lots of interest income), or stocks with dividends, or equity mutual funds (which distribute dividends as capital gains) would all be suboptimal for this purpose. Of course, an even better strategy would be to establish a widely diversified investment portfolio without thought to future donations. Then, once a year (or whenever), evaluate all your investments and find some where the market value has increased. Then donate some of those shares. No special advance planning necessary. Note that your tax consequences could be more complicated depending on your exact situation. Read the section about Capital Gain Property in IRS Pub. 26 for all the details. There may be special limits on the amount you can deduct. Also, donations of short term capital gains are treated much less favorably, so make sure you donate only long term capital gain property.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd36cc84ea10cfdc1920099d015b5085",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6cfd328152923cd18a400e5ea5ef1a5",
"text": "Although you can't invest in an index, you can invest in a fund that basically invests in what the index is made up of. Example: In dealing with an auto index, you could find a fund that buys car companies's stock. The Google Finance list of funds dealing with INDEXDJX:REIT Although not pertaining to your quetion exactly, you may want to consider buying into Vanguard REIT ETF I hope this answers your question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fbaf8f14b52cfeedf9a2bdeac8dc656c",
"text": "They have ETFs for most of what you listed above. Except the deep-fried candy bars. You know that's just a distributed candy bar that is THEN fried right? They have a few religious ETFs as well as some socially responsible ones. There is no reason to make one based on a single person's preference though - ETFs make their money on fees. For that they need VOLUME. Move Volume = More Money Also, there are over 1,411 ETF's in the US as of 2014. That means there are a lot of options already. You could always create your own if you are a great salesperson though. Source",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3003d5746feb0494dc747bbe65128495",
"text": "New to Reddit (please forgive any struggles with propriety) and created this post because I could not find any relatively recent discussions on corporate social responsibility or created shared value. I'm passionate about advocating for an intuitively triple bottom line economic system where compassion is logically and holistically advantageous. Curious to know if anyone can provide sound arguments for why that vision will never come true or won't come true anytime soon. Basically, I want to have a real micro/macro critical discussion on CSR and CSV.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b5b90e9340e1eadbd41a2f035e6a76b",
"text": "\"Most people advocate a passively managed, low fee mutual fund that simply aims to track a given benchmark (say S&P 500). Few funds can beat the S&P consistently, so investors are often better served finding a no load passive fund. First thing I would do is ask your benefits rep why you don't have an option to invest in a Fidelity passive index fund like Spartan 500. Ideally young people would be heavy in equities and slowly divest for less risky stuff as retirement comes closer, and rebalance the portfolio regularly when market swings put you off risk targets. Few people know how to do this and actually do so. So there are mutual funds that do it for you, for a fee. These in are called \"\"lifecycle\"\" funds (The Freedom funds here). I hesitate to recommend them because they're still fairly new. If you take a look at underlying assets, these things generally just reinvest in the broker's other funds, which themselves have expenses & fees. And there's all kinds personal situations that might lead to you place a portion with a different investment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3907f73e157690cfd45309ed0bda2e5",
"text": "Does your current employer offer a 401(k)? Can you roll your IRA into that? You can borrow from a 401(k). If you leave your job, get fired etc., you have to pay back the loan but you can avoid the early withdrawal penalty at least; there may also be less of a tax issue since it is a loan and may not be considered income unless you don't pay it back. The terms for taking a loan are set by the 401(k) plan documents. If you explore this route make sure you see the plan document itself. Don't rely on what someone tells you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "007e22a9f926be047351fa6ff6a02a9c",
"text": "Although this scheme is likely to get shut down rather quickly by either your broker or credit card company some points you seem to have missed out on. Properly timed you should be able to get ~55 days of grace period (30 day billing cycle + 25 day grace period) assuming you pay everything off every month and charge immediately following the statement date. You will need to avoid certain card issuers that code all transactions with financial institutions as cash advances (Citibank in paticular). If it is possible it would be in your best interest to lower cash advance limits to 0 to avoid any chance of cash advance fees. If your credit card attempts to process it as a cash advance the transaction will just be declined and you won't be out anything. Otherwise one cash advance fee will eat several months worth of profits. As far as investments with guaranteed principal goes the only thing you can realistically do is money market accounts and maybe treasury notes. Anything else and the short term price fluctuation may leave you high and dry. If this scheme were to work you would be much better off attempting to get rewards for the purchases than anything you could invest in. If you used a 2% card and churned it every month you would be looking at a 24% return on credit card rewards. Even 1% rewards gives you a 12% annual return which is going to beat anything you could invest the money in.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f4ce4a9517dde032d891fa4d6ff99349
|
Investment strategies for young adults with entrepreneurial leanings?
|
[
{
"docid": "33a18214048d00ec5c14fc9655f16b82",
"text": "If you are an entrepreneur, and you are looking forward to strike on your own ( the very definition of entrepreneur) then I suggest that you don't invest in anything except your business and yourself. You will need all the money you have when you launch your business. There will be times when your revenue won't be able to cover your living costs, and that's when you need your cash. At that point of time, do you really want to have your cash tie up in stock market/property? Some more, instead of diverting your attention to learn how the stock market/property works, focus on your business. You will find that the reward is much, much greater. The annual stock market return is 7% to 15%. But the return from entrepreneurship can be many times higher than that. So make sure you go for the bigger prize, not the smaller gains. It's only when your business no longer requires your capital then you can try to find other means of investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a49bebeec026b0bc150ec6b1e3b579a",
"text": "Diversity of risk is always a good idea. The cheapest equity-based investment (in terms of management costs) is some form of tracker or indexed fund. They're relatively low risk and worth putting in a fixed amount for long-term investment. I agree with Ngu Soon Hui, you're going to need a lot of cash if you decide to start your own business. You may have to cover a significant amount of time without an income and you don't want all your cash tied up. However, putting all your money into one business is not good risk management. Keep some savings where they can be a lifeline, should you need it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a427a599b24669cd353c69fa32a4cf4d",
"text": "I talk about this subject on my blog on investing, I share everything that has worked for me personally and that makes sense. I would say the ideal investment would be to continue the entrepreneur route. Just make sure you have a clear plan and exit strategy. For me it's all about passion, I love blogging about personal experiences with life, money, and anything that affects our lives. Find something that you would talk about whether you were paid or not and create a business off of it. You'll never work a day in your life because you love it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "bc86e5c2e5f05a875a6661be66ed5bcb",
"text": "Sometimes invested capital is expected to earn interest, I've seen this be a stipulation in LLC operating agreements and Corporate bylaws. I thought this arrangement looks a little less than fair. BTW I'm a college freshman, though I do the finances for my parents' regulatory compliance and governance consulting company. Anyhow, that's just my two cents.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69e661b4e1154b9542f9d63bc5d62bbb",
"text": "So I did some queries on Google Scholar, and the term of art academics seem to use is target date fund. I notice divided opinions among academics on the matter. W. Pfau gave a nice set of citations of papers with which he disagrees, so I'll start with them. In 1969, Paul Sameulson published the paper Lifetime Portfolio Selection By Dynamic Stochaistic Programming, which found that there's no mathematical foundation for an age based risk tolerance. There seems to be a fundamental quibble relating to present value of future wages; if they are stable and uncorrelated with the market, one analysis suggests the optimal lifecycle investment should start at roughly 300 percent of your portfolio in stocks (via crazy borrowing). Other people point out that if your wages are correlated with stock returns, allocations to stock as low as 20 percent might be optimal. So theory isn't helping much. Perhaps with the advent of computers we can find some kind of empirical data. Robert Shiller authored a study on lifecycle funds when they were proposed for personal Social Security accounts. Lifecycle strategies fare poorly in his historical simulation: Moreover, with these life cycle portfolios, relatively little is contributed when the allocation to stocks is high, since earnings are relatively low in the younger years. Workers contribute only a little to stocks, and do not enjoy a strong effect of compounding, since the proceeds of the early investments are taken out of the stock market as time goes on. Basu and Drew follow up on that assertion with a set of lifecycle strategies and their contrarian counterparts: whereas a the lifecycle plan starts high stock exposure and trails off near retirement, the contrarian ones will invest in bonds and cash early in life and move to stocks after a few years. They show that contrarian strategies have higher average returns, even at the low 25th percentile of returns. It's only at the bottom 5 or 10 percent where this is reversed. One problem with these empirical studies is isolating the effect of the glide path from rebalancing. It could be that a simple fixed allocation works plenty fine, and that selling winners and doubling down on losers is the fundamental driver of returns. Schleef and Eisinger compare lifecycle strategy with a number of fixed asset allocation schemes in Monte Carlo simulations and conclude that a 70% equity, 30% long term corp bonds does as well as all of the lifecycle funds. Finally, the earlier W Pfau paper offers a Monte Carlo simulation similar to Schleef and Eisinger, and runs final portfolio values through a utility function designed to calculate diminishing returns to more money. This seems like a good point, as the risk of your portfolio isn't all or nothing, but your first dollar is more valuable than your millionth. Pfau finds that for some risk-aversion coefficients, lifecycles offer greater utility than portfolios with fixed allocations. And Pfau does note that applying their strategies to the historical record makes a strong recommendation for 100 percent stocks in all but 5 years from 1940-2011. So maybe the best retirement allocation is good old low cost S&P index funds!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18e2dbbfbc4a95e3a737de96b732f1da",
"text": "You are young so you have time on your side. This allows you to invest in more aggressive investments. I would do the following 1) Contribute at least what your company is willing to match on your 401k, if your company offers a Roth 401k use that instead of the normal 401k (When this becomes available to you) 2) Open a Roth IRA Contribute the maximum to this account ~$5500/year 3) Live below your means, setup a budget and try and save/invest a minimum of 50% of your salary, do not get used to spending more money. With each bonus or salary increase a minimum of 75% of it should go toward your savings/investment. This will keep you from rapidly increasing your spending budget. 3) Invest in real estate (this could be its own post). Being young and not too far out of college you have probably been moving every year and have not accumulated so much stuff that it makes moving difficult. I would utilize your FHA loan slot to buy a multifamily property (2-4 Units) for your first property using only 3.5% down payment (you can put more down if you like). Learn how to analyze properties first and find a great Realtor/Mentor. Then I would continue as a NOMAD investor. Where you move every year into a new owner occupied property and turn the previous into a rental. This allows you to put 3-5% down payment of properties that you would otherwise have to put 20-25% and since you are young you can afford the risk. You should check out this article/website as it is very informative and can show you the returns that you could earn. Young Professional Nomad Good luck I am in a very similar situation",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e581c27f5031f5164a7926715fae4f3",
"text": "Whey protein, coffee, skills, skills, skills did I mention skills? Learn useful things and no debt. As for actual investment vehicles.. I have bad views of what is going to happen of the next 10 years.. I doubt you'll be allowed to own anything you invested in....",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db4f592662f61d0769da885278c96784",
"text": "An ideal investment for a highly risk tolerant college grad with a background in software and programming, is a software company. That's because it's the kind of investment that you will be able to judge better than most other people, including yours truly. Hopefully, one day the software company for a highly risk tolerant investor will be your own.(Ask Bill Gates or even Michael Dell, although the latter was more involved in hardware.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c00e188521bb82ead41c19c72e51825",
"text": "\"Aggressiveness in a retirement portfolio is usually a function of your age and your risk tolerance. Your portfolio is usually a mix of the following asset classes: You can break down these asset classes further, but each one is a topic unto itself. If you are young, you want to invest in things that have a higher return, but are more volatile, because market fluctuations (like the current financial meltdown) will be long gone before you reach retirement age. This means that at a younger age, you should be investing more in stocks and foreign/developing countries. If you are older, you need to be into more conservative investments (bonds, money market, etc). If you were in your 50s-60s and still heavily invested in stock, something like the current financial crisis could have ruined your retirement plans. (A lot of baby boomers learned this the hard way.) For most of your life, you will probably be somewhere in between these two. Start aggressive, and gradually get more conservative as you get older. You will probably need to re-check your asset allocation once every 5 years or so. As for how much of each investment class, there are no hard and fast rules. The idea is to maximize return while accepting a certain amount of risk. There are two big unknowns in there: (1) how much return do you expect from the various investments, and (2) how much risk are you willing to accept. #1 is a big guess, and #2 is personal opinion. A general portfolio guideline is \"\"100 minus your age\"\". This means if you are 20, you should have 80% of your retirement portfolio in stocks. If you are 60, your retirement portfolio should be 40% stock. Over the years, the \"\"100\"\" number has varied. Some financial advisor types have suggested \"\"150\"\" or \"\"200\"\". Unfortunately, that's why a lot of baby boomers can't retire now. Above all, re-balance your portfolio regularly. At least once a year, perhaps quarterly if the market is going wild. Make sure you are still in-line with your desired asset allocation. If the stock market tanks and you are under-invested in stocks, buy more stock, selling off other funds if necessary. (I've read interviews with fund managers who say failure to rebalance in a down stock market is one of the big mistakes people make when managing a retirement portfolio.) As for specific mutual fund suggestions, I'm not going to do that, because it depends on what your 401k or IRA has available as investment options. I do suggest that your focus on selecting a \"\"passive\"\" index fund, not an actively managed fund with a high expense ratio. Personally, I like \"\"total market\"\" funds to give you the broadest allocation of small and big companies. (This makes your question about large/small cap stocks moot.) The next best choice would be an S&P 500 index fund. You should also be able to find a low-cost Bond Index Fund that will give you a healthy mix of different bond types. However, you need to look at expense ratios to make an informed decision. A better-performing fund is pointless if you lose it all to fees! Also, watch out for overlap between your fund choices. Investing in both a Total Market fund, and an S&P 500 fund undermines the idea of a diversified portfolio. An aggressive portfolio usually includes some Foreign/Developing Nation investments. There aren't many index fund options here, so you may have to go with an actively-managed fund (with a much higher expense ratio). However, this kind of investment can be worth it to take advantage of the economic growth in places like China. http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/04/27/how-to-create-your-own-target-date-mutual-fund/\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f06a650f6e12c270ce086e21c87761e3",
"text": "\"Great question! While investing in individual stocks can be very useful as a learning experience, my opinion is that concentrating an entire portfolio in a few companies' stock is a mistake for most investors, and especially for a novice for several reasons. After all, only a handful of professional investors have ever beaten the market over the long term by picking stocks, so is it really worth trying? If you could, I'd say go work on Wall Street and good luck to you. Diversification For many investors, diversification is an important reason to use an ETF or index fund. If they were to focus on a few sectors or companies, it is more likely that they would have a lop-sided risk profile and might be subject to a larger downside risk potential than the market as a whole, i.e. \"\"don't put all your eggs in one basket\"\". Diversification is important because of the nature of compound investing - if you take a significant hit, it will take you a long time to recover because all of your future gains are building off of a smaller base. This is one reason that younger investors often take a larger position in equities, as they have longer to recover from significant market declines. While it is very possible to build a balanced, diversified portfolio from individual stocks, this isn't something I'd recommend for a new investor and would require a substantial college-level understanding of investments, and in any case, this portfolio would have a more discrete efficient frontier than the market as a whole. Lower Volatility Picking individual stocks or sectors would could also significantly increase or decrease the overall volatility of the portfolio relative to the market, especially if the stocks are highly cyclical or correlated to the same market factors. So if they are buying tech stocks, they might see bigger upswings and downswings compared to the market as a whole, or see the opposite effect in the case of utilities. In other words, owning a basket of individual stocks may result in an unintended volatility/beta profile. Lower Trading Costs and Taxes Investors who buy individual stocks tend to trade more in an attempt to beat the market. After accounting for commission fees, transaction costs (bid/ask spread), and taxes, most individual investors get only a fraction of the market average return. One famous academic study finds that investors who trade more trail the stock market more. Trading also tends to incur higher taxes since short term gains (<1 year) are taxed at marginal income tax rates that are higher than long term capital gains. Investors tend to trade due to behavioral failures such as trying to time the market, being overconfident, speculating on stocks instead of long-term investing, following what everyone else is doing, and getting in and out of the market as a result of an emotional reaction to volatility (ie buying when stocks are high/rising and selling when they are low/falling). Investing in index funds can involve minimal fees and discourages behavior that causes investors to incur excessive trading costs. This can make a big difference over the long run as extra costs and taxes compound significantly over time. It's Hard to Beat the Market since Markets are Quite Efficient Another reason to use funds is that it is reasonable to assume that at any point in time, the market does a fairly good job of pricing securities based on all known information. In other words, if a given stock is trading at a low P/E relative to the market, the market as a whole has decided that there is good reason for this valuation. This idea is based on the assumption that there are already so many professional analysts and traders looking for arbitrage opportunities that few such opportunities exist, and where they do exist, persist for only a short time. If you accept this theory generally (obviously, the market is not perfect), there is very little in the way of insight on pricing that the average novice investor could provide given limited knowledge of the markets and only a few hours of research. It might be more likely that opportunities identified by the novice would reflect omissions of relevant information. Trying to make money in this way then becomes a bet that other informed, professional investors are wrong and you are right (options traders, for example). Prices are Unpredictable (Behave Like \"\"Random\"\" Walks) If you want to make money as a long-term investor/owner rather than a speculator/trader, than most of the future change in asset prices will be a result of future events and information that is not yet known. Since no one knows how the world will change or who will be tomorrow's winners or losers, much less in 30 years, this is sometimes referred to as a \"\"random walk.\"\" You can point to fundamental analysis and say \"\"X company has great free cash flow, so I will invest in them\"\", but ultimately, the problem with this type of analysis is that everyone else has already done it too. For example, Warren Buffett famously already knows the price at which he'd buy every company he's interested in buying. When everyone else can do the same analysis as you, the price already reflects the market's take on that public information (Efficent Market theory), and what is left is the unknown (I wouldn't use the term \"\"random\"\"). Overall, I think there is simply a very large potential for an individual investor to make a few mistakes with individual stocks over 20+ years that will really cost a lot, and I think most investors want a balance of risk and return versus the largest possible return, and don't have an interest in developing a professional knowledge of stocks. I think a better strategy for most investors is to share in the future profits of companies buy holding a well-diversified portfolio for the long term and to avoid making a large number of decisions about which stocks to own.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19a399279fa3d682c76b0f1cb8422a2e",
"text": "IMO almost any sensible decision is better than parking money in a retirement account, when you are young. Some better choices: 1) Invest in yourself, your skills, your education. Grad school is one option within that. 2) Start a small business, build a customer base. 3) Travel, adventure, see the world. Meet and talk to lots of different people. Note that all my advice revolves around investing in YOURSELF, growing your skills and/or your experiences. This is worth FAR more to you than a few percent a year. Take big risks when you are young. You will need maybe $1m+ (valued at today's money) to retire comfortably. How will you get there? Most people can only achieve that by taking bigger risks, and investing in themselves.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a5855b5ced372bdbf8af7f1267c5ced",
"text": "I think your best strategy is to learn more about the behavior of what you're investing in. Learn everything you can about it. Specialize in it. The more you study, the more the proper strategy will present itself. Answer the questions you ask in paragraph 3 through your own study.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0602eb2408df6d73c04c5a0a08efd72a",
"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\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d1c127a3e9e3982f880d91565d518c2",
"text": "I recall similar strategies when (in the US) interest rates were quite a bit higher than now. The investment company put 75% or so into into a 5 year guaranteed bond, the rest was placed in stock index options. In effect, one had a guaranteed return (less inflation, of course) of principal, and a chance for some market gains especially if it went a lot higher over the next 5 years. The concept is sound if executed correctly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43e29fa4421236af230cf2f47a04c70e",
"text": "\"I would like to add my accolades in saving $3000, it is an accomplishment that the majority of US households are unable to achieve. source While it is something, in some ways it is hardly anything. Working part time at a entry level job will earn you almost three times this amount per year, and with the same job you can earn about as much in two weeks as this investment is likely to earn, in the market in one year. All this leads to one thing: At your age you should be looking to increase your income. No matter if it is college or a high paying trade, whatever you can do to increase your life time earning potential would be the best investment for this money. I would advocate a more patient approach. Stick the money in the bank until you complete your education enough for an \"\"adult job\"\". Use it, if needed, for training to get that adult job. Get a car, a place of your own, and a sufficient enough wardrobe. Save an emergency fund. Then invest with impunity. Imagine two versions of yourself. One with basic education, a average to below average salary, that uses this money to invest in the stock market. Eventually that money will be needed and it will probably be pulled out of the market at an in opportune time. It might worth less than the original 3K! Now imagine a second version of yourself that has an above average salary due to some good education or training. Perhaps that 3K was used to help provide that education. However, this second version will probably earn 25,000 to 75,000 per year then the first version. Which one do you want to be? Which one do you think will be wealthier? Better educated people not only earn more, they are out of work less. You may want to look at this chart.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8fa04eaae270a59d75c5b36c12e036b",
"text": "\"Between \"\"fresh out of college\"\" and \"\"I have no debts, and a support system in place which because of which I can take higher risks.\"\" I would put every penny I could afford in the riskiest investment platform I was willing to. Holding onto money in a bank account is likely to cost you %1-%2 a year depending on what interest rates are and what inflation looks like. Money invested in a market could loose it all for you or you could become an overnight millionaire. Loosing it all would suck but you are young you will bounce back. Losing it slowly to inflation is just silly when you are young. If there is something you know you have to do in the next few years start to save for it but otherwise use the fact that you are young and have a safety net to try to make money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a3c83dcfcc7f65c371782525e80bd26",
"text": "Given what you state you should shop around for an advisor. Think of the time required to pursue your strategies that you list? They already have studied much of what you seek to learn about. Any good investor should understand the basics. This is Canadian based but many of the concepts are universal. Hope you find it helpful. http://www.getsmarteraboutmoney.ca/Pages/default.aspx",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "551e04ec2baa8f1a64f61ef6cd41daff",
"text": "The vanilla advice is investing your age in bonds and the rest in stocks (index funds, of course). So if you're 25, have 75% in stock index fund and 25% in bond index. Of course, your 401k is tax sheltered, so you want keep bonds there, assuming you have taxable investments. When comparing specific funds, you need to pay attention to expense ratios. For example, Vanguard's SP 500 index has an expense ratio of .17%. Many mutual funds charge around 1.5%. That means every year, 1.5% of the fund total goes to the fund manager(s). And that is regardless of up or down market. Since you're young, I would start studying up on personal finance as much as possible. Everyone has their favorite books and websites. For sane, no-nonsense investment advise I would start at bogleheads.org. I also recommend two books - This is assuming you want to set up a strategy and not fuss with it daily/weekly/monthly. The problem with so many financial strategies is they 1) don't work, i.e. try to time the market or 2) are so overly complex the gains are not worth the effort. I've gotten a LOT of help at the boglehead forums in terms of asset allocation and investment strategy. Good luck!",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
23d64cd2b58769c50205bba6ea57f176
|
Is there a tax deduction for renting office space in service of employer?
|
[
{
"docid": "e74a34907bbd9a96c944e1b07530a98a",
"text": "\"I disagree with BrenBran, I don't think this is qualified as unreimbursed employee expense. For it to qualify, it has to be ordinary and necessary, and specifically - necessary for your employer. This is not the case for you, as there's no such necessity. From employer's perspective, you can work from your home just as well. In fact, the expense is your personal, as it is your choice, not \"\"unreimbursed employee expense\"\" since your employer didn't even ask you to do it. You should clarify this with a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in New York).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01146bc5aa9569a2197f4c8911640786",
"text": "\"According to this post on TurboTax forums, you could deduct it as an \"\"Unreimbursed Employee\"\" expense. This would seem consistent with the IRS Guidelines on such deductions: An expense is ordinary if it is common and accepted in your trade, business, or profession. An expense is necessary if it is appropriate and helpful to your business. An expense does not have to be required to be considered necessary. Office rent is not listed explicitly among the examples of deductible unreimbursed employee expenses, but this doesn't mean it's not allowed. Of course you should check with a tax professional if you want to be sure.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4df5bb9fc859ff7e608102a75e71a935",
"text": "\"If you are a telecommuter and in good terms with your employer, then all you need is contact your employer and explain your situation. Ask them for a short letter that indicates: \"\"1. they require you to work from a privately rented office (or from a home office for those who prefer working from home), 2. this is one of the terms of your employment, and, 3. they will not reimburse you for this expense.\"\" With this letter in your hand, you satisify both the \"\"convenience of employer\"\" test AND the deduction of the rent for your private office as a unreimbursed employee expense. The IRS cannot expect your employer to open an office branch in your city just for your sake, nor can they expect you to commute to your employer's city for work, which is an impossiblity considering the distance. Additionally, the IRS cannot \"\"force\"\" telecommuters to work from home. The key is to get a letter from your employer. You'd be surprised how easily they are willing to write such letter for you.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c1bf45ddcbca898af994b39c75a2d143",
"text": "\"No, you can't deduct any of that. What they're talking about is a flexible spending plan, otherwise known as \"\"Use it or lose it\"\" money. You choose to put pre-tax dollars into a restricted fund. This money is not taxed, in fact technically, it's not even income. You can only spend out of that fund to buy parking, tolls, transit tickets, things like that. Any money not used for those purposes in a suitable time period evaporates. Gone, and irrecoverable. You can't even take the loss as a tax deduction! You have to set this account up with your employer. You can't just dig up your old transit and parking receipts and stick those on your Schedule A. Take 3 people. As you can see, Fran is shooting herself in the foot. This is where these plans can go wrong.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce475229839fec15efb664cd7ad7ac50",
"text": "Your home doesn't belong to the partnership, it belongs to you. So you can (if qualified) deduct home office usage as a business expense on your individual tax return. Same goes to your partner. Similarly any other unreimbursed expense.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee21749916f89670ecfa90cfb2e9c360",
"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).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14f144db69e3441a4aad7a98c912dc3d",
"text": "\"In the US tax system, you cannot \"\"write-off\"\" capital assets. You have to depreciate them, with very specific exceptions. So while you may be purchasing $4500 of equipment, your deduction may be significantly less. For example, computers are depreciated over the period of 5 years, so if you bought a $1000 computer - you write off $200/year until it is completely depreciated, not $1000 at once. There are exceptions however, for example - IRC Sec. 179 is one of them. But you should talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about whether it is applicable to the specific expense you want to \"\"write off\"\" and to what extent. Also, keep in mind that State laws may not conform to the Federal IRC. While you may be able to use Sec. 179 or other exceptions and deduct your expenses on your Federal return, you may end up with a whole different set of deductions on your State return. And last but not least: equipment that you depreciated or otherwise \"\"wrote off\"\" that is later sold - is income to you, since depreciation/deduction reduces basis. Ah, and keep in mind - the IRS frowns upon Schedule C business that consistently show losses. If you have losses for more than 3 in the last 5 years - your business may be classified as \"\"hobby\"\", and deductions may be disallowed. But the bottom line is that yes, it is possible to end up with 0 tax liability with business income offset by business deductions. However, not for prolonged periods of time (not for years consistently, but first year may fly). Again - you should talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). It is well worth the money. Do not rely on answers on free Internet forums as a tax advice - it is not.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a615eaaf29fdac7979f7a831c284c25",
"text": "\"If you are talking about a home office, you don't \"\"charge\"\" the business anything. If the area is used exclusively as an office you pro-rate by square footage just the actual expenses. TurboTax recent published an article \"\"Can I Take the Home Office Deduction?\"\" which is a must read if you don't understand the process. (Note: I authored said article.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97cbde3c965690a53a5b344eaf7ebe19",
"text": "Forms 1099 and W2 are mutually exclusive. Employers file both, not the employees. 1099 is filed for contractors, W2 is filed for employees. These terms are defined in the tax code, and you may very well be employee, even though your employer pays you as a contractor and issues 1099. You may complain to the IRS if this is the case, and have them explain the difference to the employer (at the employer's expense, through fines and penalties). Employers usually do this to avoid providing benefits (and by the way also avoid paying payroll taxes). If you're working as a contractor, lets check your follow-up questions: where do i pay my taxes on my hourly that means does the IRS have a payment center for the tax i pay. If you're an independent contractor (1099), you're supposed to pay your own taxes on a quarterly basis using the form 1040-ES. Check this page for more information on your quarterly payments and follow the links. If you're a salaried employee elsewhere (i.e.: receive W2, from a different employer), then instead of doing the quarterly estimates you can adjust your salary withholding at that other place of work to cover for your additional income. To do that you submit an updated form W4 there, check with the payroll department on details. Is this a hobby tax No such thing, hobby income is taxed as ordinary income. The difference is that hobby cannot be at loss, while regular business activity can. If you're a contractor, it is likely that you're not working at loss, so it is irrelevant. what tax do i pay the city? does this require a sole proprietor license? This really depends on your local laws and the type of work you're doing and where you're doing it. Most likely, if you're working from your employer's office, you don't need any business license from the city (unless you have to be licensed to do the job). If you're working from home, you might need a license, check with the local government. These are very general answers to very general questions. You should seek a proper advice from a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) for your specific case.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3105ab8826e6eb604c6406d337dbae3",
"text": "You can claim a deduction only if all of your business is conducted from the home, i.e. your home is your principal place of business - not just if you work from home sometimes. The CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) has pretty strict guidelines listed here, but once you're sure you qualify for a deduction, the next step would be to determine what portion of your home qualifies. You cannot attempt to deduct your entire mortgage simply because you run your business out of your home. The portion of your mortgage and other related & allowable home expense deductions has to be pro-rated to be equal to or less than the portion of your home you use for business. Simply put, if your business is operated out of a 120 sq-ft self-contained space, and your home's total square-footage is 2400 sq-ft, you can deduct 5% of your expenses (120/2,400 = 0.05). Hope this helps!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b3eb961fe4796f80757fdd694888379",
"text": "IRS Publication 463 is a great resource to help you understand what you can and can't deduct. It's not a yes/no question, it depends on the exact company use, other use, and contemporaneous record keeping.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27be59dd2f4445169ef9d91862353b69",
"text": "It would be unusual but it is possible that the expenses could be very high compared to your income. The IRS in pub 529 explains the deduction. You can deduct only unreimbursed employee expenses that are: Paid or incurred during your tax year, For carrying on your trade or business of being an employee, and Ordinary and necessary. An expense is ordinary if it is common and accepted in your trade, business, or profession. An expense is necessary if it is appropriate and helpful to your business. An expense doesn't have to be required to be considered necessary. The next part lists examples. I have cut the list down to highlight ones that could be large. You may be able to deduct the following items as unreimbursed employee expenses. Damages paid to a former employer for breach of an employment contract. Job search expenses in your present occupation. Legal fees related to your job. Licenses and regulatory fees. Malpractice insurance premiums. Research expenses of a college professor. Rural mail carriers' vehicle expenses. Tools and supplies used in your work. Work clothes and uniforms if required and not suitable for everyday use. Work-related education. If the term of employment was only part of the year, one or more of the these could dwarf your income for the year. Before deducting something that large be sure you can document it. I believe the IRS computers would flag the return and I wouldn't be surprised if they ask for additional proof.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "823b2906fd183883e78f1d088118234d",
"text": "1.If the compensation that I receive is over 10 lakhs, how much would be deducted as tax No tax will be deducted by the company. You have to calculate the tax and pay in Advance by yourself. There are quite a few Banks that give you online facility to pay your tax. There is no service tax. Otherwise the tax slabs are right. The current budget has slightly revised the tax brackets. 2.So are these the right taxes and % that Need to be paid? If not do let me know the correct deductions. Yes. Revised brackets for financial year 2014-2015 are NIL for first 2.5 lakhs. Other brackets are unchanged. 4.What others legal options I have to decrease the tax liability? As an employee of my ex company I had once taken an FD (that reduced my tax) The options are same as salaried, i.e. you can claim exemption under 80C or on interest of housing loan, etc. As a consultant certain expenses can also be deducted. You should also talk to a CA who can help you with this as there will be some paperwork involved.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8f0a7821b298099eff5e8c6d8591334",
"text": "If your landlord is OK with you subletting your apartment - then that's all that the landlord has to do with that. It doesn't really matter if the landlord is a private person or a publicly trade corporation/fund. No relevance at all. As to your own reporting - you're receiving rent. That is income to you. You can deduct the portion of your expenses (including rent) attributable to the area you rent out. All this goes to your Schedule E. Any positive remainder becomes your taxable income. Any deduction must be substantiated (i.e.: you'll have to keep all the receipts for all the expenses you used for the deduction for as long as the tax year is open, which is at least the next 3 years after filing).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "052ed6cf9f53c654a8d17cb0e89b4f2f",
"text": "You cannot deduct expenses directly. However, your employer may participate in programs to allow you to make a pretax deduction capped at $255 per month to pay for certain commuting expenses. For personal car commuters the main category is to pay for parking. IRS guidelines Qualified Transportation Benefits This exclusion applies to the following benefits. A ride in a commuter highway vehicle between the employee's home and work place. A transit pass. Qualified parking. Qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement. You may provide an employee with any one or more of the first three benefits at the same time. However, the exclusion for qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement isn't available in any month the employee receives any of the other qualified transportation benefits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbca7b934fbe5d2da0b11f7e2c079e46",
"text": "The answer is simple. You can generally claim a deduction for an expense if that expense was used to derive an income. Of course social policy sometimes gets in the way and allows for deductions where they usually wouldn't be allowed. Your rent is not tax deductible because this expense is not used to derive your income. If however you were working from your home, example - you had a home based business, and you dedicated a part of your home for your work, say an office, then part of your rent may then become tax deductible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00b414e442d21632884141ce59c4e87a",
"text": "\"You will need to see a tax expert. Your edited question includes the line For the short term, we will be \"\"renting\"\" it to my wife's grandmother at a deep discount. According to the instructions for schedule E If you rented out a dwelling unit that you also used for personal purposes during the year, you may not be able to deduct all the expenses for the rental part. “Dwelling unit” (unit) means a house, apartment, condominium, or similar property. For each property listed on line 1a, report the number of days in the year each property was rented at fair rental value and the number of days of personal use. A day of personal use is any day, or part of a day, that the unit was used by: I have no idea how this will work for Schedule C.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b716bade03dd6b48d556e5f54e846855",
"text": "It depends on the structure of your business. Are you a sole proprietor filing Schedule C on your 1040, or an S-corp, or part of a partnership? The treatment of a home office will differ depending on business entity.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
88851f5fe952eb2fcc4abf913853bccf
|
Taxes paid in USA for sending money to parents in India
|
[
{
"docid": "f0388f381186b61bc293f24e9f31396e",
"text": "\"I'm not certain about international transfers, but that amount is large enough that it could be subject to gift tax. https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Frequently-Asked-Questions-on-Gift-Taxes Note that the threshold for this tax is \"\"per person, per person\"\". For example, if you gave your father $12,5k, and gave your mother $12.5k, and your wife gave them each the same amounts, each of those gifts is small enough to be within the $14,000 exclusion and you and your wife would owe no gift tax. If you aren't married, you might want to spread this gift over two years to stay under that threshold.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ac6ae89f7f5eb0d3df5301a48dd439f6",
"text": "If you are a non resident Indian, the income you earn and transfer to India is tax free in India. You can hold the funds in USD or convert then into INR, there is no tax implication.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa6b5fd3a2691763e0186d3daa30563b",
"text": "Buyer A didn't send money to the US government, Buyer A sent money to Seller B, a US resident. I think the most common way to facilitate a transaction like this is a regular old international wire transfer. Buyer A in India goes to their bank to exchange X INR to $1mm USD. $1mm USD is then wire transferred to Seller B's bank account. The USD was sold to Buyer A, either by funds held by Buyer A's bank, or foreign exchange markets, or possibly the US government. Seller B may owe taxes on the gain derived from the sale of this thing to Buyer A, but that taxation would arise regardless of who the buyer was. Buyer A may owe an import tax in India upon importing whatever they bought. I don't think it's common to tax imported money in this sort of transactional setting though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7109782443dbe86b480761ec2425af6a",
"text": "Gifts from your parents are not treated as income for tax purposes. You should not include that in your subsidy calculation. If you are here on a student-visa and have been in the US for less than 5 years, then you are considered a non-resident alien, and you are not required to buy a qualified plan through the insurance marketplace. You might be able to get a cheaper student plan through your school, but the subsidy might be enough that it's still worth it when calculated correctly. If you are a resident-alien or you are a citizen of the US, then you are required to get coverage, though you can choose not to purchase coverage and pay the tax for not having creditable coverage. That tax cannot be collected by the IRS unless you have already had federal tax withheld. They can only confiscate your tax return money to recoup that money. I don't have enough information to recommend one way or the other what you should do, but I would bet that if you recalculated your subsidy without including your parents income it would cover the majority of the cost. You should also consider applying for Medicaid if you meet the eligibility requirements in your state.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d740f817b6dd1b882121203b2da3093",
"text": "From an Indian tax point of view, this transaction is not taxable to you or your father.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "42d575bfd21710239ab5dd5e4ad8f265",
"text": "\"Assuming you are Non-Resident Indian for tax purposes, this transaction is not taxable. Indian tax law doesn't qualify \"\"gifts\"\" as taxable income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f32c9c6244b8cc79f6bd57cf5386d75",
"text": "Are you actually supporting both your mother and father? Is the account joint? Is your mother aware of the gift and has control over the money same as your father? If you cannot answer (and provide support) yes to all these questions, then I doubt you could make such a claim. If the fact that the bank account is only in your father's name is a mere technicality for whatever reason, and the money is in fact intended, controlled by and benefits both of your parents, then I believe you can. See more details about gift tax in the IRS publication 950.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7da971f8aec74ab1da208c8d182c2eb1",
"text": "\"Context: My parents overseas (Japan) sent me a little over $100,000 to cover an expensive tuition payment and moderate living expenses in 2014. They are not US residents, Green card holders or citizens. They did not remit the tuition payment directly to the school. I am a resident (for tax). This is enough to answer yes. That's basically the set of requirements for filing: you received >$100K from a non-US person and you yourself are a US person. You have to report it, and unless it is taxable income - it is a gift. Taxable income is reported on the form 1040, gifts are reported on the form 3520. The fact that in Japan it is not considered a gift is irrelevant. Gift tax laws vary between countries, some (many) don't have gift taxes at all. But the reporting requirement is based on the US law and the US definition of \"\"gift\"\". As I said above, if it is not a gift per the US law, then it is taxable income (and then you report all of it regardless of the amount and pay taxes). Had they paid directly to the institution, you wouldn't need to count it as income/gift to you because you didn't actually receive the money (so no income) and it went directly to cover your qualified education expenses (so no gift), but this is not the case in your situation. Whether or not this will be reported by the IRS back to Japan - I don't know, but it was probably already reported to the authorities in Japan by the banks through which the transfers went through. As to whether it will trigger an audit - doesn't really matter. It was, most likely, reported to the IRS already by the receiving banks in the US, so not reporting it on your tax return (either as income or on form 3520) may indeed raise some flags.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44a85d3ea44d8387f4232a5f7de85379",
"text": "From India Tax Point of view, your parents can Gift you the money. There is no tax due to this in India for your parents or for you. Transferring the funds out of India is also possible. Under the Liberalized Remittance Scheme by RBI, one can transfer upto 200,000 USD. Please check with your Bank for the exact paperwork. Typically PAN and a CA certificate mentioning the relevant clauses and certifying the purpose is required. Bank may have some more paperwork on its own.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a37ba433298a25962301a4c5df8a2d03",
"text": "You haven't indicated where the funds are held. They should ideally be held in NRO account. If you haven't, have this done ASAP. Once the funds are in NRO account, you can repatriate this outside of India subject to a limit of 1 million USD. A CA certificate is required. Please contact your Indian Bank and they should be able to guide you. There are no tax implications of this in US as much as I know, someone else may post the US tax aspect.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d47cb9cea747de0f04b7c04a16ffc7ed",
"text": "No, you can not claim any sort of tax benefit. The main problem is that your parent is not living with you, though even if they were, they would also have to be dependent on you. I cannot find a good definition of 'dependant', but from what I can find, they must have only a trivial amount of income and must rely on you for at least 50% of their living expenses. Useful links include: Note that your parent may (but probably won't) be required to pay taxes on the money you submit to them. I have no experience whatsoever with Indian tax law, just pointing this out as a possibility.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f52e5d1fb5b3ba51acba2f3657db5615",
"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.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3da6581a70d5dbae8ecdb677ea0df69d",
"text": "\"The Option 2 in your answer is how most of the money is moved cross border. It is called International Transfer, most of it carried out using the SWIFT network. This is expensive, at a minimum it costs in the range of USD 30 to USD 50. This becomes a expensive mechanism to transfer small sums of money that individuals are typically looking at. Over a period of years, the low value payments by individuals between certain pair of countries is quite high, example US-India, US-China, Middle-East-India, US-Mexico etc ... With the intention to reduce cost, Banks have built a different work-flow, this is the Option 1. This essentially works on getting money from multiple individuals in EUR. The aggregated sum is converted into INR, then transferred to partner Bank in India via Single SWIFT. Alongside the partner bank is also sent a file of instructions having the credit account. The Partner Bank in India will use the local clearing network [these days NEFT] to credit the funds to the Indian account. Option 3: Other methods include you writing a check in EUR and sending it over to a friend/relative in India to deposit this into Indian Account. Typically very nominal costs. Typically one month of timelines. Option 4: Another method would be to visit an Indian Bank and ask them to issue a \"\"Rupee Draft/Bankers Check\"\" payable in India. The charges for this would be higher than Option 3, less than Option 1. Mail this to friend/relative in India to deposit this into Indian Account. Typically couple of days timelines for transfer to happen.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b71820880b93dab670918282f1115cc2",
"text": "I wouldn't send it to India in the first place because their financial system is a bit sketchy, I would look into countries like Germany to send the money to you if you're looking to avoid high taxes with a very stable financial system",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c27632e969fad3685514e2a3c6f5149",
"text": "Taxability does not depending on transfer of money to NRO. It depending on your tax status in India. Assuming you have spent more than 182 days outside India for the financial year 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016, you would be NRI. I am transferring money from my Maldives saving account to my Indian Saving account(NRO). Will it be taxable in India? Assuming you are NRI, this is not taxable. Any interest in NRO account is taxable in India. Again I am transferring the money from my Indian savings account to my dad's Indian saving account. Will it be taxable? This is not taxable to you. To your father it would be treated as Gift. As per Gift tax, this is not taxable to your father as well. If the amount is large, keep proper documentation of the transaction. Any income that is generated i.e. interest etc on this amount will be taxable to your father.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3369c12dde48989e1b07d98607b795fb",
"text": "You won't be paying any taxes for income generated in the US as long as you are not-resident in India. You pay US taxes. You can file a null return in India just in case (all zeroes). If you have any income in India - bank deposits in your name, house rental income and so on - that needs to be declared and tax needs to be paid in India.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3e85773d159a824b274c61e37ec7fda9
|
Is it financially advantageous and safe to rent out my personal car?
|
[
{
"docid": "78becc0932c47c865cd73ac9b9f78f5b",
"text": "The moment that you start to rent your car to strangers you are talking about using your car as a business. Will it be financially advantageous? If you can convince somebody to rent your vehicle for more than your required monthly payments then it might be. Of course you have to determine what would be the true cost of ownership for you. It could include your auto loan, and insurance, but you would be saving on the garage costs. Of course if you don't have it rented 100% of the time you will still have some costs. Your insurance company will need to know about your plan. They charge based on the risk. If you aren't honest about the situation they won't cover you if something goes wrong. The local government may want to know. They charge different car registration fees for businesses. If there are business taxes they will want that. Taxes. you are running a business so everybody from the federal governemnt to the local government may want a cut. Plus you will have to depreciate the value of the item. Turning the item from a personal use item to a business item can have tax issues. If you don't own it 100% the lender may also have concerns about making sure their collateral survives. Is it safe? and from the comments to the question : Should I do a contract or something that would protect me? Nope. it isn't safe unless you do have a contract. Of course that contract will have to be drawn up by a lawyer to make sure it protects you from theft, negligence, breach of contract.... You will have to be able to not just charge rent, but be able to repossess the car if they don't return it on time. You will have to be able to evaluate if the renter is trustworthy, or you may find your car is in far worse shape if you can even get it back.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46c6d4b8e8228b07600d4c53b5c3cc8f",
"text": "\"I'm going to address a couple of extra issues over and above mhoran_psprep's great answer. Insurance A lot of the jobs you describe require that you have additional insurance over and above what you currently have, normally insurance that lets you drive for payment. You should insist that anyone you rent to has this insurance. If not, you may find yourself liable and uninsured. Also you should be aware of this story: \"\"Quebec Uber drivers have cars seized, fined up to $7,500\"\".\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "86044438cd8e8eda0053178579e091ae",
"text": "\"My wife and I have been car-free since 2011. We spent about $3500 on car shares and rentals last year (I went through it recently to flag trips that were medical transportation and unreimbursed work related for taxes). This compares favorably with the last year of car ownership. I had reached a point I started needing $200+ repairs every couple of months and the straw that broke the camels back was a (dealer mechanic estimate but still) $3000 estimate to pass emissions inspection. Over 11 years the value went from $24000 to $3600, so it depreciated about 2k per year. I was easily spending $40 per week on gasoline on my last commute. I now use transit with the IRS commuter benefit so I do have a base after tax transportation expense of 1200 per year. We use weekend rentals about 2x per month (and do use a warehouse club) She uses rentals for her job about 12 times per year, and the medical transportation came in an intense burst. Access: Our nearest carshare pod is 0.22 miles (3 blocks); there are two hotels with full service rental car desks about half a mile from our house and every brand at the Amtrak station a mile away. There are concrete benefits to density, take every advantage. Insurance: I always take the rental company SLI daily insurance for $15 per day. Certain no annual fee credit cards automatically include CDW. Every time an insurance agent cold calls me, I ask for a quote for a \"\"named non owner\"\" policy, I'd probably take it if the premium was $300 or less per 6 months. Tips and tricks: a carshare minivan or truck rate is probably higher than a carshare car, but compared to a full service rental, may be much lower . The best value I spend no time in my life looking for a parking spot, and spend \"\"this hour\"\" tapping away on SE on a train instead of driving.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15ba43220578c9b495c2baeeb42ca862",
"text": "\"I would split the savings as you may need some of it quickly for an emergency. At least 1/2 should be very liquid, such as cash or MMA/Checking. From there, look at longer term CDs, from 30 day to 180 day, depending upon your situation. Don't be surprised if by the time you've saved the money up, your desire for the car will have waned. How many years will it take to save up enough? 2? 5? 10? You may want to review your current work position instead, so you'll make more and hopefully save more towards what you do want. Important: Be prepared for the speed bumps of life. My landlord sold the house I was renting out from under me, as I was on a month-to-month contract. I had to have a full second deposit at the ready to put down when renting elsewhere, as well as the moving expenses. Luckily, I had done what my tax attorney had said, which is \"\"Create a cushion of liquid assets which can cover at least three months of your entire outgoing expenses.\"\" The Mormon philosophy is to carry at least one year's worth of supplies (food, water, materials) at all times in your home, for any contingency. Not Mormon, not religious, but willing to listen to others' opinions. As always, YMMV. Your Mileage May Vary.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ba1aa8230b37c2401e3c92abe036ee2",
"text": "\"Your arrangements with the bank are irrelevant. Whoever is named on the title of the vehicle owns it. If she is the \"\"primary\"\", then I assume her name is on the title, therefore she owns the car. If you drive off with the car and it is titled in her name, she can report it stolen and have you arrested for grand theft auto unless you have a dated and signed permission in writing from her to use the car. Point #2: If a car loan was involved, then you didn't \"\"purchase\"\" the car, the bank did. If you want to gain ownership of the car, then you need to have her name removed from the title and have yours put in its place. Since the bank has possession of the title, this will require the cooperation of both your girlfriend and the bank.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3cfccfed3d82ca55e2aecef11e1b212c",
"text": "Contacting a limo hire company is easy and hiring a car for personal use is also very easy. But it is seen in a majority of cases that those using these vehicles have no idea of what not do while using them. As a result, they fail to get the maximum benefit of the vehicle or the money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89a2e6e9f016d926d3d2d8735e6e6d8b",
"text": "These days there are a lot of solutions which allow you to hire a car on the Internet itself. One of the major benefits of booking on the internet rental-car solutions is that you will preserve a fortune and ensure that things are effectively structured, thus saving sufficient time as well. We provide the Car rental services at a cheap price in the whole world. The best way to reduce costs and plan for local transportation when you are on a vacation is to book your car.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f06c64f3954dc1ce53ca1017d37773a",
"text": "\"I've lived this decision, and from my \"\"anecdata\"\": do #3 I have been car-free since 2011 in a large United States city. I was one month into a new job on a rail line out in the suburbs, and facing a $3000 bill to pass state inspection (the brakes plus the emissions system). I live downtown. I use a combination of transit, a carshare service, and 1-2 day rentals from full service car rental businesses (who have desks at several downtown hotels walking distance from my house). I have not had a car insurance policy since 2011; the carshare includes this and I pay $15 per day for SLI from full service rentals. I routinely ask insurance salesmen to run a quote for a \"\"named non-owner\"\" policy, and would pull the trigger if the premium cost was $300/6 months, to replace the $15/day SLI. It's always quoted higher. In general, our trips have a marginal cost of $40-100. Sure, this can be somewhat discouraging. But we do it for shopping at a warehouse club, visiting parents and friends in the suburbs. Not every weekend, but pretty close. But with use of the various services ~1/weekend, it's come out to $2600 per year. I was in at least $3200 per year operating the car and often more, so there is room for unexpected trips or the occasional taxi ride in cash flow, not to mention the capital cost: I ground the blue book value of the car from $19000 down to $3600 in 11 years. Summary: Pull the trigger, do it :D\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3eceb7f45d453ce6dae1a02a88cab370",
"text": "\"I worked for a major car rental company (not Hertz, but comparable) for quite a while, taking reservations by phone. I completely agree that the reservation system is terrible, and is only vaguely based on the reality of their vehicles in stock at best. The problem is, from a strictly business perspective, taking more reservations than they have cars is currently considered the most profitable model for them. To play devil's advocate just a little, switching to a \"\"take only one reservation per vehicle, reserve it to 100% lock it in\"\" model is a bit more complicated than it sounds. In order to guarantee a specific car for a customer at a specific time, they either have to leave that car sitting on their lot until you rent it (not making money), or keep renting it out to other people in the interim. If they rent it out to someone else before your rental comes up, that removes the vehicle from their control. Bordering on constantly, renters don't return the vehicle within their promised schedule or return it in a damaged or otherwise unsuitable condition. To be clear I'm not trying to make excuses for the rental car company (there are many reasons I no longer work there), but it's objectively hard for them to get a specific vehicle if, say, all but one of them were in wrecks the previous night, and the person renting the last one drove it across the country without warning the rental office and refuses to come back. Those problems all get solved eventually, but that doesn't help you when you show up and can't get the car you reserved. So, they continue to take excessive reservations, and just give people whatever they happen to have when they show up, if they have any cars at all. There's definitely better ways to do it for the customer, but like many businesses, they'll continue to do it whatever way they determine is best for their profits. Edit: Words.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2d1c0c043e6c0d127ce9c0d8d2b9b31",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d1f550144d06e304037346ce25ed698",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "121b78600c056243d50d16e83fcf7327",
"text": "\"Personally, I would: a) consider selling the car and replacing it with a 'cheaper' one. If you only drive it once a month, you are probably not getting much 'value' from owning a nice car. b) move the car (either current or replacement) out to your parent's place. The cost of a plane ticket is about the same as the cost of the garage, and your parents would likely hold on to it for free (assuming they live in the suburbs, and parking is not an issue) option b should lower your insurance costs (very low annual mileage) and at least you'll get some frequent flier miles out of your $350 a month. That being said: this is a \"\"quality of life\"\" issue, which means that there isn't going to be a firm answer. If you are 25, have little debt, which you are paying off on time, have an emergency fund, and you are making regular contributions to your 401k, you are certainly NOT \"\"being seriously irresponsible\"\" by owning a nice car. But you may decide that the $1000 a month could be better spent somewhere else.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fe05922ce9a0da7256cad78465a37d4",
"text": "If you can generate a higher ROI by renting than by cashing out and investing, then you should rent it out. Please consider your risk tolerance as well. It's always a personal decision whether to assume higher risk for a higher return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11692d59ac54be45ba7425bb06463446",
"text": "The only reason to lend the money in this scenario is cashflow. But considering you buy a $15000 car, your lifestyle is not super luxurious, so $15000 spare cash is enough.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35f7e9bbe9ff41aa6e46cb264ed40e26",
"text": "I understand that, but there are so many mitigating factors now that I don't feel safe. It's more like thinking that airplanes are safe, but if you're walking through the airport and you notice the pilot at the bar and them see him with his shirt untucked as he bumps his head getting into the airplane you might not get onto that airplane. I wouldn't give this advice to someone in their 20s, but we are in our 50s. We have enough to live on comfortably with savings and my husband's pension and social security and passive income from the rental. It's just not worth the risk. As it is I am retired and can travel and eat whatever I want whenever I want. And the rental property is our hedge against inflation. I just see no reason to risk that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92f923e3727a7af46c38acb5c46bb1c7",
"text": "You SHOULDN'T lease one if you are going to get an economy car, if you don't drive too much (<15K / year), and you want to hang on to the car for a long time. Otherwise, if you are a regular driver, driving a leased new quality car can be cost effective. Many cars now have bumper-to-bumper warranties that last as long as the lease (say 80K). So there is rarely any extra costs apart from regular maintenance. The sweet spot for most new cars is in the 5th, 6th, or 7th years, after they are paid off. But at that point, you may find you have maintenance bills that are approaching an average of $200 - $300 per month. In which case, a lease starts to look pretty good. I owned a 7 year old Honda Accord that cost only $80 less per month in maintenance than the new leased VW that replaced it. Haven't looked back after that. Into my 3rd car and 9th year of leasing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d864190cdecc0a7b03e663b49b5604b",
"text": "It's my understand that leasing is never the better overall deal, with the possible exception of a person who would otherwise buy a brand new car every 2 or 3 years, and does not drive a lot of miles. Note: in the case of a company car, Canadian taxes let you deduct the entire lease payment (which clearly has some principal in it) if you lease, while if you buy you can only deduct the interest, and must depreciate the car according to their schedule. This can make leasing more attractive to those buying a car through a corporation. I don't know if this applies in the US. The numbers you ran through in class presumably involved calculating the interest paid over the term of the loan. Can you not just redo the calculation using actual interest and lease numbers from a randomly chosen current car ad? I suspect if you do, you will discover leasing is still not the right choice.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
26ad8dbcd8eef8b2870735e59671abe8
|
Doctor's office won't submit claim to insurance after 5 months
|
[
{
"docid": "e6556782b39b76a1797d32ea3c47cadc",
"text": "I'm a business law student, so medical stuff isn't really my specialty. I'll share with you what I know though. First, as to the legality, I'm not aware of anything making it illegal for them to consider their business with you concluded. Absent any contract between you and the doctor, it seems to me that you agreed to pay them in cash. If I was the business, I'd assume our business had been concluded as well. As for any contracts between the insurance company and the doctor's office, as far as I know, that's between them. That wouldn't give you standing to sue the doctor. I'm unfamiliar with a patient submitting insurance claims, but if that's something you are allowed to do with your insurance company and all you need is more information, submit a request for your medical records to the doctor. Under United States law, your medical records are yours. You have a right to receive a copy of them. Keep in mind though that the doctor's office may charge you a small copying fee to cover expenses they incur while making a copy for you. As far as complaining, I would suggest your local Better Business Bureau. Each state generally has a medical board which oversees doctors. You might lodge a complaint with them as well. I hope this helps. Keep in mind that I'm not an attorney. This is not legal advice. This is only what I personally would do if I were in your situation. You can and should consult an attorney who is licensed to practice law in your particular jurisdiction.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "77de1f0828136343b16e6cd31563932d",
"text": "First, as noted in the comments, you need to pay attention to your network providers. If you are unable to pay exorbitant prices out of pocket, then find an in-network medical provider. if you are unhappy with the in-network provider list (e.g. too distant or not specialists), then discuss switching to another plan or insurer with your employer or broker. Second, many providers will have out of pocket or uninsured price lists, often seen in outdated formats or disused binders. Since you have asked for price lists and not been provided one, I would pursue it with the practice manager (or equivalent, or else a doctor) and ask if they have one. It's possible that the clinic has an out of pocket price list but the front line staff is unaware of it and was never trained on it. Third, if you efforts to secure a price list fail, and you are especially committed to this specific provider, then I would consider engaging in a friendly by direct negotiation with the practice manager or other responsible person. Person they will be amenable to creating a list of prices (if you are particularly proactive and aggressive, you could offer to find out of pocket price lists from other clinics nearby). You could also flat out ask them to charge you a certain fee for office visits (if you do this, try to get some sort of offer or agreed price list in writing). Most medical practices are uncomfortable asking patients for money, so that may mean flat refusal to negotiate but it may also mean surprising willingness to work with you. This route is highly unpredictable before you go down it, and it's dependent on all sorts of things like the ownership structure, business model, and the personalities of the key people there. The easiest answer is to switch clinics. This one sounds very unfriendly to HSA patients.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bcb9eaeafb6185e76ad564d565950eaf",
"text": "Sorry to hear about your spouse's health issues. May he have a speedy and, as far as possible, full recovery. The Patient Protectection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, aka Obamacare) is now the law of the land. Among its many provisions are that insurers may no longer deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, they may not put lifetime caps on benefits, and they may not charge different premiums based on any criteria except age cohort and geographic area (i.e. rates may be higher for 50 year olds than 30 year olds, but sick and healthy 50 year olds living in the same area pay the same). If he gets government health coverage because he's on disability, this may not matter. On the other hand, you might find it better to put him on your employer's policy, because you like the coverage better, the employer covers part of the dependent premium, or some other reason. In any case, they can't discriminate against him or you based on his condition. ETA: Rates may vary by geography as well as age.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79f3951e521b723d7cec441f8987995e",
"text": "\"They have forever to collect a balance from you. Furthermore they can add whatever penalties and fees they wish to increase that balance. Worst of all, they don't have to remind you or send you bills or any other notification. You owed it when you left the office. (There very well could be local laws that require notifications, but that isn't really the issue here.) That dentist has every right to deny you service until you settle the account. Forever. The statute of limitations on collecting that debt via court: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/savings/when-does-your-debt-expire.aspx Which covers the rules on HOW LONG they have to collect the debt. Owing the money is one thing, but the rules and tools that you creditor has to collect the debt are another. You are probably worried about them suing you. But if you don't pay the debt (or settle in some way), that dentist can refuse to provide services to you, even if they write off the debt. Ways you can be punished by your dentist for not paying the bill are: Depending on your jurisdiction and/or type of debt, they typically only report it on your credit (if they are reporting at all) for 7 years. Even if you pay and settle the account, it will still be reported on your credit report for 7 years. The difference is how it is reported. They can report that \"\"user133466 is a super reliable person who always pays debts on time\"\". They can say \"\"user133466 is a flake who pays, but takes a while to pay\"\". Or they can say \"\"user133466 is a bad person to provide services before collecting money, because user133466 don't pay bills\"\". Other people considering lending you money are going to read these opinions and decide accordingly if they want to deal with you or not. And they can say that for 7 years. The idea of credit reporting is that you settle up as soon as possible and get your credit report to reflect the truth. One popular way to collect a debt to is to sue you for it. There, each state has a different time period on how long a creditor has to sue you for a debt. http://www.bankrate.com/finance/credit-cards/state-statutes-of-limitations-for-old-debts-1.aspx If you pay part of the debt, that will often reset the clock on the statute of limitations, so be sure any partial or negotiated settlements state very clearly, in writing, that payment is considered payment in full on the debt. Then you keep that record forever. There are other interesting points in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. See Debt collectors calling? Know your rights. They can only contact you in certain ways, they must respond to you in certain ways, and they have limits on what they can say, who they can say it to, and when they can say it. There are protections from mean or vicious bill collectors, but that doesn't sound like who you are dealing with. I don't know that the FDCPA is a tool you need to use in this case. You should negotiate your debt and try your best to settle up. From your post, both parties dropped the ball, and both parties should give a little. You should pay no or minor late fees, and the doctor should report your credit positively when you do so. If you both made honest mistakes, they both parties should acknowledge that and be fair, and not defensive. This is not legal advice. But you owe the debt, so you should settle up. I don't think it is fair for you to not pay because they didn't mail you a paper. However I also do not think it is fair for the doctor to run up fees and not remind you of the bill. Finally, you didn't bring up insurance or many other details. Those details can change the answer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78a3ef2b2e99a5dba21d383e0e5c778c",
"text": "Due to the fact that months have gone by since the item was shipped to you it will be hard to resolve by sending it back. The collection agency is now only interested in getting as much of the money as they can from you. They may have sent a percentage of the debt to the original company when they bought the debt. They may also be working on a commission. Therefore they are not interested in having everybody happy with the result. They need to follow the law, but they don't care if you are a happy customer. The longer you wait to resolve it, the longer it will remain on the credit report. The fact that it went to collections has already hurt your score. Yes, make sure that they update your credit file to reflect that you have paid the debt. Get it in writing. Also check with your health insurance company to see if this is at least partially covered by insurance. They generally won't cover the $12 in fees from the collections company, but they might cover part of the original bill. Depending on the item, it might also be an allowable expense for your FSA (Flexible spending account) or your HSA (Health Spending account).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28fbd6147331296e24091a48b5f615a7",
"text": "It is important to understand that when or before you received services from your medical provider(s), you almost certainly signed a document stating that you understand that you are fully responsible for the entire bill, even though the provider may be willing to bill the insurer on your behalf as a service. In almost all cases, this is the arrangement, so it is very unlikely that you will be able to dispute the validity of the bill, since you did receive the service and almost certainly agreed to be fully responsible for the payments. With regard to the discounts, your medical provides have likely contracted with your insurer to provide services at a certain price or discount level, so I would base all of your negotiations with the providers and/or the collectors on those amounts. They can't legitimately bill you for the full amount since you are insured by a company they have a contract with, and you are not self-pay/uninsured, and the fact that they haven't been paid by your insurer doesn't change that, because the discount likely depends on the contact they have with your insurer and not whether or not they are billed/paid by your insurer. Please note - this is a common arrangement, but I'd recommend that you verify this with your insurer. Unfortunately, payment in 90+ days is often typical by insurance standards, so it's not yet clear to me whether or not your insurer has broken any laws such as a Prompt Pay law, or violated the terms of your policy with them (read it!). However, you need to find out which claims rep/adjuster is handling your claims and follow up with them until the payments are made. It's not personal, so make this person's life miserable until it is done and call them so often that they know it's you by the caller ID. I would also recommend contacting the collector(s), and letting them know that you don't have the money and so will not be able to pay, provide them with copies of the EOBs that state that the insurance company plans to pay the providers, and then ignore their calls/letters until the payments are made. When they call, simply reiterate that you don't have the money and that your insurance company is in the process of paying the bills. You have to expect that you will be dealing with a low-paid employee that is following a script. You are just the next person on their robo-call list, and they are not going to understand that you don't have a pile of money laying around with which to pay them, even if you tell them repeatedly. Make sure that you at no point give them access to any of your financial accounts, such as a checking or savings account, or a debit card - they will access it and clean you out. It is likely that your insurance provider will pay the providers directly since they were likely billed by the providers originally. If the providers have sold the debt to the collectors (and are not just employing a collector for debt they still own), you may have to follow up with the providers as well and make sure that the collection activity stops, since the providers may also need to forward the payments to the collectors once they are paid by the insurance company. Of course, if the insurer refuses to pay the claims, at that point I would recommend meeting with a lawyer to seek to force them to pay.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2dee3bd7391f7fa666fa9ca7b4777d5f",
"text": "This has a straightforward answer. It's likely that your doctor and the hospital have no responsibility to ensure that your insurance claim is filed in a timely manner. They bill you whether you or they get reimbursed by insurance, or not. The insurance company is more than happy not to pay you any way they can. Sorry if this is harsh, but it's up to you to follow through. See also here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af1106a29d58d5538e4e2baea1dc30ea",
"text": "The insurance company issued the check. I'd contact the insurance company to have the current check voided and a new one issued to the pharmacy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8406e32f3d7bfb8d8866d422b322e321",
"text": "I wouldn't classify your treatment as abuse. Medical billing has become more complex not less complex. You need to learn to ask even more questions regarding expenses, you probably need to see these price quotes in writing. You did several things correctly. Staying in-network generally is best because many plans have two deductible limits: In-network, and out-of-network. You need to make sure that the insurance company does credit you with having paid the new patient fee. That will qualify as an expense toward the deductible and your maximum out of pocket for the year. Some doctors offices don't send to insurance companies items that they know will not be covered, not remembering that these costs are critical under the High deductible plans with a health savings account. Doctors offices have problems determining how much the cost to you will be. It depends not just on the insurance company but also which type of plan you have, which sub-plan you have, and are you covered by more than one plan. Not to mention individual deductibles, family deductibles, and annual out-of-pocket amount. All this is wanted prior to the doctor seeing the patient. Most doctors offices will work with you, they know that each insurance plan treats each medical billing code differently, sometimes they make a mistake. Talk to them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3aadaf75dc0c8ee36d023b7551df1937",
"text": "Insurance is mostly for covering against catastrophic events, it's not something that must be helpful to you every day. Sounds like you health is okay and you don't mind paying some cash in case of minor events. You could try to find a policy where coverage kicks in only once an incident is big enough (high deductible) - in such cases you payments will be significantly lower because you'll be unable to apply with minor incidents and that saves money to the insurance company and you're still covered against catastrophic events.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88d93fd72c2f70c40e0122c42f8b7025",
"text": "Unless it is in the contract that you must replace it then this should be replaced by your insurance. They sent you a box that was defective, consumer grade electronics are designed for at least 85 deg C (185F) and unless they can prove your car was hotter than that they sent you a defective unit. That being said, I do not think it would be worth suing them for that low amount, I would suggest you get a new insurance company. The current company clearly values your business less than 185 pounds(?) and this issue will happen multiple times since the company has no incentive to buy better products if customers keep footing the bill.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fee06b37c87cee42807c9ce4ebb7e58",
"text": "Article was about insurers not liking the uncertainty. Some insurers want Obamacare repealed, some of them want it to stay. But they all don't want to political climate of uncertainty. A situation where people wouldn't be mandated to buy insurance because they don't fear the IRS actually requiring them, but where the actual regulations haven't been changed yet is a nightmare for insurers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4a7824dea6df0994920939dd1e862e6",
"text": "\"The concept of emergency fund is a matter of opinion. I can tell you the consensus is that one should have 6-9 months worth of expenses kept as liquid cash. This is meant to cover literally all bills that you might encounter during that time. That's a lot of money. There are levels of savings that are shy of this but still responsible. Not enough to cover too much in case of job loss, but enough to cover the busted transmission, the broken water heater, etc. this is still more than many people have saved up, but it's a worthy goal. The doctor visit is probably the lowest level. Even without insurance, the clinic visit should be under $200, and this shouldn't cause you to have to carry that amount beyond the time the bill comes in. The point that shouldn't be ignored is that if you owe money at 18% on a credit card, the emergency fund is costing you money, and is a bit misguided. I'd send every cent I could to the highest rate card and not have more than a few hundred $$ liquid until the cards were at zero. Last - $5K, $10K in the emergency account is great, unless you are foregoing matched 401(k) dollars to do it. All just my opinion. Others here whom I respect might disagree with parts of my answer, and they'd be right. Edit - Regarding the 'consensus 6-9 months' I suggest - From Investopedia - \"\"...using the conservative recommendation to sock away eight months’ worth of living expenses....\"\" The article strongly support my range for the fact that it both cites consensus, yet disagrees with it. From Money Under 30 The more difficult you rank your ability to find a new job, the more we suggest you save — up to a year’s worth of expenses if you think your income would be very difficult to replace. From Bank of America I have no issue with those comfortable with less. A dual income couple who is saving 30% of their income may very well survive one person losing a job with no need to tap savings, and any 'emergency' expense can come from next month's income. That couple may just need this month's bills in their checking account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "985c27490a1fc20d8f94bcadedf22034",
"text": "Unfortunately I've seen every single example you've provided from the health care providers perspective. Trust me, they aren't happy about the situation either - hence the reason they will demand up front payment from you based on who your insurance carrier is. I could name a few of the top brand name insurance companies in this country that do all of this to their clients. Medical billing is an incredibly over complicated beast. One that insurance companies have been doing everything they can to make worse over the years. The codes can change annually and there are MANY different codes which can cover the exact same situation. Sure the insurance company might cover gallstones, but if you happen to be pregnant, well, that may not covered even though the treatment is the exact same. What can you do? Consider locating a new insurance company. You do have options and don't have to go with the one your company uses. The downside is that this is going to take quite a bit of research on your part and it will end up costing you more money on your monthly premiums simply because your company won't be footing part of the bill. Talk to other co-workers and see if their experiences match yours. If so, try to get a large enough group together to approach management and demand resolution. A third potential avenue is to get politically involved - but I'm enough of a pessimist that I doubt that would do any good. From what I've seen, neither major political party's current position actually does anything to solve the problem. A fourth option is suing the insurance company - but that is going to be incredibly expensive and take forever. You might have better luck getting together with a bunch of local people and demand your attorney general review the billing/payment practices. Again, this is going to require a LOT of effort. A fifth option is to attempt to cash pay your bills and submit them yourself to the insurance company for reimbursement. If you do this you can likely negotiate lower bills with the medical provider. For anything less than about $2,000 I negotiate the amount prior to service. Believe me when I say that providers are more than happy to give decent discounts if they know they won't have to deal with the insurance companies themselves. Slightly more work for you, but could be far cheaper in the long run.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d300a37caab11c1aad8bb3eaca7d4f2",
"text": "It's an over crowded boat I'm sure. She hasn't had insurance all year either. She switched departments at the end of last year and they said she had to wait for open enrollment to come around again. So it wasn't by choice that she's been uninsured. It really baffles me that her company, a healthcare provider, would let their employees go through this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0bacbf1312711592dd0661cd6e0a86ad",
"text": "\"Well, they can. Up to six years in many countries. There can be consequences. If you went to the dentist three years ago, were happy with the bill and returned every six months, and the dentist informs you that your six $200 bills should have each been $1,200 then it is obvious that you would have looked for another dentist if the first bill had been correct; in that case you have a very good reason to refuse to pay the difference on the other five bills. (That's if you were not aware that the bill was wrong. If every time he fixed your teeth and the bill says \"\"examining your teeth\"\" which you would expect to be a lot cheaper, then maybe you should have known that the bill was wrong. Just an example).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e92c69de6712690a238ab5b1c880ec59
|
If a country can just print money, is global debt between countries real?
|
[
{
"docid": "b12b0aabd80cb5c2609e5f39ae7a7ad3",
"text": "The debt is absolutely real. China loans money to US via buying the US treasury bonds. The bond is essentially a promise to pay back the money with interest, just like a loan. As you point out, the US can print money. If this were to happen, then the USD that the owner of a treasury bond receives when the bond matures are worth less that than the USD used to purchase the bonds. There are lots of reasons why the US doesn't want to print lots of money, so the purchaser of the bond is probably confident it won't happen. If for some reason they think it is possible, then they will want to cover that risk by only purchasing bonds that have a higher interest rate. The higher interest offsets the risk of the USD being worth less. Of course, there are lots more details, e.g., the bonds themselves are bought and sold before maturity, but this is the basic idea.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ce931d868b678112c38d510efe1c7d3",
"text": "\"I think the important fact here is that all of our currencies are Fiat Currencies. So currency technically means nothing, because (as you mentioned) the country could print more any time it wants. Now what makes it useful is the combination of two big things: So I would say, we know they owe us 100 \"\"dollars\"\", and the dollar is just a word we use to represent value. It is not technically worth anything, beyond the fact that the government controls the amount of that currency in circulation and you trust that people still want more of that currency.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45185420c394230f6ea4c738968825fd",
"text": "To understand this fully one would need to understand quite a few things. Not in scope here. In short, whenever China sells goods to US, it gets USD as most of the trades are in USD. China uses this money to buy other things it needs like Oil etc. After this they still have quite a bit of USD left with them. The money is left with them because US is buying more things from China and selling less things to China. This creates a surplus USD with China. So if US were to borrow money from China or any other country, it would be this excess money. Ofcourse how money gets created in first place is a different topic altogether.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6b44c3e9f0f7b02c284a23f945e7de1",
"text": "This is a extremely complicated subject, but I assume you want a very simple answer (otherwise I'm not qualified to answer). The value of most currencies is closely tied to the economy of the county, so if China were to print a huge amount of yuan, then since the value of their economy has not really changed, the international currency markets would devalue the yuan to compensate. (This is rather like, if have shares in, say Apple, and they were to issue an extra billion shares, then the value of your shares would fall (by half), rather than for Apple to be suddenly be worth twice as much) Print too many notes and your currency basically becomes almost worthless, which is what happened to the Zimbabwean dollar. I like the idea of China skipping crate loads of actual yuan or dollars notes to America, but in practice, the borrowing is just a paper exercise, rather like an IOU. As to whether America owes Yuan or dollars, the answer is whatever has been agreed. Assuming the currencies are fairly stable, then since each country has more control over their own currency, it is natural for them to prefer their own currency. However, if America believes the value of the dollar will increase, they may prefer to pay back in Yuan (costing them less dollars), and if China believes the value of the dollar will decrease they may agree to that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db76c8b2fee1cabf362f8e88da5c5936",
"text": "The main driver behind countries not printing themselves out of debt is the fact that it will cripple the economy, destroy citizens savings, asset valuations and piss all the countries trade partners off so much that they may stop doing business with them. You will have a few different extremes, look at Zimbabwe as an example of a country that just prints money like no ones business. America is essentially devaluing its currency to compete with China. That annoys the Chinese because their holdings are devalued and as such you then see people moving away from US treasuries into more stable commodities and currencies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6e444f254d171aade7bf0b62c90b74d",
"text": "\"Debt can be denominated either in a currency the country controls or a currency the country doesn't control. If the debt is denominated in a currency the country controls then they have the option of \"\"printing their way out of it\"\". That option doesn't come for free, it will devalue their currency on the global market and hurt savers in their country but it is an option. If the debt is denominated in a currency the country does not control then they don't have that option. As I understand it the US debt is in the first category. It's denominated in US dollars so the US government could if they so wished print their way out of it. On the other hand greece's debt is denominated in euros putting them at the mercy of european bankers.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9a6362547ac6859733c2e74e823f56da",
"text": "Japan printed 11 trillion yen on Monday. They do this by monetizing their own debt. The increase in the supply of yen affects the value of the currency. Strange thought, I know. Greece has an economic crisis because they were borrowing at rates that AAA rated countries do. Someone noticed that they weren't exactly a AAA country when they needed to ask for bailout money. Since all government debt is considered risk free and same as cash, this came as a shock to most 'investors' hence the 'crisis' edit: my bad, was 11 trillion, not 9 trillion",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef900298081d52c0b7a1e22a0c5c2834",
"text": "You don't understand government financing at all. Gov'ts earn revenue, aka, taxes. They also spend money. The different between the money they spend and they money they earn is the deficit. If you run a deficit for a long period of time, you incur a very large national debt. Now, you can finance (aka, pay for) a deficit by borrowing money. This means you can sell bonds, and instead of pay off the debt each year, you just pay the interest. If your spending balloons out of control, your the likely hood of you paying your debt decreases. If you are very unlikely to payback your debt, people won't buy any more of your bonds, and you no longer have the income (from borrowing) to pay off your interest from other debt you owe, or what ever other obligations you own (think mortgage payments, or teachers salaries, etc). Here's were Europe and USA differ: European nations can't just print money. They can issue more debt, but they can't just create more euros. IF you can print money, you can pay off your debt with money you literally created out of thin air (at the expense of your people, this is called inflation). But this is a form of cheating, eventually people won't trust you, and won't buy your debt either. So where do the banks come in? if the government is SOUND and the banks are NOT, the government can backstop the banks. This is what the US and UK did. Greece, Spain, Ireland all had to back stop their banks also. However, Greece, Spain, and Irelany ( and Italy, and Portugal) also have 1) A lot of debt 2) Structurally high deficits 3) Extremely high borrowing costs (high interest rates...because people don't trust them...because...) 4) Weak underlying economies The fourth point gets you in real trouble. if you have high entitlements, lots of poeple out of work, who the hell is paying taxes and what are they going to? You have no revenue! Remember, a govt works just like a household. It is easy for a good household to support one member, but it is difficult for a member to support an irresponsible household.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65a545ad655f7500a92ec4ec4f1f0f4f",
"text": "\"**Japan Has Entered The Next Phase: Unlimited Money Printing** Investors have been watching Japan for over a decade now, wondering what happens to a country that has a debt-to-GDP ratio of 234%--too big to realistically pay off. We are starting to get the answer. For review, Japan was the first country in the modern central banking era to begin a policy of quantitative easing--an unconventional form of monetary policy that is used when interest rates have already been lowered to the zero bound. Quantitative easing, which involves the purchase of \"\"printed\"\" money to buy government bonds, was widely viewed in Japan as a failure, but what most people don't understand about Japan's early QE experiments is that they were very small--less than $20 billion a month. It took Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and BOJ Governor Haruhiko Kuroda to ramp up asset purchases significantly in what was called \"\"Abenomics.\"\" Shinzo Abe, Japan's prime minister. Photographer: Akio Kon/Bloomberg The results of Abenomics have been mixed, but the stock market is certainly higher and the yen is certainly lower, although it's not clear that either of those two developments have really helped. Japan's stock market is mostly foreign-owned, and the weaker yen didn't materially help the balance of trade. Still, there are a lot of people who said that Japan's endless debt deflation would have been worse without Abenomics, so it has remained firmly in place for five years. Abenomics rapidly began to cause distortions, as accelerated asset purchases caused the Bank of Japan to hold a huge percentage of outstanding government bonds, at 40% and rising, as well as being the majority holder of index ETFs. Investors who traffic in JGBs have remarked that the market now functions very poorly, since so much of the market is held by the BOJ. It seems that will get worse, not better. Last year the BOJ implemented a policy of yield curve targeting (ostensibly to help the banks), keeping the overnight rate negative but targeting a 10 year rate at zero percent. The BOJ has been buying longer-dated bonds for years, but this was the first time it ever explicitly capped a rate at longer maturities. Some people wondered how committed the BOJ would be to maintain that cap in the event that JGBs were caught up in a global duration selloff, which we experienced in the last two weeks. As 10-year JGB yields rose above 0.10% last week, the BOJ announced that it was prepared to buy an unlimited amount of bonds to keep yields close to zero percent. As you can imagine, buying an unlimited amount of 10-year JGBs involves printing a theoretically unlimited amount of yen, so the yen weakened significantly on the news. It still remains about ten percent stronger than it was in 2015. We are getting closer to the endgame for Japan. What happens if yields rise further? What happens if the yen depreciates significantly? How much could it depreciate? Could Japan have a currency crisis? What happens if the BOJ ends up owning the entire bond market? These are the questions that investors are asking, and nobody really knows the answers. We are in uncharted territory. I believe that a currency crisis isn't just possible--it's inevitable. And it probably happens at about the time that the BOJ owns all or nearly all of the JGB market, and has to resort to canceling the debt. This sounds like a neat magic trick to make the debt go away, but the laws of economics are not to be conned. Anything is possible--a currency crash, a bond market crash--anything. This is the very definition of debt monetization that resulted in hyperinflation in places like Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe. Is Japan different? We shall see. We will find out soon, as Japan has taken a major step in that direction. Jared Dillian is the author of All the Evil of This World, and the editor of the 10th Man newsletter for Mauldin Economics. Subscribe here. *Forbes articles have 8 tracking cookies and 9 tracking scripts. This comment has none.*(https://www.reddit.com/r/raws/comments/68xk37/about/)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "768afd430beaddf843064787b4537b0f",
"text": "If we postulate that there is at least some element of truth to the phrase 'A leopard does not change his spots' and then consider this tidbit He conveniently forgets to mention his 1.5 million dollar fraud fine from the SEC over investment “advice” he sold through a news letter. The SEC claimed and the judge agreed that the report was “replete with lies”. I think that gives you just about all you might need to know regarding the man behind the video, and the nature of it's content. Oh, and it's purpose? To SELL YOU the same said newsletter. I guess it's natural for Stansberry to feel as he does. After all if the US gov had just busted me for conning and lying to folks, and fined ME 1.5Mill, I'd be having some pretty intense lurid fantasies about it going down in flames, and trying to hide any money I had left offshore also. A huge amount of his argument hinges on the US no longer being the world's reserve currency. Firstly, while I'll admit I'm none too happy with the way the national debt has been managed for oh, around 30 years how, (which includes I will note going from a pretty much balanced budget, to around an 80% increase in the debt from 2001 through 2008, when 'times were good' and there was little need to spend money we didn't have), when compared to a lot of other countries, we still don't look that bad. You have to ask yourself this first, if not the US, then WHO? are the governments of the world going to trust China? could the Yen handle the load? Is the Euro any better off especially considering problems in Greece, Ireland, etc. Do countries like Switzerland have enough liquidity and available ways to invest there? In order for the US to STOP being the world's reserve currency, you must have something to replace it with, and really, can we realistically think of one country/currency with the capability to become a new 'world reserve currency'??? Secondly, even then should such a shift actually happen, it doesn't mean people will ALL just magically stop buying US debt. Yes the demand would go down, but it would not go to zero. There are after all a worldfull of other countries who's money is right now NOT the world reserve currency, and yet they are able to sell bonds and people and even other countries invest there. (China for example does not invest exclusively in the US), so yeah we might have to start paying more interest to get people to buy US debt, but it's not like the demand will go away. Save your money, save your time, don't buy into this dung.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4ee281926e6a79e88acbe72e41096f9",
"text": "\"First of all, just for the sake of clarity, the Federal Reserve doesn't actually \"\"print\"\" money - that's the job of the BEP. What they do is they buy US Treasury bonds - i.e., loan money to the US government. The money they do it with are created \"\"from thin air\"\" - just by adding some numbers in certain accounts, thus it is described as \"\"printing money\"\". The US government then spends the money however it wishes to. The idea is that this money is injected into the economy - since the only way the US government can use the money from these loans is to spend them on buying something or give it to some people that would spend them. As it is a loan, sometime in the future the US government would pay these loans back, and in this moment the Fed would decide - if they want to \"\"contract\"\" the supply of money back, they just \"\"destroy\"\" the money they've got, by erasing the numbers they created before. They could also do it by selling the bonds they hold on the open market and then again \"\"destroy\"\" the money they got as proceeds, thus lowering the amount of money existing in the economy. This way the Fed can control how much money is out there and thus supposedly influence inflation and economic activity. The Fed could also inject money in the economy by buying any assets after creating the money - for example, right now they own about a trillion dollars worth of various mortgage-based securities. But since buying specific security would probably give unfair advantage to the issuers and owners of this security, usually US treasury bonds if what they buy. The side effect of increased supply of money denominated in dollars would be, as you noted, devaluation of dollars compared to other currencies.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe6aa5920172d01e15ecd2a8c400c64e",
"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.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "119a3ad16226b55f87fc67344cc171f8",
"text": "\"> but the buying power of that money can be significantly reduced to the point where it's fundamentally useless, i.e. inter-war Germany and many countries in South and Central America. That's true, but *how* does that come about? The effect on buying power stems from the level of spending in the present period. Too little leaves you anywhere from outright deflation and contraction to weaker growth falling short of capacity. Too much reaches capacity and keeps spending, bidding up prices and driving down purchasing power. It has nothing to do with debt:GDP or interest payments. > Germany managed to skate by by creating a new Deutschmark in a confidence trick, and it worked because Germany is a solid, iron clad manufacturing powerhouse of a lot of stuff. There are two important differences between inter-war Germany and the US. First is that inter-war Germany *lost a war*. This real shock is kind of important. When you're talking about buying power of money, one side of it is the amount of money in circulation but the other side of it is how much real output there is to buy and German real output capacity collapsed after the war. Their most productive regions were occupied territory and they were no longer a powerhouse manufacturing a lot of stuff, driving down the value of their currency. So lesson number one from Germany: real output collapse harms your currency. The second problem is that losing a war left Germany saddled with war reparations denominated in foreign currency. When you're on the hook for something you don't print you're in a situation where you can run out of money and that's exactly what happened to them. They tried printing more of their own currency to buy the foreign stuff with but that quickly drove down the value of German currency. So lesson number two from Germany is you don't want to be on the hook for a currency you don't issue. Put the two together and you have a real supply shock + foreign-denominated debt eviscerating the buying power of German currency. It wasn't debt:GDP but the real basis for their economy collapsing out from under them pushed along by a need for foreign currency. >My question is, at what point do we engage Washington's unlimited money printing presses until we reach that point? In answer to your question, the printing presses are what funds the real economy. The worry in terms of avoiding \"\"that point\"\" is in making sure we keep that real economy productive and fully funded. Ironically, taking our eye off the ball to focus on budget balance at the expense of real output pushes the economy in the direction you're afraid of going. See also: the euro zone today.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdf71bd9c994ed091173b092c7fda40f",
"text": "> Story printed literally as the only thing that can hold on value to the currency.. Japan has huge current account and trade surplus. they have to print money or else Yen will shoot up to the moon. Japan cannot afford over valued currency.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2393a44dc0901577a7086d3f55c7bdc7",
"text": "\"Sovereign states borrow money explicitly in a two primary ways: A sovereign cannot be compelled to repay debt, and there isn't a judicial process like bankruptcy to erase debt. When sovereigns default, they negotiate new terms with creditors and pay back some fraction of the actual debt owed. They can also print money to repay debt, which has other nasty consequences. But, while a state cannot be compelled to repay a debt, creditors cannot be compelled to loan money to the state either! Any enterprise of sufficient size needs access to capital via loans to meet daily obligations in anticipation of revenue -- even when times are good. Defaulting makes borrowing impossible or expensive, and is avoided. Regarding using your military to avoid repaying debt... remember what Napoleon said: \"\"An army travels on its stomach\"\". Military campaigns are expensive... no borrowing ability means the soldiers don't get paid and the food, fuel and ammo don't get delivered. Smaller countries have other risks as well. Many nations are essentially forced to use US Dollars as a reserve currency, or are forced by the market to borrow money in a foreign currency. This creates a situation where any risk of non-payment results in a deep devaluation of the local currency. When your debt is denominated in dollars, these shifts can dramatically increase your debt obligations from a local currency point of view. You also run the risk that a larger or richer company will park warships in your harbor and seize assets as payment -- the US and Britain engaged in this several times during the 19th and 20th centuries. In general, not paying the bills has a cascading effect. Bad situations get worse, and they do so quickly.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b56622ebc3733c8796be7e12c241770e",
"text": "Yes, and heres some pretty scary stats. Global debt went from about 200% of GPD in 2007 to 325% of GDP today. Global Debt is about 2.5x more than the value of global broad money (all the money in the world). The value of the derivatives market has increased to 6x the value of all global debt. Meaning a global market of packaging and trading debt exists that is 6x the value of the debt being traded, and 15x the value of all the money in the world.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fefb2bebc863d73f23a0dfeed3af1802",
"text": "Question: So basically the money created in this globalized digital world where capital is free to roam, it is referring to digital money and not actual physical cash. So the goldbugs that talk about america becoming weimar republic is delusional, since there isn't enough physical cash in relations to how big the economy is. And it is actually the debt lending that acts as a derivative of cash money that goes around posing as the money supply or the blood supply of an economy, and that feels like inflation, but when the debt is defaulted on or destroyed, underwritten or even paid back closing the circuit then it's deflationary? But does defaulting on ones debt create inflation since that money is still in the system and not being paid off? You know, when debts are paid off they are taken out of the system.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90bde0cc066745cdff7035c91c4165a8",
"text": "\"[There's about 10 trillion in gold](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_reserve) and about [2.8 trillion of US cash](http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/the-value-of-united-states-currency-in-circulation/) in the world. Neither of these is anywhere large enough to be used for all the transactions in the world. For example, about [4 trillion a **day**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_exchange_market) changes hands in the currency markets alone - if that were required to be cash or gold it would be impossible to do so, and you'd suffer from more poorly priced goods since markets could not adjust as quickly, so vendors would charge more premium to handle the risk. Yes, there is not (and has not been) enough cash in circulation to run the world economy. There is also vastly too little gold, unless you want to strangle commerce due to not being enough money to trade. > \"\"posing as the money supply\"\" All money is debt, and always has been. Money is a placeholder that you can trade for goods *later* meaning someone owes you a thing. The value of that money is the debt they (or society) owes you for something you already did to get that money. So there is no posing, just most don't understand money, how it originated, why it exists, or why it works. They never ask the question \"\"how does money come into existance\"\". > Does defaulting on ones debt create inflation since that money is still in the system and not being paid off? Probably not much. Loans are made expecting some default, so the interest others pay on their loans helps offset the defaulted ones. If loans become riskier, the interest demanded increases, so the lender still (if they do their risk analysis well and no external events break their expectations) makes money. When you pay off a debt, that money, as you're paying it, is likely being lent in other loans, so paying it off does not do much. If you could pay off about 100 trillion in debt into the US economy in one payment you might break some things :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57904482f79435e2e4f514c6c20f95a3",
"text": "They're not going to do anything about it. Washington needs the debt wheel to keep spinning, or the Dollar will lose its position as the Reserve Currency. Then all hell would break loose. Powerful countries like Japan are going to have to take the initiative. And apparently they are starting to. It has to be countries like Japan because if a weak country tries this, they'll get invaded.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39430e9e2b7e42a65b94a9ad0d7d55bf",
"text": "\"Correct! But this is only true when a central bank is involved. So if there's a single institution that has a territorial monopoly on the production of money (and competing currencies aren't allowed via \"\"legal tender laws\"\"), then the debt-based money system OP describes isn't actually the system being used. That's the problem with his post: he's trying to make it seem like our current system of fiat currencies is somehow natural or emergent. It's not. What we have now is the result of a legal monopoly.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b239353cfdc455d5b2bc50df36c11c4",
"text": "\"Are you working for a company that offers a Dependent Care Account? You may be able to withhold up to $5000/yr pre tax for care for you child. If you cover more than half her expenses, she is your dependent. You can't \"\"double dip.\"\" If she is your dependent, she cannot be the care provider for purposes of the DCAS, see Pub 503 top of p7 \"\"Payments to Relatives or Dependents.\"\" How do you think a business would change your situation? The DCA is a small tax break, if you have no business now, this break isn't something that should drive this.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cb53c191d77727a234f604d9ad92e2f2
|
Why would a company sell debt in order to buy back shares and/or pay dividends?
|
[
{
"docid": "e52bf1749687a26ac564b1945ae7f73f",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc2bc5b74217b1974606d5671b2f157d",
"text": "It's a tax shelter. Foreign affiliates hold most of Microsoft's cash and investments. The cost of borrowing is much cheaper than repatriating the money and paying taxes. Those bonds are selling at rates similar to US Treasury Debt. Also, many people and organizations with lots of assets still borrow money for day to day expenses. Why? You tend to make a better return on investments which are committed for a number of years, and the timing of income from those investments may not coincide with your expenses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a8d7995d7303fd33d5e096f3635f99c",
"text": "\"There is a substantial likelihood over the next several years that the US Dollar will experience inflation. (You may have heard terms like \"\"Quantitative Easing.\"\") With inflation, the value of each dollar you have will go down. This also means that the value of each dollar you owe will go down as well. So, taking out a loan / issuing a bond at a very good rate, converting it into an asset that's a better way to store value (possibly including stock in a big stable company like MSFT) and then watching inflation reduce the (real) value of the loan faster than the interest piles up... that's like getting free money. Combine that with the tax-shelter games alluded to by everyone else, and it starts to look like a very profitable endeavour.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cae49475cac493413300539035dcc851",
"text": "When I play Railroad Tycoon III, I often send my company deep into debt to get cash on hand to buy back shares, effectively increasing my ownership of the company as an absolute percentage. Then I issue massive dividends until my company goes bankrupt, and start a new company. It's a way to shuttle money borrowed against a company's assets into my personal bank account at no risk to me. In the MSFT case, maybe they think there will be inflation and this is a hedge against holding so many dollars in cash already. If they can borrow a couple billion in 2010 dollars and pay it back in 2015 dollars, they're probably going to end up ahead if all they do is buy back shares. Paying dividends with the money seems stupid vs. buying back shares - they're just driving up income taxes for investors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3efe3ae43a81233cc493fe7893ce776",
"text": "My answer is not specific, or even maybe applicable, to Microsoft. Companies don't want to cut dividends. So they have a fixed expense, but the cashflow that funds it might be quite lumpy, or cyclical, depending on the industry. Another, more general, issue is that taking on debt to retire shares is a capital allocation decision. A company needs capital to operate. This is why they went public in the first place, to raise capital. Debt is a cheaper form of capital than equity. Equity holders are last in line in a bankruptcy. Bondholders are at the front of the line. To compensate for this, equity holders require a larger return -- often called a hurdle rate. So why doesn't a company just use cheaper equity, and no debt? Some do. But consider that equity holders participate in the earnings, where bondholders just get the interest, nothing more. And because lenders don't participate in the potential upside, they introduce conditions (debt covenants) to help control their downside exposure. For a company, it's a balance, very much the same as personal finances. A reasonable amount of debt provides low-cost capital, which can be used to produce greater returns. But too much debt, and the covenants are breached, the debt is called due immediately, there's no cash to cover, and wham! bankruptcy. A useful measure, if a bit difficult to calculate, is a company's cost of capital, and the return on that capital. Cost of capital is a blended number taking both equity and debt into account. Good companies earn a return that is greater than their cost of capital. Seems obvious, but many companies don't succeed at this. In cases where this is persistent, the best move for shareholders would be for the company to dissolve and return all the capital. Unfortunately, as in the Railroad Tycoon example above, managers' incentives aren't always well aligned with shareholders, and they allocate capital in ways advantageous to themselves, and not the company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72040b1a5a0b194ef0f0940bf9acac4a",
"text": "Businesses have bond ratings just like people have credit ratings. It has become common for businesses to issue low rate bonds to show that they are strong, and leave the door open for further borrowing if they see an opportunity, such as an acquisition. One of the reasons Microsoft might want to build a credit reputation, is that people become familiar with their bonds and will purchase at lower rates when they want to borrow larger amounts of money, rather than assuming they are having financial issues which would lead them to demand higher rates.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "187da176de28134ca36a1b9726d3e13a",
"text": "The shareholders have a claim on the profits, but they may prefer that claim to be exercised in ways other than dividend payments. For example, they may want the company to invest all of its profits in growth, or they may want it to buy back shares to increase the value of the remaining shares, especially since dividends are generally taxed as income while an increase in the share price is generally taxed as a capital gain, and capital gains are often taxed at a lower rate than income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43f2d72be1a3b0a5c3f9a5aa9964ed05",
"text": "If that company issues another 100 shares, shouldn't 10 of those new 100 shares be mine? Those 100 shares are an asset of the company, and you own 10% of them. When investors buy those new shares, you again own a share of the proceeds, just as you own a share of all the company's assets. A company only issues new share to raise money - it is a borrowing from investors, and in that way can be seen as an alternative to taking on loans. Both share issuing and a loan bring new capital and debt into a company. The difference is that shares don't need to be repaid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bd114ba8024fb450b6316413d117d97",
"text": "who issued stock typically support it when the stock price go down. No, not many company do that as it is uneconomical for them to do so. Money used up in buying back equity is a wasteful use of a firm's capital, unless it is doing a buyback to return money to shareholders. Does the same thing happen with government bonds? Not necessarily again here. Bond trading is very different from equities trading. There are conditions specified in the offer document on when an issuer can recall bonds(to jack up the price of an oversold bond), even government bonds have them. The actions of the government has a bigger ripple effect as compared to a firm. The government can start buying back bonds to increase it's price, but it will stoke inflation because of the increase in the supply of money in the market, which may or mayn't be desirable. Then again people holding the bond would have to incentivized to sell the bond. Even during the Greek fiasco, the Greek government wasn't buying Greek bonds as it had no capital to buy. Printing more euros wasn't an option as no assets to back the newly printed money and the ECB would have stopped them from being accepted. And generally buying back isn't useful, because they have to return the principal(which might run into billions, invested in long term projects by the government and cannot be liquidated immediately) while servicing a bond is cheaper and investing the proceeds from the bond sale is more useful while being invested in long term projects. The government can just roll over the bonds with a new issue and refrain from returning the capital till it is in a position to do so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f18a170ac1d92e77e5a4792ddf675b6",
"text": "Equity can be diluted by future investors, royalties get paid on each sale, companies can continue selling things even when operating at negative profit, back royalties due can be negotiated and at least partially paid in a bankruptcy. From the standpoint of the investor: If it doesn't look like the company will likely have commercial success with a second product, it may be wise to simply take a portion of the product that is actually selling rather than risk your capital on the company's future successes (or failures). From the standpoint of the business owner/entreprenuer, if you believe you have a second product close to the end of the development pipeline it would be wise not to give up equity in the entire enterprise simply to gain required financing to ramp up production and marketing on an existing product. Paying a royalty may be advantageous compared to paying interest on a loan as well (royalty payments are contingent on the occurrence of a sale while interest is due regardless).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "518b52c68869a5db8e185a64c74529c7",
"text": "\"The basic theoretical reason for a company to return money to shareholders is that the company doesn't need the money for its own purposes (e.g. investment or working capital). So instead of the company just keeping it in the bank, it hands it back so that shareholders can do what they think fit, e.g. investing it elsewhere. In some cases, particularly \"\"private equity\"\" deals, you see companies actively borrowing money to payout to shareholders, on the grounds that they can do so cheaply enough that it will improve overall shareholder returns. The trade-off with this kind of \"\"leveraging up\"\" is that it usually makes the business more risky and every so often you see it go wrong, e.g. after an economic downturn. It may still be a rational thing to do, but I'd look at that kind of proposal very carefully. In this case I think things are quite different: the company has sold a valuable asset and has spare cash. It's already going to use some of the money to reduce debt so it doesn't seem like the company is becoming more risky. Overall if the management is recommending it, I would support it. As you say, the share consolidation seems like just a technical measure and you might as well also support that. I think they want to make their share price seem stable over time to people who are looking at it casually and won't be aware of the payout - otherwise it'd suddenly drop by 60p and might give the impression the company had some bad news. The plan is to essentially cancel one share worth ~960p for every payout they make on 16 shares - since 16x60p = 960p payout this should leave the share price broadly unchanged.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39d9fb59d7fa1dca7f75c482b5943014",
"text": "According to pretty well accepted corporate finance principles. They're mature/maturing companies with large durable noncyclical cash flow streams. Increasing their debt load and distributing the proceeds to shareholders would lower their after tax cost of capital and increase the value of their equity. IMO operating with such under levered balance sheets is nonoptimal. It's subjective though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c7b7bc49b3a18d2c21e9f2ddc23d02c",
"text": "A share of stock is a small fraction of the ownership of the company. If you expect the company to eventually be of interest to someone who wants to engineer a merger or takeover, it's worth whatever someone is willing to pay to help make that happen or keep it from happening. Which means it will almost always track the company's value to some degree, because the company itself will buy back shares when it can if they get too cheap, to protect itself from takeover. It may also start paying dividends at a later date. You may also value being able to vote on the company's actions. Including whether it should offer a dividend or reinvest that money in the company. Basically, you would want to own that share -- or not -- for the same reasons you would want to own a piece of that business. Because that's exactly what it is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5bf73ff2c8973bf282521eda8b1c959",
"text": "Ask your accountant about convertable preference shares. This would permit you to loan money to your company and then convert the debt to equity, should you so choose, at a later stage. As with the answer by bstpierre, these are all contractual arrangements conducted at arms-length.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13741d54162a9c82b58e040a60a81243",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58bb884158f8aea9bc18842b1ccdee1a",
"text": "When he says shitty, he means less likely to actually pay back the money. If I have a company that's not doing well enough, and I have already issued $100,000 in bonds onto this market, and I want to pay back all my bond-holders, maybe I convince a near-bankrupt company to give me $100,000 of bonds in their company for $50,000 in goods. I then repay my bondholders with the $100,000 in shitty bonds. Or maybe I give them $300,000 in goods and they give me $600,000 in their shitty bonds (since thier company is about to fall apart and they know I'll give them a kickback down the line). Then I pay back my 100k bonds with the new shitty bonds, and I go buy $500k worth of raw material for my company and pay for them using almost-bankrupt-company's shitty bonds . Then I have no debt, $500k worth of raw material, the people I used to owe money to (AND my suppliers) now hold a total of $600k in shitty bonds, and then my friend's almost-bankrupt-company DOES go bankrupt.... and my suppliers and old lenders realize the paper I just gave them is worthless.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74825d07b4fbdcb1d73b49bba074e785",
"text": "Ford paid off a tremendous amount of debt prior to reinstating the dividend. While they still have a sizable amount of debt on the balance sheet, they've been able to refinance this debt to a much more affordable point. Their free cash flow + cash on the balance could enable them to pay it off in the very near future (12 - 16 months). Most auto companies have debt on their balance sheet if they choose to offer financial services. Their overall credit rating (if you really think such things are valid) has also improved. Generally speaking, I agree its a poor idea to give money back to shareholders if you have high-interest bearing debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f78be2f8b571feb3fbeefc80e83873a0",
"text": "\"After the initial public offering, the company can raise money by selling more stock (equity financing) or selling debt (e.g. borrowing money). If a company's stock price is high, they can raise money with equity financing on more favorable terms. When companies raise money with equity financing, they create new shares and dilute the existing shareholders, so the number of shares outstanding is not fixed. Companies can also return money to shareholders by buying their own equity, and this is called a share repurchase. It's best for companies to repurchase their shared when their stock price is low, but \"\"American companies have a terrible track record of buying their own shares high and selling them low.\"\" The management of a company typically likes a rising stock price, so their stock options are more valuable and they can justify bigger pay packages.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "283fc5c844dfed1d7a837cf58c8a42b5",
"text": "The main reason, as far as I can see, is that the dividends are payments with which the shareholders may do what they want. Capital that the company has no use for does not make a significant positive return on investment, as you pointed out, yes the company could accrue interest, but that is not going to make the company large sums of cash. While the company may be great at making shoes - maybe even the best in the world - doesn't mean they are good investors. Sure they could dabble at using their capital to invest in other equities, but they don't, because they just want to focus on making shoes. If the dividend goes to the investors, they can do what they wish, be it reinvest in the company, or invest elsewhere. Other companies that may make good use of the capital, and create significant returns on it are one such example. That is the rational answer, beyond that, one of the main reasons is that people like the feeling of receiving dividends - it might not be the answer you are looking for, but many people prefer companies that pay dividends for no rational reason over companies which grow their asset value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1fc75f7221b7f6989bcfc65a0566b4e9",
"text": "\"If so, then if company A never pays dividends to its shareholders, then what is the point of owning company A's stock? The stock itself can go up in price. This is not necessarily pure speculation either, the company could just reinvest the profits and grow. Since you own part of a company, your share would also increase in value. The company could also decide to start paying dividend. I think one rule of thumb is that growing companies won't pay out, since they reinvest all profit to grow even more, but very large companies like McDonalds or Microsoft who don't really have much room left to grow will pay dividends more. Surely the right to one vote for company A's Board can't be that valuable. Actually, Google for instance neither pays dividend nor do you get to vote. Basically all you get for your money is partial ownership of the company. This still gives you the right to seize Google assets if you go bankrupt, if there's any asset left once the creditors are done (credit gets priority over equity). What is it that I'm missing? What you are missing is that the entire concept of the dividend is an illusion. There's little qualitative difference between a stock that pays dividend, and a stock that doesn't. If you were going to buy the stock, then hold it forever and collect dividend, you could get the same thing with a dividend-less stock by simply waiting for it to gain say 5% value, then sell 4.76% of your stock and call the cash your dividend. \"\"But wait,\"\" you say, \"\"that's not the same - my net worth has decreased!\"\" Guess what, stocks that do pay dividend usually do drop in value right after the pay out, and they drop by about the relative value of the dividend as well. Likewise, you could take a stock that does pay dividend, and make it look exactly like a non-paying stock by simply taking every dividend you get and buying more of the same stock with it. So from this simplistic point of view, it is irrelevant whether the stock itself pays dividend or not. There is always the same decision of whether to cut the goose or let it lay a few more eggs that every shareholder has to make it. Paying a dividend is essentially providing a different default choice, but makes little difference with regards to your choices. There is however more to it than simple return on investment arithmetic: As I said, the alternative to paying dividend is reinvesting profits back into the enterprise. If the company decided to pay out dividend, that means they think all the best investing is done, and they don't really have a particularly good idea for what to do with the extra money. Conversely, not paying is like management telling the shareholders, \"\"no we're not done, we're still building our business!\"\". So it can be a way of judging whether the company is concentrating on generating profit or growing itself. Needless to say the, the market is wild and unpredictable and not everyone obeys such assumptions. Furthermore, as I said, you can effectively overrule the decision by increasing or decreasing your position, regardless of whether they have decided to pay dividend to begin with. Lastly, there may be some subtle differences with regards to things like how the income is taxed and so on. These don't really have much to do with the market itself, but the bureaucracy tacked onto the market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4d2473d001e4be93bf68b6de5f0ab77",
"text": "One reason a company might choose to pay a dividend is because of the desire of influential stockholders to receive the dividend. In the case of Ford, for example, there are 70 million shares of Class B stock which receive the same dividend per share as do the common stock holders. Even though there are 3.8 billion shares of common stock, the Class B owners (which are Ford family) hold 40% of the voting power and so their desires are given much weight. The Class B owners prefer regular dividends because if enough were to sell their Class B shares, all Class B shares (as a block) would have their voting power drop from 40% to 30%, and with further sales all special voting would be lost and each Class B share would be equivalent to a common share in voting power. Hence the Class B owners, both for themselves and for all of the family members holding Class B, avoid selling shares and prefer receiving dividends.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
39c87d91d52668d6dafc4f59ae9dadf1
|
How to manage 20 residential apartments
|
[
{
"docid": "4947e3208e0f0fd6a510771e77a0b9e3",
"text": "If he can't manage, best is he sells it off. Its easier to manage cash. Not sure what tax you are talking about. He should have already paid tax on fair market value of the 20 flats. If the intention of Mr X is to gift to son by way of death, then yes the tax will be less. Else whenever Mr X sells there will be tax. how to manage these 20 apartments? Hire a broker. He may front run quite a few things like showing the place etc. There is a risk if he is given a free hand, he may not get good quality tenant. There are quite a few shark brokers [its unregulated] who may arm twist seeing the opportunity of an old man with 20 flats. See if you can do long term lease with companies looking for guest house etc, or certain companies who run guest house. They would like the scale, generally 3-5 years contracts are done. The rent is good and overall less hassle. The risk is most would ask to invest more in furnishing and contracts can be terminated in months notice. If the property is in large metro [Delhi/Bangalore/Chennai/etc] These places have good property management companies. Ensure that you have independent lawyer; there are certain aspects of law that may need to be studied.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5a6e5ffd6b132189f7b39f5213d9725",
"text": "I have no idea about India, but in many countries there are companies that specialize in property management. This means they will take on the business of maintaining the properties, finding tenants, doing paperwork and background checks, collecting rents and evicting tenants if necessary. Obviously for this they require a fee, but essentially the owner gets to sit back and do nothing except collect a cheque every month. In my country some real estate agents are in this business as well, though for 20 apartments I would be looking for a specialized firm.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8daccb4c7d1963417fafccde3f1149a4",
"text": "There are many property management companies are available in India. You can easily find trusted companies just searching on the google. They manage all these things legally. You just try this",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4ac2c64ce70259bde39978411a151518",
"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.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32f65fc97fd635d2e2758c4e3e51da9d",
"text": "I owned and managed a few residential properties. At one time the net cash flow was on the order of $1000 per month. But it was work. Lots of work. I was managing about 7 units. This does not count the gains in capital appreciation which were significant. Using a management company would have put the cash flow at 0 or in the negative and would have lowered the quality of management IMO. Nothing comes for free...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "186949c06eb488b98bb884fff413d4d4",
"text": "Renting a house out using a management company is mostly passive income. Earning affiliate income from companies that pay on a recurring basis is closer to passive income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0255b03e9b26ac7886bc7db1ca7075a",
"text": "\"I agree with Joe Taxpayer that a lot of details are missing to really evaluate it as an investment... for context, I own a few investment properties including a 'small' 10+ unit apartment complex. My answer might be more than you really want/need, (it kind of turned into Real Estate Investing 101), but to be fair you're really asking 3 different questions here: your headline asks \"\"how effective are Condo/Hotel developments as investments?\"\" An answer to that is... sometimes, very. These are a way for you-the investor-to get higher rents per sq. ft. as an owner, and for the hotel to limit its risks and access additional development funding. By your description, it sounds like this particular company is taking a substantial cut of rents. I don't know this property segment specifically, but I can give you my insight for longer-term apartment rentals... the numbers are the same at heart. The other two questions you're implying are \"\"How effective is THIS condo/hotel development?\"\" and \"\"Should you buy into it?\"\" If you have the funds and the financial wherewithal to honestly consider this, then I am sure that you don't need your hand held for the investment pros/cons warnings of the last question. But let me give you some of my insight as far as the way to evaluate an investment property, and a few other questions you might ask yourself before you make the decision to buy or perhaps to invest somewhere else. The finance side of real estate can be simple, or complicated. It sounds like you have a good start evaluating it, but here's what I would do: Start with figuring out how much revenue you will actually 'see': Gross Potential Income: 365 days x Average Rent for the Room = GPI (minus) Vacancy... you'll have to figure this out... you'll actually do the math as (Vacancy Rate %) x GPI (equals) Effective Potential Income = EPI Then find out how much you will actually pocket at the end of the day as operating income: Take EPI (minus) Operating expenses ... Utilities ... Maintenace ... HOA ... Marketing if you do this yourself (minus) Management Expenses ... 40% of EPI ... any other 'fees' they may charge if you manage it yourself. ... Extra tax help? (minus) Debt Service ... Mortgage payment ... include Insurances (property, PMI, etc) == Net Operating Income (NOI) Now NOI (minus) Taxes == Net Income Net Income (add back) Depreciation (add back) sometimes Mortgage Interest == After-tax Cash Flows There are two \"\"quickie\"\" numbers real estate investors can spout off. One is the NOI, the other is the Cap Rate. In order to answer \"\"How effective is THIS development?\"\" you'll have to run the numbers yourself and decide. The NOI will be based on any assumptions you choose to make for vacancy rates, actual revenue from hotel room bookings, etc. But it will show you how much you should bring in before taxes each year. If you divide the NOI by the asking price of your unit (and then multiply by 100), you'll get the \"\"Cap Rate\"\". This is a rough estimate of the rate of return you can expect for your unit... if you buy in. If you come back and say \"\"well I found out it has a XX% cap rate\"\", we won't really be qualified to help you out. Well established mega investment properties (think shopping centers, office buildings, etc.) can be as low as 3-5 cap rates, and as high as 10-12. The more risky the property, the higher your return should be. But if it's something you like, and the chance to make a 6% return feels right, then that's your choice. Or if you have something like a 15% cap rate... that's not necessarily outstanding given the level of risk (uncertain vacancies) involved in a hotel. Some other questions you should ask yourself include: How much competition is there in the area for short-term lodging? This could drive vacancies up or down... and rents up or down as well How 'liquid' will the property (room) be as an asset? If you can just break even on operating expense, then it might still make sense as an investment if you think that it might appreciate in value AND you would be able to sell the unit to someone else. How much experience does this property management company have... (a) in general, (b) running hotels, and (c) running these kinds of condo-hotel combination projects? I would be especially interested in what exactly you're getting in return for paying them 40% of every booking. Seasonality? This will play into Joe Taxpayer's question about Vacancy Rates. Your profile says you're from TX... which hints that you probably aren't looking at a condo on ski slopes or anything, but if you're looking at something that's a spring break-esque destination, then you might still have a great run of high o during March/April/May/June, but be nearly empty during October/November/December. I hope that helps. There is plenty of room to make a more \"\"exact\"\" model of what your cash flows might look like, but that will be based on assumptions and research you're probably not making at this time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f47d532ee2ff1cd4da42aa86e7f3042",
"text": "Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) and the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) have different end of term dates but by less than a month. Both have summer sessions, but most students do not stay over the summer. You can rent over the summer, but prices fall by a lot. Thirty to forty thousand students leave over the summer between the two. Only ten to twenty thousand remain throughout the year and not all of those are in Oakland (the neighborhood in Pittsburgh where the universities are located). So many of the landlords in Oakland have the same problem. Your competitors will cut their rates to try to get some rent for the summer months. This also means that you have to handle eight, nine, and three month leases rather than year long and certainly not multiyear leases. You're right that you don't have to buy the latest appliances or the best finishes, but you still have to replace broken windows and doors. Also, the appliances and plumbing need to mostly work. The furnace needs to produce heat and distribute it. If there is mold or mildew, you will have to take care of it. You can't rely on the students doing so. So you have to thoroughly clean the premises between tenants. Students may leave over winter break. If there are problems, the pipes may freeze and burst, etc. Since they're not there, they won't let you know when things break. Students drop out during the term and move out. You probably won't be able to replace them when that happens. If you have three people in two bedrooms, two of them may be in a romantic relationship. Romantic relationships among twenty-year olds end frequently. Your three people drops back to two. Your recourse in that case is to evict the remaining tenants and sue for breach of contract. But if you do that, you may not replace the tenants until a new term starts. Better might be to sue the one who left and accept the lower rent from the other two. But you likely won't get the entire rent amount for the remainder of the lease. Suing an impoverished student is not the road to riches. Pittsburgh is expected to have a 6.1% increase in house prices which almost all of it is going to be pure profit. I don't know specifically about Pittsburgh, but in the national market, housing prices are about where they were in 2004. Prices were flat to increasing from 2004 to 2007 and then fell sharply from 2007 to 2009, were flat to decreasing from 2009 to 2012, and have increased the last few years. Price to rent ratios are as high now as in 2003 and higher than they were the twenty years before that. Maybe prices do increase. Or maybe we hit a new 20% decrease. I would not rely on this for profit. It's great if you get it, but unreliable. I wouldn't rely on estimates for middle class homes to apply to what are essentially slum apartments. A 6% average may be a 15% increase in one place and a 3% decrease in another. The nice homes with the new appliances and the fancy finishes may get the 15% increase. The rundown houses in a block where students party past 2 AM may get no increase. Both the city of Pittsburgh and the county of Allegheny charge property taxes. Schools and libraries charge separate taxes. The city provides a worksheet that estimates $2860 in taxes on a $125,000 property. It doesn't sound like you would be eligible for homestead or senior tax relief. Realtors should be able to tell you the current assessment and taxes on the properties that they are selling you. You should be able to call a local insurance agent to find out what kinds of insurance are available to landlords. There is also renter's insurance which is paid by the tenant. Some landlords require that tenants show proof of insurance before renting. Not sure how common that is in student housing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de2f8020f2afe5a02fa537ebb9f85250",
"text": "\"To be completely honest, I think that a target of 10-15% is very high and if there were an easy way to attain it, everyone would do it. If you want to have such a high return, you'll always have the risk of losing the same amount of money. Option 1 I personally think that you can make the highest return if you invest in real estate, and actively manage your property(s). If you do this well with short term rental and/or Airbnb I think you can make healthy returns BUT it will cost a lot of time and effort which may diminish its appeal. Think about talking to your estate agent to find renters, or always ensuring your AirBnB place is in good nick so you get a high rating and keep getting good customers. If you're looking for \"\"passive\"\" income, I don't think this is a good choice. Also make sure you take note of karancan's point of costs. No matter what you plan for, your costs will always be higher than you think. Think about water damage, a tenant that breaks things/doesn't take care of stuff etc. Option 2 I think taking a loan is unnecessarily risky if you're in good financial shape (as it seems), unless you're gonna buy a house with a mortgage and live in it. Option 3 I think your best option is to buy bonds and shares. You can follow karancan's 100 minus your age rule, which seems very reasonable (personally I invest all my money in shares because that's how my father brought me up, but it's really a matter of taste. Both can be risky though bonds are usually safer). I think I should note that you cannot expect a return of 10% or more because, as everyone always says, if there were a way to guarantee it, everyone would do it. You say you don't have any idea how this works so I'd go to my bank and ask them. You probably have access to private banking so that should mean someone will be able to sit you down and talk you through. Also look at other banks that have better rates and/or pretend you're leaving your bank to negotiate a better deal. If I were you I'd invest in blue chips (big international companies listed on the main indeces (DAX, FTSE 100, Dow Jones)), or (passively managed) mutual funds/ETFs that track these indeces. Just remember to diversify by country and industry a bit. Note: i would not buy the vehicles/plans that my bank (no matter what they promise, and they promise a lot) suggest because if you do that then the bank always takes a cut off your money. TlDr, dont expect to make 10-15% on a passive investment and do what a lot of others do: shares and bonds. Also make sure you get a lot of peoples opinions :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a66f38ae2cba550a0b1745a99f4782ac",
"text": "Approach property management companies. I work for one with hundreds of properties and we need plumbers all the time. On the business side it simplifies your marketing and repeat business. We get potted flowers and candy from vendors all the time. Or they bring in pizza for lunch once a quarter to keep the relationship up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ad92aef2db18e00c11a34e335a8493c",
"text": "Well for starters you want to rent it for more than the apartment costs you. Aside from mortgage you have insurance, and maintenance costs. If you are going to have a long term rental property you need to make a profit, or at a bare minimum break even. Personally I would not like the break even option because there are unexpected costs that turn break even into a severe loss. Basically the way I would calculate the minimum rent for an apartment I owned would be: (Payment + (taxes/12) + (other costs you provide) + (Expected annual maintenance costs)) * 100% + % of profit I want to make. This is a business arrangement. Unless you are recouping some of your losses in another manner then it is bad business to maintain a business relationship that is costing you money. The only thing that may be worth considering is what comparable rentals go for in your area. You may be forced to take a loss if the rental market in your area is depressed. But I suspect that right now your condo is renting at a steal of a rate. I would also suspect that the number you get from the above formula falls pretty close to what the going rate in your area is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e912dbff135225ac31d53bff72a6ff8",
"text": "\"I am surprised at the amount of work this contract wants done. I'd question if it's even legal given the high costs. I suspect it's only there to remind abusive tenants of responsibilities they already have in law for extraordinary abuse beyond ordinary wear-and-tear: they are already on the hook to repaint if they trash the paint (think: child writing on walls, happens a lot), and already need to fumigate (and a lot more) if they are a filth-type hoarder who brings in a serious infestation (happens a lot). The landlord can already go after these people for additional money beyond the deposit. But that's not you. So don't freak out about those clauses, until you talk to the landlord and see what he's really after. Almost certainly, he really wants a \"\"fit and ready to rent\"\" unit upon your departure, so he doesn't have to take the unit off the market for months fixing it. As long as that's done, there's no reasonable reason for further work -- a decent landlord wouldn't require that. Nor would a court, IMO. The trouble with living in a place for awhile is you become blind to its deficiencies. What's more, it's rather difficult to \"\"size up\"\" a unit as ready when it's still occupied by your stuff. A unit will look rather different when reduced to a bare room, without furniture and whatnot distracting you. Add to it a dose of vanity and it becomes hard to convince yourself of defects others will easily see. So, tread carefully here. If push comes to shove, first stop is whether it's even legal. Cities and states with heavy tenant populations tend to have much more detailed laws, and as a rule, they favor the tenant. Right off the bat, in most states the tenant is not responsible for ordinary wear-and-tear. In my opinion, 6 years of ordinary, exempt wear would justify a repaint, so that shouldn't be on the tenant at all. As for the fumigation, I'm not in Florida so I don't know the deal, maybe there's some special environmental issue there which somehow makes that reasonable, it sure wouldn't fly in CA. Again that assumes you're a reasonable prudent tenant, not a slob or hoarder. As for the pro carpet cleaning, that's par for the course in any of the tough rent control areas I've seen, so that's gotten a pass from the legislators. Though $600 seems awfully high. Other than that, you can argue the terms are \"\"unconscionable\"\" -- too much of a raw deal to even be fair. However, this will depend on the opinion of a judge. Hit or miss. I'm hoping your landlord will be happy to negotiate based on the good condition of the unit (which he may not know; landlords rarely visit tenant units unless they really need to.) You certainly should make the case that you make here; that the work is not really needed and it's prohibitive. Your best defense against unconscionable deals is don't sign them. Remember, you didn't know the guy when you initially signed... the now-objectionable language should have been a big red flag back then, saying this guy is epic evil, run screaming. (even if that turned out not to be true, you should't have hung around to find out.) You may have gotten lucky this time, but don't make that mistake again. Unless one of the above pans out, though... a deal is a deal. You gave your word. The powerful act here is to keep your word. Forgive me for getting ontological, but successful people say it creates success for them. And here's the thing. You have to read your contracts because you can't keep your word if you don't know what word you gave. It's a common mistake: thinking good business is trust, hope, faith, submission or giving your all. No. In business, you take the time to hammer out mutually beneficial (win-win) agreements, and you set them on paper to eliminate confusion, argument and stress in the future as memories fade and conditions change. That conflict resolution is how business partners remain friends, or at least professional colleagues.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d2dca01d9cfa77aa73046505321e972",
"text": "\"I see two important things missing from your ongoing costs: maintenance and equipment. I also don't see the one-time costs of buying and moving. Maintenance involves doing some boring math like \"\"roofs go every 20 years or so and a new roof would cost $20k, so I need $1000 a year in the roof fund. Furnaces go every 20 years and cost $5k, so I need $250 a year in the furnace fund.\"\" etc etc. Use your own local numbers for both how long things last and how much they cost to replace. One rule of thumb is a percentage of the house (not house and land) price each year keeping in mind that while roof, furnace, carpet, stove, toilets etc all need to get replaced eventually, not everything does - the walls for example cost a lot to build but don't wear out - and not all at a 20 year pace. Some is more often, some is less often. I've heard 5% but think that's too high. Try 3% maybe? So if you paid $200,000 for a $100,000 house sitting on $100,000 of land, you put $3000 a year or about $250 a month into a repair fund. Then ignore it until something needs to be repaired. When that happens, fund the repair from the savings. If you're lucky, there will always be enough in there. If the house is kind of old and on its last legs, you might need to start with a 10 or 20k infusion into that repair fund. Equipment means a lawnmower and trimmer, a snow shovel, tools for fixing things (screwdriver, hammer, glue, pliers, that sort of thing.) Maybe tools for gardening or other hobbies that house-owners are likely to have. You might need to prune back some trees or bushes if nothing else. Eventually you get tools for your tools such as a doo-dad for sharpening your lawnmower. Well, lots of doo-dads for sharpening lots of things. One time expenses include moving, new curtains, appliances if they don't come with the house, possibly new furniture if you would otherwise have a lot of empty rooms, paint and painting equipment, and your housewarming party. There are also closing costs associated with buying a house, and you might need to give deposits for some of your utilities, or pay to have something (eg internet) installed. Be sure to research these since you have to pay them right when you have the least money, as you move in.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f433e95de68c23d93cf4fae5295ecc2",
"text": "You will need to look at the 27.5 year depreciation table from the IRS. It tells you how you will be able to write off the first year. It depends on which month you had the unit ready to rent. Note that that it might be a different month from when you moved, or when the first tenant moved in. Your list is pretty good. You can also claim some travel expenses or mileage related to the unit. Also keep track of any other expenses such as switching the water bill to the new renter, or postage. If you use Turbo tax, not the least expensive version, it can be a big help to get started and to remember how much to depreciate each year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a1293a666b8079d199978def4663f03",
"text": "Getting the first year right for any rental property is key. It is even more complex when you rent a room, or rent via a service like AirBnB. Get professional tax advice. For you the IRS rules are covered in Tax Topic 415 Renting Residential and Vacation Property and IRS pub 527 Residential Rental Property There is a special rule if you use a dwelling unit as a personal residence and rent it for fewer than 15 days. In this case, do not report any of the rental income and do not deduct any expenses as rental expenses. If you reach that reporting threshold the IRS will now expect you to to have to report the income, and address the items such as depreciation. When you go to sell the house you will again have to address depreciation. All of this adds complexity to your tax situation. The best advice is to make sure that in a tax year you don't cross that threshold. When you have a house that is part personal residence, and part rental property some parts of the tax code become complex. You will have to divide all the expenses (mortgage, property tax, insurance) and split it between the two uses. You will also have to take that rental portion of the property and depreciation it. You will need to determine the value of the property before the split and then determine the value of the rental portion at the time of the split. From then on, you will follow the IRS regulations for depreciation of the rental portion until you either convert it back to non-rental or sell the property. When the property is sold the portion of the sales price will be associated with the rental property, and you will need to determine if the rental property is sold for a profit or a loss. You will also have to recapture the depreciation. It is possible that one portion of the property could show a loss, and the other part of the property a gain depending on house prices over the decades. You can expect that AirBnB will collect tax info and send it to the IRS As a US company, we’re required by US law to collect taxpayer information from hosts who appear to have US-sourced income. Virginia will piggyback onto the IRS rules. Local law must be researched because they may limit what type of rentals are allowed. Local law could be state, or county/city/town. Even zoning regulations could apply. Also check any documents from your Home Owners Association, they may address running a business or renting a property. You may need to adjust your insurance policy regarding having tenants. You may also want to look at insurance to protect you if a renter is injured.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b3f26a15ae57922ab21582901c89a67",
"text": "You may have to ask each tenant to provide copies of bank statements or copied of deposited checks indicating what was paid, to whom and when. Using a spreadsheet is a good idea. It doesn't have to be complicated. If everyone co-operates then this exercise might not be too much of a hassle. But if anyone is combative or unwilling to produce these records, I would recommend reminding them that their other choice is to take each other to court where these records would be required anyway - or face eviction if the landlord doesn't get paid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e78a7689dc55077eb13c694a60c5654",
"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.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ca1b59e45e7dd98ad3c7f6ba8724c30",
"text": "They call you because that is their business rules. They want their money, so their system calls you starting on the 5th. Now you have to decide what you should do to stop this. The most obvious is to move the payment date to before the 5th. Yes that does put you at risk if the tenant is late. But since it is only one of the 4 properties you own, it shouldn't be that big of a risk.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1b093e5da6e3ba9540866d230eae6347
|
Where can I find a Third Party Administrator for a self-directed solo 401K?
|
[
{
"docid": "c86927a383eb005d90ee36730dcda654",
"text": "You setup a self-directed solo 401k by paying a one time fee for a company to setup a trust, name you the sole trustee, and file it with the IRS. None of these companies offer TPA because it opens them up to profit leaching liability. After you have your trust setup, you can open a brokerage account or several with any of the big names you want (Vanguard, Fidelity, Ameritrade, etc), or just use the money to flip houses, do P2P lending, whatever, the world is your investment oyster. If the company has recurring fees you need to ask what is going on because if they aren't offering TPA services, then what the heck could they be charging you for? I did see one company, I think it was IRA Financial Group, that had the option of having a CPA do TPA for you for a recurring fee, but I would pass on that. The IRS administration requirements are typically just the 5500-EZ that you have to file as a hard copy by July 31 if your investments are worth more than $250k, on December 31. Yes, you have to get the actual form from the IRS, write on it with a pen and mail it to them every year, barbaric. You can either have your accountant do it or do it yourself. If you're below $250k just google solo 401k rule change two or three times a year and don't try to launder money. If anything, the rules will loosen with time, I don't imagine the Republican Congress cracking down on small business owners any time soon.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0f8c5f28061ad8e75404c5fcc51dbaf",
"text": "Fidelity Investments offers Solo 401(k) plans without any management fees. The plan administrator is typically the employer itself (so, your business, or you as the principal manager). You (as the individual employee) are the participant.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "27190f396673fa1761500386491ffe9a",
"text": "My former accountant, used to provide this service as part of him doing my taxes. During the off season, he would provide a planning session and he would review strategies that I might look into. Since he did not make any money off of providing investments, he was about as unbiased as one could be. However, something like that might not be enough for you guys. You could go with someone online, Scottrade is going into the business of providing advice, as well as Charles Schwab or Fidelity, but you might need someone more personal. In that case, I would use my network. Talk to people, ask who they use, like, and respect. I would say it is very easy to find mediocre investment advisers, the good ones are hard. I would look for one that teaches. It is very easy to tell someone what to do, much harder to teach them what is the right thing. One thing that is easy about your situation: Planning to buy a home. Put money for a down payment in a high interest savings account. What I mean by high interest, is they still pay almost nothing. You can't really make a mistake. If you find one with .5% instead of .85%, what is the real difference after 5 years? About $180?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a179f846cd675420143bd596b5d26a9",
"text": "Can't tell you where to go for a good policy, but I can tell you that most brokers make a hefty commission out of your payments for at least a year before you even start funding the tax sheltered investment account that you're trying to buy under the umbrella of life insurance. You'll have to do a lot of homework to hunt down a reputable discount broker or a direct policy purchase from the insurance company. Life insurance requires insurable need. The description is vague enough, that you can probably still get the account despite being a single male with no apparent heirs to benefit, but it raises the question of why you are buying the insurance. Whole life policies require you to maintain a certain ratio of investment to premium payment and you will likely never be able access all of the money in the account for your own personal usage. Compare several policies from several brokers and companies. Read all the critical sources you can about the pitfalls and dangers of commissions, fees and taxes eating the benefits of your account. Verify that the insurance company you buy the policy from is financially stable after the market crash. You are paying a commission to pool your money into their investment fund, and if your insurer goes under, you'll have to get a portion of your money (possibly only the principle) back from the state insurance commissioner. Some companies sold pretty generous policies during the bubble and have cut their offerings way down without fixing their marketing literature and rosy promises. Finally, let us know what you find. It never hurts to see hard numbers and to run multiple eyes over the legalese in these contracts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb7429f700bf206a2c989ac07d7b563b",
"text": "From the employer side there are A LOT of legal duties attached to sponsoring a 401(k). If you are asking this question I would not suggest attempting to meet all of the regulations related to handling employee money internally. There are certain annual filings, periodic notices, accounting etc related to these kinds of plans, and the fines for non-compliance are extraordinary. You would be far better off seeking a separate vendor, in my opinion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8eabb4ee0cac8a619ce1562d3648991d",
"text": "\"Your 401K (and IRA) is a legally distinct entity from yourself. In fact, it is a \"\"trust,\"\" and your Administrator is a \"\"trustee,\"\" while you are both creator and benefactor. This fact, and the 10% early withdrawal penalty, makes it immune from most judgments. The IRS can \"\"levy\"\" your 401K or IRA for back taxes, but must waive the 10% penalty (under the 1997 Tax Reform law). That gives them the power to do what most others can't. A \"\"tricky\"\" banker may persuade you to take money out of your 401K to pay the bank. If you do, s/he has won. But s/he can't go after your 401k.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4217f4b58b17bf01e6deb8e2a43bf894",
"text": "The Employee Benefits Security Administration within the US Department of Labor is tasked with keeping track of pension and 401K programs. The even have a website to search for abandoned plans: it helps participants and others find out whether a particular plan is in the process of being, or has been, terminated and the name of the Qualified Termination Administrator (QTA) responsible for the termination. The Employee Benefits Security Administration discuss all types of details regarding retirement programs. This document What You Should Know About Your Retirement Plan has a lot of details including this: If your former employer has gone out of business, arrangements should have been made so a plan official remains responsible for the payment of benefits and other plan business. If you are entitled to benefits and are unable to contact the plan administrator, contact EBSA electronically at askebsa.dol.gov or by calling toll free at 1-866-444-3272. There are also EBSA offices spread thought the United States",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7656ef45cba6e4625dec01393a52132b",
"text": "My employer matches 1 to 1 up to 6% of pay. They also toss in 3, 4 or 5 percent of your annual salary depending on your age and years of service. The self-directed brokerage account option costs $20 per quarter. That account only allows buying and selling of stock, no short sales and no options. The commissions are $12.99 per trade, plus $0.01 per share over 1000 shares. I feel that's a little high for what I'm getting. I'm considering 401k loans to invest more profitably outside of the 401k, specifically using options. Contrary to what others have said, I feel that limited options trading (the sale cash secured puts and spreads) can be much safer than buying and selling of stock. I have inquired about options trading in this account, since the trustee's system shows options right on the menus, but they are all disabled. I was told that the employer decided against enabling options trading due to the perceived risks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07c75adfe6ef2da84f3e05878e67e85f",
"text": "My employer matches 6% of my salary, dollar for dollar. So you have a great benefit. The self-directed side has no fees but $10 trades. No option trading. Yours basically allows you to invest your own funds, but not the match. It's a restriction, agreed, but a good plan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "447c3f654c405b11900b5814b150328a",
"text": "Alright, team! I found answers to part 1) and part 2) that I've quote below, but still need help with 3). The facts in the article below seem to point to the ability for the LLC to contribute profit sharing of up to 25% of the wages it paid SE tax on. What part of the SE tax is that? I assume the spirit of the law is to only allow the 25% on the taxable portion of the income, but given that I would have crossed the SS portion of SE tax, I am not 100%. (From http://www.sensefinancial.com/services/solo401k/solo-401k-contribution/) Sole Proprietorship Employee Deferral The owner of a sole proprietorship who is under the age of 50 may make employee deferral contributions of as much as $17,500 to a Solo 401(k) plan for 2013 (Those 50 and older can tack on a $5,500 annual catch-up contribution, bringing their annual deferral contribution to as much as $23,000). Solo 401k contribution deadline rules dictate that plan participant must formally elect to make an employee deferral contribution by Dec. 31. However, the actual contribution can be made up until the tax-filing deadline. Pretax and/or after-tax (Roth) funds can be used to make employee deferral contributions. Profit Sharing Contribution A sole proprietorship may make annual profit-sharing contributions to a Solo 401(k) plan on behalf of the business owner and spouse. Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a)(3) states that employer contributions are limited to 25 percent of the business entity’s income subject to self-employment tax. Schedule C sole-proprietors must base their maximum contribution on earned income, an additional calculation that lowers their maximum contribution to 20 percent of earned income. IRS Publication 560 contains a step-by-step worksheet for this calculation. In general, compensation can be defined as your net earnings from self-employment activity. This definition takes into account the following eligible tax deductions: (1) the deduction for half of self-employment tax and (2) the deduction for contributions on your behalf to the Solo 401(k) plan. A business entity’s Solo 401(k) contributions for profit sharing component must be made by its tax-filing deadline. Single Member LLC Employee Deferral The owner of a single member LLC who is under the age of 50 may make employee deferral contributions of as much as $17,500 to a Solo 401(k) plan for 2013 (Those 50 and older can tack on a $5,500 annual catch-up contribution, bringing their annual deferral contribution to as much as $23,000). Solo 401k contribution deadline rules dictate that plan participant must formally elect to make an employee deferral contribution by Dec. 31. However, the actual contribution can be made up until the tax-filing deadline. Pretax and/or after-tax (Roth) funds can be used to make employee deferral contributions. Profit Sharing Contribution A single member LLC business may make annual profit-sharing contributions to a Solo 401(k) plan on behalf of the business owner and spouse. Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a)(3) states that employer contributions are limited to 25 percent of the business entity’s income subject to self-employment tax. Schedule C sole-proprietors must base their maximum contribution on earned income, an additional calculation that lowers their maximum contribution to 20 percent of earned income. IRS Publication 560 contains a step-by-step worksheet for this calculation. In general, compensation can be defined as your net earnings from self-employment activity. This definition takes into account the following eligible tax deductions: (i) the deduction for half of self-employment tax and (ii) the deduction for contributions on your behalf to the Solo 401(k). A single member LLC’s Solo 401(k) contributions for profit sharing component must be made by its tax-filing deadline.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e33d3966285f67dd5f2d0f6ae221bcf",
"text": "401(k) plans, 403(b) plans, IRAs etc all require more paperwork than a non-tax-advantaged investment. As a result, most such plans (with Vanguard as well as with other management companies) offer only a small set of investment options, and so it costs the plan sponsor (you wearing your Employer hat) money if you want to add more investment options for your Solo 401(k) plan). Note that with employer-sponsored retirement plans, investments in each mutual fund might be coming in small amounts from various employees, much less than the usual minimum investment in each fund, and possibly less than the minimum per-investment transaction requirement (often $50) of the fund group. Taking care of all that is expensive, and it is reasonable that Vanguard wants to charge you (the Employer) a fee for the extra work it is doing for you. When I was young and IRAs had just been invented (and the annual contribution limit was $2000 for IRAs), I remember being charged a $20 annual fee per Vanguard fund that I wanted to invest in within my IRA but this fee was waived once my total IRA assets with Vanguard had increased above $10K.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0eb36cb23e54bb663852701290267fcd",
"text": "My two-cents, read your plan document or Summary Plan Description. The availability of in-service withdrawals will vary by document. Moreover, many plans, especially those compliant with 404(c) of ERISA will allow for individual brokerage accounts. This is common for smaller plans. If so, you can request to direct your own investments in your own account. You will likely have to pay any associated fees. Resources: work as actuary at a TPA firm",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f36ca2639d4852d8262d20e589d6ad31",
"text": "You can open a self-employed 401k, here's an example. You can deposit up to 50K (including the personal cap and the profit sharing/matching portion).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09831bc94519dff461f2559278ffa955",
"text": "Read the Forbes article titled IRA Adventures. While it's not the detailed regulations you certainly need, the article gives some great detail and caution. You may be able to do what you wish, but it must be structured to adhere to specific rules to avoid self dealing. Those rules would be known by the custodians who would help you set up the right structure, it's well buried within IRS regs, I'm sure. Last, in general, using IRA funds to invest in the non-traditional assets adds that other layer of risk, that the investment will be deemed non-allowed and/or self-dealing. So, even if you have the best business idea going, be sure you get proper council on this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b36177c86a000963a421bfef2ab82829",
"text": "I use the self-directed option for the 457b plan at my job, which basically allows me to invest in any mutual fund or ETF. We get Schwab as a broker, so the commissions are reasonable. Personally, I think it's great, because some of the funds offered by the core plan are limited. Generally, the trustees of your plan are going to limit your investment options, as participants generally make poor investment choices (even within the limited options available in a 401k) and may sue the employer after losing their savings. If I was a decision-maker in this area, there is no way I would ever sign off to allowing employees to mess around with options.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1fa75ab8a23b7d77ea05b2bba4111506",
"text": "\"You want a fee-only advisor. He charges like an architect or plumber: by the hour or some other \"\"flat fee\"\". That is his only compensation. He is not paid on commission at all. He is not affiliated with any financial services company of any kind. His office is Starbucks. He does not have a well lit office like the commission broker down the street. He does not want you to hand him your money - it stays in the brokerage account of your choice (within reason - some brokerage accounts are terrible and he'll tell you to get out of those). He never asks for the password to your brokerage account. Edit: The UK recently outlawed commission brokers. These guys were competitive \"\"sales types\"\" who thrive on commissions, and probably went into other sales jobs. So right now, everyone is clamoring for the few proper financial advisors available. High demand is making them expensive. It may not be cost-effective to hire an advisor; you may need to learn it yourself. It's not that hard. Ever hear of a plumber who works totally for free, and makes his money selling you wildly overpriced pipe? That's what regular \"\"financial advisors\"\" are. They sell products that are deliberately made unnecessarily complex. The purpose is first, to conceal sales commissions and high internal fees; and second to confuse you, so the financial world feels so daunting that you feel like you need their help just to navigate it. They're trying to fry your brain so you'l just give up and trust them. Products like whole life and variable annuities are only the poster children for how awful all of their financial products are. These products exist to fleece the consumer without quite breaking the law. Of course, everyone goes to see them because they have well lit offices in every town, and they're free and easy to deal with. Don't feel like you need to know everything about finance to invest. You don't need to understand every complex financial product that the brokerage houses bave dreamed up: they are designed to conceal and confuse, as I discuss above, and you don't want them. The core of it is fairly simple, and that's all you really need to know. Look at any smaller university and how they manage their endowments. If whole life, annuities and those complex financial \"\"products\"\" actually worked, university endowments would be full of them. But they're not! Endowments are generally made of investments you can understand. Partly because university boards are made of investment bankers who invented those products, and know what a ripoff they are. Some people refuse to learn anything. They are done with college and refuse to learn anything more. I hope that's not you. Because you should learn the workings of everything you're investing in. If you don't understand it, don't buy itl And a fee-only financial advisor won't ask you to. 1000 well-heeled, well-advised university endowments seek the most successful products on the market... And end up choosing products you can understand. That's good news for you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb7e57438c6ed8ba47bd2bd2a7ae324a",
"text": "I use healthequity. It's just the one I was given, but they actually have really good fund options. There's a .396% yearly administration fee to access their low-cost funds, but the fund fees are really low (.02% for VIIIX, .03% for VBMPX)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5d1289ef7cd288cda5c8031eda11c67c
|
Do Americans really use checks that often?
|
[
{
"docid": "ef31f1e5df5e9daf7d1a3ba4e3c6ab4a",
"text": "When you start at a new job here in the U.S., the default means of payment is usually a paper check. Most folks will quickly set up direct deposit so that their employer deposits their paycheck directly into their personal bank account - the incentive to do so is that you receive your funds faster than if you deposit a paper check. Even if you set up direct deposit on your first day on the job, you may still receive your first paycheck as a paper check simply because the wheels of payroll processing turn slowly at some (large) companies. A counter example is a self-employed contractor - perhaps a carpenter or house painter. These folks are paid by their customers, homeowners and such. Many larger, well established contracters now accept credit card payments from customers, but smaller independents may be reluctant to set up a credit card merchant account to accept payment by card because of all the fees that are associated with accepting credit card payments. 3% transaction fees and monthly service fees can be scary to any businessman who already has very thin profit margins. In such cases, these contractors prefer to be paid by check or in cash for the simple reason that there are no fees deducted from cash payments. There are a few folks here who don't trust direct deposit, or more specifically, don't trust their employer to perform the deposit correctly and on time. Some feel uncomfortable giving their bank info to their employer, fearing someone at the company could steal money from their account. In my experience, the folks who prefer a paper paycheck are often the same folks who rush to the bank on payday to redeem their paychecks for cash. They may have a bank account (helps with check cashing) but they prefer to carry cash. I operate in a manner similar to you - I use a debit card or credit card (I only have one of each) for nearly all transactions in daily life, I use electronic payments through my bank to pay my regular bills and mortgage, and I receive my paycheck by direct deposit. There have been periods where I haven't written or received paper checks for so long that I have to hunt for where I put my checkbook! Even though I use a debit card for most store purchases, the bank account behind that debit card is actually a checking account according to the bank. Again, the system defaults to paper checks and you have the option of going electronic as well. Before we judge anyone who doesn't use direct deposit or who prefers to be paid in cold hard cash, consider that direct deposit is a luxury of stability. Steady job, home, etc. Direct deposit doesn't make sense for a contractor or day laborer who expect to work for a different person each day or week. I don't think this is all that unique to the US. There are people in every city and country who don't have long-term employment with a single employer and therefore prefer cash or paper check over electronic payments. I'd be willing to bet that this applies to the majority of people on the planet, actually.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8fda556ad6cb96a5357c78be226dbea8",
"text": "In my business (estate planning law practice), probably 60-70% of my income is in the form of checks, with the balance as credit/debit cards. I prefer to get paid by check so I don't have to pay the approx 2.5% merchant fee, but I don't push clients to choose one method over the other. I offer direct deposit to my employees but most of them choose to be paid by check. Also, check processing is becoming more and more electronic - when I get paid by check, I scan the checks in a dedicated desktop scanner, and upload the check images to the bank at the end of the day, and the checks are processed very quickly. I also make deposits to my personal credit union account by scanning checks and uploading the images. So, yes, there's technically a paper check, but I (as the merchant/recipient/depositor) keep the check for a few months to make sure there's no problem with the deposit/payment, then shred them. The bank never sees the actual paper check.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1612c66234ab9b4f19b31a9a740465c8",
"text": "\"A very interesting topic, as I am moving to the US in a month. I realise this thread is old but its been helpful to me. My observations from my home country \"\"Before we judge anyone who doesn't use direct deposit or who prefers to be paid in cold hard cash, consider that direct deposit is a luxury of stability. Steady job, home, etc. Direct deposit doesn't make sense for a contractor or day labourer who expect to work for a different person each day or week\"\" --- well here a contractor would still be paid by a direct deposit, even if he was working for many different people. On the invoice the contractor provides Bank account details, and customer logs onto their internet banking and pays electronically. It is a a very simple process and is the preferred method of payment by most businesses even small contractors. Many accounting software programs are linked to bank accounts and can quickly reconcile accounts for small business. Many businesses will not accept a cheque in Australia anymore as they are considered to be a higher risk. I started work in 1994 and have never received any payment except via direct deposit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1e1220560ce3d4ece5ce7f64ee937e5",
"text": "I still use checks to pay rent and occasionally some bills/liabilities. That said, I did notice an (elderly) lady paying by check at the supermarket a while ago. So is it really common to get a paycheck in the sense that you get a piece of paper? Yes and no. There are some people that opt for the physical paycheck. Even if they do not, there is a pay stub which serves as a record of it. My last employer went to online pay stubs and a bunch of us opted out, sticking with the good old paper in an envelope. We sure were glad of that when there were technical issues and security concerns with the online service.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e01aba077b19ab21e245ef66e69f8aa5",
"text": "Sorry for this late reply. I currently live in Iceland (I am a United Statesian). People here told me they thought checks were just something that were in movies. I was amazed by this. So here are some reasons that I see to being why it works still in the usa. 1. Social Security system. Most Euro, Nordic countries have their lives, bank accounts, ect tied to their 'Social Security' number and that number is not top secret like it is in the USA. In fact here in Iceland you throw your number around to anyone who wants it because they cant do anything with it but pay you money really. 2. Banks. In the USA there are millions, MILLIONS of small town banks. That means that doing direct deposits or transfers is much much harder to achieve. Example: Iceland has two banks. The most common way of loaning a friend money or paying for that hotel room if you forgot to bring cash or your card is to say 'Give me your SSN and I will transfer to you'. It takes about 30 seconds to do a funds transfer. In the USA you can't do that. They would think you are lying or not want to give they bank info or because of the fees from small town banks it would be pointless. Also a lot of these small banks will not accept direct deposit (I had a bank growing up that still does not) These are some of the main reasons that I think cause the flow of checks in the usa.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20f1faf11e9fc76bc2216ed86c83a0e7",
"text": "\"I know this an old thread, but one that caught my interest as I just moved to the USA from Australia. As per the OP I had never written a check in my whole life, and upon arriving in the US I was surprised as to their proliference. In Australia pretty much all bills you receive can be paid in a number of ways: For small amounts between friends cash is probably used most, but for larger amounts direct transfer is popular. Your friend/landlord will give you their bank account number and BSB number, which identifies their bank, and then you transfer the money in. We don't have a SSN like some other countries. Cheques are still used by some however, esp by the older generations. Now that I'm in the US initially I had tried to set up direct transfer to pay my rent however the bank has a $1000 daily transfer limit. I contacted the bank to get this increased however I was informed that this limit applies to ALL accounts at the bank. I asked how do people pay their rents with this low limit and was told that most people used cheques. (This explains the strange look I got from my landlord when I asked for their bank account details so I could pay the rent!) I now have some bills to pay here and I use online banking. You enter the biller's name and address and then the bank actually prints off a cheque and posts it to the biller on your behalf! My first couple of pays here were also cheques, which were the first actual \"\"paychecks\"\" I had ever received.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7f899827d3aae4754d6c612163051a6",
"text": "Typically your paychecks are direct deposited into your bank account and you receive a paycheck stub telling you how much of your money went where (taxes, insurance, 401k, etc.). Most people use debit or credit cards for purchases. I personally only use checks to transfer money to another person (family, friend, etc.) than a business. And even then, there's PayPal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45d5bbbb109433ec4decc5f783d5ee72",
"text": "There are some people that still get an old-fashioned paycheck but for the most part if you are an employee at a company you get a paystub while the money is direct deposited into your accounts. Paying for stuff at a store with a check is not very common. Most people use credit cards for that purpose. A significant percentage of the population still use checks for paying there regular bills through the mail. Although the more internet savvy people will most likely use online bill pay from their bank so they don't have to mail checks. Personally I have only written about 15 checks in 5 years. Mostly to people and not to businesses setup for receiving bill payments electronically.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccd9c4730192f7cd2f124af4769cec68",
"text": "Many small businesses are still cash and check. For example my landlord does not take credit card or online transfer. My choices are cash and check, and I prefer checks for the paper trail.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dce2e7d55d8aed2b088a1fd27ce27f39",
"text": "\"People who rent an apartment will typically pay by check. Probably 90% of the checks I have written are for rent. To some extent this falls under the previously mentioned \"\"payments to another person\"\" rule.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e726704aa3a047d7e8672b6868a8e179",
"text": "Ever since my apartment complex started accepting rent payments online, I've almost never written a check. I use my debit card for everything. And I get paid by direct deposit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67a6bbba7f13b2a6635133848ebf9e54",
"text": "I receive checks from my tenant. Also, from our medical reimbursement account. I'm sure there's an option somewhere to get that direct deposited, just haven't yet. My wife will write checks for school functions. Funny, they haven't cashed one since february, and this is the one item to look for every time I reconcile her account. A few select others don't take credit or debit cards. Our tailor (losing weight, needed pants pulled in), among others. The number of checks is surely down an order of magnitude over the years, but still not zero.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14db4aaccba207332c28e3d8235ba523",
"text": "From a Canadian point of view, I think we are generally very similar to how you describe Austria. The only thing I use cash for, is to pay for my coffee at a local micro-roaster who only accepts cash. Cheques, I only use to pay friends. Everything else is debit or credit card. Very few businesses around here will even accept cheques anymore.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "005e07c2a709929f6b8fb66f86f38363",
"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.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "90f4a09fd47702b34fd698aa96b6fdb0",
"text": "\"You can spend the money quite quickly. The problem is that if there is something wrong with the check, the bank will ask you for the money back. If the check is from a trusted source (a trusted friend, a business with good reputation etc.) that's fine. If the money is from an untrusted source, make sure that having to pay back the money doesn't get you into trouble. Since most people are honest, this is fine for a small amount, but if it's more than you can afford to pay back, don't spend it. A simple scam is that people send you checks, \"\"by mistake\"\" the check is for the wrong amount, say $910 instead of $190, and they ask you to send the difference back. So you put $910 into your account, send them $720, and six weeks later your bank asks for their $910 back. If someone pays you too much on a check and asks you to pay them the difference, you know it is a scam.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cdc5937ee4679065bb4a2878b10d27dc",
"text": "Check use is declining here too, but it still has some practical advantages over electronic means:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "593a607429bbea53a8c549008657a60f",
"text": "\"The real reason credit cards are so popular in the US is that Americans are lazy and broke, and the credit card companies know how to market to that. Have you ever heard of the $30k millionaires? These were individuals that purchased as if they were some of the wealthy elite, but had no real money to back it up. American society has pushed the idea of \"\"living on credit\"\" for quite some time now. An idea that is even furthered by watching the US government operate solely on credit. (Raise the debt ceiling much?) Live in America for more than six months and you will be bombarded with \"\"Pre-Approved Deals\"\" with low introductory rates that are designed to sucker the average consumer into opening multiple accounts that they don't need. Then, they try and get you to carry a balance by allowing low minimum payments that could take in the neighborhood of 20 years to pay off, depending on carried balance. This in turn pads the credit companies' pockets with all of the interest you now pay on the account. The few truly wealthy Americans do not purchase on credit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e906b74b083c9b0c9370ece62cffc5b",
"text": "Not just America, and I assume not ALL companies, but heaps in Australia are doing the same thing. I work for one that does, I mean all of the Visa workers in here are wonderful people so it's not a big deal to me. I can definitely relate to people being annoyed about this though, especially as many foreigners send a lot of their money overseas instead of spending it here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ff97fdc7a3510f25ff7d3820da6ec25",
"text": "A lot of Americans have used Swiss bank accounts to avoid paying taxes. However recently several large Swiss banks have started disclosing the details on some of their customers to the IRS. There isn't much security in Swiss banking at this point in time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e728f67b84c940c2e23ee8334471085",
"text": "Because it makes money for all parties, and because the general public is reluctant to any change. Who should have an interest to change that? People. And they have no say in it. You can actually do a lot without paper checks nowadays (I only use one per year for car taxes, as they do not accept anything else), but many people shake their heads about even online banking and would never trust it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de5b3b9faab2ae254ca546bb6740d4e1",
"text": "In the US, paper checks are still the rule, and there is a large amount of the population that does not care to use online banking. As a result, those people need to go to the bank once a week or more often, to deposit checks they get from anywhere, to get cash, etc.; so all those little banks have traffic. This is slowly changing, and banks start to automatic the processes even in the brick-and-mortar location, but for now, they are around.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee98cdc37024de3dac00fdb75f6e1d98",
"text": "Believe it or not, this is done as a service to you. The reason for this has to do with a fundamental difference between a credit card account and a checking account. With a credit card account, there is no money in the account; every charge is borrowed money. When you get to your credit limit, your credit transactions will start getting declined, but if the bank does for some reason let one get approved, it's not a big deal for anyone; it just means that you owe a little more than your credit limit. Note that (almost) every credit card transaction today is an electronic transaction. A checking account, however, has real money in it. When it is gone, it is gone. When a balance inquiry is done, the bank has no way of knowing how many checks you've written that have not been cashed yet. It is a customer's responsibility to know exactly how much money is available to spend. If you write more checks than you have money for in your account, technically you have committed a crime. Unfortunately, there are too many people now that are not taking the responsibility of calculating their own checking account balance seriously, and bad checks are written all the time. When a bank allows these transactions to be paid even though you don't have enough money in your account, they are preventing a crime from being committed by you. The fee is a finance charge for loaning you the money, but it is also there to encourage you not to spend more than you have. Even if you use a debit card, it is still tied to a checking account, and the bank doesn't know if you have written enough checks to overdraw your account or not. It is still your responsibility to keep track of your own available balance. Every time this happens to you, thank the bank as you pay this fee, and then commit to keeping your own running balance and always knowing how much you have left in your account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23641425a136902b14a888a56d82c9b1",
"text": "Because of the way checks are processed, you can't write a check for $100 million or more: http://www.bankingquestions.com/checksyoureceived/q_limitfunds.html The field used for 'amount' has 10 digits, so anything at/above 10^10 cents (which would require 11 digits) can't be processed, at least not by normal means.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d797e0c5aeb688f536cd46d2b3308dd",
"text": "\"Here's a hack for getting the \"\"free\"\" checking that requires direct deposit. Some effort to set up, but once everything is in place, it's all autopilot. (If your transfer into savings is higher than your transfer out of savings, you'll build up a nice little stash over time.) I don't know if there are deposit amounts or frequencies that you must have to qualify for the free account, if these are public or secret, or if this works everywhere. If anyone else has experience using this kind of hack, please leave a comment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc9beba134af860f63df40315c9b5caa",
"text": "\"Two typical responses to articles/surveys making such claims: **1. People use other forms of asset for emergency savings because interest rates are low - clearly false.** **2. People use other forms of saving than a saving account therefore such surveys as the X% can't handle a $500 emergency are wrong on their face - this is false the vast majority use a savings account.** I've chosen a topic that absolutely annoys the shit out of me every time it comes up, how people save their money. Every time this topic comes up about X% of americans can't come up with $Y dollars in an emergency or have less than $Z in savings someone inevitably chimes in with the linked response. I have *never* seen anyone attempt to source their hand waving response beyond their own anecdote, which is usually a thinly veiled brag about how financially savvy they are with their wealth. Perhaps people who have no assets, or crippling debt don't go out of their way to brag about it... I could link multiple reddit posts making a similar response, which I address with my own stock response about once every 1-2 months. Instead I've decided to expand with data from several other sources. This is the prototypical good/bad research problem. If you're asserting something, but qualify your statement with, \"\"I\"\"m sure we'd find...if we looked into...\"\" then you're doing it wrong. A good researcher or journalist doesn't put bullshit like that in their work because it's their job to actually look for sources of data; data which should exist with multiple government and independent groups. So let's get started (all data as recent as I could find, oldest source is for 2010): * [Most americans don't invest in the stock market](https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf) About 48.8% of americans owned publicly traded stock directly or indirectly, with a much smaller percent (13.8%) owning stock directly - pages 18 and 16 respectively. It's important to note the predominance of indirect ownership which suggests this is mostly retirement accounts. It's entirely possible people are irresponsible with their emergency savings, but I think it safe to say we should not expect people to *dip into their retirement accounts* for relatively minor emergency expenses. The reason is obvious, even if it covers the expense they now have to make up the shortfall for their retirement savings. This is further supported by the same source: >\"\"The value of assets held within IRAs and DC plans are among the most significant compo-nents of many families’ balance sheets and are a significant determinant of their future retirement security.\"\" Ibid (page 20, PDF page 20 of 41) There is also a break down of holdings by asset type on page 16, PDF page 16 of 41. * [This data is skewed by the top 10% who keep more of their wealth in different asset types.](http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) For a breakdown between the 1st, 10th, and 90th percentiles see **table 3.** So far it seems pretty hard to maintain a large percent of americans have their wealth stored outside of savings accounts, mattresses aside. * [Here's my original reply as to the breakdown of americans assets by type and percent holding.](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) Note this assumes people *have* assets. [Source for images/data.](https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/data/dtables.html) Most people use savings accounts, with runner up falling to checking accounts. This will segue into our next topic which is the problem of unbanked/underbanked households. * [A large number of individuals have no assets; breaking down by asset types assumes people *have* assets in the first place.](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/) To quote the FDIC: >*\"\"Estimates from the 2015 survey indicate that 7.0 percent of households in the United States were unbanked in 2015. This proportion represents approximately 9.0 million households. An additional 19.9 percent of U.S. households (24.5 million) were underbanked, meaning that the household had a checking or savings account but also obtained financial products and services outside of the banking system.\"\"* That's right there are millions of households *so finance savvy* they don't even have banks accounts! Obviously it's because of low interest rates. Also, most people have a checking account as well as savings account, the percent with \"\"checking and savings\"\" was 75.8% while those with \"\"checking only\"\" were 22.2% (page 25, PDF page 31 of 88). It's possible in some surveys people keep all their money in checking, but given other data sources, and the original claim this fails to hold up. If the concern was interest rates it makes no sense to keep money in checking which seldom pays interest. This survey also directly addresses the issue of \"\"emergency savings\"\": > *\"\"Overall, 56.3 percent of households saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies in the past 12 months.\"\"* (page 37, PDF page 43 of 88) Furthermore: >*\"\"Figure 7.2 shows that among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts:* **more than four in five (84.9 percent) kept savings in one of these accounts.** *About one in ten (10.5 percent) households that saved maintained savings in the home, or with family or friends.\"\"* Emphasis added. * [Why don't people have wealth in different asset classes? Well they don't save money.](http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/savings-rates-by-wealth-class.png) This is further supported by the OECD data: * [Americans \"\"currency and deposits\"\" are 13% vs 5.8% for \"\"securities and other shares\"\" as % of total financial assets.](https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-financial-assets.htm) Additionally: * [Interest earning checking accounts: 44.6% of american households (second image)](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) * [\"\"Among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts...\"\" (page 7, PDF page 13 of 88)](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2015/2015report.pdf) * ~70% saved for an emergency with a savings account vs ~24% who used checking. *Ibid.* In fairness the FDIC link does state *banked* americans were more likely to hold checking accounts than savings accounts (98% vs ~77% respectively) but that doesn't mean they're earning interest in their checking account. It's also worth noting median transaction account value was for 2013 (this is the federal reserve data) $4100.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e3057c1fc6c4cd285ff605bf4f2e8ef",
"text": "Yes. I've spoken to mortgage officers from various banks who will do conventional loans with anything as low as 3.5% down, however there are many more restrictions (e.g., normally you can borrow funds from a parent or relative for a down payment, in this case that was prohibited). If you are already pre-approved, then your approval letter should state the specifics you need to adhere to. If you would like to modify that (e.g. put a smaller amount down), then you could still get the loan, but your pre-approval won't be valid. I would recommend speaking with your lender (and perhaps with a few others as well) about the new home you are looking at.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bcb9eaeafb6185e76ad564d565950eaf",
"text": "Sorry to hear about your spouse's health issues. May he have a speedy and, as far as possible, full recovery. The Patient Protectection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, aka Obamacare) is now the law of the land. Among its many provisions are that insurers may no longer deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, they may not put lifetime caps on benefits, and they may not charge different premiums based on any criteria except age cohort and geographic area (i.e. rates may be higher for 50 year olds than 30 year olds, but sick and healthy 50 year olds living in the same area pay the same). If he gets government health coverage because he's on disability, this may not matter. On the other hand, you might find it better to put him on your employer's policy, because you like the coverage better, the employer covers part of the dependent premium, or some other reason. In any case, they can't discriminate against him or you based on his condition. ETA: Rates may vary by geography as well as age.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5a5f8ad3288f2cb621f7ca5831446fbe
|
Is it possible to get life insurance as a beneficiary before the person insured dies?
|
[
{
"docid": "32fc43e946560f7aece913aec3c0d849",
"text": "I recall the following business from the AIDS crisis: viatical settlement But because there were life-extending treatments developed in the 1990s, many third parties which engaged in these took a bath and it's not as common.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2c799c21cbf7e9fc6f2c8ab23de5d35",
"text": "If the insurance policy is a whole-life (or variable life) policy, it might have a surrender value that the owner of the policy might be able to get by surrendering the policy in whole; if it is a term life policy, it has no surrender value. In many cases, the owner of the policy is also the insured and so ask Uncle Joe whether he would be willing to surrender the life insurance policy and give you the proceeds now instead of making you wait till he passes away. If it is a term life policy, ask him to consider not renewing the policy and from now on, just give you the premium he would have been paying to the insurance company. Whether he will pay you increasing amounts in later years (as a renewable five-year level term policy might require) is a more delicate matter that you can negotiate with him. On the other hand, if the policy owner is Aunt Annie but the insured is Uncle Joe (and you are the beneficiary), talk to Aunt Annie instead; she is the one who can cancel the policy, not Uncle Joe. And for heaven's sake, don't grease the skids to facilitate Uncle Joe's first step onto the stairway to heaven; there are, depending on where you live, various laws prohibiting payments to beneficiaries who have had a hand in arranging for the happy event to occur.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "328e79ef60ec002d959f06cda2b2b17a",
"text": "Generally no. It does not make sense for insurance company to alter terms and if there are such rules it can be subject to misuse.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1234f8cb5c80b9ebe1fd888e157d3d7",
"text": "\"The short answer is \"\"No\"\". There a 2 ways to get cash from a life insurance policy. If the policy has cash value greater than the surrender value, then the difference can be borrowed, but will generally increase premiums in the future. The other method, available on many term policies allows the owner to receive part of the death benefit if the insured has a physician willing to certify that he/she will probably pass away within a 12 month period. Several carriers also offer cash benefits for critical care.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3393f7c349cd30df4749a2c59947f9ae",
"text": "To add to JoeTaxpayer's answer, the cost of providing (term) life insurance for one year increases with the age of the insured. Thus, if you buy a 30-year term policy with level premiums (the premium is the same for 30 years) then, during the earlier years, you pay more than the cost to the insurance company for providing the benefit. In later years, you pay somewhat less than the cost of providing the insurance. The excess premiums that the insurance company charged in earlier years and the earnings from investing that money covers the difference between the premium paid in later years and the true cost of providing the coverage. If after 20 years you decide that you no longer need the protection (children have grown up and now have jobs etc) and you cancel the policy, you will have overpaid for the protection that you got. The insurance company will not give you backsies on the overpayment. As an alternative, you might want to consider a term life insurance policy in which the premiums increase each year (or increase every 5 years) and thus better approximate the actual cost to the insurance company. One advantage is that you pay less in early life and pay more in later years (when hopefully your income will have increased and you can afford to pay more). Thus, you can get a policy with a larger face value (150K for your wife and 400K for yourself is really quite small) with annual premium of $550 now and more in later years. Also if you decide to cancel the policy after 20 years, you will not have overpaid for the level of coverage provided. Finally, in addition to a policy with larger face value, I recommend that you include the mortgage (if any) on your house in the amount that you decide is enough for your family to live on and to send the kids to college, etc., or get a separate (term life insurance) policy to cover the mortgage on your home. Many mortgage contracts have clauses to the effect that the entire principal owed becomes immediately due if either of the borrowers dies. Yes, the widow or widower can get a replacement mortgage, or prove to the lender that the monthly payments will continue as before, (or pay off the mortgage from that $150K or $400K which will leave a heck of a lot less for the family to survive on) etc., but in the middle of dealing with all the hassles created by a death in the family, this is one headache that can be taken care of now. The advantage of including the mortgage amount in a single policy that will support the family when you are gone is that you get a bit of a break; the sum of the annual premiums on ten policies for $100K is more than the premiums for a single $1M policy. There is also the consideration that the principal owed on the mortgage declines over the years (very slowly at first, though) and so there will be more money available for living expenses in later years. Alternatively, consider a special term life insurance policy geared towards mortgage coverage. The face value of this policy reduces each year to match the amount still due on the mortgage. Note that you may already have such a policy in place because the lender has insisted on you getting such a policy as a condition for issuing the loan. In this case, keep in mind that not only is the lender the beneficiary of such a policy, but if you bought the policy through the lender, you are providing extra profit to the lender; you can get a similar policy at lower premiums on the open market than the policy that your lender has so thoughtfully provided you. I bought mine from a source that caters to employees of nonprofit organizations and public sector employees; your mileage may vary.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f1a6600c7d5167d1c80460f44dc3060",
"text": "You have asked this question but provide very little information. As others have stated, what country are you in? Was there a will or any other agreement? Basically any estate will go to the beneficiaries once all debtors have been paid off. How this is done will largely depend on which country/state/region you are in and what documentation was in place at the time of death. You might want to check out this website for details on passing away without a will: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-estate-settled-if-theres-32442.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3e80c45ba965e888546e407bc8bf122",
"text": "Life insurance is not an investment -- by definition, since the companies need to take a profit out of it, the average amount paid in exceeds the amount paid out, yielding a negative rate of return. Get life insurance if your death would cause severe financial hardship for someone. If you have sufficient savings that your wife could recover and move on with her life without hardship, and your kids are grown, you probably DO NOT need life insurance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cbe60d47428c4fd61da728a2ede6e83f",
"text": "I just went through this and life insurance money generally does not go into Probate. However, since there was no beneficiary, you will have to ask the probate court. I would advise you not to spend any of the money yet. Make a meeting with the probate court in the county where they lived. You will need the death certificate and the will. If you do not have a will, the estate generally does not need to go into probate. But if it does, then they will definitely let you know what to do with the insurance money. Just make sure you use the estate accounts to pay off all of his debts before you distribute the left over money. The entire process should take an absolute minimum of 6 months.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d29f10957e2b14100a27d8ab2ce1cbd",
"text": "\"There are two types of insurance: whole life and term. I don't recommend whole life insurance, because you are insuring against something that will happen, your death. Maybe you could buy it if members of your family have a history of outliving the averages. This is called \"\"adverse selection.\"\" Term is different: it insures against your UNTIMELY death. Many people I know take term insurance for the X years until their last child leaves college, or some other well defined \"\"term.\"\" They don't want to die before this term but will be satisfied with the insurance as a \"\"consolation\"\" prize.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa80e2066fab165e86db3de8af6d86ac",
"text": "Does such insurance make any sense or is it just wasting money for passengers? As with most insurance, it depends. If you just look at the probability of a payout, the cost of the insurance, and the payout amount, then statistically it will always be better to avoid buying insurance. This is because there is a certain amount of overhead in an insurance company, like the commissions and salaries you mentioned. The goal when buying insurance should be to avoid a cost that you cannot afford or is inconvenient to be able to afford. For example, if your family would be devastated financially by your death then it would make sense for you to buy some sort of life insurance. Whether or not this particular insurance makes sense for you depends on your financial situation and risk tolerance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e37f85cd922fdb9702e05ac45d345b6",
"text": "So far all insurances start from the perspective of the insurance taker. However, I find it much more intuitive to look from the perspective of the insurance giver: Note that the exact amount may differ, but management fees of a few dozen percent are quite realistic. Note that it is not as unreasonable as it may sound at first, some costs: And of course most insurance companies will want to keep some profit as well. If you are completely risk averse, typically it is only financial beneficial to get insurance if you have a significantly higher risk profile. Examples of this (not an expert on boats): Note that piece of mind may also be worth getting the insurance for, for instance if you frequently put others in the position to crash your boat, and don't want to create an awkward financial discussion when they do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "730ad7c986ba008c4a3dfbaf3aed190d",
"text": "At their age, the likely did not even need the coverage anymore unless they were doing some major estate planning. If that's the case then it sound like they purchased the wrong policy to begin with since OP's account of the information makes it sound like a term policy. If it is a term policy, the term was also probably about to end as well. In the end, this will likely not be a bog deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5345be7d605b0afce14d92988730fc0",
"text": "Here's the issue with LTC and, really, underwritten insurance in general; no one has a crystal ball. Based on today's available rates where's the sweet spot to buy LTC? Probably right around the mid-60s, because you probably won't pay much in before you start gutting the carrier (assuming you can make it through underwriting in your mid-60s). The issue is, what happens when some life event changes your underwriting status? Would you rather buy prematurely or be excluded entirely? Those are generally your two options when it comes to individual LTC. The underwriting eligibility window on LTC is very narrow. There's a very very small space between the best possible underwriting and being flatly declined. Look for an LTC agent in your area. Likely someone in your circle of friends and family will know a reputable/knowledgeable insurance agent who can run up some quotes at various underwriting classes. Try to avoid looking at quotes for your age + 10 years to see what the quote will look like 10 years from now. 10 years from now the rate tables will be significantly different. Whether or not you should buy LTC now rather than waiting will depend on a whole host of other criteria. Personally, if I was 50 and my biggest health concern was improving my run time and LTC is on my mind, I'd just pick up a policy now while I will likely be in a preferred underwriting class rather than waiting and hoping my health doesn't betray me. Obviously I'm a stranger on the internet and none of this is actual advice. You should find an agent local to you and talk about your options and situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d446846369a78284f7692921324ee4c6",
"text": "\"Careful with saying \"\"no need\"\". Look careful at the cost of life insurance. That cost depends obviously on the amount, but also on the age when you start paying into the insurance. If you take out a $100,000 insurance at 20, and someone else takes it out at 30, and a third person at 50, they will pay hugely different amounts when you reach the same age. You will pay less when you are 50 then the person taking out insurance at 30 when they reach the age of 50, and less again than the person who just started with their life insurance. And as mhoran said, once you have insurance you can keep it even if you get an illness that would make you uninsurable.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "caf48708dcdc273ce87c8acb2d58e838",
"text": "I think the chances of them changing the rules without grandfathering in people of retirement age (pun intended) are pretty small. The general rule of thumb on this issue seems to be to wait to get the full amount if you have sufficient resources that you don't expect to need the money earlier. That is, unless you have some reason to not expect much longevity (family history of dying young, current medical condition, etc.) Ultimately, however, this is a big financial decision that is best made with the help of a good financial adviser/actuary. There are a large number of variables to be considered.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc5200a551eb8da86019269ffc0be7db",
"text": "Here's a good rule of thumb. In any situation where you are required to purchase insurance (Auto Liability, Property Mortgage Insurance, etc.) you can safely assume that you aren't the primary beneficiary. You are being required to buy that insurance to protect someone else's investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43bfcb307ebfd5d196bfaafbe1c6da53",
"text": "If someone recommends a particular investment rather than a class of investments, assume they are getting a commission and walk away. If someone recommends whole life insurance as an investment vehicle, walk away. Find someone whose fiduciary responsibility is explicitly to you as their client. That legally obligated them to consider your best interests first. It doesn't guarantee they are good, but it's done protection against their being actively evil.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af02b3b52407fb1095c82f3e24c29f34",
"text": "If there are no dependents, there is no need for life insurance. You mention getting insurance when it is not needed, to protect you against some future risk. If you have a policy and a disease crops up that would normally make you un-insurable, you can keep your insurance for the rest of the term. The cost for this would be very high. You would have to have a term that would last decades to cover you until some future child is out of college. If you never have somebody that depends on you for income, there never is a need for life insurance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e29bc8c9c4d905e2a43a95cbb0da7cc1",
"text": "\"As others have said, if you don't have dependents, there's little need for life insurance. If you can't think of any obvious beneficiary for an insurance policy, than you probably don't need one. \"\"Dependents\"\" here should be understood broadly. It wouldn't necessarily be limited to wife and children. If you're the only support for your handicapped cousin, for example, you might want to provide for him. But I take it from your question that you have no such special case. Of course even if you have no dependents now, you might pick some up in the future. And if and when that does happen, your medical situation may have changed, making it difficult to get life insurance. But if you have no immediate plans so that any such even is likely to be far away, a serious alternative to consider would be to invest the money you would have paid in insurance premiums. Then if someday you do acquire dependents, you have a pot of money set aside to provide for them in case something happens to you. If it's not enough and you can get insurance at that time, then great, but if you can't get insurance, at least there's something. If you never do acquire dependents, you can consider that pot of money part of your retirement fund.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
660f19ee869d017a20ba8ba2c00b5477
|
Why doesn’t every company and individual use tax-havens to pay less taxes?
|
[
{
"docid": "6a79cda350d7160731ebebf084b0ff5c",
"text": "\"I believe that an understanding of the taxation system can help to understand our place in it, and how that impacts each of our personal finances. I will try to remain unbiased here but this is a somewhat subjective question, so please bear with me if you disagree on any point. Some of these tax savings are well-advertised, and can be used by many people, such as tax credits for mass-transit passes which exists in some countries. But some of these tax savings are things you never heard of before, until it winds up on the news. Why do some people seem to get tax savings that you and I cannot get, and why do those people always seem to have so much more money than us? A simplistic answer can show this in three parts: (1) The source of one's income; (2) Transaction costs; and (3) \"\"tax loopholes\"\". Tax savings occur proportionately to one's income, and if the savings apply to investment income, they occur proportionately to one's wealth. If someone living paycheck to paycheck with a minimal amount in a bank account \"\"saves tax on investment income\"\", they might reduce their taxable interest from $50 to $0. That's because they simply don't have any other investment income to reduce. All of their income comes in the form of employment, which is typically very hard to save taxes on. Most governments have a very firm grasp on the taxation of employment income, because it is a huge proportion of income in the country (and therefore has the largest amount of tax associated), and because it is very straightforward (work for someone = employment income). A more cynical person than I might point out that investment income is earned by the very wealthy, who can afford to lobby for politicians to pass favourable investment income laws. Even very straightforward tax saving opportunities may cost money to enable. The simplest example would be: if a tax saving opportunity is so complicated that an average person can't understand it themselves, then an accountant, lawyer, or banker will need to be the one to explain it. And that can cost you money. If your tax isn't so much to begin with, then the transaction costs to achieve the tax savings could be higher than the tax savings themselves. For example, most countries have tax savings / deferrals if you start a corporation. These rules typically exist to promote investment in the local economy. But someone who earns $10k in a side-business might not be able to afford the $3k in incorporation costs just to save $2k in taxes. The more income and wealth you have, the more these transaction costs become worthwhile. I'm going to generally define \"\"tax loopholes\"\" for the purposes of this answer as something where a somewhat arbitrary situation allows for taxes that a layman would consider unfair or unexpected. This often occurs with good intentions but poor legislation - the government tries to provide a benefit to a deserving group or to promote an activity, but ends up allowing another group to take advantage. For example in Canada, there existed until a few years ago tax saving rules about passing on wealth to children at lower tax rates, only when a close family member is near-death [setting up a 'testamentary trust' between a grandparent and a grandchild could in some circumstances allow that trust to be created with additional 'tax brackets', meaning more income would be taxed at a less-than top tax rate before being distributed to the grandchildren]. The rules were put in place with the idea that \"\"oh gee, a family member has died, and the dang ol' family is grieving so hard they can't distribute the wealth to the next generation for a few months on account of all the crying. We should make it so that the estate is taxed like a person, and if they earn only a little income, they have a low tax rate, and they only get taxed at the full rate if they have a lot of income\"\". Seems reasonable enough, but if a family is ready to pass on wealth at the same time as someone is nudging the bucket with their foot, a morbid discussion with your lawyer and accountant could set your children up for life with forever reduced taxes on massive inheritances. In the case of the Panama / Paradise leaks, tax savings are due to all 3 of the above: Those who have massive wealth (and therefore earn the majority of their income from investments instead of employment) can afford the transaction costs associated with taking advantage of specific \"\"tax loopholes\"\". The simplest example of which is just that income earned in a foreign country might have a lower tax rate than income earned domestically. This is often a result of \"\"cracks\"\" in the foreign tax treaties between countries, which exist generally to promote business between countries and prevent double-taxing individuals who need activity in both countries for whatever reason. Take for example the \"\"Apple loophole\"\". Apple has operations around the world. Some activity occurs in low-tax jurisdictions. Apple reports a high percentage of the value of R&D as being associated with those jurisdictions. Those branches in low-tax jurisdictions charge the high-tax branches (such as the US) with fees for use of their valuable research. So much of Apple's income is reported in those foreign jurisdictions. It won't be taxed in the US until Apple \"\"repatriates\"\" the cash back to the US. Until then, the cash sits in the foreign jurisdiction, accruing less tax. This and similar rules can be used by individuals wealthy enough to hold corporations in foreign jurisdictions with low tax rates. How each particular rule / \"\"loophole\"\" works will depend on the nature of a specific case - tax law is complex, and the rules between countries are even more so. These foreign tax loopholes are closing every year. It is getting harder and harder to hide money offshore, and it is getting less and less likely that you will be able to find a country with juuuust the right loopholes for your own offshore wealth. These types of news leaks will only help to expedite those changes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd2b59be1209888981f7fe29cf6b6e0d",
"text": "\"Your \"\"average company and taxpayer\"\" generally wouldn't have significant off-shore/foreign income. In the U.S., for example, even if you have your employer deposit all of your salary to an account at a foreign bank, they would still report it to the IRS as income. Removing the money from your home country isn't what gets it out of being taxed, it's that the money was never in your home country.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b10baf24c0aa7867791b8ae4fe55005",
"text": "In a nutshell, there are significant entrance hurdles, legally and especially financially. The fixed cost and effort to get it set up is high (although later, the proportional cost and efforts are negligible). Therefore, this is only of interest for taxable amounts of seven digits or more - which most people don’t reach.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "614098cccc7c2833b8fc3c2452d2e12c",
"text": "\"Ditto @GradeEhBacon, but let me add a couple of comments: But more relevantly: GradeEhBacon mentioned transaction costs. Yes. Many tax shelters require setting up accounts, doing paperwork, etc. Often you have to get a lawyer or accountant to do this right. If the tax shelter could save you $1 million a year in taxes, it makes sense to pay a lawyer $10,000 to set it up right. If it could save you $100 a year in taxes, paying $10,000 to set it up would be foolish. In some cases the tax savings would be so small that it wouldn't be worth the investment of spending $20 on a FedEx package to ship the paperwork. Inconvenience. Arguably this is a special case of transaction costs: the cost of your time. Suppose I knew that a certain tax shelter would save me $100 a year in taxes, but it would take me 20 hours a year to do the paperwork or whatever to manage it. I probably wouldn't bother, because my free time is worth more than $5 an hour to me. If the payoff was bigger or if I was poorer, I might be willing. Complexity. Perhaps a special case of 3. If the rules to manage the tax shelter are complicated, it may not be worth the trouble. You have to spend a bunch of time, and if you do it wrong, you may get audited and slapped with fines and penalties. Even if you do it right, a shelter might increase your chance of being audited, and thus create uncertainty and anxiety. I've never intentionally cheated on my taxes, but every year when I do my taxes I worry, What if I make an honest mistake but the government decides that it's attempted fraud and nails me to the wall? Qualification. Again, as others have noted, tax shelters aren't generally, \"\"if you fill out this form and check box (d) you get 50% off on your taxes\"\". The shelters exist because the government decided that it would be unfair to impose taxes in this particular situation, or that giving a tax break encourages investment, or some other worthy goal. (Sometimes that worthy goal is \"\"pay off my campaign contributors\"\", but that's another subject.) The rules may have unintended loopholes, but any truly gaping ones tend to get plugged. So if, say, they say that you get a special tax break for investing in medical research, you can't just declare that your cigarette and whiskey purchases are medical research and claim the tax break. Or you talked about off-shore tax havens. The idea here is that the US government cannot tax income earned in another country and that has never even entered the US. If you make $10 in France and deposit it in a French bank account and spend it in France, the US can't tax that. So American companies sometimes set up bank accounts outside the US to hold income earned outside the US, so they don't have to bring it into the US and pay the high US tax rate. (US corporate taxes are now the highest of any industrialized country.) You could, I suppose, open an account in the Caymans and deposit the income you earned from your US job there. But if the money was earned in the US, working at a factory or office in the US, by a person living in the US, the IRS is not going to accept that this is foreign income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a67e97c315357cc1ac6335a6f29b8e79",
"text": "\"There are tax free bonds in the United States. They are for things like public housing and other urban projects. They are tax free for everyone but only rich people buy them. Why? The issue is that the tax free nature of the bond is included in its yield. So rather than yielding say a 5% return, they figure that the owner is getting 20% off due to not paying taxes. As a result, they only give a 4% return but are as risky as a 5% return investment. Net result, only rich people invest in tax free bonds. \"\"Rich\"\" is defined here to mean people paying a 20% tax on long term investment returns. Or take the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction, which has been in the news recently. Again, it is technically open to everyone. But there is also a standard deduction that is open to everyone. For the typical family, state and local taxes might be 5% of income. So for a family making $100k a year, that's $5k. The same family can take a $13k or so standard deduction instead of itemizing. So why would they take the smaller deduction? As a practical matter, two groups take the SALT deduction. People rich enough to pay more than $13k in state and local taxes and people who also take the mortgage interest deduction. So it helps a lot of people who are rich quite a bit. And it helps a few middle class people some. But if you are lower middle class with a $30k mortgage on a tiny house and paying 4% interest, then that's only $1200 a year. Add in property taxes of $3000 and SALT of $2.8k and that's only $7k. Even if the person gives $3k to charity, the $13k deduction is a lot better and requires less paperwork. Contrast that with someone who has $500k mortgage at 3.6% interest. That's $18k in interest alone. Add in a SALT of $7k and property taxes of $50k, and there's $75k of itemized deductions, much better than $13k. Now a $7k donation to charity is entirely deductible. And even after the mortgage interest deduction goes away, the other $64k remains.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b4ca1ab5cb8361c56e25a44e7b344cf",
"text": "\"And yet, the same law that these individuals and companies use to lower their taxes applies for every citizen and company of the country. Thus, in principle, every individual and company could make use of these methods. Clearly, they do not. Why? Misconception number 1. How did you conclude they do not? Because NY Times didn't spend time doing an expose' on your plumber? The Panama Papers and the Paradise Papers contain the files from merely three companies that help in this large industry. This is a story about poor IT policies of three companies. A potential reason could be the price charged to set up and maintain these services. This is a significant deterrent. The costs of forming offshore entities are perpetuated by the expensive lawyers, registered agents and incompetent government representatives in these tiny jurisdictions. (For what its worth, even most United States are pretty incompetent at these administrative processes. Really only a few financial centers and a few exceptions have it all streamlined.) These are scale problems primarily. The incompetence of different nation/state's public sectors will make you realize everything you take for granted. The main message emerging from Panama Papers, Paradise Papers, and the like, is that it is the rich, powerful and famous who make use of and benefit from tax havens. But not exclusively for tax purposes. Newspapers, and even the organization leaking this information, is driving clicks to a gullible and impressionable public. I've talked with ICIJ (who release and push the discussion on the Panama/Paradise Papers), they really do believe in their \"\"tax expose'\"\" angle, but lack any consideration of how business work. 'Tax Haven'. These are sovereign nations with due process with democratically elected legislatures who looked at their budget and realized they don't need to fund their government via passive taxes. Their governments offer a good and service that people want, and it provides enough revenues to their governments. Many of these jurisdictions have well evolved corporate laws for fast evolving business models. For example, The Segregated Portfolio Company in the British Virgin Islands is more well defined and supported by clearer case law and is more useful entity than a Series LLC in the few United States that support it. There are at least a dozen reasons why someone would use a \"\"tax haven\"\", where only one of them is \"\"tax\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "737584b1df2438d3c2880417457d2498",
"text": "Many of the Financial intermediaries in the business, have extraordinary high requirements for opening an account. For example to open an account in Credit Suisse one will need 1 million US dollars.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be55d01ea3210d4e85ba15cac77c8570",
"text": "However, if you are employed by a company that exists in a tax haven and your services are provided to an employer by that tax haven company, it is the tax haven company that gets paid, not you. Under various schemes that company need not pay you at all. For example it may make you a loan which is not taxed (ie you don't pay tax on a loan, just as you don't pay tax on the money lent you by a mortgage company). You are bound by the terms of the loan agreement to repay that loan at a rate that the company finds acceptable. Indeed the company may find eventually that it is simply convenient to write off the loan as unrecoverable. if the owners/officers of he company write off your loans, how much tax will you have paid on the money you have had as loans? The taxman can of course state that this was simply set up to avoid tax (which is illegal) so you should have a balancing scheme to show that that the loans were taken to supplement income,just as one might take a bank loan / mortgage, not replace it entirely as a tax scam. Hiring tax counsel to provide this adequate proof to HMRC has a price. Frequently this kind of loophole exists because the number of people using it were sufficiently low not to warrant policing ( if the policing costs more than the tax recovered, then it is more efficient to ignore it) or because at some stage the scheme has been perfectly legal (as in the old offshore'education' trust recommended by the government a few decades ago). When Gordon Brown set out a 75% tax rate (for his possibly ideological reasons rather than financially based ones)for those who had these accounts , he encountered opposition from MPs who were going to be caught up paying high tax bills for what was effctively retrospective taxation, so there was a built in 'loophole' to allow the funds to be returned without undue penalty. If you think that is morally wrong, consider what the response would be if a future Chancellor was to declare all IAs the work of the devil and claim that retrospective tax would need to be paid on all ISA transactions over the last few decades.eg: tot up all the dividends and capital gains made on an ISA in any year and pay 40% tax on all of them, even if that took the ISA into negative territory because the value today was low/ underperfoming. Yet this has been sggested as a way of filling in the hole in the budget on the grounds that anyone with an ISA can be represented as 'rich' to a selected party of voters.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ddbfee81b2dd2fedc5864ad12ce58715",
"text": "I'm going to guess that now you're going to explain how you shouldn't add up these percentages. That is most certainly wrong. The reason is that countries aren't going to agree on an order in which to tax a company. It wouldn't go like: well UK taxes first then Germany will tax whatever is left in net profits. Why the hell would Germany agree to that? They would each want their percentage of the *untaxed* pie.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2948cd0e63af02de801485656a7996bc",
"text": "\"Tax US corporate \"\"persons (citizens)\"\" under the same regime as US human persons/citizens, i.e., file/pay taxes on all income earned annually with deductions for foreign taxes paid. Problem solved for both shareholders and governments. [US Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad - Filing Requirements](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad-filing-requirements) >If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien living or traveling outside the United States, **you generally are required to file income tax returns, estate tax returns, and gift tax returns and pay estimated tax in the same way as those residing in the United States.** Thing is, we know solving this isn't the point. It is to misdirect and talk about everything, but the actual issues, i.e., the discrepancy between tax regimes applied to persons and the massive inequality it creates in tax responsibility. Because that would lead to the simple solutions that the populace need/crave. My guess is most US human persons would LOVE to pay taxes only on what was left AFTER they covered their expenses.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86a58016d685e1775ba7bfe86afae3c2",
"text": "\"You mean to tell me that everyone doesn't pay his/her fair share?! Please say it isn't so. :) Therein lies the welfare state: Tax the rich more heavily to subsidize the poor, and hobble the rich's ability to do so on their own accord. In any case, though, in the United States, if you make any money whatsoever, that usually counts as income, and can hence be taxed. Here's the IRS' definition of gross income. Pretty all-inclusive, isn't it? Businesses are allowed to deduct expenses to count against their income, but if one has more expenses than income year after year, (a) this is the road to financial ruin, and (b) the IRS puts an end to the tax losses after enough years of failing to show a profit. So, sure, if a businessperson doesn't have any income, then they're technically using the roads, etc., \"\"for free,\"\" but unless the businessperson wants to live off the land and the kindness of strangers, he'd better turn a profit eventually. Then he'll be taxed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51b98857496db91ad880cc721db0c57c",
"text": "\"That's a very clear explanation, thanks! So a few additional things if anyone will humor my curiosity... 1. By \"\"one-time\"\" tax, does that mean a company that has, say, $5B overseas could bring that back into the US and just be taxed $500M, then keep the remaining $4.5B? 2. Could a company choose a percentage of their overseas money to transfer into the US? Like, only bring in 8% of that $5B ($400M) and be taxed $40M, while keeping all the rest outside the US? Or would it be mandatory to bring it all over? 3. Would most companies just start that same practice of routing to tax havens again after this tax is implented?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "085d5ffce51b655747223b981112e7cd",
"text": "\"It sounds good, but perhaps they've overlooked several things that would need to be addressed before anything like this could work well. 1) If there is a leak in the overall flow, such as a HFT hedge fund sucking money out of the markets at an enormous rate into a tax haven, such a system would just perpetuate the existing rise of the superwealthy entities. They still get richer without spending much in return. 2) As described they have only talked about one government, one nation, one monetary recycling system, as if nations are closed boxes. They are not. Money flows across borders with ease. Nations **compete** to maximise the amount of assets they hold within their borders at any given time. These can be fixed capital assets too. So nothing prevents the \"\"global equity investment\"\" they mention from starting to resemble all the powerful corporations concentrated in a single favoured nation over time. That would represent a lot of political power concentrated in ways that are not necessarily favourable to individual sovereign national legal systems elsewhere. It is possible that this could mean that nations would compete to lower taxes to zero to attract corporations, thereby risking bankrupting governments unless the income from the global equity index compensated enough. At 6% it won't match current tax rates. The second point also means that nations cannot unilaterally decide to implement this unless they have a guaranteed additional inflowing income from transnational activities that could compensate for excessive outflow.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adda4a9f88198cd8bcf8f5d44e0473bc",
"text": "Many examples in Europe and other countries have shown once you break that barrier people will go to extreme lengths to avoid it. So much so back in the 80s in the UK tax rates over 75% were imposed, needless to say when they reduced it to 40% they actually got more money. Ultimately it does more harm than good to the economy and means well paid jobs leave the country and go elsewhere. The exact same thing is happening right now with the French moving to London. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18234930",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "207a39fe2e1a34b9c6cb216915cb9b90",
"text": "\"You're confused. This has nothing to do with taxes. It has to do with screwing people out of profit-sharing. The shell company pays bogus/hyper-inflated fees to the parent company, who pays taxes on them. That way, the contract with the shell company that says \"\"you get 5% of the profits\"\" now means nothing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22134f97c9279b484342d04421ff2d5e",
"text": "\"'Note that \"\"to keep an investor from lowering their tax bill\"\" is not an explanation'. Well, yes it is. In fact it is the only explanation. The rule plainly exists to prevent someone from realizing a loss when their economic situation remains unchanged before/after a sale. Now, you might say 'but I have suffered a loss, even if it is unrealized!' But, would you want to pay tax on unrealized gains? The tax system still caters to reducing the tax impact of investments, particularly capital investments. Part and parcel with the system of taxing gains only when realized, is that you can recognize losses only when realized. Are there other ways to 'artificially' reduce taxable income? Yes. But the goal of a good tax system should be to reduce those opportunities. Whether you agree that it is fair for the government to prevent this tax-saving opportunity, when others exist, is another question. But that is why the rule exists.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0845ea3bb217850b6499a6db3cd4b63",
"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!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ee6112f35da0db5c94c7853706cb131",
"text": "[90% of their income](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Bahamas) is from services. And 80% of that income is from the US..... Do some research. Still waiting for this no tax, no government utopia which works *so well* (yet there doesn't seem to be a good example of in existence...)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5edf2f1e73f47cd5ee55c47a59f8e782",
"text": "A government is there to serve the people. Under this logic, a government is doing a disservice to its people by allowing a corportation to have a signicantly lower tax rate in relation to the value a corportation would gain from doing business in that country. For all I know, Starbucks would only do business in the UK if the value it sees from doing business there is at the tax rate it is paying out now. However, like a corportation testing the markets for price, the UK government is doing a disservice to its own people for not doing its own research on the value Starbucks is seeing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "828c11ab1a9dd388af11264f4d0f4c04",
"text": "The US is one of the only countries which taxes its citizens on global income. You're ignoring the high fixed costs of compliance with the US tax code, both for individuals and institutions. Compliance is so big an issue that foreign banks are turning away US customers rather than having to comply with FATCA, leaving people unable to open a bank account. Also, renunciations of citizenship are up something like 400%, and they aren't all billionaires.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "768f033ddc2a03c93a62559f41e7f613",
"text": "Braeburn is no more a hedge fund than any other off-shore entities corporations create to manage taxes creatively. All of the major corporate entities in the world do the same thing. Apple isn't even very good at it comparatively.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1f4c26b3d5b67fd332c4b12fcf33855",
"text": "Part of the purpose of a tax haven is retaining more capital for reinvestment. Then you have more control over how, when and where you pay taxes. Once the capital has been retained in your haven you can strategically deploy it to other favorable locations on the globe. Should you ever want part of it to hit a personal account in the US you'd have a tax liability. But at this level you could just put your ownership of that account up as collateral on a loan and buy your boat that way instead.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90f2ea577546aa2ca83613733b43b7bd",
"text": "I don't know enough about international tax law to dispute what you say, but I would think that if it were illegal we would be seeing more repurcussions for nearly EVERY multinational company using these practices. How can you prove that the licensing deal between bluehat9 llc and bluehat9 lp (cayman) is illegitimate?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d7bd264b364d26af0addde05bf39811a
|
ACH processing time of day
|
[
{
"docid": "9f62569be9b7c332637d6eeed835ddb2",
"text": "It depends on the bank and network. Banks are to provide outgoing data at the certain time for the processing by the central clearing house (the Federal Reserve system, for ACH), which then distributes incoming data back to the banks. All this has to be done between the closing of the business day and the opening of the next one. If the transaction hasn't completed the full path during that time - it will wait at the position it was stuck at until the next cycle - next night. That's why sometimes ACH transactions take more than 1 day to complete (if, for example, multiple Fed banks have to be involved).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0d913bff1f30277e52a1968d3a25cb5",
"text": "Each bank is different, so your question needs to be more specific. For instance, I believe Paypal and Chase settles at 7pm EST on business days. Bank of America at 5PM.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1c4a0bcd6ec884cb4e38e9035f7e5ffb",
"text": "I haven't used it in years, but look at GnuCash. From the site, one bullet point under Feature Highlights:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c36672b381c86276903fa1f9237200e",
"text": "I was recently at the National Physical Laboratory in the UK and discussing exactly this. By January 2018 financial institutes will be legally required to time stamp all transactions (including high frequency trades) with a UTC time code. Today this is almost exclusively done using GPS satellite time and as the OP states - these can be spoofed but also are vulnerable to certain weather conditions. One of the many innovations of NPL in their recent diversification includes sending ‘time’ into the city by optical fibre which is ‘gold standard and cannot be tampered with’. Very interesting topic ( I thought )!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e48d0443319cd49f9c32c2c8fba88553",
"text": "TARGET2 is a high value realtime settlement system across Europe and for this to be open on weekends would mean all the Banks including Central Banks in the Euro Zone work. Quite a few times to manage intra day liquidity, banks borrow from each other, hence there is an active monitering of the liquidity by Banks. The borrowing happens over phone and fax and the lending bank sending a high value transaction that credits the borrowing banks. These is the day to day job of treasury group [highly paid individuals] to manage liquidity. Now if on weekends the volume is less, it does not make sense to keep these people, the cost of supporting this for very insiginificant business gain is not driving to build such systems. On the other hand on retail transactions, say Cards [Debit / Credit], ATM, the value is not high and hence there is no treasury function involved and there is a huge need, everything is automated. So no issues.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa91763d3069df0a5cadff629dfd558f",
"text": "\"The second part of your question is the easiest to answer, how much manual work is involved in settlement processes? Payment systems which handle low value (i.e. high volume) transactions work on the basis of net settlement. Each of the individual payments are netted across all of the participant banks, so that only one \"\"real\"\" payment is made by each bank. Some days banks will receive money, others they will pay money. This is arbitrary and depends on whether their outbound payments exceed their inbound payments for that day. The payment system will notify each Bank how much it owes/will receive for the day. The money is then transferred between all of the banks simultaneously by the payment system to remove the risk that some pay and others don't. If you're going to make or receive a very large payment, you're going to want to make certain that its correct. This means that if there's a discrepancy, you need operations people available to find out why its wrong. When dealing with this many payments, answering that question can be hard. Did we miss a payment? Is there a duplicate? Etc. The vast majority of payments will process without any human involvement, but to make the process work, you always need human brains there to fix problems that occur. This brings me to your first question. On every day that settlement happens, a bank will receive (or pay) a very large sum of money. As a settlement bank you must settle that money - the guarantee that every bank will pay is one of the main reasons these systems exist. For settlement to happen, every bank has to agree to participate, and be ready to verify the data on their side and deliver the funds from their account. So there is no particular reason that this doesn't happen on weekends and holidays other than history. But for any payment system to change, it would require the support of (at least) a majority of participants to pay staff to manage the settlement process on weekends. This would increase costs for banks, but the benefits would only really be for you and me (if at all). That means it's unlikely to happen unless a government forces the issue.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e0b6f7861785caa8fbf307787905843",
"text": "\"We have a local bank that changed to a bill pay service. The money is held as \"\"processing\"\" when the check is supposed to be cut and shows as cleared on the date the check is supposed to be received. Because our business checking is with the same bank, we discovered recently that the although the check shows cleared from our account, the recipient has not received the paper check yet - and may not for 2-3 days. We discovered this because the payroll checks we write this way (to ourselves) never arrive on the due date but clear the business account. It appears to be a new way for banks to ride the \"\"float\"\" and draw interest on the money. It happens with every check processed through the bill pay system and not with electronic transfers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4ea222c46b78da5d98cec42d6f91562",
"text": "I use XE.com for almost the same purpose. They have free transfer options, such as ACH withdrawals and deposits. I normally do a online bill payment through my international bank to XE, and have them deposit it in the US via ACH. It takes 1-3 business days, and there's no fee beyond their small percentage (about 1.25%) on top of the exchange rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8fe5999d61e2c4421932f9a2e290acf0",
"text": "When I place an order with Scottrade I also have to specify if I am wanting to trade outside of normal hours.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f67397e8aa4882f62733d4d80aaabdf3",
"text": "They need to spread the work for all customers over the whole month, and they don't work on weekends. Combine the two, and the rule becomes clear - if months have minimum of N working days, 1/N of all customers gets set on each day. You seem to be on day 5: If the month starts with a Monday, the fifth working day is the 5. (Friday); if there is a Sat or Sun in between, it will be the 6th, and if there is both a Sat and a Sun in there, it will be the 7th. However, the statement itself is not very important at all. It is just the day where they print it on paper (or even only on a PDF). You can see your bank account activity every day 24/7 by checking online, and nothing keeps you from printing it on every 1st of the month if you want (or every day, or whenever you prefer).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7798a497f460a1874486ef14357ec956",
"text": "There are banks and credit unions that don't charge fee for incoming wire transfer. You most likely won't get that from big brick and mortar banks like BofA, Citi but if you are doing it regularly, using another bank that offers it free would save you a lot. Since ACH are free, you can transfer money between those banks to your regular bank (e.g. BofA) for free. There would be delay involved in this process due to additional ACH. You could also use one these banks as your primary bank to avoid that delay. Credit unions are also generally fee friendly and many would offer free incoming wire transfer. However you are limited to what is available to you as all of them would have some membership criteria.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a6fc6409486bd64dced6e09bdc81cf5",
"text": "From Chase FAQ it looks like this is a regular ACH transfer. ACH transactions can be reversed under certain conditions. I haven't been able to find some authoritative link on this, so I suggest this (thenest.com budgeting blog) instead: Allowed Reasons You can have ACH transactions reversed for one of three reasons under the rules: wrong money amount, wrong account or duplicated transactions. For example, if your mortgage bill is for $756.00, but your lender's website messes up and you're charged $856.00, the transaction is reversible it because it's the wrong dollar amount. If the website charges you $756.00 twice, the second duplicated transaction is reversible. Reversal Procedures You might have to bring a mistake to the originator's attention to get it fixed. Only the originator -- the person or company taking or sending money -- can ask for a reversal. For example, if you have a transaction for a wrong dollar amount from your lender's website, the originator is the lender. An originator is supposed to send the reversal within 24 hours of the error's discovery and within five banking days of the original transaction. When a reversal is required because of a wrong amount or wrong account, the originator must send a correcting entry with the right information. Bank's Responsibility A bank should honor an ACH reversal, even if it means debiting a customer's account again because of a correcting transaction. However, the bank doesn't have to debit your account if you closed it or the new transaction would overdraw it. Your bank does have to tell you if a correcting entry is going to take money out of your account, but the bank doesn't need your permission to do it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b256309a1cab2e6951e4eb89c9b56c33",
"text": "8 am EDT happens when this comment is 5 hours and 51 minutes old. You can find the live countdown here: https://countle.com/424159rwH --- I'm a bot, if you want to send feedback, please comment below or send a PM.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d65931bcdd9257af1f8355851a61b1f3",
"text": "A day is a long time and the rate is not the same all day. Some sources will report a close price that averages the bid and ask. Some sources will report a volume-weighted average. Some will report the last transaction price. Some will report a time-weighted average. Some will average the highest and lowest prices for the interval. Different marketplaces will also have slightly different prices because different traders are present at each marketplace. Usually, the documentation will explain what method they use and you can choose the source whose method makes the most sense for your application.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4059ea0037fe601d67bfb083947ecd6d",
"text": "Shop around for a bank that offers lower/no fees for this operation and move your account there... or, yes, change where the direct deposit is routed... or move these accounts into a single bank so it's an internal transfer rather than ACH. Or ask the bank whether there is another way to arrange this which doesn't cost you money. (It costs me nothing to move money within my credit union, whether manually or on a scheduled basis. It costs me nothing to have them send funds to another entity from my checking account. Specific example: Pay comes into my savings account. On the 27th, an automatic transfer moves the cost of a mortgage payment from savings to checking. On the 30th, an automatic payment sends that to my mortgage in another bank. No fees on any of this, 100% reliable.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "585dcbe697a32ef9df12931509c5c79f",
"text": "A couple ways, but its not a guarantee. You have to have special charts. Instead of each tick being 1 min, 5 min, or whatever, it is a set number of trades. Say 2000. Since retail investors only buy and sell in small amounts, there will be small volume per tick. An institutional investor, however, would have a much much higher trade lot size, even if using an algo. Thus, large volume spikes in such a chart would signal institutional activity over retail. Similarly, daily charts showing average trade size can help you pick out when institutional activity is highest, as they have much larger trade sizes. You could also learn how the algos work and look for evidence one is being used. ie every time price hits VWAP a large sell order goes through would indicate an institutional investor is selling, especially if it happens multiple times in a row.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f2d02333fab4076506ce124c981619d",
"text": "If you're talking about just Theta, the amount of decay due to the passage of time (all else being equal), then theoretically, the time value is a continuous function, so it would decay throughout the day (although by the day of expiry the time value is very, very small). Which makes sense, since even with 15 minutes to go, there's still a 50/50 shot of an ATM option expiring in-the-money, so there should be some time value associated with that one-sided probability. The further away from ATM the option is, the smaller the time value will be, and will be virtually zero for options that are deep in- or out-of-the-money. If you're talking about total time value, then yes it will definitely change during the day, since the underlying components (volatility, underlying price, etc.) change more or less continuously.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6f9d970cdb0de4e16cea5f9e6b27b95d
|
Gap in domestic Health Insurance coverage, expect higher premiums?
|
[
{
"docid": "0d5f1455758d9b22e82fe037b6ccc6f3",
"text": "The insurance company is must assume you do have a preexisting condition you are unaware of. The reason for that is that Affordable Care Act precludes the Insurance company from denying coverage of them if you do. Insurance companies are businesses. They are in business to make money(unless you have a nonprofit insurer). They can not do that if you can buy insurance only when you need for them to pay out. So even though you may not have a preexisting condition, they are precluded from requiring an examination that would detect the most expensive preexisting conditions (hidden cancers, neurological, autoimmune disorders). So the companies must do what takes business sense and either deny you coverage or charge a rate that covers the risk they would be forced to take. In your question on travel there was a response that suggested you get international health insurance instead of travel health insurance that would be considered credible coverage. You are trying to save money which on a personal level is a good idea. However that is against the societal and business need that you maintain health coverage during your healthy times to cover the costs of those who need expensive treatment. So you will be monetarily penalized should you choose to reenter the society of insured people. Once you have paid the higher rate for up to 18 months you should be able to get a better policy for people who have had continuous coverage. Alternately you may be lucky enough to start working for a company that provides health insurance with out requiring continuous coverage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c8ca4077f27a86a88ff81a4d00b991b",
"text": "I bought Health Insurance for myself after a period without it, and my premiums were not terrible. I was a 27 year old man, living in California, no preexisting conditions, and I paid approximately 90$ a month. This was for a standard Health Insurance plan. However, when I moved back to NY a little while later, insurance companies wanted almost $500/month for catastrophic coverage. So, from personal experience, my answer is that price varies widely by state. Different states have different regulations as to what Health Insurance Companies need to cover and at what price. In NY, Health Insurance companies can't charge different rates according to age. Also, in NY, there is a price spiral, where the price is so high, few people buy it, so they have to raise the price because not enough well people are in the pool, so fewer people buy it.... To test it out, go to an online insurance broker, like ehealthinsurace, and put in your proposed information, including that you haven't been covered for a period. This way you will know.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8ab61e568e38627d9eac8f57dda56b28",
"text": "\"It seems like if that were true, then if everyone were in one group, you'd get the biggest discount of all. My preference has been for single payer, but recently I saw a guy suggesting single-group, multi-payer, or SGMP. This was just a comment from a physician in a medical journal, and I don't have the link and haven't been able to find out anything more about it, but it seems intriguing. It had something to do with insurance companies bidding to provide coverage services. edit: [Here it is](http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1211514#t=comments): > JOEL SPALTER, MD | Physician - Infectious Diseases | Disclosure: None > FAYETTEVILLE AR > October 02, 2012 > Single Group Multi-Payer > True reform resulting in universal health insurance and access to care is achieved by state mandates for insurance with replacement of individual or group underwriting with underwriting by \"\"Dutch auction\"\" for a percentage of the single group consisting of all of the residents of a State – Single Group – Multi-Payer (SGMP). Each successful insurance company would be responsible for payment of the percentage of the total costs for medical services equal to the percentage of the population insured. This preserves the integrity of the bidding process. > States are free to establish the public contribution to premiums. SGMP prevents exclusion of insurance for pre-existing conditions or due to genetic background, absent individual underwriting; guarantees maintenance of health care insurance independent of place, or even existence of employment; assures equality of access to providers due to a single established remuneration scale; and assures patients' choice of providers free from any empanelling by insurance companies. Market forces will govern providers' attempts to gain and hold market share. > A single group eases statistical comparison, with EMR, of 50, State patterns of care.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f30b8c0051a86ccbe58cdf955df9ad6",
"text": "\">If you have more people in an insurance pool, premium costs go down, which is the whole point of the individual mandate. The costs depend very, Very, VERY much on WHO the people in the \"\"pool\"\" are -- actuarial data shows that older people (almost invariably and by definition) have significantly higher costs, ergo this is why their premiums have been higher (or if a particular pool has an inordinate number of older people in it, why everyone in that pool's premiums are higher, because they are essentially an *average*; and the younger members are in essence subsidizing the older ones -- conversely if a firm has almost entirely young, single people, premium costs are significantly {*significantly*} lower). One of the things the legislation does though is place an artificial limitation of the premium price differential -- ergo younger people will (across the board) be seeing a HUGE increase in premium costs (because the law is essentially mandating a major increased operating LOSS on the older pool members, the cost WILL be shifted to the younger people). End result is that premiums for younger people will increase several times over -- which will make buying a policy (which in the past was relatively cheap for young & healthy people) a significantly more difficult burden -- and that will *naturally* make paying the \"\"fine\"\" far more financially pragmatic. This is especially true since the OTHER provision of the law is that known pre-existing conditions cannot be used to exclude or change the premium cost -- so, should the individual be diagnosed with something they can, after the fact, still purchase coverage. Basically it is like being able to buy a lottery ticket AFTER the number have been drawn. It is an inherently unstable and unsustainable system.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ce2cb038987b99f545b6709add10e79",
"text": "\"This is only partly true. The main problem is that the average person is not a fully informed healthcare consumer. For example if you go to your local doctor with lower back pain: One doctor might prescribe a whole bunch of expensive diagnostics tests; another might tell you to go to a physiotherapist; and yet another might tell you to take some cheap pain killers and come back in six weeks time if nothing has changed. Most people will have no way of knowing which is the best course of action. Then, in a country like the US which is very litigiousness, all the doctors will recommend the most comprehensive and expensive care-package so that they don't get sued. Ultimately economists do not work in healthcare and are not qualified to recommend the best financial model for healthcare delivery. To quote Donney \"\"Who knew that healthcare was so complicated?\"\" certainly not the economists.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "498dd9364752e5929bcfce248a0e04f3",
"text": "An article linked from cnn.com has some great advice, which I think are good rules of thumb. Also, at least my insurance gives a premium price for those who haven't filed a claim in 5 or more years for homeowners or rental insurance. See if you have a similar discount, will loose it, and guess how much that will cost you over 5 years. My rule of thumb: Your premium might go up quite a bit, possibly as much as triple, especially for a large claim. But, it is certainly worth it if you are going to get more than triple your premium through your claim. The worst case: Mortgage mandated insurance, which will be about triple your current cost.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cea69d97c37b6f5dd989a2c3e02b1be",
"text": "Health insurance is tough, as you know, because the offerings vary dramatically by State, and there is the added complication of the Affordable Care Act, which depending on where and who you are has had either a good or bad impact on the available options. If you are a sole proprietor or other business person, I'd advise talking to someone at a local chamber of commerce. Also, professional organizations like the IEEE or ACM (for IT professionals) often offer catastrophic medical or other health plans. Some employer plans give you the option to continue coverage at a higher cost when COBRA lapses as well. If you can't afford a comprehensive plan, make sure to get something to protect you against pre-existing conditions or hospitalization.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65ecdd0c503f0f64599c176748fe89df",
"text": "At some point, there will even be non wealthy nations with better healthcare. Anyone who is well travelled, or from another country knows how horrific the US healthcare system is. The media talks about poor people, but it's awful for the middle to upper middle class too in comparison to alternatives. It constantly shocks me this is not a bigger public issue. If only the general population realized what the alternative looks like. Not perfect by any means, but so much better.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed4b855ba8358889dad8e7d020ee3190",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.aier.org/blog/academics-lift-veil-medical-protectionism) reduced by 79%. (I'm a bot) ***** > In 2011 a total of 538 items required a CON license, and 37 states were enforcing CON laws. > Non-CON states provide higher-quality services, and the costs of unregulated medical care have not risen dramatically, as claimed by proponents of CON programs. > According to him, &quot;So-called &#039;certificate of need&#039; laws increase costs for consumers by protecting inefficient hospitals and other health care providers from competition. The theory behind such laws is that since the government has completely unleashed demand by insulating consumers from the cost of their health insurance and medical care, the government must contain supply to keep spending from getting out of hand.\"\" ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/70ixsd/academics_lift_the_veil_on_medical_protectionism/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~211185 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*: **laws**^#1 **CON**^#2 **state**^#3 **care**^#4 **Health**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7288244b1e70bb0b665ab9461c33d128",
"text": "While I can't say how it is in the Philippines, my wife the insurance broker leads me to believe that individual insurance is more expensive than group coverages in the US almost always. So much so that people will go to great extents to form any sort of business just to insure themselves. If however it is cheaper, can't you simply opt out of your employer's plan? If you can opt out, will your employer give you any of the money they aren't paying for your insurance? If you can't opt out, or if you paycheck doesn't grow, I can't see why you would want additional coverage especially at such a young age. Should you lose your job in the near future and you worry about, go get the insurance then. EDIT One big advantage is if you get personal insurance, you might need to get an exam to qualify, and it is likely the younger you are the better you will qualify. But again, you already have insurance that covers you so I would advise keeping the group policy is probably better.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7903f7bac6c4a5fce750be794314e88",
"text": "According to Money Girl, home insurance premiums are higher if you have a poor credit score. You might self-insure though if you are wealthy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99e521f85fb70eeed53177745a07f388",
"text": "I'm not disputing that. I just said in answer to the guy pointing out that indonesian people earn less that this price might be higher than what the locals pay. Often hospitals will have higher prices for foreigners with insurance etc. So I was actually strengthening your point.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1190abed12e293e1f0971f3dcd56757",
"text": "This is very interesting, and I am fully in support of the US moving to a single-payer system such as we have here in the UK, but I am a little confused. US costs are markedly higher than the second most expensive country, that's clear. However, by my reading of the data presented, it seems as though no distinction is made between the government paying for health care, and the individual paying for health care. Much of that 1.4t is coming out of the individual's pocket, rather than the insurance company's, and that for me is the crux of the whole issue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "985c27490a1fc20d8f94bcadedf22034",
"text": "Unfortunately I've seen every single example you've provided from the health care providers perspective. Trust me, they aren't happy about the situation either - hence the reason they will demand up front payment from you based on who your insurance carrier is. I could name a few of the top brand name insurance companies in this country that do all of this to their clients. Medical billing is an incredibly over complicated beast. One that insurance companies have been doing everything they can to make worse over the years. The codes can change annually and there are MANY different codes which can cover the exact same situation. Sure the insurance company might cover gallstones, but if you happen to be pregnant, well, that may not covered even though the treatment is the exact same. What can you do? Consider locating a new insurance company. You do have options and don't have to go with the one your company uses. The downside is that this is going to take quite a bit of research on your part and it will end up costing you more money on your monthly premiums simply because your company won't be footing part of the bill. Talk to other co-workers and see if their experiences match yours. If so, try to get a large enough group together to approach management and demand resolution. A third potential avenue is to get politically involved - but I'm enough of a pessimist that I doubt that would do any good. From what I've seen, neither major political party's current position actually does anything to solve the problem. A fourth option is suing the insurance company - but that is going to be incredibly expensive and take forever. You might have better luck getting together with a bunch of local people and demand your attorney general review the billing/payment practices. Again, this is going to require a LOT of effort. A fifth option is to attempt to cash pay your bills and submit them yourself to the insurance company for reimbursement. If you do this you can likely negotiate lower bills with the medical provider. For anything less than about $2,000 I negotiate the amount prior to service. Believe me when I say that providers are more than happy to give decent discounts if they know they won't have to deal with the insurance companies themselves. Slightly more work for you, but could be far cheaper in the long run.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fee06b37c87cee42807c9ce4ebb7e58",
"text": "Article was about insurers not liking the uncertainty. Some insurers want Obamacare repealed, some of them want it to stay. But they all don't want to political climate of uncertainty. A situation where people wouldn't be mandated to buy insurance because they don't fear the IRS actually requiring them, but where the actual regulations haven't been changed yet is a nightmare for insurers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8925381adc875542b03dff22a1c8477b",
"text": "\"Not aying you're wron, but do you have any sources showing that young people's premiums will go up SEVERAL times over? I think your argument would be more convincing with numbers instead of using words like \"\"far\"\" and \"\"significantly\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fd75e272894c9da2786c006793712de",
"text": "Prediction: costs won't go down. The basis for that is the cost of insurance for health has never gone down in the history of that product mainly due to the fixed market. There is competition, but pricing is so rigged as health insurance companies and employers have completely removed pricing from consumers experience. Until everyone has individual/independent insurance away from their jobs, healthcare costs will never be in check. When employers gtfo of your business and stop providing benefits and people have to buy their own insurance, that is the only time there will be any real market or real pricing in healthcare/medical.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d29b025926305d31b44d4feebb55fbfa
|
How does GST on PayPal payments work for Australian Taxation?
|
[
{
"docid": "1a47af56d5b794e7f58cdb39117264bd",
"text": "\"TL;DR - my understanding of the rules is that if you are required to register for GST (earning more than $75k per annum), you would be required to pay GST on these items. To clarify firstly: taxable income, and goods and services tax, are two different things. Any income you receive needs to be considered for income tax purposes - whether or not it ends up being taxable income would be too much to go into here, but generally you would take your expenses, and any deductions, away from your income to arrive at what would generally be the taxable amount. An accountant will help you do this. Income tax is paid by anyone who earns income over the tax free threshold. By contrast, goods and services tax is a tax paid by business (of which you are running one). Of course, this is passed on to the consumer, but it's the business that remits the payment to the tax office. However, GST isn't required to be charged and paid in all cases: The key in your situation is first determining whether you need to register for GST (or whether indeed you already have). If you earn less than $75,000 per year - no need to register. If you do earn more than that through your business, or you have registered anyway, then the next question is whether your items are GST-free. The ATO says that \"\"some education courses [and] course materials\"\" are GST-free. Whether this applies to you or not I'm obviously not going to be able to comment on, so I would advise getting an accountant's advice on this (or at the very least, call the ATO or browse their legal database). Thirdly, are your sales connected with Australia? The ATO says that \"\"A sale of something other than goods or property is connected with Australia if ... the thing is done in Australia [or] the seller makes the sale through a business they carry on in Australia\"\". Both of these appear to be true in your case. So in summary: if you are required to register for GST, you would be required to pay GST on these items. I am not a financial advisor or a tax accountant and this is not financial advice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d09736680d57fe1f5d10b4ee8618a603",
"text": "\"Regardless of wether or not you are registered for GST, you are legally required to include a GST total on every invoice sent to an Australian customer. This GST total must be 10% of the payment amount if you are registered for GST, or it must be $0.00 if you are not registered for GST. Since all GST transactions with the government are in Australian dollars, this amount on the invoice also needs to be in AUD, or else it's impossible for you and your customer to both be working off the same GST amount. This means you need to transfer your money from USD to AUD in PayPal's \"\"Manage Currencies\"\" area before you can send a tax invoice to the customer, so that you can provide the correct amount in AUD based on the actual exchange rate for the day (and you are required to send invoices promptly). Alternatively, you can collect payments in AUD using PayPal or use a different payment service that collects payments in USD but immediately converts them to AUD for sending an invoice (australian paypal competitors often provide this service).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "79303990e97a86ba0697a81dd873f19a",
"text": "This is really a question for the paypal folks. as I understand it however, when you setup a paypal account, you are granting it access to your back account, so when you make a payment using paypal, it takes money directly from your bank account, and if you get paid for something via paypal, the money goes directly into your account. If that's not how they paypal account you have is working, then you need to get help from paypal to figure out how to make it work for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a41efbee5c826099835787e354a813b0",
"text": "I just tried doing that on my PP which is in the Netherlands, I have added a USD bank account (from my dutch bank) and they sent the verification amount in Euros, I called the bank and wonder why they didn't let me choose account currency they said it's not possible and if I cashout Dollars that I have in my PP (cause we usually do international business so we set it to dollars) it will be changed to Euros, So we decided to keep the dollars in account to pay our bills instead of getting ripped off by PayPal in xchange rates.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7ebe417a11689afa1585e43c14ceded",
"text": "(community wiki) Ontario special HST sales tax transition rebate cheques: When and how much? What will happen to quarterly GST cheques when HST starts in Ontario? Ontario HST rebate: When would I qualify? Ontario gas prices & HST: What will happen to prices at the pump on July 1, 2010? How will Ontario’s HST apply to books / textbooks, which were PST exempt before? How can I minimize the impact of the HST? How does the HST affect a condominium purchase? Will I need to pay HST on condo maintenance fees? My Ontario small business collects only PST (beneath GST threshold). How will HST affect me?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abccce67ea544a8d046a838a129ac919",
"text": "\"I haven't seen anything specifically about how PayPal operates, but my guess is that they maintain relationships with banks in many countries via affiliates, and they settle the money transfers internally within the PayPal system. You basically have two types of bank transfers (there are others as well that I'm not getting into): I think PayPal is a hybrid -- they send and receive money using drafts to keep costs down, and manage the international stuff by operating a proprietary network. So if you send money from Indonesia to the US, you pay \"\"PayPal Indonesia\"\", who then tells \"\"PayPal USA\"\" to issue funds to your recipient. So they are cheaper than a wire, faster than a check, but limited in terms of transaction size and some other factors.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8b70510a8a1740f7e491534b7a2da30",
"text": "there is no tax for receiving money from outside of india paypal just take their charges only",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d031287980a46fd870886fd6610e129",
"text": "Yes. You must register for GST as well, if you will be making over the threshold (currently $60,000). That's probably a bonus for you, as your home office expenses will mostly include GST, but your income will most likely be zero-rated. Check with an accountant or with the IRD directly. Just be certain to put aside enough money from each payment to cover income tax, GST and ACC. You will get a very large bill in your second year of business.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f3849cc6e6e761b6cb46319f2914a9e",
"text": "\"Are you in the US? One thing you can do is prepay taxes at a rate of a 1.8% fee. Much lower than paypal. I would do this on what is \"\"left over\"\". Here are somethings that I would tend to do in your case: Those are some of the things I would be looking at. Do you care to share the details of your offer?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4972d02c5cb0088e316851b3f20b2dee",
"text": "Tax is due in India as you offered services from India. So whether the International Client pays via Credit Card, Bank Transfer, Paypal or any other means is not relevant. Even if the International Client pays you in a account outside India; it is still taxable in India.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e29685e4fc19ff48e0634c8621dfe68",
"text": "If you're waiting for Apple to send you a 1099 for the 2008 tax season, well, you shouldn't be. App Store payments are not reported to the IRS and you will not be receiving a 1099 in the mail from anyone. App Store payments are treated as sales commissions rather than royalties, according to the iTunes Royalty department of Apple. You are responsible for reporting your earnings and filing your own payments for any sums you have earned from App Store. – https://arstechnica.com/apple/2009/01/app-store-lessons-taxes-and-app-store-earnings The closest thing to sales commissions in WA state seems to be Service and Other Activities described at http://dor.wa.gov/content/FileAndPayTaxes/BeforeIFile/Def_TxClassBandO.aspx#0004. When you dig a little deeper into the tax code, WAC 458-20-224 (Service and other business activities) includes: (4) Persons engaged in any business activity, other than or in addition to those for which a specific rate is provided in chapter 82.04 RCW, are taxable under the service and other business activities classification upon gross income from such business. - http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=458-20-224 I am not a lawyer or accountant, so caveat emptor.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "761f0139511e6eaccb15eb81532582a8",
"text": "For people who frequently submit payments via PayPal, you may want to try and negotiate with them to use Paypal mass payments. Although the mass payment program is designed to send small amounts to many people, you can process payment batches of 1 transaction. In the CA mass payment fees (paid by sender) are 2% capped at 1.25 CAD To CA and US. International payments are 2% capped at 24.00 CAD. No fees for receiver. A business PayPal account is required to enable mass payments. When I mention this to customers, many are unaware Paypal's mass payment program exists! https://merchant.paypal.com/ca/cgi-bin/?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=merchant/mass_pay",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c51d65c2c00e60d25de6f62f7c4d24a",
"text": "Are you sure about either of those? PayPal owns Braintree which can accept Bitcoin, but I've never seen the option in PayPal itself, and I've looked, though not recently. I've also not noticed PayPal in HD, but maybe I'm just not observant. Is that in all their stores?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3dda95b6fe5e60b7c1a455d81fc346f",
"text": "\"I cannot speak for Paypal specifically and I doubt anyone who doesn't actually work on their internal automated payment systems could. However, I can speak from experiencing in working on automated forex transaction systems and tell you what many institutions do and it is often NOT based on live rates. There is no law stating an institution must honor a specific market exchange rate. Institutions can determine their own rates how and when they want to. However, there is some useful information on their website: https://www.paypal.com/an/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/sell/mc/mc_convert-outside \"\"The most readily available information on currency exchange rates is based on interbank exchange rates. Interbank exchange rates are established in the course of currency trading among a global network of over 1,000 banks, and are not available through consumer or retail channels.\"\" This leads me to believe they pull exchange rates from either Oanda or XE periodically and then use these rates throughout the day to conduct business. Paypal does not disclose who they use to determine rates. And it's highly doubtful they do this for every transaction (using live rates). Even if they did, there would be no way for you to check and be certain of a particular exchange rate as paypal states: \"\" Consumers may use these rates as a reference, but should not expect to use interbank rates in transactions that involve currency conversion. To obtain actual retail rates, contact your local financial institution or currency exchange, or check the rate displayed in your PayPal transaction.\"\" This is partly because rates can change by the second just like stock prices or anything else which is susceptible to the open market's variables of supply, demand news events etc. So, even if you check the rates on Oanda (which you can do here: http://www.oanda.com/currency/converter/) you are not going to get a 100% accurate representation of what you would get by doing an exchange immediately afterwards from Paypal or any other financial institution. However, if you want to estimate, using Oanda's currency converter will likely get you close in most scenarios. That is assuming Paypal doesn't charge a premium for the exchange, which they may. That is also assuming they use live rates, it's also possible they only update their rates based on market rates periodically and not for every transaction. You may want to test this by checking the exchange rate on your transaction and comparing that to the Oanda rates at the same time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f27d97c7be11d0fbb46d6ba00904ca8",
"text": "From PayPal's website: PayPal offers discounted transaction rates for 501(c)(3) charities for most products, and consistently low rates for all other nonprofits. No extra fees for setup, statements, withdrawals or cancellation. 2.2% + $0.30 per transaction and no monthly fee for charities. There is a reduced rate if the donations total more than $100,000 (which they would for Wikipedia), but PayPal doesn't publish those rates. You have to call and ask about them. One forum I read indicates the rate drops to 1.9% + $0.30 per transaction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f832557e480bfac7209f20b9e8aadacd",
"text": "\"Best answer I've heard when asking this question is \"\"because they can.\"\" Traditionally Australia was remote enough, and it was justified due to the cost of shipping and importing... but now that's not the case and they're still sticking it to you, and you're still paying it. Even digital media (music, video, software), the poster-child of an item that has zero difference in delivery cost, cost more in Australia and there is absolutely no reason for it outside of the fact that you're going to pay it. Sorry dude... Start finding ways to fight back. Find a US based VPN and route your purchases through the U.S., maybe save some money that way? Make your physical purchases overseas and ship them home when you happen to leave the country (if ever). Have friends do so when they leave the country... Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29cf5583c86e0216a19eb093e877ba35",
"text": "Whenever you pay or withdraw some fund from your account, paypal takes approx 3% of the current currency value along with the fees. i.e. If you are paying/withdraw 100 unit of US Dollars to British pounds and if the current convertion rate is 1$=0.82GBP, then consider reducing 3% of the actual currency rate. So, the approximate magnitude will be 0.82*97% (100-3=97) = 0.7954. So, 1$=0.7954GBP. This formula will not give you 100% accurate value but will help of course. Captain",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7e138753d16cec568a2e061fb87db8af
|
Online transaction - Money taken out late
|
[
{
"docid": "7be1da953541e9ce40e4598da9a824e4",
"text": "\"Debit Cards have a certain processing delay, \"\"lag time\"\", before the transaction from the vendor completes with your bank. In the US it's typically 3 business days but I have seen even a 15 day lag from Panera Bread. I guess in the UK, payment processors have similar processing delays. A business is not obliged to run its payment processing in realtime, as that's very expensive. Whatever be the lag time, your bank is supposed to cover the payment you promised through your card. Now if you don't have agreements in place (for example, overdraft) with your bank, they will likely have to turn down payments that exceed your available balance. Here is the raw deal: In the end, the responsibility to ensure that your available balance is enough is upon you (and whether you have agreements in place to handle such situations) So what happened is very much legal, a business is not obliged to run its payment processing in realtime and no ethics are at stake. To ensure such things do not happen to me, I used to use a sub-account from which my debit card used to get paid. I have since moved to credit cards as the hassle of not overdrawing was too much (and overdraft fees from banks in the US are disastrous, especially for people who actually need such a facility)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69eacef6ab630c1a74ab135faf233369",
"text": "\"When processing credit/debit cards there is a choice made by the company on how they want to go about doing it. The options are Authorization/Capture and Sale. For online transactions that require the delivery of goods, companies are supposed to start by initially Authorizing the transaction. This signals your bank to mark the funds but it does not actually transfer them. Once the company is actually shipping the goods, they will send a Capture command that tells the bank to go ahead and transfer the funds. There can be a time delay between the two actions. 3 days is fairly common, but longer can certainly be seen. It normally takes a week for a gas station local to me to clear their transactions. The second one, a Sale is normally used for online transactions in which a service is immediately delivered or a Point of Sale transaction (buying something in person at a store). This action wraps up both an Authorization and Capture into a single step. Now, not all systems have the same requirements. It is actually fairly common for people who play online games to \"\"accidentally\"\" authorize funds to be transferred from their bank. Processing those refunds can be fairly expensive. However, if the company simply performs an Authorization and never issues a capture then it's as if the transaction never occurred and the costs involved to the company are much smaller (close to zero) I'd suspect they have a high degree of parents claiming their kids were never authorized to perform transactions or that fraud was involved. If this is the case then it would be in the company's interest to authorize the transaction, apply the credits to your account then wait a few days before actually capturing the funds from the bank. Depending upon the amount of time for the wait your bank might have silently rolled back the authorization. When it came time for the company to capture, then they'd just reissue it as a sale. I hope that makes sense. The point is, this is actually fairly common. Not just for games but for a whole host of areas in which fraud might exist (like getting gas).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "dcd4c837882562e73c64f9b4552eb5af",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f775c51a4bfb6b037a1b0f2153c5a9d",
"text": "\"Your bank uses ClearXchange, not you. It is not a website where you open an account, like many others, but an inter-bank transfer system based on email addresses, kind of like free wire transfers between everyone. You don't have to set anything up, just accept the payment, and the money appears in your account (assuming the client used the email address your bank has on file for you). However, if you still don't want it, you can just ignore it. There is a timeout when his transaction gets auto-cancelled, and he gets his money back. Here is an example text from the 'fine print' (my highlighting): \"\"[...]We will continue our attempts by sending a second notice of a transfer to the recipient, and providing the recipient a period of nine (9) succeeding Business Days to register in the Service, or the person-to-person payment service of clearXchange, Zelle or a Network Bank. At the end of this period, if the recipient still has not registered, the transfer request will be Cancelled. The sender may cancel the transfer at any time during this ten (10) day period if the recipient is not registered at the time of cancellation.[...]\"\" (https://chaseonline.chase.com/Public/Misc/LAContent.aspx?agreementKey=chasenet_la)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "254b29225b915be822ea4a883a43a442",
"text": "\"There are, in fact, two balances kept for your account by most banks that have to comply with common convenience banking laws. The first is your actual balance; it is simply the sum total of all deposits and withdrawals that have cleared the account; that is, both your bank and the bank from which the deposit came or to which the payment will go have exchanged necessary proof of authorization from the payor, and have confirmed with each other that the money has actually been debited from the account of the payor, transferred between the banks and credited to the account of the payee. The second balance is the \"\"available balance\"\". This is the actual balance, plus any amount that the bank is \"\"floating\"\" you while a deposit clears, minus any amount that the bank has received notice of that you may have just authorized, but for which either full proof of authorization or the definite amount (or both) have not been confirmed. This is what's happening here. Your bank received notice that you intended to pay the train company $X. They put an \"\"authorization hold\"\" on that $X, deducting it from your available balance but not your actual balance. The bank then, for whatever reason, declined to process the actual transaction (insufficient funds, suspicion of theft/fraud), but kept the hold in place in case the transaction was re-attempted. Holds for debit purchases usually expire between 1 and 5 days after being placed if the hold is not subsequently \"\"settled\"\" by the merchant providing definite proof of amount and authorization before that time. The expiration time mainly depends on the policy of the bank holding your account. Holds can remain in place as long as thirty days for certain accounts or types of payment, again depending on bank policy. In certain circumstances, the bank can remove a hold on request. But it is the bank, and not the merchant, that you must contact to remove a hold or even inquire about one.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15e81937680d2671eb52c2d6fc94e93e",
"text": "If the debit card is associated with the account, there is nowhere else it could go. The chance is nil that there is another account with that 16-digit number. So either it goes there, or the transfer fails and it is right back where it came from, though this could take some days. If you don't want to risk a wait, talk to your bank now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fd0d70975a9e25e6f4df9b653ffceee",
"text": "\"I cannot answer the original question, but since there is a good deal of discussion about whether it's credible at all, here's an answer that I got from Bank of America. Note the fine difference between \"\"your account\"\" and \"\"our account\"\", which does not seem to be a typo: The payment method is determined automatically by our system. One of the main factors is the method by which pay to recipients prefer to receive payments. If a payment can be issued electronically, we attempt to do so because it is the most efficient method. Payment methods include: *Electronic: Payment is sent electronically prior to the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. The funds for the payment are deducted from your account on the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. *Corporate Check: This is a check drawn on our account and is mailed to the pay to recipient a few days before the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. The funds to cover the payment are deducted from your account on the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. *Laser Draft Check: This is a check drawn on your account and mailed to the pay to recipient a few days before the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. The funds for the payment are deducted from your account when the pay to recipient cashes the check, just as if you wrote the check yourself. To determine how your payment was sent, click the \"\"Payments\"\" button in your Bill Pay service. Select the \"\"view payment\"\" link next to the payment. Payment information is then displayed. \"\"Transmitted electronically\"\" means the payment was sent electronically. \"\"Payment transaction number\"\" means the payment was sent via a check drawn from our account. \"\"Check number\"\" means the payment was sent as a laser draft check. Each payment request is evaluated individually and may change each time a payment processes. A payment may switch from one payment method to another for a number of reasons. The merchant may have temporarily switched the payment method to paper, while they update processing information. Recent changes or re-issuance of your payee account number could alter the payment method. In my case, the web site reads a little different: Payment check # 12345678 (8 digits) was sent to Company on 10/27/2015 and delivered on 10/30/2015. Funds were withdrawn from your (named) account on 10/30/2015. for one due on 10/30/2015; this must be the \"\"corporate check\"\". And for another, earlier one, due on 10/01/2015, this must be the laser draft check: Check # 1234 (4 digits) from your (named) account was mailed to Company on 09/28/2015. Funds for this payment are withdrawn from your account when the Pay To account cashes the check. Both payments were made based on the same recurring bill pay payment that I set up manually (knowing little more of the company than its address).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b213dd622dfb92ca43339dad0d9a256",
"text": "\"Your bank is maintaining different states for transactions, and changing the state depending on real-world events and the passage of time. withdraw €100 from my bank account on 30 September […] my bank does not process the transaction until 2 October. The bank probably have that transaction marked as “pending” on 30 September, and “cleared” on 2 October. transfer €100 from Bank A to Bank B, Bank A's statement dates the transaction on 20 September, but Bank B dates it as coming in on 22 September. Similarly, bank A will have the transaction marked as “pending” initially. Bank B won't have a corresponding transaction at all, until later; they'll have it “pending” too, until they confirm the transfer. Then (probably at different times from each other) the banks will each mark the corresponding transactions “cleared”. The bookkeeping software that I use doesn't seem to allow for this \"\"transfer time\"\" between accounts. When I enter a transfer from one account to another, they both have to have the same date. You may want to learn about different bases of accounting. The simpler option is “cash-based” accounting. The simplification comes from assuming transactions take no time to transfer from one account to another, and are instantly available after that. Your book-keeping software probably books using this simpler basis for your personal finances. The more complex “accrual-based” accounting tracks each individual transaction through multiple states – “pending”, “transfer”, “cleared”, etc. – with state changes at different times – time of trade, time of settlement, etc. – to more accurately reflect the real world agreements between parties, and different availability of the money to each party. So if your book-keeping program uses “cash basis”, you'll need to pick which inaccuracy you want: book the transfer when you did it, or book the transfer when the money is available at the other end.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59ffc40b4113b4fcee9b4be04039d9c9",
"text": "As a general premise: In most of the online transactions in case of dispute the benefit of doubt is given to the customer. IE if the customer refuses to pay and claims that its not his transaction, the card company reverses the charges and does not pay the merchant (or recovers if its already paid). There are many types of online vendors who use a variety of methods to ensure that they are not at loss. Some of these are:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3fdb07dc08015b2b1f9f1c3c89777d96",
"text": "\"The simplest answer to why you can't see it in your online statement is a design/business decision that was made, most probably originally to make online statements differ as little as possible from old fashioned monthly printed statements; the old printed statements never showed holds either. Some banks and card services actually do show these transactions online, but in my experience these are the rare exceptions - though with business/commercial accounts I saw this more, but it was still rare. This is also partly due to banks fearing lots of annoying phone calls from customers and problems with merchants, as people react to \"\"hey, renting that car didn't cost $500!\"\" and don't realize that the hold is often higher than the transaction amount and will be justified in a few days (or weeks...), etc - so please don't dispute the charges just yet. Behind the scenes, I've had bankers explain it to me thusly (the practice has bitten me before and it bothered me a lot, so I've talked to quite a few bankers about this): There are two kinds of holds: \"\"soft holds\"\" and \"\"hard holds\"\". In a soft hold, a merchant basically asks the bank, \"\"Hey, is there at least $75 in this account?\"\" The bank responds, and then has it's own individually set policy per account type as to how to treat that hold. Sometimes they reserve no money whatsoever - you are free to spend that money right out and rack up NSF fees to your heart's content. Yet some policies are to treat this identically to a hard hold and keep the money locked down until released. The hard hold is treated very much like an actual expenditure transaction, in that the money is locked and shown as no longer available to you. This varies by bank - some banks use an \"\"Account Balance\"\" and an \"\"Available Balance\"\", and some have done away with these dual terms and leave it up to you to determine what your balance is and what's \"\"available\"\" (or you have to call them). The key difference in the hard hold and a real expenditure is, technically, the money is still in your bank account; your bank has merely \"\"reserved\"\" it, earmarking it for a specific purchase (and gently promising the merchant they can have their money later), but the biggest difference is there is a time-limit. If a merchant does not process a completion to the transaction to claim the money, your bank will lift the hold after a period of time (I've seen 7-30 days as typical in the US, again varying by institution) returning your money to your balance that is available for purchasing and withdrawal. In every case, any vaguely decent banking institution allows you to call them, speak to some bank employee, and they can look up your account and inform you about the different sort of holds that are on your account that are not pending/completed purchase transactions. From a strictly cynical (perhaps rightly jaded) point of view, yes this is also used as a method to extort absurdly high fees especially from customers who keep a low balance in their account. I have had more than one bank charge NSF fees based on available balances that were due to holds made by gas pumps, for instance, even though my actual \"\"money in my account\"\" never went below $0 (the holds were for amounts larger than the actual transaction). And yes, the banks usually would waive those fees if you bothered to get someone on the phone or in person and made yourself a nuisance to the right person for long enough, but they made you work for it. But I digress.... The reality is that there are lots of back and forth and middle-men in transactions like this, and most banks try to hide as much of this from you the client as possible, partly because its a huge confusing hassle and its part of why you are paying a bank to handle this nonsense for you to start with. And, as with all institutions, rules and policies become easily adjusted to maximize revenues, and if you don't keep sizable liquid minimum balances (100% of the time, all year long) they target you for fees. To avoid this without having fat wads of extra cash in those accounts, is use an entirely disconnected credit card for reservations ONLY - especially when you are traveling and will be making rentals and booking hotels. Just tell them you wish to pay with a different card when you are done, and most merchants can do this without hassle. Since it's a credit card with monthly billing you can often end up with no balance, no waiting around for a month for payments to clear, and no bank fees! It isn't 100%, but now I never - if I can possibly avoid it - use my debit/bank card to \"\"reserve\"\" or \"\"rent\"\" anything, ever.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18b7559a6edda684caf66c1f0c3a4e40",
"text": "\"Your bank will undoubtedly charge you a fee for the \"\"chargeback\"\" and so while you will get your money back faster, you will likely end up with less than you would if you were not so impatient and just waited a few days for the refund to show up. I suppose it depends on whether you consider this a downside or not.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "460dca0b3e5b5f08a08830116926fea6",
"text": "The fact that your credit card has seen the payment is strong evidence that the transaction did in fact take place. But it's not unusual for there to be a delay of one or two business days before transactions show up in your online banking records. Saturday and Sunday are not business days. I bet you will see it on Monday. If it's not there by Tuesday, you could call the bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "362f05a523b3b1facc4c35235924f422",
"text": "That's how my power company does it. You authorize them to direct debit recurring monthly. If they screw up and withdraw $1000, you're out until it gets fixed. But it varies from company to company. Not everyone's situation is like your online banking.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e10f9fb1ebe25140c06de0de01657db",
"text": "He has my bank account info, and I just want to know where I stand legally. Legally you can't keep the money. It would either go back to the originator or to Government unclaimed department. I got a bunch of missed calls from an unknown number and a really unprofessional email from a guy who supposedly worked for UNICEF saying I had 4 hours until I am suppose to be visited by police and that there was nowhere I could run to. These are common tactics employed to ensure you take some action and transfer the real money somewhere. Do not succumb to such tactics. The money is still in my account I have not touched it. Advise your Bank immediately that there is this deposit into your account that is not your's. Let the bank take appropriate action. Do not authorize Bank to debit your account. The max you can do is authorize the bank to reverse this transaction. The best is stick to statement that said transaction is not yours and Bank is free to do what is right. There is a small difference and very important. If you authorize bank to debit, you have initiated a payment. So if the original payment were revered by originator bank, you are left short of money. However if your instructions are very clear, that this specific transaction can be reversed, you cannot be additionally debited if this transaction is reversed. He has my bank account info, Depending on how easy / difficult, my suggestion would be monitor this account closely, best is if you can close it out and open a new one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62eb9305ec5ccbdfe1d0dd52c7dd9840",
"text": "When you swipe your credit card, the terminal at the store makes a request of your bank, and your bank has only a few seconds to accept or reject the transaction. Once the transaction is accepted by your bank, it appears in the Pending transactions. At the end of the business day, the store submits all of the final transactions for the day to their bank in a batch, and the banks all trade transactions in a batch, and money is sent between banks. This is the process that takes a couple of days, and after this happens, you see the transaction move from your Pending transactions into the regular transactions area. Most of the time, the pending transaction and the final transaction are the same. However, there are cases where it is different. A couple of examples: With a credit account, the fact that the final amount is not known for a few days is no big deal: after all, you don't have any money in the account, and if you end up spending more than you have, the bank will happily let you take your time coming up with the money (at a steep cost, of course). With a debit card tied to your checking account, the transaction is handled the same way, as far is the store is concerned. However, your bank is not going to run the risk of you overdrawing your checking account. They also are not going to run the risk of you withdrawing money from your account that is needed to cover pending transactions. So they usually treat these pending transactions as final transactions, deducting the pending transaction from your account balance immediately. When the final transaction comes through, they adjust the transaction, and your balance goes up or down accordingly. This is one of the big drawbacks to using a debit card, in my opinion. If a bad pending transaction comes through, you are out this money until it gets straightened out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0088551e56693f9713c06610f68b44f1",
"text": "You can't make your bank do a charge back. This function is to assist with straight up fraud, not a customer service mistake. (Think spoofed or stolen card or if a vendor intentionally acted fraudulently.) While you may believe what they did is fraud, your bank will require that you provide the vendor with the opportunity to rectify the situation themselves. Trying to call back and giving up after a long hold time won't meet their standards. If banks started letting anyone unhappy with a vendor start doing charge backs, they would be doing nothing else all day. The issues you're describing has not reached the threshold for the bank to authorize a charge back. Comcast has local and regional offices, and you could go in person to speak with someone. Maybe there isn't one near you. There are non-peak hours which wait times will be less. You'll just have to grin and bear it if you truly want the money back. Then, take your business elsewhere and post bad reviews online. Always keep in mind that when you eventually speak with someone, they will not be the person that messed up, and you should be overly nice and polite to them. I promise it will yield far better results than being surly and demanding. Another way to get Comcast's attention would be to file a complaint with the BBB. It might take longer, but I've had this work with big companies, usually with good results. Again, be nice to whomever contacts you. In reference to your recent duplicate question: Mastercard won't be able to help at all. They play no part in the transaction at all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fe8ad531b8303ea06ea6b21256025fe",
"text": "I don't believe Saturday is a business day either. When I deposit a check at a bank's drive-in after 4pm Friday, the receipt tells me it will credit as if I deposited on Monday. If a business' computer doesn't adjust their billing to have a weekday due date, they are supposed to accept the payment on the next business day, else, as you discovered, a Sunday due date is really the prior Friday. In which case they may be running afoul of the rules that require X number of days from the time they mail a bill to the time it's due. The flip side to all of this, is to pick and choose your battles in life. Just pay the bill 2 days early. The interest on a few hundred dollars is a few cents per week. You save that by not using a stamp, just charge it on their site on the Friday. Keep in mind, you can be right, but their computer still dings you. So you call and spend your valuable time when ever the due date is over a weekend, getting an agent to reverse the late fee. The cost of 'right' is wasting ten minutes, which is worth far more than just avoiding the issue altogether. But - if you are in the US (you didn't give your country), we have regulations for everything. HR 627, aka The CARD act of 2009, offers - ‘‘(2) WEEKEND OR HOLIDAY DUE DATES.—If the payment due date for a credit card account under an open end consumer credit plan is a day on which the creditor does not receive or accept payments by mail (including weekends and holidays), the creditor may not treat a payment received on the next business day as late for any purpose.’’. So, if you really want to pursue this, you have the power of our illustrious congress on your side.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ec8c1e67e5b7b3de724e608af68bc636
|
Does a growing economy mean the economy is becoming less efficient?
|
[
{
"docid": "c3ee2200952b082f62092d65b776999e",
"text": "It's a kook movie made by folks who combine conspiracy quackery with repackaged socialism. If you're into socialist theory, read Marx or some other intellectual socialist. That said, growth and efficiency are not the same thing. If I'm running a lemonade stand, I can grow by hiring more people at $X/hr or increase efficiency by purchasing an electric juicer and hiring fewer people.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5da547d40bc58ce938dde6001001f3f8",
"text": "Growth and efficiency can occur independently of each other. For instance, if an economy consists of one inefficient business and then a second more efficient business opens to compete agains the first the overall efficiency increases while the economy grows. New industries tend to be inefficient at the beginning (since initiation is more important than optimisation) and then become more efficient over time. Agriculture is an amazingly efficient business if you consider how many people now produce the amount of food we consume in comparison to only 100 years ago. Plus, efficiency is not only about producing extra widgets. You could produce the same number of widgets for lower cost. Outsourcing to China (taking advantage of their lower cost of production) increases the efficiency of the US economy, but also increases the efficiency of the Chinese economy (since extra work is created producing more things). Lower costs in the US lead to increased investment in other production. Increased production in China leads to the rising wages there. Growth can be achieved in both places for very different reasons. So, no, growth doesn't have to come about through less efficiency.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "460d85a7c8ff70a578985dbad0479ede",
"text": "A growing economy should become more efficient because of increased opportunity for division of labor: specialization. External regulation or monetary policy external to the free market can cause parts of the economy to grow in response to said regulations. This creates inefficiencies that are wrung out of the economy after the policies reverse. A couple of examples: Tinkering with the economy causes the inefficiencies.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ec7ef0fd83a1c0b24e84f61e5576178f",
"text": "I don't understand your question. What the article is talking about is a bit more than circulating money indiscriminately. It is saying that by circulating more of it to rich and less to the poor will result in less growth overall, which I think we can all agree is a bad thing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "636c82034cad8c30b43c9f13cad4e238",
"text": "\"The U.S. economy has grown at just under 3% a year after inflation over the past 50 years. (Some of this occurred to \"\"private\"\" companies that are not listed on the stock market, or before they were listed.) The stock market returns averaged 7.14% a year, \"\"gross,\"\" but when you subtract the 4.67% inflation, the \"\"net\"\" number is 2.47% a year. That gain corresponds closely to the \"\"just under 3% a year\"\" GDP growth during that time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae970d86fb613a52eccde066988c16a8",
"text": "that was not the argument posited, and it would be superfluous if it were. it does nothing to challenge hanauers argument, as hanauer acknowledges this tenet which further informs his broader view that this phenomenon results in the absence of economic growth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17361070131059b6ba867cba09f1d51b",
"text": "The President, Democrat or Republican, has very little effect on the growth or performance of an economy. The Federal Reserve has the largest impact, followed by Congress. Interestingly, if US government spending was not frozen in 2010, the US would have grown closer to the historical average of 3%. Government spending, which is controlled by Congress, brought down GDP growth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "612503d4c8d6c15915c1625fbdbd65ce",
"text": "OMG. A recession is coming. Wait...hasn't that been a true statement since forever? No shit a recession is coming. That's like saying a thunderstorm is coming. This is a natural part of economics. Recessions are a necessary part of growth, almost like growing pains. Now the real question is 'when will the recession happen.' However nobody truly knows that, so it's better to spend your efforts making sure you're prepared for when a recession occurs as opposed to worrying about when that will happen.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e0a3ac799b763902f5b4ec1ae24189f",
"text": "we have massive numbers of people out of work and our infrastructure is crumbling. We put people to work just like we did in the 30's; our infrastructure gets fixed and so does our economy. I totally agree that for an economy to grow we have to make more stuff. We're not making the stuff now because people cannot afford to purchase it. If given funds, people would purchase stuff, and stuff would get made. This got us out of them great depression and has kept Scandinavia strong, and even got Iceland out of it's terrible brush with Libertarianism. Brazil is becoming a first world powerhouse by this sort of redistribution. Redistributing money down the ladder has the benefit of working. Austerity leads to Greece. And Spain. And Portugal. And Ireland. But not Germany, because they deficit-spent their way out of their recession.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "801125f5adf1109ba87736274e2082da",
"text": "\"Wealth is not distributed equally in any economy. And, even if it were, differentiation between people would lead to different interests being expressed in different ways. As people either attempt to earn more (to improve their situation) or different people express those interests in different ways (saving money to go on a skiing holiday, or to put a downpayment on a house) people invite new products and services to be created to satisfy those demands. In addition, there is the problem of uncertainty. People save money today to cope with uncertainty tomorrow (healthcare, pensions, education, etc.). Those savings don't remain idle, but are lent to others who believe that they can make a return through investing in new businesses or ideas. The point being that any dynamic economy will experience change in the amount of goods available to the people within that economy. From an economic perspective \"\"growth\"\" is just another permutation. From a political perspective, \"\"growth\"\" implies that people are getting wealthier. If that growth is asymmetrically distributed (e.g. the poor don't experience it and the middle classes don't feel they get enough of it) then that is a problem for politicians. The emerging markets of the world are trying to raise millions of people out of poverty. Growth is a way of measuring how quickly they are achieving that end. Growth, in and of itself, is meaningless. There are some people who believe that \"\"we\"\" (as some proxy of society) have enough stuff and growth is unnecessary but that implies that everyone is satisfied. For as long as some people wish to have more wealth/stuff, and have the means to achieve this, there will be growth. And for as long as there is uncertainty growth will vary.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc669c07c7a6d3fd0cfcb328b92be3ba",
"text": "\"I'm not defending Faber, but from an statistical point your logic is terrible. It's a lot easier to go from 2 to 4 than it is from 200 to 400 - so any undeveloped third-world country should be growing a **lot** faster than places with existing stable economies. And to put \"\"fastest growing\"\" into context, it's 8.5%, which isn't even as big as I was expecting considering the US is growing at 3% and has a much larger base value.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a15e4181d6f3346f1a74af9ceb01fd59",
"text": "No, it doesn't. That would be true if somehow incomes were conserved, but they aren't. What's much more likely is that income growth becomes muted in the first world with the vast majority of income growth happening in developing economies. So, it doesn't require losing income, but it will mean constrained income growth in developed countries.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9cf796c92ec075db88a0620253a15499",
"text": "\"The answer to your question depends on what you mean when you say \"\"growth\"\". If you mean a literal increase in the aggregate market capitalization of companies, across the entire market, then, no, this sort of growth is not possible without concomitant economic growth. The reason why is that the market capitalization of each company is proportional to its gross revenue, and the sum of all revenue from selling \"\"final goods\"\" (i.e., things purchased and used by consumers) is, apart from a few technicalities, the definition of GDP. The exact multiplier might fluctuate up or down depending on investors' expectations about how sales will grow or decline going forward, but in a zero-growth economy this multiplier should be stable over the long run. It might, however, still fluctuate over the short term, but more about that in a minute. Note that all of this applies to aggregate growth across all firms. Individual firms can still grow, of course, but as they must do this by gaining market share from other companies such growth would be balanced by a decline for some other firm. Also, I've assumed zero net exports (that's one of the \"\"technicalities\"\" I mentioned above) because obviously you could have export-driven growth even if the domestic economy were stationary. However, often when people talk about \"\"growth\"\" in the market, what they really mean is \"\"return\"\". That is, how much does your investment earn for you. This isn't really the same thing as growth, but people often think of it that way, particularly in the saving phase of their investing career, when they are reinvesting their returns, and therefore their account balances are growing. It is possible to have a positive return, averaged across the market, even in a stationary economy. The reason why is that there are really only two things a firm can do with its net profits. One possibility is that it could invest it in growing the business. However, there is not much point in doing that in a stationary economy because by assumption no increase in aggregate consumption (and therefore, in the long run, aggregate production) are possible. Therefore, firms are left with only the second option, which is to pay them out to investors as dividends. Those dividends provide a return that is independent of economic growth. Would the stock market still be a good investment in such an economy? Yes. Well, sort of. The rate of return from firms' dividend payouts will depend on investors' demand (in aggregate) for returns on their investments. Stock prices will rise or fall, causing returns to respectively fall or rise, to find that level. If your personal desire for returns is lower than the average across the investing public, then the stock market would look like a good investment. If your desired return is higher than the average, then it will look like a poor investment. The marginal investor will, of course be indifferent. The practical upshot of this is that the people who invest in the stock market in this scenario will be precisely the ones for whom the stock market is a good investment, given their personal propensity to save and desire for returns, and so forth. Finally, you mentioned that in your scenario the GDP stagnation is due to declining population. I am less certain what this means for investment, but my first thought is that you would have a large retired population selling its investments to fund late-life consumption, and you would have a comparatively small (relative to history) working population buying those assets. This would lead to low asset prices, and therefore high rates of return. However, that's assuming that retirees need to sell assets to fund their retirement consumption. If the absolute returns on retirees' assets are large enough to fund their retirement consumption then you would wind up with relatively few sellers, resulting in high prices and therefore relatively low rates of return. It's not obvious to me which effect would dominate, and so it's hard to say whether or not the resulting returns would look attractive to the working-age population.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4eea1266177b47feac63c58f7fe87a70",
"text": "Today’s up and coming tech companies are taking value from the existing companies so I believe there can be a net loss. Also, efficiency gains are going to a smaller portion of the population, and if they don’t increase their spending to make up for the decrease in the spending of those who are falling behind, then that might cause a decrease in economic activity. Of course, there are a lot more up and coming people in the word too, so they could very well outnumber those in the US/Western Europe regions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c453261c2cf0ac5964870d3679062958",
"text": "Some innovations increase productivity quite a bit. So in the long run, innovations is a main driver or economical growth. And innovation is fueled by, indeed, debt. The straight curve in the video, the economical growth, should not be a straight line, but a upwardly curved one. It cannot go down because innovations in productivity are not lost (I challenge you for an example contradicting this. Normally, every upward cycle should create an extra increase in productivity. The government also plays a role in stimulating innovation. I loved this video btw.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edc8f5acc6acb7c172f0f6631a96b3aa",
"text": "You do know that since the shale gas boom started the cost of energy declined significantly, don't you? Your theory is a bit simplistic and had more than a few holes. GDP growth is not that contingent on energy prices. How do you factor in increasing fuel efficiency in your theory?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55f5cae08ad8656a8f742e86aee56cf7",
"text": "While there could be other factors, the chart at the top made me not want to read the article... it's a gain of less than 0.1% in a year in a growing economy. Keep this up and they'll be screwed by 2040.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "362077d02a7056589fbe1c25e18915f3",
"text": "\"Check out Irwin Schiff's \"\"How an Economy Grows and Why it Doesn't\"\". It explains how economy's work using a comic format, explaining investment, savings, banking, gov't, taxation,etc, although you may need to be at least 10 to understand some of the concepts. :)\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3d5d691258413a930893ad034e7f2361
|
Shares in Chinese startup company
|
[
{
"docid": "ce98c234306e5b450314f6d30b23a592",
"text": "Setting up an entity that is partially foreign owned is not that difficult. It takes an additional 1-1.5 months in total, and in this particular case, you guys would be formed as a Joint Venture. It will cost a bit more (about 3-5000). If you're serious about owning a part of a business in China, you should carefully examine what he means by 'more complicated'. From my point of view, I have set up my own WOFE in China, and examined the possibilities of a JV and even considered using a friend to set up the company under their personal name as a domestic company (which is what your supervisor is doing), any difference between the three are not really a big deal anymore, and comes down to the competency of the agencies you are using and the business partner themselves. It cost me 11,000 for a WOFE including the agency and government registration fees (only Chinese speaking). You should also consider the other shareholders who may be part of this venture as well. If there are other shareholders, and you are not providing further tangible contribution, you will end up replaced and penniless (unless of course you trust them too...), because they are actually paying money to be part of the business and you are not. They will not part with equity for you. I'm not a lawyer, but think you should not rely on any promises other than what it says on a company registration paper. Good luck!",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "dc61bab52d0f73aaebd7179bee102155",
"text": "You will probably never see it. The startup at some point may start issuing dividends to the shareholders (which would be the owners, including you if you are in fact getting equity), but that day may never come. If they hire others with this method, you'll likely lose even that 5% as more shares are created. Think of inflation that happens when government just prints more money. All notes effectively lose value. I wouldn't invest either, most startups fail. Don't work for free on the vague promise of some future compensation; you want a salary and benefits. Equity doesn't put food on your table.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebf7f2ffdd88a794594aa313b48eb2d1",
"text": "yeah but most likely, it's a 1x liquidation preference. The startup isn't going to generate cash flows enough to pay off the initial investment to the investor. Technically it isn't exactly specified as only triggered on a liquidation event because OP didn't specify the real legal language but it seems likely that's the case. Point 2 is exactly what a liquidation preference is. No way the owner of the company is participating in anything until the investor gets his initial investment back.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0d33ac693b9ca5cb85fa08328394996",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-artificialintelligence-idUSKBN1942OX) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** > WASHINGTON The United States appears poised to heighten scrutiny of Chinese investment in Silicon Valley to better shield sensitive technologies seen as vital to U.S. national security, current and former U.S. officials tell Reuters. > AI&#039;S ROLE IN DRONE WARFARE. Concerns about Chinese inroads into advanced technology come as the U.S. military looks to incorporate elements of artificial intelligence and machine learning into its drone program. > &quot;When the Chinese make an investment in an early stage company developing advanced technology, there is an opportunity cost to the U.S. since that company is potentially off-limits for purposes of working with,&quot; the report said. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6h3wj2/the_united_states_appears_poised_to_heighten/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~143518 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*: **technology**^#1 **us**^#2 **investment**^#3 **China**^#4 **Chinese**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "165abb09aa0fe2cb6a6e68dd5a3391a1",
"text": "\"they are entirely free to do whatever they want with the shares. In particular, they can sell them to whomever they choose No. Restrictions on who can sell when and to whom are a common thing with startups. \"\"Publicly traded\"\" companies are regulated in a much stricter way than private companies, so until the IPO the sales are limited to the OTC markets. But even that can be restricted by bylaws - for example ownership can only be limited to a group of investors approved by the board. As an employee - your grant was approved by the board, but when you come to sell, the buyer was not and the company may not agree to vet them. Bottom line is that it is not illegal to impose all kinds of restrictions on what the employees can do with their shares, as long as the shares are not listed on a public stock exchange (even after the company goes IPO with one class, other classes may remain restricted).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b20bcc87aaf2e168aa3e45dbcbdffd65",
"text": "If you check out China Stock Markets Web provides details on all things that trade on there. It covers the Hang Seng Index, SSE Index, and SSE Component Index. There is also tons of information for investors on the exchange website here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "838c715b7d504db807ab5448b6489856",
"text": "I think examining the effects and potential implications of China's involvement with the stock market may be productive. Some interesting examples would be the failed market circuit breakers and the restrictions of short-selling in 2016. Not sure that this would qualify as a real topic, but may give you food for thought.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d0906a0418371cf2b5a442b1fe2c8f6",
"text": "If the company is non-public, your hands are tied. Most startups have a Stock Option Plan with specific rules on the shares. In almost all cases, they have a Transferability clause preventing transfers of options and shares unless approved by the company (who would almost always say no). Additionally, they usually have a Right of First Refusal (ROFR), which states that if shares are going to be transferred, the company gets the chance to buy it first. In your case, the company may argue your friend would sell you the shares for free and the company would exercise their ROFR and buy back the shares for free. There is not much you can do in this case. You may be able to write up a contract between your friend and you, but it would be costly and possibly not worth the effort. You may be better off asking for a lump sum or some other sort of compensation. Additionally, your friend might want to be careful with this idea. You could potentially gain access to sensitive company tools/documents which could get them in a lot of trouble.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90d5a9029baab5def0887297b77d4aa6",
"text": "I wonder in this case if it might be easier to look for an emerging markets fund that excludes china, and just shift into that. In years past I know there were a variety of 'Asian tiger' funds that excluded Japan for much the same reason, so these days it would not surprise me if there were similar emerging markets funds that excluded China. I can find some inverse ETF's that basically short the emerging markets as a whole, but not one that does just china. (then again I only spent a little time looking)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23f2a228c3c25affe0b9da5c43a3fc75",
"text": "\"BigCo is selling new shares and receives the money from Venturo. If Venturo is offering $250k for 25% of the company, then the valuation that they are agreeing on is a value of $1m for the company after the new investment is made. If Jack is the sole owner of one million shares before the new investment, then BigCo sells 333,333 shares to Venturo for $250k. The new total number of shares of BigCo is 1,333,333; Venturo holds 25%, and Jack holds 75%. The amount that Jack originally invested in the company is irrelevant. At the moment of the sale, the Venturo and Jack agree that Jack's stake is worth $750k. The value of Jack's stake may have gone up, but he owes no capital gains tax, because he hasn't realized any of his gains yet. Jack hasn't sold any of his stake. You might think that he has, because he used to hold 100% and now he holds 75%. However, the difference is that the company is worth more than was before the sale. So the value of his stake was unchanged immediately before and after the sale. Jack agrees to this because the company needs this additional capital in order to meet its potential. (See \"\"Why is stock dilution legal?\"\") For further explanation and another example of this, see the question \"\"If a startup receives investment money, does the startup founder/owner actually gain anything?\"\" Your other scenario, where Venturo purchases existing shares directly from Jack, is not practical in this situation. If Jack sells his existing shares, you are correct that the company does not gain any additional capital. An investor would not want to invest in the company this way, because the company is struggling and needs new capital.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8048f155db62bfb0eaa57d8e8fd2e102",
"text": "\"[Link 1] (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-12/two-chinese-provinces-falsified-economic-data-inspectors-say) [Link 2] (https://www.ft.com/content/a5bf42e2-03cf-11e7-ace0-1ce02ef0def9) [Link 3] (https://www.ft.com/content/0361c1a4-bcfe-11e6-8b45-b8b81dd5d080) China has been cooking their books, just like the U.S. has been doing it the past few years. Just google \"\"U.S. Central banks buying stocks and bonds\"\", then connect the numbers. **Insider Information:** At my previous company we sold solar manufacturing equipment. I went to said Chinese city that bought our equipment. They were producing ton loads of solar panels, I asked one of the manager's where all of the panels were being sold (domestic, or international?). To my surprise, he said they warehoused the panels they produced; because, there weren't enough customers. And, why were they warehousing the panels? Because, the Chinese government needed to show numbers that jobs were plenty, and manufacturing was still strong.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da824642900236cf08575585381332b9",
"text": "As it stands equity contracts in startups are by default structured differently. The standard equity is shares or convertible notes. Having equity that's structured in the way you propose is a bad idea for both sides. VC don't like equity that's not done with standard equity contracts. If the lawyer of the VC has to review your equity document and understand how the exact terms work that makes it more complicated to invest money into the startup. On your end it might not be fair because a company doesn't need to make any income to be successful. Various companies manage to reduce their tax burden to next to nothing by clever accounting that results in having no taxable income. Uber brought the uber.com domain name with 2% equity at the beginning, so there are certainly deals that get made with equity. There are also other kinds of deals where domain names don't get sold for a one-time payment but with regular payment for 8 years where the domain names goes back to the seller if the company folds or otherwise doesn't want to pay anyone.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f710bf3dafd6bd265175acae324ef66",
"text": "if the consolidated joint venture/sub has a negative net worth, then it is backing out the minority owner's share. if another entity is taking the hit, or responsible for a hit/liability instead of you, then it should improve your valuation. do not confuse net worth with net income. BS vs IS.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83daadb1d3d40283d29d23eec7043f22",
"text": "Could well be a good work enviroment. The story widely reported back in Nov '11 before the IPO was that workers who had been given shares and options in lieu of salaries in the start-up days were then being pressured prior to the IPO to give up their shares or face possible job loss. Maybe just a few senior people were affected, but it didnt sound good.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb595ed344c1481e189d877f2ab344dd",
"text": "There could also be some degree of dilution at play here. If they are rapidly expanding and hiring, or if they took on another round of funding each share may have a lower amount of value though the company might be worth more than they were previously. The newly issued options may also be of a different class.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43e1fe24d89c32da09fad3757e725b55",
"text": "of course! Currently I am running a digital media company based in Bangkok, we produce a wide array of content, some for web distribution some that is targeted for traditional distribution. I also have equity in a number of tech startups around Asia, everything from e-commerce to smart home to big data. I also recently exited a quantified self company I had built with several co-founders.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6b262835b850b9c1462eefe408cc6027
|
Tenant wants to pay rent with EFT
|
[
{
"docid": "c85b3b1d6b3408c34933fabb60592ed0",
"text": "Yes, it is safe, we have been doing it for years. We prefer our tenants to make their rent payments in this manner. In fact, we prefer that they set up an automatic payment for the rent, either through their online banking or through their bank directly. Apart from getting your rent on time, this method also has the added benefit of both parties having their own records of rent payments through their bank statements, in case there is a dispute about the rent sometime down the track. Having a separate bank account just for the rent does make sense as well, it makes it easier for you to check if rent has come in, it makes it easier if you need to compare your statement without having to highlight all the rent payments amongst all other payments (you might not want to show your other incomes and spending habits to others), and you can withdraw the rents to your other account (which might offer higher interest) after it has come in, leaving a small balance most of the time in your rent account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c16950664e3466975125ec2af51493a",
"text": "I'd consider this offer. Keep in mind, any time you write a check, there's the information he's asking for. If it makes you feel comfortable, use the small balance account, or set up a 4th one you'll use for these incoming deposits only.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61b85cead5d73582e622371bb6e9a673",
"text": "It's safe. You give people those numbers every time you write a check. If a check is forged, and doesn't have your signature on it, the bank has to return the money to you; they get it back from the other bank, who takes whatever action it deems necessary against the forger. They've been doing this for a few hundred years, remember.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7c3ff987e1084e9539909f92796bc8f",
"text": "What you've described is the norm in Australia, where it's rare for anyone under sixty to use cheques. Assuming they're transferring the funds using internet banking, I would have the following suggestions: You make it clear that the the funds must reach your account by the due date for rent. It is their (the tenant's) responsibility to allow for the normal transfer delay from their account to yours. This will save unpleasant arguments later if the rent is late. If you're not comfortable with your tenant knowing your banking details, set up another account specifically for receiving rental income payments and paying your costs associated with the property. This may have the added benefit of simplifying things at tax time. Another alternative, which I think others have mentioned, is to use an escrow service like PayPal, but be aware that these kinds of services will usually charge a small percentage when you withdraw your funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35a05cfc4c1ac63cbf2f0d766a3e4561",
"text": "\"How can someone use the account number to withdraw money without my consent? They can use your account number to game your banks phone support and try to phish their way into your account. Banks have gotten very good at combating this, but theoretically with just the address he lives in, your name, and a bad bank phone rep, he could get into your business. The account number would just be one more piece of information to lead with. I have 1 savings and 3 checking accounts with the same bank. Would they be able to gain access to the other accounts? Dependent on how incompetent the bad bank rep I referenced above is, sure. But the odds are incredibly low, and if anything were to happen, the bank would be falling over itself to fix it and make reparations so that you don't sue for a whole crap ton more. Is there a more secure and still free option that I have overlooked? Opening up yet another checking account solely for accounts receivable and transfer to accounts payable would keep your financial records more transparent. Also, banks are doing \"\"money transfer by email\"\" now, so I don't know how great that is for business transactions, but in that instance you're just giving out an email linked to a money receiving account instead of an actual account number. Paypal is also a pretty good EFT middleman, but their business practices have become shady in the past 5 years.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20ca120add697e990f8a83fa86dcf8f7",
"text": "It isn't EFT, but you might mention to your tenant, that many banks offer a Bill Pay service (example) where the bank will automatically mail a check to the right person for you. I have my rent setup this way. My bank will send a rent check directly to my landlord 5 days before it is due.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d807150ef0e8bb6cb73999ce5fadb96e",
"text": "I am able to set this up for my tenants by providing them with a form to fill out so that they provide their name and bank account information, and then I gave that to my bank and they establish a recurring ACH transfer. This way the tenant never gets my bank information. One note about this, I had a tenant break her lease and move out. She notified me a couple of days before the first of the month, and by the time she had moved a few days later the rent had been automatically paid. She called her bank and asked them to reverse the most recent transaction so she could have that month's rent refunded, and much to my surprise, they did. So the financial transfer is not necessarily one-way. This is in the US.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe621e763fb92c3e5adc1f896d5837df",
"text": "\"The biggest disadvantage to you is that your tenant now knows your bank information, which means he can easily identify your source of money in the event he wins a lawsuit and wins a judgement. He will be able to have a court marshall freeze your account. However, if you deposit your tenant's check into your account as opposed to an EFT, then your tenant can basically still obtain your bank account information and freeze your account, it would just take him a bit longer to get that information. I am definitely anti-landlord in these situations because I've had to deal with so many bad ones here in NYC, but as a landlord, the best thing you can do is to create a \"\"buffer\"\" account for you to deposit tenant rent money into, then transfer the money from the buffer account to your regular account. This would prevent the tenant from knowing your personal bank information and greatly delay the tenant receiving his judgement from an assumed court win against you. My source: I had to take my landlord to court, and after obtaining a judgement, I got a court marshall to begin the process of closing access to her account (she couldn't access the money in that account). The process resulted in her sending me a check (assuming from her other account) for the judgement since her account was frozen and she couldn't access any of her money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b72c2b9e50bd860b52afa383f8bbe87",
"text": "Other options would be to use paypal, your tenant would only need your e-mail address. Most banks have a similar system to do a person-to-person transfers. My bank uses an e-mail address and only the last 4 digits of the account number.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c9e418ba7fef2c6a2d610751412d4cc",
"text": "Similar to @SoulsOpenSource's answer, I would suggest Venmo, which works like PayPal but is free for debit-card-to-debit-card transactions. More information here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12cc993d5189d5518a747f28b8e28f5e",
"text": "The mode of payment mentioned by your bank is called the ACH(Automatic Clearing House) which means that anyone(Trusted payment gateway owners like banks themselves) can process payments. There can be a fraud declared against any payment that you have made and you can get every single penny back. This amount can not be withdrawn in cash at all. However for your situation I would suggest that you ask your bank to block any transactions above the amount of a specific sum, this way they will require your authorization to finalize the payment. You should feel safe after this. Also no one can access any other account apart from the one whose details you are giving out so do not worry about this guy(or anyone else for that matter) to be able to access your other accounts. Hope this helps. (I have experience in payment gateways so I do understand these procedures.) Cheers!!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4d79bbf33fad672df6b4207fd7e95a9",
"text": "You can consider opening accounts either in Paypal or Google Wallet. In this way, you link your bank information to these accounts and the only information you need to provide your tenant is your e-mail id. Its safe and in this scenario -- just money transfer through bank account, there is no fee either for the sender (your tenant) or the receiver (you).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9825f66ddff2952845d37a42b68709f",
"text": "\"I live in Kenya, and also here we have corruption. However, we use EFT, RTGS, Mobile Money and its more safe than cheques. Beware, that paper based payments cost you way more than anything electronic. Often the bank charge you for the cheque book, they charge for receiving paper based payment instruments, and settlement is often a day or two, while mobile/electronic settlement is instant. Seen from a tenants perspective, its also easier. Imagine too, the small likelihood that you loose the cheques from your tenants? Your fear for your account is understandable, but you may need to learn a little now, about how accounts are handled. In an online community only the persons with the necessary electronic credentials can withdraw from your account, being it online via your screen, or at the cashier, or by other means. Therefore, your money are safer via the electronic means. The cause of your concern / unease can be that you are relinquishing your control from a paper-based, visible system, into a system which you may not know so much about, maybe because of that you have not done so much on computers, yet. As a most recent caveat, though, don't get into the so called bitcoin technology, it is not safe, and as you saw, most recently, the very owner himself became the perpetrator breaking his very own bank by artificially inflating amounts on his own account, according to Japanese authorities. Now, electronic banking has been in existence since soon 40 years. Its based on cash, so behind the scenes, between the banks, huge deposits of cash are being moved physically, around from vault to vault, in the bank's money exchange / transaction settlement system. Thereby, a bank does not need to physically transfer money from one physical bank building to another - as they have huge loads of cash stashed in central depositories, between which they can now exchange money as compensation for cheques and electronic transfers. So, behind the scene of the electronic world, there are still physical cash being moved around, deep under the ground, in such vaults. I hope this has given you a little bit of confidence in the \"\"modern times\"\". If you have further questions, you are welcome. These were my 50 cents :-). My background is in software development, where I have worked on banking systems for more than 10 years, making banking systems, as part of huge teams, working for the largest banks in the world.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b170129c88dde8aa46a26d51aa91d284",
"text": "\"In Britain it's standard practice to use an electronic bank transfer, otherwise known as a \"\"standing order\"\" for the monthly rent payment. Many letting agents insist on it here in Britain. It's rare to hear of fraud. It is possible to setup a Direct Debit with the account numbers, as happened in a famous case where Jeremy Clarkson claimed losing account numbers wasn't a problem. If a direct debit is taken from your account, then you are protected by the the Direct Debit guarantee which means that you get a full and immediate refund if there is any fraud or unexpected payments spotted. Some landlords, particularly of bedsits accept plain old cash, however that's not recommended as there is no trace of it being paid, which could lead to legal disputes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2a6a01369be6e9f838ae3ef8d861f60",
"text": "You could setup a Ally account to use solely for this. There is no minimum, no opening balance requirement, and you can do up to 6 transfers a month for free. This would partition your money from other accounts, while giving you the flexibility to move it to other accounts with ease.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd8abe515e2560fb1e56fac0036c1498",
"text": "Given a routing number / account number, it's easy to print a check with those details. All you need is a MICR font. No EFT needed. I would recommend that instead, you get his account information, and set up a direct withdrawal. Of course, then you could potentially use HIS account fraudulently, but that would be true even if he just wrote you a check.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a68359a66c665d1daba3d8492e89c600",
"text": "Alternative solution with possibly better results: Use a 3rd party to transfer money between both of you. 2 Services you may want to look at: Rent share might be the best option. We are using it to split payment between 3 people in our unit. The owner is getting a single check that appears to be coming from all of us. The payment is automatic and goes through every month. I'm not sure if you as the owner could collect money electronically as opposed to receiving a check. It sounded like you didn't necessarily care about that though.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "72f8c668c9facea97d1fba0ad6d5cdb9",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1996cb63df62a460f6fbd2a182ca33f5",
"text": "Also you would need to consider any taxation issues. As he will be paying you rent you will need to include this as income, plus any capital gains tax on the re-sale of the property may need to be paid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "669e68311bbc565174483b8e4fc5519f",
"text": "\"I'd say your tenant is out $750, not you. How you handle it is totally personal preference. If you want to be the super-nice landlord and eat the loss this one time, then you might gain some karma and hopefully they'll be awesome tenants for the remainder of their stay. Are they the kind of tenants you want to be nice to because they deserve it? You (and she) have no way to prove she ever actually tried to pay you. Sound like she is learning a $750 lesson. \"\"Don't leave cash in a mailbox, and always get a receipt for rent paid.\"\" Your insurance company would likely not pay out as it'd be below a typical deductible and you can't really prove the money ever existed. You'd be better off just taking the loss. Think about it this way: How would you expect a bank or utility company to respond to this situation? \"\"Yeah, I left my mortgage as a cash-filled envelope on your doorstep. You didn't get it? I told you I'd do it!\"\" Guess who's paying double mortgage and a late fee? You're not stuck with option 1, you're choosing to do it. She could refuse and fight you on it, which might not be worth the headache and potential small-claims court. But you're entitled to receive the rent and she is obligated to pay it. And \"\"paying it\"\" means making sure you actually receive it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21e37b58efe357aa7b863ccf54074853",
"text": "Yes, automatic rate increases are typical in my experience (and I think it's very greedy, when it's based on nothing except that your lease is up for renewal, which is the situation you are describing). Yes, you should negotiate. I've had success going to the apartment manager and having this conversation: Make these points: Conclude: I am not open to a rate increase, though I will sign a renewal at the same rate I am paying now. This conversation makes me very uncomfortable, but I try not to show it. I was able to negotiate a lease renewal at the same rate this way (in a large complex in Sacramento, CA). If you are talking to a manager and not an owner, they will probably have to delay responding until they can check with the owner. The key really is that they want to keep units rented, especially when units are staying empty. Empty units are lost income for the owner. It is the other empty units that are staying empty that are the huge point in your favor.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebcb79a96f86abe400f39b4e584aba25",
"text": "It's very possible that someone would lie to their landlord/landlady, but not be prepared to lie to the police. So here's what I would do. Advise your tenant that since her money has been stolen from your letterbox, she should report the theft to the police. If she refuses to report the theft to the police, then her story is probably a lie. In which case, treat the rent as deliquent and demand payment in full. Invoke whatever kind of recourse is available in your jurisdiction. If she goes ahead and reports the theft, then it's very likely that her story is true. It's probably in your interest to stay on good terms with such a tenant, so you could offer to split the loss with her. But let her know that this is a one-time offer, and you won't be so generous again.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ceea8f391e6b368ca4141353e0fed71e",
"text": "Normally if you sublet your apartment, the landlord would pay you back the security deposit and the new tenant would need to pay a new security deposit to the landlord. (In my experience) You never want to get in a situation where something like this happens. This is not normally how sublets are structured.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ca1b59e45e7dd98ad3c7f6ba8724c30",
"text": "They call you because that is their business rules. They want their money, so their system calls you starting on the 5th. Now you have to decide what you should do to stop this. The most obvious is to move the payment date to before the 5th. Yes that does put you at risk if the tenant is late. But since it is only one of the 4 properties you own, it shouldn't be that big of a risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5462c5440487993203311af78d85f3d5",
"text": "\"We change it every so often to reduce fraud. If you're absolutely sure you didn't just send money to a scammer impersonating a landlord, this has nothing to do with fraud-- they're playing a game with you. By changing the account number frequently, it makes it more likely you make a mistake in entering the payment account. When they come back to you a few days past due saying \"\"we never received your rent,\"\" you'll eventually realize it got sent to the wrong account. Now you owe them late fees, and there's really nothing you can do about it-- you did not in fact pay them on time; you sent it to the wrong account! It's an easy way for them to collect an additional few thousand dollars a year. Anytime a small business or landlord says they have to do something \"\"weird\"\" to reduce fraud, chances are it's a pretense to you getting hosed in some way.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eda0f6e572c77ee7731c607bd7b2d042",
"text": "You are not a landlord. You have choices: The current situation is charity. And that's ok, so long as you acknowledge it. In the big picture, anything less than market rent is a gift that you are giving the person living in your house. A good tenant might keep the place in better shape, and deserve a lower rent, but that's a quid pro quo. In the end, landlording is a business. If you had 10-20 apartments, they would be proving an income to you and you would have a large chunk of your wealth tied up in it. You would keep the apartments in good shape both to be legal and not a slumlord, but you'd also collect market rent. $100/apt would be $1000-$2000/mo income to you and your family. You wife is right. As always. You have a decision to make to stop the bleeding.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c4fb00e6b3071eec30e978b68f7d54e",
"text": "Maybe you should consider setting up a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) for your business dealings as a landlord and consider providing that instead of your SSN for this type of thing. I am assuming (if this is legitimate) they want it so they can send you a 1099 as they might be obligated to do if they are claiming the rent as a business expense. Also, I'd suggest having the tenant tell their employer to contact you directly. There is no need for the tenant in this situation to also get your SSN/TIN.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a811ba05b575681ba2d20adffe6a2fc",
"text": "This is something you are going to have to work out with the leasing company because your goal is to get them to make an exception to their normal rules. I'm a little surprised they wouldn't take 6 months pre-payment, plus documentation of your savings. One option might be to cash in the bonds (since you said they are mature), deposit them in a savings account, and show them your account balance. That documentation of enough to pay for the year, plus an offer to pay 6 months in advance would be pretty compelling. Ask the property manage if that's sufficient. And if the lease is for one year and you're willing to pay the entire year in advance, I can't see how they would possibly object. If your employment prospects are good (show them your resume and explain why you are moving and what jobs you are seeking) a smart property manager would realize you'll be an excellent, low-risk tenant and will make an effort to convince the parent company that you should live there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acaf0037dbf1ceb8761d571c06a645fe",
"text": "There are certain situations where you could legally pay yourself rent, but it'd be in the context of multiple business entities interacting, never in the context of an individual renting their own property. Even if you could, any rent paid to yourself would count as rental income, so there'd be no benefit. Edit: I was hunting for examples where it might be acceptable, and didn't, but I found a good explanation as to why it is not acceptable from Brandon Hall on a BiggerPockets post: To get technical, you will be going up against the Economic Substance Doctrine which states that a transaction has economic substance if: (1) the transaction changes in a meaningful way (apart from Federal income tax effects) the taxpayer’s economic position; and (2) the taxpayer has a substantial purpose (apart from Federal income tax effects) for entering into such transaction. By transferring your primary residence into a LLC, you would not be changing your economic position. Further, you do not have a substantial purpose for entering into such transaction other than to simply avoid paying federal income taxes. So it might make sense if multiple people owned the LLC that owned the property you wanted to rent, and there are instances where company X owns holding company Y that owns an office building that company X rents space in. But if you're the sole player in the LLC's then it sounds like a no-go.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "835f85f2adcd12904dc70159172d3f64",
"text": "__________ _________ ____________ Therefore, I get the outcome I want. The human brain must think: it can't stop. If you don't believe me, try meditating. The mental process of putting stuff in those blanks is called rationalization. This is a bored mind who wants something. If that mind is not particularly well disciplined, those things will get pretty unrealistic. That is what has happened to your friend. Landlords do not like drama. They do like money. Generally a landlord will be happy to take your money any reasonable way that they can achieve. It sounds like either your landlord lost the ability to do credit cards, or he got sick of paying the 3% overhead, or some other overhead costs that may be higher because he does not have the right credit card merchant service. For instance PayPal Here charges 2.70% flat, but a traditional swiper can cost up to $2000 a year in trumped up fees and charges. As soon as the landlord calls the rent a debt, he has to take cash. But in most places, rental is at-will, and the landlord can evict for any reason or no reason at all (except race, creed, color, national origin, family, running a daycare center and a few other protected reasons)... and there's not a whole lot you can do about it. Even for a lease he can trump up a reason. Your friend would be wise to have a meeting of the minds with the landlord about how he'd like to pay. Business is done by mutual consent, not non-consensual legal tricks. I agree, I wouldn't do ACH either. One problem with ACH (or credit) is the landlord can charge anything he pleases, and that's when they start sneaking in devious surcharges for things. Once he's pulled the money out, you're really at a disadvantage to argue, since he already has the money. And it's really difficult to do a chargeback on part of a payment, so you end up having to chargeback the entire rent check, and now he can evict you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f08e59c70e252ece82e7b7443c15b16b",
"text": "\"I used to be the sort of person who would tell you that I've left money for you somewhere and in fact not have done so, and I also used to be the last person you'd expect to do something like that. I've not done this exact thing but I've done similar. Not gonna go into detail but at that time I was in a state of poverty, barely able to buy food and drink, and the money I saved by \"\"conning people\"\" in similar ways was spent on food and warmth. Personally, I think she's going through a very hard patch financially and as such has done exactly that. Me? I'm not a landlord and I'm probably far too generous. I would explain that I think she's lying but let it slide this month. Clearly a property owner is more financially capable of soaking up this expense than a tenant. On the other hand, you don't become a property owner and landlord by letting people get away without paying their rent. All in all, I would probably push for a 50/50 decision. She pays half rent this month which alleviates her finances a bit if she is genuinely in trouble and has lied, and you still get something for your efforts. If you're lucky, when you suggest it she will come clean. I would make it clear if you do or don't believe her, as she may well confess if you express your doubts. If she does, I wouldn't hold her to paying the full amount unless she offers to do so. Also, make it very obvious that this can and will not happen again. Next time, she gives you cash or uses a banking service. Goes without saying I guess. You should note that legally speaking, by accepting anything other than full payment you could be acknowledging that she did attempt to make a payment and any future legal cases will not consider that favorably for you. I would strongly recommend discussing this with a solicitor before agreeing to anything other than full payment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da65d37e11ced3265657280ccf9478aa",
"text": "\"For political reasons, almost all governments (including the US) spend more money than they get from taxes etc. There are a number of things a government can do to cover the difference: Most governments opt for selling bonds. The \"\"National Debt\"\" of a country can be thought of as being the sum of all the \"\"Bonds\"\" that are still paying interest, and that the Government hasn't Redeemed. It can all go horribly wrong. If the Government gets into a situation where it cannot pay the interest, or it cannot Redeem the Bonds it has promised to, then it may have to break its promise (\"\"Default\"\" on its payments). This makes the owners of the Bonds unhappy and means potential buyers of future Bond sales are less likely to want to buy the Governments new Bonds - effectively meaning the Government has to promise to pay more interest in the future. Recent examples of this include Argentina; and may include Greece soon. The US is in the fortunate position that not many people believe it will Default. Therefore the new Bonds it sells (which it does on a regular basis) are still in demand, even though its interest payments, and promises to Redeem Bonds are huge.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2601205e830a2a1f70f1325bac738058
|
How can I find a lost 401K from a past employer?
|
[
{
"docid": "4217f4b58b17bf01e6deb8e2a43bf894",
"text": "The Employee Benefits Security Administration within the US Department of Labor is tasked with keeping track of pension and 401K programs. The even have a website to search for abandoned plans: it helps participants and others find out whether a particular plan is in the process of being, or has been, terminated and the name of the Qualified Termination Administrator (QTA) responsible for the termination. The Employee Benefits Security Administration discuss all types of details regarding retirement programs. This document What You Should Know About Your Retirement Plan has a lot of details including this: If your former employer has gone out of business, arrangements should have been made so a plan official remains responsible for the payment of benefits and other plan business. If you are entitled to benefits and are unable to contact the plan administrator, contact EBSA electronically at askebsa.dol.gov or by calling toll free at 1-866-444-3272. There are also EBSA offices spread thought the United States",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7ce5540b10329f97641f466f7f7df5df",
"text": "If they leave the extra funds in the account the IRS will consider it as employer match. They weren't funds from your paycheck, they were from the employers profits. Because they don't have a formal matching program the extra funds will still keep then under the max match. There is one other explanation that needs to be considered. If the last paycheck from 2011 was near the end of the year (the last Friday of 2011 was December 30th) the 401K funds from that final paycheck may not have been deposited into your 401K until early January 2012. If you count contributions when looking at your 401K statement it will look like one two many for 2012; but the IRS only cares when it was deducted from your paycheck, not when it was deposited into your account. The Department of Labor only requires they be deposited by the 15th of the following month.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2cb94464a77b00425f9ce06a9382f6db",
"text": "Reinvestment creates a nightmare when it comes time to do taxes, sadly. Tons of annoying little transactions that happened automatically... Here's one article trying to answer your question: http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-finance/taxes/figuring-out-your-cost-basis-when-youve-lost-the-statements-9529/ You could also try this thing: http://www.gainskeeper.com/us/BasisProIndividual.aspx But I couldn't tell you if it would help. If it makes you feel better, brokerages are now required by the IRS to track your basis for you, so for new transactions and assets you shouldn't end up in this situation. Doesn't help with the old stuff ;-)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b0c3b43773c3ba34fd6b29c828b25c1",
"text": "\"The IRS has a FAQ page about Hardship Distributions from a 401(k). The IRS defines a hardship in this case as \"\"an immediate and heavy financial need of the employee and the amount must be necessary to satisfy the financial need.\"\" Included in the list of examples is \"\"certain expenses for the repair of damage to the employee's principal residence.\"\" However, whether your former employer allows this particular reason is up to their plan documents. It sounds like, from what you described on the website, that your plan does include this reason as a possibility for you. Next, you need to decide if the projects you have in mind qualify as \"\"repair of damage.\"\" This uses the same rules as the deductible casualty rules found in IRS Publication 547, which defines a casualty this way: A casualty is the damage, destruction, or loss of property resulting from an identifiable event that is sudden, unexpected, or unusual. A sudden event is one that is swift, not gradual or progressive. An unexpected event is one that is ordinarily unanticipated and unintended. An unusual event is one that is not a day-to-day occurrence and that is not typical of the activity in which you were engaged. Examples are given in Pub 547. If the projects you have in mind are necessary due to an event (like a flood or a fire), it might be allowed. But most \"\"home improvement\"\" projects would not qualify for this. If you'd like a way to simplify your financial profile, an option for you, since you no longer work at this employer, is to roll over this 401(k) into a Rollover (traditional) IRA. This way, you won't have to deal with your former employer anymore. You could pick an IRA custodian that you already have another account with, if you like, and reduce the number of statements that you get. But the IRA will not let you take money out without penalty for home improvement projects, either.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65005c7763f5008da5d62afca405c5cc",
"text": "Yes, there are checks and balances. Employers can be, and have been, prosecuted for failing to pay super before the statutory timeline, which is three months from the pay date. However, it is still in your interests to check for yourself. The most common point for missing super to be discovered is when the company goes broke, at which point it's too late for you. What you should do is Check on your payslips that the right amount is allocated to super. It should be 9% of gross, plus any salary sacrifice or additional component. Check your super fund's half-yearly statements line up the deductions given on your payslip. Consider getting online access to your super account so you can check more quickly. If something is missing, call your super fund and/or payroll office. Resources:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da3bb20b815bd711a1d70bb82fd9fd3f",
"text": "In general you cannot. Once the security is no longer listed on the exchange - it doesn't have to provide information to the exchange and regulators (unless it wants to be re-listed). That's one of the reasons companies go private - to keep their (financial and other) information private. If it was listed in 1999, and is no longer listed now - you can dig through SEC archives for the information. You can try and reach out to the company's investors' relations contact and see if they can help you with the specific information you're looking for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "559e3242a47e027a1305f24643f9a308",
"text": "No, unvested money returns to the employer, its not yours. They should send you W2 which will only show the actual (vested) monies you got.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "801ea4db2047b367902c7cdc3ab51f4b",
"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).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84a5feca8c5035f6b1cf0e7cf1f8e6ee",
"text": "A company as large as Home Depot will have a fairly robust Human Resources department and would probably be able to steer you in the right direction: odds are they know the name of the brokerage and other particulars. I did some googling around, their # is (1-866-698-4347). Different states have different rules about how long an institution can have assets abandoned before turning them over to the state. California, as an example, has an abandoned property search site that you can use. That being said, I had some penny stocks sitting in a brokerage account I never touched for about 20 years and when I finally logged back in there they were, still sitting there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35d7b7bfa64a908279a2976bd2f45da3",
"text": "The old school way would have been to identify some wealthy zip codes and cold call like a mofo. At present I would prefer to find some retiring advisor and buy his book (that may mean leaving your current firm).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "180e87b8bc2cab1c42dd460fd98a8b67",
"text": "\"I'm not sure what you mean by \"\"receive retirement benefits\"\". If the company had a 401k, that probably is the retirement plan. Few companies have both a 401k and an old-style pension plan, you typically have one or the other. So if your 401k was rolled over into some other account, you have already received your retirement benefits. If you mean that the 401k was rolled over into an IRA and you are asking if you can now start withdrawing from the IRA, see Excel Strategies answer. Short answer: Yes you can, but there's a 10% penalty unless you meet one of the exceptions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5571f9036e7c42555e0de2cabec4d54d",
"text": "I work for a hedge fund, not wealth management, but I assume that client information is treated similarly. Misplacing it is a huge deal. The company will probably need to formally investigate it and inform all the clients involved. Even if they can prove that no one looked at the information it's going to make clients question the company's procedures. I could see it being a firing offense,depending on how many clients were affected and the nature of the data. Sorry if that's not what you wanted to hear.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7ca42754f8dbcf566f746c495e6325d",
"text": "Take The 20k and transfer it to the new employer 401k. You then can take a loan and accomplish the same thing. By the time you pay the tax and 10% penalty, that withdrawal will be worth just over half. The same half you can borrow out, pay yourself the interest and not lose out on 50 years of growth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2c894ede59d3edcf779c575c9a3ed0a",
"text": "Most companies put the company match in your account each paycheck, but your are not generally vested for the match. If you leave before the specified time period then they pull back part of the matching funds. I knew somebody who did something similar back in the 1980's with their 401K. They put in 8% of their paycheck after taxes; a 100% match was deposited; then they pulled out the employees contribution every quarter. They did this for the 10 years I knew them. It avoided any tax implications, and they were still saving 8% of their pay for retirement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4dfcb04dd8e29c61194e90ca80b4cde",
"text": "\"(Insert usual disclaimer that I'm just a random guy on the Internet, not any kind of certified tax professional.) But once I withdraw the money, how is that money taxable? If I'm understanding your situation correctly, you want to look at the instructions for form 8889, under Excess Employer Contributions. It simply says, \"\"If the excess was not included in income on Form W-2, you must report it as 'Other income' on your tax return.\"\" There doesn't look to be any particular wording beyond that, so I'd just put it on Form 1040 Line 21 Other Income, and label the line really specifically like \"\"Excess Employer Contributions distributed from HSA\"\". Also there is no mention of whether any FICA taxes (social security and Medicare) apply to these amounts. You say that this was entirely contributed by the employer. But even for cases where one contributes directly through payroll with an optional pre-tax deduction, this is usually implemented as a \"\"salary reduction agreement\"\" where the company is actually paying less money in salary (and thus less showing up on the W-2) and just contributing to the HSA account instead. It's listed on the 8889 as an \"\"Employer Contribution\"\", even if in fact one sees it as a deduction on one's pay stub. In either case, since the company didn't pay you the money as salary (and merely contributed to the HSA instead), I wouldn't expect any FICA taxes to be owed on it. The fact that the IRS wants it listed under \"\"Other income\"\" instead of \"\"Wages\"\" also implies to me that it doesn't count as salary that needs FICA taxes. Presumably, if people abused this in some way (like getting their employer to deliberately over-contribute each year and getting a refund in some sort of crazy scheme to try to reduce their SS taxes) the government would get rather upset and probably call it some sort of tax evasion. But for the amounts involved here, particularly as you're following the instructions listed, I just wouldn't worry about it. Assuming that I withdraw excess contribution and report everything on Form 8889 and Form 1040, is there any further action required from my previous employer? It's your HSA, so I wouldn't think so. Since the eligibility for HSAs is based on what you do, and not what they do (you could, for instance, get covered by a different HDHP and they wouldn't be notified nor really care), I don't think they have anything more to do with it. Also I am not sure how to calculate amount of interest attributable to excess contribution. I have only around $0.20 of total interest this year. The bank holding the HSA could probably help with that, as I'd expect it to be a normal part of the excess contribution withdrawal process. If not, I'd just make a reasonable effort based on the interest rate, amount involved, and number of days that the excess was in the account. Also keep in mind that in general when filing taxes, anything under $0.49 can round to $0. At some point, one can only be \"\"as honest as the law allows\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0644bea83d844d62f2f2ef527c2c4574",
"text": "In the long run the drivers are getting pulled from the equation. I don't care how much regulatory pressure the self driving car industry faces, they'll have it figured out in 5 years. You are talking about an interest group that includes Google, Tesla, Uber, Lyft, Ford, GM and probably Apple. They are all spending billions on the technology and want a return on that investment.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fac503b6fec088897ba8c0b188ea100d
|
How can small children contribute to the “family economy”?
|
[
{
"docid": "f6565dd0aa33decf3ce5cdb619b40921",
"text": "Another suggestion I heard on the radio was to give the child the difference between the name brand they want, and the store brand they settle on. Then that money can be accumulated as savings. Saving money is as important a feature of the family economy as earning money. Be careful with what you have a child do for reward vs what you have them do as a responsibility. Don't set a dangerous precedent that certain work does not need to be done unless compensation is on the table. You might have a child who relies on external motivations only to do things, which can make school work and future employment hard. I would instead have my child do yard work, but while doing it explain opportunity costs of doing the work yourself vs hiring out. I would show my kid how saving money earns interest, and how that is essentially free money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "80a7baf28f607ad43f866848dbc4e9dd",
"text": "Similar to the lawn care you mentioned: if you have space, you could have the kids create a mini-farmstand. They could grow flowers for cutting, some vegetables, etc. It would be a different twist on the classic lemonade stand. If the kids are into animals and space and zoning allows, you could keep chickens and add eggs to your mini-farmstand. Upfront costs for the garden would be small enough that they can learn about how investing in a business works at a very small scale. Along with learning about money, they also learn responsibility because it requires commitment and daily attention. It's also seasonal in a way that meshes well with school (though having animals is a constant year-round responsibility).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ba5c8e77be27b5bbb0c9e0ac99adff3",
"text": "\"@MrChrister - Savings is a great idea. Coudl also give them 1/2 the difference, rather than the whole difference, as then you both get to benefit... Also, a friend of mine had the Bank of Dad, where he'd keep his savings, and Dad would pay him 100% interest every year. Clearly, this would be unsustainable after a while, but something like 10% per month would be a great way to teach the value of compounding returns over a shorter time period. I also think that it's critical how you respond to things like \"\"I want that computer/car/horse/bike/toy\"\". Just helping them to make a plan on how to get there, considering their income (and ways to increase it), savings, spending and so on. Help them see that it's possible, and you'll teach them a worthwhile lesson.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af1efed33cbdfe6f3177ff25c1e7d909",
"text": "There is also babysitting, dog walking and house sitting. Depending on their age of course. You should also investigate what is required to get them the ability to setup their own Roth IRA. I know one of the requirements is you can't put more into the Roth then was earned in income in the year. They might also have to file an income tax return (not sure about that one). Just think of how far ahead of the game they will be if they can get a couple of grand or more in a Roth account while in their early teens.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3048767f63dd94d3d400c5ef3cc67c92",
"text": "If you're trying to teach them the value of money and quantifying the dollar difference between prices, one very effective way to do this is by using bar charts. For instance, if a toy is $5, and movie they really want to see is $10, and a vacation they want to go on costs $2000, it can be a useful tool to help explain how the relative costs work.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11605d7412377e6438ee6df9971add7f",
"text": "\"(Although I disagree with the idea of getting a child working a real job to early, (I think kids should learn at school, learn manners, learn what the world offers and have responsibility) Here is a list of ideas that a small child can do. This is all assuming the child is to young for a work permit and a \"\"normal\"\" job. I am assuming your live in the United States. Comedy Answer: Amway. But forget about getting invited to birthday parties.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4cda418d37f637ca634dd67e846e44ef",
"text": "We are a pretty average (professional, used to be fully two-income) family. I have gone part-time (plus a total career change) to be more involved at home - that's minus 50K from our family budget a year. Montessori for the younger one is - 10K. Violin (-5K) and piano (-5K) lessons for each kid... summer science camps... summer golf/tennis plus equipment... dance/sports all year round are around 10K too. We are looking at an 80K hole in our budget (compared to what we could have had). Plus by now I would have been probably more advanced in my previous career had I stayed there, so the hole is potentially even greater.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "691ec3d827e205e1bde8360d73f464b0",
"text": "It's simple. Look, children are basically an 18-year debt, and if a couple is poor, they can't adequately pay that debt AND their own lifestyle costs. If those who can't afford that debt simply... delayed or abstained from reproducing... that would very easily solve the poverty problem permanently, so long as the next generation followed the same. This next generation would also have more of a surplus since their parents had to have had a surplus before having kids. Ad infinitum. This is exactly what happened in my own family so I know it's possible. Ultimately, most poor people only have their parents to blame.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb4600091bc47c55b4e482237fe59389",
"text": "The Child Care Expense Deduction (line 214) dollar limits will each increase by $1000, to new amounts of $8000 for children under 7 and $5000 for children age 7–16. Notes: As a tax deduction, your tax liability gets reduced at your marginal income tax rate, not the lowest tax rate (as would be the case for a tax credit). Yes, you still need receipts from your child care provider to support any claim. The non-refundable child tax credit a.k.a. amount for children under age 18 (line 367) introduced in 2007 is being eliminated starting in tax year 2015 coincident with the UCCB enhancement above. The credit could previously reduce tax liability by ~$340. The Family Tax Cut is being introduced and will be effective for tax year 2014. That is, when you file your 2014 income tax return in early 2015, you may be able to take advantage of this measure for income already earned in 2014. Provided a couple has at least one child under the age of 18, the Family Tax Cut will permit the transfer of up to $50,000 of taxable income from the higher income spouse's income tax return to the lower income spouse's return. While the potential transfer of $50,000 of taxable income to lower tax brackets sounds like a really big deal, the maximum tax relief is capped at $2000.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5dbce4387c18772fe1658c4462faa563",
"text": "I would disagree. Not all children are set to have good life outcomes. Those raised in poverty often experience a great deal of stress and suffering. Raising children to be productive adults in beneficial to society. Raising a child to continue the cycle of poverty and crime is not. Many times, people voluntarily organize into a family unit whereby the husband earns an income which can be considered in paying the wife to raise the child. Individuals are amazing at coming to voluntary agreements which help society.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "990d7cea7a0d872a8b50cca148e7d234",
"text": "\"This is a common and good game-plan to learn valuable life skills and build a supplemental income. Eventually, it could become a primary income, and your strategic risk is overall relatively low. If you are diligent and patient, you are likely to succeed, but at a rate that is so slow that the primary beneficiaries of your efforts may be your children and their children. Which is good! It is a bad gameplan for building an \"\"empire.\"\" Why? Because you are not the first person in your town with this idea. Probably not even the first person on the block. And among those people, some will be willing to take far more extravagant risks. Some will be better capitalized to begin with. Some will have institutional history with the market along with all the access and insider information that comes with it. As far as we know, you have none of that. Any market condition that yields a profit for you in this space, will yield a larger one for them. In a downturn, they will be able to absorb larger losses than you. So, if your approach is to build an empire, you need to take on a considerably riskier approach, engage with the market in a more direct and time-consuming way, and be prepared to deal with the consequences if those risks play out the wrong way.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c020cee61c8b52238f5db2dd9a7d507",
"text": "Perhaps this is lasting result of the recession. I realize that the article specifically states that Lego notably grew and profited through the recession. However, other parts of society and other markets didn't. Now, years later, perhaps those other scenarios are affecting Lego's market. Specifically, I'm drawing a parallel to my personal experience. My kids were born just before the recession. Their grade is the largest grade in the school system. Every grade behind them (the kids born during the recession) is significantly smaller. Whatever the driver(s) was, people were having fewer kids during the recession. Further, although the general view is that the recession is over and the stock markets are back, household spending and income continues to stagnate. With fewer kids and a reluctance to spend, perhaps people in the US and Europe just aren't buying as many premium toys.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e373dddf3f29f86e314a823b7ab4fea6",
"text": "Using household income makes sense, as you would hardly expect differences in standard of living for members of the same household. True, more people in a family will mean more expenses, but not proportionally so. For a typical family of four, it wouldn't really matter if one or both parents contributed towards the household income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9999e5a243333da3c268cf7929cc9ffc",
"text": "> As a parent, I call bullshit on this. I don't see why. You are confident your kids will be have more chances than you did because you are passing your wisdom onto them. Aren't they lucky to have you as parents? > ...a dynastic focus on generational wealth building simply cannot be called only luck. Nobody is suggesting that wealthy people don't work. I think the point of this article is that the poor work just as hard if not harder but kids from less successful households are naturally going to be taught life skills that are less effective.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d14d3e1e91df97e32626f27aa2c3dd7",
"text": "While personal responsibility plays a vital role in economic mobility, forces outside individual control, such as access to better work, clearly applies as well. Different folks apply different weight to responsibility vs. access to opportunity, but in any case one should be at least mentioned with the other.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab3e0d7bf5b04a94b23a3aa950039e98",
"text": "> To imply a grand conspiracy... No conspiracy required. All you have to agree with is that having money makes it easier to make money and society will sort itself into classes that become further apart and harder to move between. > How about it is hard work and good parenting? Those are important but exist in both rich and poor areas and it is a simple fact that you would get further with hard work and good parenting in a rich area than in a poor one. I think a good way to describe it is inequality of affluent opportunity and experience.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18601b9bb18d04a3bb4c64b4b93ce478",
"text": "I have lived in communal houses. Most people don't want roommates. Especially if that means having several kids. I feel like your arguments are practical, I suppose, but not realistic. If I had 3 kids right now, if anything I would probably be earning less money because my flexibility would be much less. I couldn't pursue an education to earn more money because I would still have bills to pay for my kids. My parents are poor, and they live in an area that my job options would be about 3, and none would pay much more than minimum wage. I am 26, but I have known plenty of 19 year old single moms who just aren't able to get a job that pays well enough to support them, and again, they have few options to develop new skills. I guess you can say it is their fault, but we can hardly say that subway shouldn't have to pay them overtime or what is really less than a living wage. Economists and reality have shown us time and time again that more wages overall means a healthier economy. Every state that has raised wages in the past few years is better off because of it. Every state that has done so has seen their economy grow, and joblessness go down.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a5ea0ebf12eea480e2f7ab2cd55bb9c",
"text": "\"I personally believe if one (average) income could support the needs of a family (nothing extravagant) and the parents had options (instead of only one of the parents having the ability to work for an income that supports a family) it would be better. At the micro view, there would be less grudges and more time for family. I feel bad now bc I'm stretched so thin I don't even have time to watch a tv show with our kids during the week. In our situation, my husband never finished school (his mom let him drop out in the 7th grade) so his work options are very limited. He has had to work out of town jobs since before we started dating. I graduated high school but due to having kids early, I put off college. Because of the expense of daycare, I stayed at home with the kids for about 5 years. The plan is I get my degree next fall, get a decent paying job to support the family and he can figure out what he wants to do as a career and be able to pursue it without having the pressure of HAVING to make an income to support a family. I have been nudging him to at least get an online high school diploma in the mean time but I think he is self conscious and scared he can't do it. We aren't the \"\"Keeping up with the Jones\"\" kind of people. I'm just trying to reach some goals and be financially stable and not worry about if we have enough money in the bank for bills or if the car breaks down if we are screwed. A teacher's job is very time consuming so it definitely will be a challenge if you don't work a job that allows you to help out. At my internship this summer the CFO was able to just leave and bring his daughter to work whenever he needed to. That luxury is not afforded to many. Also on a side note- when you have kids, please make an effort to take your paternity leave if your job offers it. You deserve it! Employees shouldn't feel bad for taking the benefits their company offers. Gender equality ftw!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adaef46a8958f4ce4b2d54b72142aa69",
"text": "If your skills are at the level of a McDonald's cashier than you should be compensated for that. You should NOT be compensated for a lifestyle which you WANT. Having a kids and a wife is a choice, no one is putting a gun to your head. If your skills are at the minimum(which is 2% in the USA) than you should not be supporting a family, it's simple. The kid with a father/mother at that level will have a terrible life, lazy parents who are not willing to work to better themselves.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3e50dd861f531211ef5db6eeca1998b",
"text": "Since this post was migrated from Parenting, my reply was in the context where it appeared to be misrepresenting facts to make a point. I've edited it to be more concise to my main point. In my opinion, the best way to save for your childs future is to get rid of as much of your own debt as possible. Starting today. For the average American, a car is 6-10%. Most people have at least a couple credit cards, ranging from 10-25% (no crap). College loans can be all over the map (5-15%) as can be signature (8-15%) or secured bank loans (4-8%). Try to stop living within your credit and live within your means. Yeah it will suck to not go to movies or shop for cute things at Kohl's, but only today. First, incur no more debt. Then, the easiest way I found to pay things off is to use your tax returns and reduce your cable service (both potentially $Ks per year) to pay off a big debt like a car or student loan. You just gave yourself an immediate raise of whatever your payment is. If you think long term (we're talking about long-term savings for a childs college) there are things you can do to pay off debt and save money without having to take up a 2nd job... but you have to think in terms of years, not months. Is this kind of thing pie in the sky? Yes and no, but it takes a plan and diligence. For example, we have no TV service (internet only service redirected an additional $100/mo to the wifes lone credit card) and we used '12 taxes to pay off the last 4k on the car. We did the same thing on our van last year. It takes willpower to not cheat, but that's only really necessary for the first year-ish... well before that point you'll be used to the Atkins Diet on your wallet and will have no desire to cheat. It doesn't really hurt your quality of life (do you really NEED 5 HBO channels?) and it sets everyone up for success down the line. The moral of the story is that by paying down your debt today, you're taking steps to reduce long haul expenditures. A stable household economy is a tremendous foundation for raising children and can set you up to be more able to deal with the costs of higher ed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6b6b282ec2c58732e168245a2809279",
"text": "Check out this recent Planet Money podcast on taxes & incentives via allowance for your children. It might not directly answer your question, but it brings up some interesting things to consider when setting up an allowance for your children.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e8c68f7e79dcf94c463b70afbc0c8cf5
|
Why would you ever turn down a raise in salary?
|
[
{
"docid": "e3c326b2ea3f1b5e375bbd90af5d2132",
"text": "\"I don't know of a situation where rejecting a raise would make sense. Often, one can be in a phaseout of some benefit, so that even though you're in a certain tax bracket, the impact of the next $100 is greater than the bracket rate alone. Taxation of social security benefits is one such anomaly. It can be high, but never over 100%. Update - The Affordable Care Act contains such an anomaly - go to the Kaiser Foundation site, and see the benefit a family of three might receive. A credit for up to $4631 toward their health care insurance cost. But, increase the income to above $78120 Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) and the benefit drops to zero. The fact that the next dollar of income will cost you $4631 in the lost credit is an example of a step-function in the tax code. I'd still not turn down the raise, but I'd ask that it be deposited to my 401(k). And when reconciling my taxes each April, I'd use an IRA in case I still went over a bit. Consider, it's April, and your MAGI is $80,120. Even if you don't have to cash to deposit to the IRA, you borrow it, from a 24% credit card if need be. Because the $2000 IRA will trigger not just $300 less Federal tax, but a $4631 health care credit. Note - the above example will apply to a limited, specific group who are funding their own health care expense and paying above a certain percent of income. It's not a criticism of ACA, just a mathematical observation appropriate to this question. For those in this situation, a close look at their projected MAGI is in order. Another example - the deduction for college tuition and fees. This is another \"\"step function.\"\" Go a dollar over the threshold, $130K joint, and the deduction drops from $4000 to $2000. You can claim that a $2000 deduction is a difference of 'only' $500 in tax due, but the result is a quick spike in the marginal rate. For those right at this number, it would be worth it to increase their 401(k) deduction to get back under this limit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "180368ebdb2fa642ae3f540d64e0e4d7",
"text": "\"I probably wouldn't turn down a raise, but there are some circumstances in which you might hesitate. Having a disproportionately high salary for your type of role or the value you are providing to the company makes you an attractive layoff target in an economic downturn. I've heard anecdotally of lots of corporate lawyers getting laid off because they were getting raises every year, and ended up with such ridiculous salaries that when the economy went south, the company basically asked \"\"why are we paying these people so much?\"\" Same thing happens in lots of places - Circuit City lays off the experienced, highly-paid salespeople and brings in cheap-o high school students (that didn't work out well for them, but they did it anyway). Still, even knowing that, I'd accept the pay raise. You're making more money the whole time you're employed, and prior salary is the biggest predictor of the salary you can negotiate at a new position.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b746fa726e1723cb28bd6ebb60a627b5",
"text": "\"My answer has nothing to do with tax brackets or mathematics (I'm taking advantage of the leeway your question allowed), but rather it has to do with career goals and promotion. Large companies often have large \"\"Policies & Procedures\"\" booklets to go with them. One policy that sometimes exists which would make it a bad idea to accept a raise is: Employee cannot be given more than one salary increase in a 12-month period This means that if you accept a standard-of-living or merit increase of say, 2% or 3% in April, and then you apply for a job that would otherwise warrant a pay grade increase, you may be forced to wait until the following year to get bumped to the proper pay grade. Of course, this totally depends on the company, but it would be advisable to check your company's H.R. policy on that, if you're considering a move (even a lateral one) in the future.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b434b7b7a2e750295a18e50334555552",
"text": "If you have children in a university institution, then your annual salary is reported via financial aid forms. The small raise could be the difference between full tuition covered and only half tuition covered.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79de53b2ca5cd475b5f1a203e519e4fe",
"text": "I had a colleague turn down a raise once because he believed that female colleagues were already being paid well below his salary and it was unfair to further increase this gap. For very public figures raises are often declined as a form of leadership: showing that management is willing to forgo bonuses and salary increases as a form of solidarity with the employee population. Some leaders forgo a salary altogether (or take a $1/year salary).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61c17946cf2d33967b718ffe3db500f1",
"text": "I would turn down a 20% raise in salary without thinking, if they would offer that I can have a 4 day work week. I even take a 10% cut for this!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0eb8fd7848105c6f127549bf3f6cd33",
"text": "Here in Germany there is a special case. I am studying (and working a little on the side) and still receiving child benefits from the state which is like 190€/m. Because I am getting this I don't have to pay tuition which is 1k/y. If my side income would get over the boundary (which is like 9k/y) I would lose those benefits (~3.3k) and would have to pay insurance myself (I dont know how much that would be. 50-100/m I guess.) So getting a raise from 8k to 10k sounds nice as it is a 25% raise, but it actually means getting less.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71a8f1cfe2081d6b80639bcdb92833ae",
"text": "I once turned down a raise because I didn't agree with the employee review that supposedly substantiated the raise. I felt the review to be superficial and incomplete. Then I refused to sign it, or take the accompanying raise, due to that fact.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef238d44f6ade1b18699e8e1f245592d",
"text": "In the UK, recent changes to pension taxation mean that from April 2011, people earning between £150,000 and £180,000 total and making large pension contributions (>£50,000 or so) will pay a marginal tax rate on additional salary of >100%. This is because pension contributions normally attract tax relief at the highest marginal rate - i.e. 40% if the gross salary is above about £40,000, and 50% for salaries above £150,000. But after April 2011, the rate of relief will be tapered down for gross salaries above £150,000, reaching 20% for a gross salary of £180,000. So for example if you earn £175,000 and make a contribution of £50,000, then an additional £1,000 in salary will incur £500 of direct tax, and also lead to a 1% reduction in tax relief (from 25% to 24%), costing another £500. Once you factor in National Insurance of another 1% or so, the net effect of the pay rise is negative.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "153ac29de4630fcbcea28e9bbe3b1185",
"text": "In the UK, the government has recently announced that Child Benefit will no longer be paid to those who earn over £44k. This means that if you currently earn £43,999, and your employer offers you a raise of £10 per annum to £44,009, then you could be over £1k worse off as a result.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46b2a4930485c93547ff9ffe8c4a39c2",
"text": "The only valid reason from a financial point of view is if the raise is a promotion or comes with conditions that are unacceptable to you. You may not want added supervisory responsibilties, for example. You need to use discretion when refusing advancement though, at places where I have worked, declining a raise or promotion is seen as a career killer for some circumstances.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5d66cfdc3c1cde6eaaec09ba802a21b",
"text": "At least with US tax law where you only pay taxes at the higher rate for the income above the minimum for that tax bracket, you will always wind up ahead taking the raise if you are simply concerned with after tax (FICA) income. For example, assume you were making $8,350 (the top end of the 10% bracket in the US), and got a $100 raise, you would be taxed roughly as follows: After Tax Income Before Raise: $8,350 x (100% - 10%) After Tax Income After Raise: $8,350 x (100%-10%) + $100 x (100%-15%) You can easily see that the second number is always higher than the first as long as the raise is a positive amount (obviously).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b9afd809b19ea026a97e23618f37748",
"text": "I recently was offered $1/hr raise. I turned it down because 1.)I had been looking for other jobs and the extra $150 per month wasn't enough money to keep me from exploring other options so it would look bad to take a raise and leave a month later. You never want to burn bridges. 2.) Raises aren't given out everyday. The business I work for is having financial troubles and the $1/hr was probably the best they could do at the time. If business picks up and they can afford to give me more money they won't do it because the record will show that I just got a raise. One good extra is that your boss will be flabergasted that you just turned down a raise and you may gain a lot of respect from your superiors. Don't confuse strategically turning down a raise and letting others sway your opinion because they don't wanna cough up the cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51923f3d32c6455dafbdb60e7766dc59",
"text": "Sometimes it's not entirely about take-home pay. A pay raise can affect other things like: These things need to be considered since they also affect quality of life.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f6526f89de81cff8e4019c891345375",
"text": "There is currently a bill in Washington that will change the limit for salaried employees receiving overtime pay. It will be raised to $50400. I work 4 hours of overtime each week, which if the bill is passed, equates to an additional $7800 annually. If my company raises my salary to just above the limit then they would not have to pay the overtime. That would only be a raise of approx. $3000. Why would I want to take the raise, and still have to work the overtime, when I can choose to not take the raise and possibly not have to work it any longer. I would rather have the time off, but if I'm going to have to work it, then I'll take the more than double overtime pay.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2999b33798536f587211bf4346238fc",
"text": "There are some student loan repayment programs and the like where, if a raise would bump you past a certain threshold, you become ineligible and are suddenly left holding the whole bag, or alternately the payoff for having your loans forgiven/repaid drops considerably. It can make financial sense to avoid crossing those thresholds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27e0430f759036c11f1f3a188d4dbd52",
"text": "\"This would never apply for tax \"\"brackets\"\". It's not as though making an extra dollar will put you into an entire separate bracket, the IRS isn't that bad. They bump up the \"\"brackets\"\" every $50, so you will never turn down a raise because it would cause you to lose income. However if your raise would preclude you from contributing to your IRA because it pushes you over $110,000 then yes, you could turn it down or explain to your boss that it would need to be just a little bit higher to cover your IRA contribution loss.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "befd90c643c2f13546371eefe400dddc",
"text": "\"One \"\"economic reason\"\" to turn down a raise is if your company gives bonuses based on performance reviews. When you get a raise in salary, your boss usually expects a better performance from you. That being said, if you get the raise, and your performance review is worse, you might get a smaller annual income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6469c3c29865963a8e5df4b2ddec26cc",
"text": "\"In Australia there are cases for the argument. 1) We have laws against unfair dismissal that do not apply above certain thresholds. Your position is more secure with the lower salary. 2) Tax benefits for families are unfairly structured such that take home pay may actually be less, again due to a threshold. This tends to benefit charities as people need to shed the taxable income if a repayment of benefits would otherwise be triggered. 3) You do not want to \"\"just cross\"\" a tax bracket in a year where levies are being raised for natural disasters or budget shortfall. In this case a raise could be deferred ?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d031a7f86ad55631c6d625512021e17",
"text": "It would make sense to refuse a raise when it pushes your effective marginal 'tax' (including reduced benefits) above 100%. The working poor (family of 4, 20K-40K in the US) often face marginal rates above 100% when you consider the phase out of various government benefits (EITC, insurance, housing,etc.) You can see the research here and here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36e4353c63bbbd0351696c2c0894910e",
"text": "Jurisdictions will vary but I can imagine calculation methods for child support where the raise could become significant in the present with long future ramifications as well, even if the job is temporary or the parent wanted to step away from working full-time to attend school. The timing of the raise might coincide with disclosure of income to an ex-spouse or to the court related and it might be preferable to postpone the increase. Of course the court would probably frown on declining the raise for only these reasons. If it found out it might impute the higher income anyway. And I'm not suggesting that people dodge responsibility for their kids. We've all seen those cases where child support is not particularly equitable between the two parties and/or the kids do not necessarily benefit by the transfer of money. I wouldn't blame a parent for thoughtfully and unselfishly considering this type of second-order effect and consulting an attorney as with so many other financial implications of divorce. Regardless of personal moral objections it's certainly an answer to the question in technical terms that somebody somewhere has taken into account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8727042c22aefe9e3adf5f21e60d2b2",
"text": "I recently rejected an offer at a different firm that would have provided a 14k yearly increase. The reason for the rejection was because I would have had to give up two work from home days, my commute would have been about an hour and half each way, I would have lost about 14 extra days of PTO and holiday pay, and the new company didn't match anything for 401k.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "27d00415eb2551c200e1cabbf5273d3f",
"text": "The problem with this is that it really only works in a small firm where everyone knows everyone else. Once it gets bigger and all the managers don't know all the workers it becomes a matter of who can BS the skill level of their favorites better in the yearly review. Then the resentment isn't about normally unknown salaries, it's about whether other employee's levels are legitimate. Don't get me wrong, opening up the conversation and trying to make it more objective is good, but this isn't some sort of common sense, one size fits all panacea.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "494c5a502d369a1c921ab752b8ff5948",
"text": "\"The real question is what can you NOT do! If you track all your monetary actions, you know everything about your monetary situation. That means you have the tools to ask and answer \"\"what if\"\" questions, such as: \"\"If I get a 10% raise, could I take longer vacations?\"\" You could calculate how much you spend per day on vacation and then consider the amount of your raise and how much of it you'd need to allocate to vacations to, say, be able to take a two-week vacation instead of a one-week vacation. \"\"How much more would I have to earn to move to this nicer apartment?\"\" This may seem like a simple question, but a surprising number of people can't answer it in a reliable way, because they don't have a clear understanding of how much money they make and how much of it they can afford to spend on housing. If you find you have lots of spare income, maybe you can move to the nicer place right away; if not, at least you can get a sense of how much more money you'd need to make it happen. \"\"If I started taking the bus to work, how much would I save?\"\" You can look at how much you spend on gas and compare that to the price of a bus pass. By separating out categories like gas, repairs, and car insurance, you can also calculate different scenarios, like if you still kept your car but only used it for occasional trips, versus if you sold the car and used only public transportation. \"\"If I want to take a trip to Tahiti, what can I cut back on to save the money?\"\" Using your table you can pencil out scenarios like \"\"Suppose I stop eating out for lunch at work and just bring my lunch, how long would I have to do that to save enough to pay for a plane ticket?\"\" These are just a few random examples. The general idea is that with a record of hard numbers, you can start to consider potential tradeoffs in an objective way --- that is, you can ask \"\"how much in category X would I have to give up to gain this thing I want in category Y?\"\" The real trick in making use of your data is not so much \"\"what\"\" you can do, but \"\"how\"\" exactly to do it. You may have to become more of a spreadsheet wizard to really delve into these questions. Also, if you have programming expertise, you can even use something like Python to do calculations that might be laborious in a spreadsheet.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0df7234de23fe9441f835f8083b937e7",
"text": "This was absolutely true for me. I'm retired now. Until my last company I always got about 5% raise. When I skipped jobs the raise was usually enormous. I went: 19K 25K 30K 35K 50K 75K 85k 75K (last job sucked and this one was stupid simple at first) New company gave me steady raises to $125K and I got to do awesome work and was in complete control. There is no way I would have gone from 19K to 125K at the same firm.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "efbeb66e10cd48131de8e89d2a0fdc6a",
"text": "All hearsay and a bad memory, but if I remember correctly, when you dig deep the reason he raised salaries was to help fight some lawsuits against his ex wife and/or ex business partner. These raises effectively made the company make nothing while he was fighting lawsuits. Then it eventually turned into publicity and more clients for his payment processing company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a02d314be40e2de7566d5585bb79ddf7",
"text": "\"And that is my point: without specific dollar amounts...this is USELESS information. The problem with this crap information is that some crappy operation will find a reason to pay themselves more for being a \"\"good boss\"\" thinking that will make up for any raises. I'd take a better boss over a 5-cent an hour raise (and yes, I worked at McDonalds when raises were 0-5-10 cents an hour...and yeah, I would have liked a better boss for 5 cents). However, for an annual job that pays $500/hr I'll gladly work in horrid conditions with a horrible boss doing awful things.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "442ed4cce3fedeeeb99c73feb326f40b",
"text": "Not necessarily. You only need to raise prices to maintain current profit margins. Assuming you aren't living on a paper thin profit margin, you can give your employees a raise and suffer a lower profit margin. Now, that could have other negative consequences on your stock value and shareholders might be upset, but that is a different discussion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7fa35b69d33d8655a192fae2ddb950b1",
"text": "Microsoft doesn't do salary negotiations... The way the salary structure works at Microsoft is similar to how it works in many other huge companies. You have a rank/level/title (eg. developer, Senior developer, Principal developer, and upwards) and your salary is based solely on that. For example, every new college hire starts at a certain rank (whether foreign or not) and every new college hire starts at the same level of pay. When you get a promotion you get a new title and a corresponding pay increase. You can't negotiate for bonuses or salary increases, it's set in stone for everyone. This is for engineering positions, obviously sales/marketing/etc. all have different structures.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85a7f356bac3336d22f16c480e4c8a41",
"text": "its not that hard to figure out Please explain how arbitrarily raising employee wages would raise demand. What kind of 'demand' do you even speak of? Did you mean [Labor Demand](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_demand) ---I think what you talking about is [Consumer Confidence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_confidence). Please enlighten me.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bce8281f921835b728fba8738e1ec55c",
"text": "I had a similar decision to make. I got offered a modest salary near Philly, or a better salary plus a nice bonus in New York. I chose New York. I'm loving it so far but who knows what will happen. I'm actually saving a lot of money as I automatically have it deduct from my paycheck and disperse into several savings accounts. I guess it's different for everyone and you have to consider your situation before applying a blanket advice",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e0f407d03737175db7d72d8f5e9d3e4",
"text": "This is bad statistics. If you look at people who jumped ship, of course you're going to see bigger increases in salary because you're not counting those that looked for a new job and didn't find a better offer. They stayed put. People are complacent but companies are, too. Employers aren't putting a lot of effort into firing bad employees as soon as they can. So there are employees that aren't jumping ship and could be paid more but there are also employees that should be kicked off the ship and paid less, but aren't. All that said, staying put is easier than moving and there's a price for it. If you're willing to move around, you might do better. Might not. If you only look around at the ones that did move, of course it's going to look like they did better!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4f0df64d1cd7d42776f3b94467ed780",
"text": "Recent MBA grad here. I would much rather work at a job that makes me happy than a job that pays more. With that said, I'm feeling pressure to earn a fairly high salary to pay off all the student loans. I will probably spend a few years trying to find a balance between happiness and salary and then completely forget about salary after my loans are paid off.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "215dc7dad7674e2dfac95e80a8d3df64",
"text": "\"Many in management seem to live in an alternate reality from those who work for a living. When IBM shunted some techs into another company they put them on probation for a year (even though they were high performers - some with 25+ years at IBM = no job security) and cut their pay 25%. The next time they went to move workers the first question was \"\"how much is the pay cut this time\"\". Management's reply, \"\"No pay cut because we found when we did it before it negatively affected morale.\"\" I thought: \"\"No kidding. They had to actually cut people's pay 25% to figure that out? What planet DO they live on?\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "250bf86246dfc46508bdbb932830201a",
"text": "> but since that's impossible (due to the bureaucracy) in most jobs Huh? Dude, asking for a raise is never impossible. Go to your manager and make a well thought-out case. This is how it's done. It's not magic. Very rarely, in any professional environment, will anyone just hand you a raise because they think you're a nice guy. Keeping your head down and nose to the grindstone will not get you noticed. Obviously, going elsewhere to get that higher salary should also be an option. I did it once too. But in the situation you describe, you'd be crazy not to go demand a bigger slice of the pie.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "587a65d963fc2a65049684b33ecee4f6",
"text": "My doubt is whether Govt./Reserve Bank of India gives any explicit incentives to banks to offer cheaper home loans ? Currently NO. In the past Loan against GOLD was considered priority sector lending [Loans to poor and agriculture etc]. Every Bank need to lead around 25% to priority sector. Hence quite a few Banks gave loans relatively cheaper to todays rate rather than giving it as Farm loan that almost never get recovered. It is no longer the case now as Loan against GOLD is not considered priority lending. If it were just demand/supply, I feel that gold loans should have been cheaper It is demand and supply. There are quite a few reasons for this;",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50d0b42ef54f328df9c633c45a1d2aba",
"text": "No, you can't do this indefinitely. For one, you can't just take money out as home equity with no strings attached. The cash out is done as a loan (often a HELOC) or second mortgage and you have to make payments. The lender will always make sure you are able to afford the payments. At some point, you won't qualify for the loan because of insufficient income or too many previous liens on the property. While home values often go up, there's no guarantee. And your examples are more than a bit optimistic.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3af70c5557c2aabad0773bc62a0c1e3f
|
Why are American Express cards are not as popular as Visa or MasterCard?
|
[
{
"docid": "bb5d9d9e02c33392ccae4b67b32b3344",
"text": "Those extra treat points have to come from somewhere, and they come from American Express charging merchants a higher percentage than Visa or Mastercard. So it's less attractive for those merchants to accept it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c00974a2d361c559387d6566f32651b0",
"text": "\"American Express was originally a mail business that moved into money-orders. Traditionally their cards have been charge cards instead of a credit card (though they have credit products now as well). They've been marketed specifically as a \"\"premium\"\" product for people who have a significant amount of money (and are willing to pay a significant fee for premium services such as AmEx's good airline miles). As such, Visa and MasterCard are more widespread. Additionally, the fees that Visa and MasterCard charge merchants are typically lower (Wikipedia says 2%, as compared to AmEx's 2.5%, at least in the US). So: American Express gets less business as a company, but they charge higher fees to make up for it. Merchants will only accept the higher fees when they want to serve people who have a lot of money to spend (or if they can negotiate a discount).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22a1be4fe209a2fd1ecad737d0d6f717",
"text": "\"I have a merchant account and accept Visa, Mastercard, and Discover but not AMEX. I don't take AMEX because they want me to go through another approval process (on top of what was required to get merchant status) and their fees are a percent or two higher than the other cards. This doesn't sound like a lot - but for a business that grosses $1M per year, an extra 2 percentage points is $20K. I don't gross $1M, but the additional cost for me to take AMEX would still use the word \"\"thousand\"\" and I don't see any reason to jump through extra hoops and fill out more forms for the privilege of giving extra money away. I haven't found anyone yet who wanted to pay me with AMEX who can't pay me with another card or a check instead.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "980123d8da7cef03e7dd8c49a9b7197d",
"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.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "593a607429bbea53a8c549008657a60f",
"text": "\"The real reason credit cards are so popular in the US is that Americans are lazy and broke, and the credit card companies know how to market to that. Have you ever heard of the $30k millionaires? These were individuals that purchased as if they were some of the wealthy elite, but had no real money to back it up. American society has pushed the idea of \"\"living on credit\"\" for quite some time now. An idea that is even furthered by watching the US government operate solely on credit. (Raise the debt ceiling much?) Live in America for more than six months and you will be bombarded with \"\"Pre-Approved Deals\"\" with low introductory rates that are designed to sucker the average consumer into opening multiple accounts that they don't need. Then, they try and get you to carry a balance by allowing low minimum payments that could take in the neighborhood of 20 years to pay off, depending on carried balance. This in turn pads the credit companies' pockets with all of the interest you now pay on the account. The few truly wealthy Americans do not purchase on credit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22259b6d72da91a9fe3224dbeb616a0b",
"text": "Just to make this a little less vauge, I will base everything on the Mercedes Benz American Express (MB AMEX) card, which is the closest to a $100 annual fee I found on American Express's website. The benefits of a card with an annual fee generally are worth the cost if (and only if) you spend enough money on the card, and avoid paying interest to offset the benefit. Using the MB AMEX card as a reference, it offers 5X points for Mercedes Benz purchases, 3X points at gas stations, 2X points at restaurants, and 1X points everywhere else. Even if we only make purchases at the 1X rate, it only takes charging $10,000 to the card in a year in order to make up the difference. Not too hard to do on a card someone uses as their main method of payment. Every dollar spent at the higher rates only makes that easier. There are a number of other benefits as well. After spending $5,000 on the card in a year, you receive a $500 gift card towards the purchase of a Mercedes Benz car. For anyone on the market for a Mercedes Benz, the card pays for itself multiple times with just this benefit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b266e4a1a7e3770699243362ffe6040",
"text": "If you read the fine print in the Pricing & Terms section of that card, you'll see: By becoming a Visa Business Card cardmember, you agree that the card is being used only for business purposes and that the card is being issued to a public or private company including a sole proprietor or employees or contractors of an organization. So that card is a Chase-branded Visa card, and should be accepted anywhere other Visa cards are. Credit cards are normally either MasterCard or Visa, although many of them make that rather inconspicuous. The only major exceptions I know of are American Express and Discover. (And store cards that are only good at one particular store.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb0e3e99c7cda972e38413ba3620e23d",
"text": "\"There are hidden costs to using rewards cards for everything. The credit card company charges fees to the merchant every time you make a purchase. These fees are a small amount per transaction, plus a portion of the transaction amount. These fees are higher for rewards cards. (For example, the fees might be 35 cents for a PIN-transaction on a debit card, or 35 cents plus 2 percent for an ordinary credit card or signature transaction on a debit card, or 35 cents plus 3.5 percent on a rewards card.) After considering all of their expenses, merchant profit margins are often quite small. To make the same amount of profit by serving a rewards-card customer as a cash customer, the merchant needs to sell higher profit-margin items and/or more items to the rewards-card customer. People who \"\"pay with plastic\"\" tend to spend more than people who \"\"pay with cash\"\". If you pay with a rewards card, will you spend even more?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef4425720fc7d104b359eb30f87b432a",
"text": "In Canada, there are many stores that take debit (Interac) but don't take Visa or MasterCard. For example, a corner store. In the US the reverse is often true: every tiny place seems to take Visa or MasterCard, but not debit. A Visa debit card looks like a Visa card to the merchant. It therefore has the benefit of being usable at places that only take Visa. (Substitute MasterCard as necessary.) This benefit is very small in Canada, less so elsewhere. Meanwhile the money is actually coming out of your bank account just like a debit card, which therefore has the benefit that you're not borrowing money, can't accidentally overspend, and run no risk of incurring interest charges. It is also a way to get what appears to be a credit card when you can't qualify for credit. If you do the majority of your spending in Canada, you don't need a Visa or MasterCard debit card. Your regular debit card (Interac) will work fine for you. If you have a credit card anyway (from another bank or whatever) then again, you don't need a debit card that can pretend to be a credit card.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f2840a9a87b9e94321c55c5533ece66",
"text": "Your question is based on a false premise. Debit cards are more popular in the US than credit cards are. Indeed it seems to be the non-US part of the world that is big in credit cards. See here for example",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81df40145417627c24bdc2cd2b333f13",
"text": "I once called Amex to cancel a card with an annual fee. Instead, they were able to give me a different card with no fee. They were happy to do it. Of course, Amex has fantastic customer service, while Capital One is not known for it. But, its worth a five minute call, and you will retain your good score.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac18f121ae9ec8c4697b03740588d5c8",
"text": "Michael Pryor's answer is accurate to the actual question asked. The current accepted answer from Dheer is not entirely true but roughly provides an overview of the different entities involved in a typical transaction, with some wrong terminologies, corrected and improved below. The issuing bank, the one that issues the credit card to the customer. When it comes to the service fee split, the issuer bank takes on the majority of the cut in the service fee paid by the merchant to the different entities. For example, on a 2.5% overall fee paid by merchant, roughly 1.5% goes to the issuer, 0.3% goes to the card network (visa, master card, etc) and the remaining 0.7% goes to the acquiring bank. Reward programs have a partnership with participating merchants, where merchants are charged a higher service fee, for the likelihood of driving a higher volume of transactions to the merchant. A portion of the rewards also comes from the issuer, who shares a percentage of their fee back to the customer, in exchange for the same likelihood of making more profit through increased volume in total transactions. For example, a reward program may charge merchants 4.5% fee, with 3.5% of it going to the issuer. Upto 3% of this can be given back to the customer for their loyalty in using the card service. The banks can afford to take as little as 0.5% instead of their regular 1.5% due to the increased volume of transactions and the fixed fee they collect as membership fee. Note that costco has a similar business plan, but they make money entirely of membership fee. So with enough clients, banks can theoretically afford to run their program entirely on membership fees, costing no additional service fee to merchants. The service fee depicted above is arbitrary, and it can be lowered if the merchant is also a client of the issuing bank, that is, both the issuing bank and acquiring bank are the same. So it is kind of a win-win-win situation. And as usual, the banks can afford to make a larger income, if the customer ends up paying interest for their credit - although the rewards program is not designed accounting on this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dda027e4c7ce9e11a7a5ef7dee1ae84a",
"text": "Kroger is the largest grocery chain in the U.S. and generally not seen as 'expensive'. Unless you are going to Aldi or Save-A-Lot, I don't think you are going to find anything 'lower priced'. You do know you don't have to provide real information when signing up for those cards, right? That's basically a non-issue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59c059e2ba0fce0f151b8282b6b3615a",
"text": "It is not only merchants that charge for credit card purchases but also service providers. Have you looked at your phone bill lately and even your Council Rates. Most of them charge a small %, usually about 1% on Matercard and Visa, and closer to 2% on Diners, Amex and American Express cards. However, the merchants and service providers that do charge a fee for credit card use, must also provide alternative ways of paying to their customers, so that the customer has the choice to either pay or avoid paying this fee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d0e3cb5d03fee6a794f1471c18fe1e8",
"text": "Visa and Mastercard are not consumer-oriented companies. They do not consider individual consumers as their direct clients, and do not sell directly to them. Instead, their clients are financial institutions who participate in their networks (which is what they're selling). The institutions target the individual consumers (merchants and credit card holders). American Express, for example, has a different business model. AX doesn't only sell network services to financial institutions, but also services to individual consumers. You can get a AX credit card/merchant account directly with AX, or through their client bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58798764a5f701a63768787f72841c06",
"text": "Chip and Pin cards are popular in Europe, however in the US we don't have them. Visa/MC and Amex can issue chip and pin cards but no merchants or machines are set up here to take them. Only certain countries in Europe use them and since you could possibly have a US visitor or a non-chip and pin person using your machine or eating at your restaurant they usually allow you to sign or just omit the pin if the card doesn't have a chip. It is definitely less secure, but the entire credit card industry in the US is running right now without it, so I don't think the major credit card companies care too much (they just pass the fraud on to the merchants anyway).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44af6e62a7fd75f9cf9513658df55b90",
"text": "Trick question dude. Can't be done. Sorry to tell you. I've been hit with this. Credit card companies do not make money on these customers. Why does Amex have an annual fee on all cards and an abnormally large transaction fee for merchants? Because they don't allow you to carry a balance (On traditional cards). Meaning they don't make money on interest, like the customers in question here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85667121b3846596f582b1f99bfb2b23",
"text": "\"At least in the US, one reason could be the \"\"liability shift\"\" that encourages adoption of chipped and contactless cards by shifting the fraud liability to the party that caused the transaction to not use chip-and-PIN / contactless payment: either the merchant (by not having a new compatible terminal) or the card issuer (by not providing the customer with a compatible card). This means the issuers will try to replace old, magnetic-only cards as soon as possible once adoption of the liability shift is certain. http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/bulletin-us-participation-liability-shift-080911.pdf\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c2e7a012cf98e72641115df9ad2d8bf",
"text": "A few reasons make sense: They have a defined process for rentals, risk assessment, and customer credit. Especially for a large corporation, making changes to that process is not trivial, adds risk/uncertainty, and will be costly. Such changes for a relatively small customer base might not makes sense. Many rental companies DO allow you to rent with a debit card. Why do some businesses take cash only? With a debit card, there is no third party guarantee. With a credit card, the cash is coming from a well-established third party who will pay (assuming no disputes) and has a well-established history of paying. Even if the merchant holds your account, it is still your cash under the control of you and your bank until the deposit clears the merchants bank. It is not surprising they view that as more risk and potentially not worth hassling with debit.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9382414b39110a301182bc7da416756b
|
How to properly report income without 1099-MISC
|
[
{
"docid": "b21dfeda453e019b67382d2c7e496610",
"text": "You are right that even if you do not receive a 1099-MISC, you still need to report all income to the IRS. Report the $40 on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ. Since your net profit was less than $400, you do not need to file Schedule SE. From the IRS web site: Self-Employment Income It is a common misconception that if a taxpayer does not receive a Form 1099-MISC or if the income is under $600 per payer, the income is not taxable. There is no minimum amount that a taxpayer may exclude from gross income. All income earned through the taxpayer’s business, as an independent contractor or from informal side jobs is self-employment income, which is fully taxable and must be reported on Form 1040. Use Form 1040, Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ, Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship) to report income and expenses. Taxpayers will also need to prepare Form 1040 Schedule SE for self-employment taxes if the net profit exceeds $400 for a year. Do not report this income on Form 1040 Line 21 as Other Income. Independent contractors must report all income as taxable, even if it is less than $600. Even if the client does not issue a Form 1099-MISC, the income, whatever the amount, is still reportable by the taxpayer.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1406ad7d12bc3a17399d0be238045b5b",
"text": "I am surprised no one has mentioned the two biggest things (in my opinion). Or I should say, the two biggest things to me. First, 1099 have to file quarterly self employment taxes. I do not know for certain but I have heard that often times you will end up paying more this way then even a W-2 employees. Second, an LLC allows you to deduct business expenses off the top prior to determining what you pay in taxes as pass-through income. With 1099 you pay the same taxes regardless of your business expenses unless they are specifically allowed as a 1099 contractor (which most are not I believe). So what you should really do is figure out the expense you incur as a result of doing your business and check with an accountant to see if those expenses would be deductible in an LLC and if it offsets a decent amount of your income to see if it would be worth it. But I have read a lot of books and listened to a lot of interviews about wealthy people and most deal in companies not contracts. Most would open a new business and add clients rather than dealing in 1099 contracts. Just my two cents... Good luck and much prosperity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fb8ad9020bf14fbf901fe9c1f18a4c4",
"text": "\"If you receive a 1099-MISC from YouTube, that tells you what they stated to the IRS and leads into most tax preparation software guided interviews or wizards as a topic for you to enter. Whether or not you have a 1099-MISC, this discussion from the IRS is pertinent to your question. You could probably elect to report the income as a royalty on your copyrighted work of art on Schedule E, but see this note: \"\"In most cases you report royalties in Part I of Schedule E (Form 1040). However, if you ... are in business as a self-employed writer, inventor, artist, etc., report your income and expenses on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040).\"\" Whether reporting on Schedule E or C is more correct or better for your specific circumstances is beyond the advice you should take from strangers on the internet based on a general question - however, know that there are potentially several paths for you. Note that this is revenue from a business, so if you paid for equipment or services that are 100% dedicated to your YouTubing (PC, webcam, upgraded broadband, video editing software, vehicle miles to a shoot, props, etc.) then these are a combination of depreciable capital investments and expenses you can report against the income, reducing the taxes you may owe. If the equipment/services are used for business and personal use, there are further guidelines from the IRS as to estimating the split. These apply whether you report on Sch. E, Sch. C, or Sch C-EZ. Quote: \"\"Self-Employment Income It is a common misconception that if a taxpayer does not receive a Form 1099-MISC or if the income is under $600 per payer, the income is not taxable. There is no minimum amount that a taxpayer may exclude from gross income. All income earned through the taxpayer’s business, as an independent contractor or from informal side jobs is self-employment income, which is fully taxable and must be reported on Form 1040. Use Form 1040, Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ, Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship) to report income and expenses. Taxpayers will also need to prepare Form 1040 Schedule SE for self-employment taxes if the net profit exceeds $400 for a year. Do not report this income on Form 1040 Line 21 as Other Income. Independent contractors must report all income as taxable, even if it is less than $600. Even if the client does not issue a Form 1099-MISC, the income, whatever the amount, is still reportable by the taxpayer. Fees received for babysitting, housecleaning and lawn cutting are all examples of taxable income, even if each client paid less than $600 for the year. Someone who repairs computers in his or her spare time needs to report all monies earned as self-employment income even if no one person paid more than $600 for repairs.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11aa0d830ce41e174690756c06ce534f",
"text": "(do I need to get a W9 from our suppliers)? Will PayPal or Shopify send me a 1099k or something? Do not assume that you'll get paperwork from anyone. Do assume that you have to generate your own paperwork. Ideally you should print out some kind of record of each transaction. Note that it can be hard to view older transactions in PayPal, so start now. If you can't document something, write up a piece of paper showing the state of the world to the best of your knowledge. Do assume that you need separate receipts for each expenditure. The PayPal receipt might be enough (but print it in case the IRS wants to see it). A receipt from the vendor would be better (again, print it if it is online now). A CPA is not strictly necessary. A CPA is certified (the C in CPA) to formally audit the books of a corporation. In your case, any accountant would be legally sufficient. You still may want to use a CPA, as the certification, while technically unnecessary, still demonstrates knowledge. You may otherwise not be in a position to evaluate an accountant. A compromise option is to go to a firm that includes a CPA and then let them assign you to someone else to process the actual taxes. You are going to have to fill out some business tax forms. In particular, I would expect a schedule C. That's where you would show revenues and expenses. You may well have to file other forms as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b45d5ec4b229bc9bf365f2b849ee8988",
"text": "\"-Alain Wertheimer I'm a hobbyist... Most (probably all) of those older items were sold both prior to my establishing the LLC This is a hobby of yours, this is not your business. You purchased all of these goods for your pleasure, not for their future profit. The later items that you bought after your LLC was establish served both purposes (perks of doing what you love). How should I go about reporting this income for the items I don't have records for how much I purchased them for? There's nothing you can do. As noted above, these items (if you were to testify in court against the IRS). \"\"Losses from the sale of personal-use property, such as your home or car, aren't tax deductible.\"\" Source Do I need to indicate 100% of the income because I can't prove that I sold it at a loss? Yes, if you do not have previous records you must claim a 100% capital gain. Source Addition: As JoeTaxpayer has mentioned in the comments, the second source I posted is for stocks and bonds. So at year begin of 2016, I started selling what I didn't need on eBay and on various forums [January - September]. Because you are not in the business of doing this, you do not need to explain the cost; but you do need to report the income as Gross Income on your 1040. Yes, if you bought a TV three years ago for a $100 and sold it for $50, the IRS would recognize you earning $50. As these are all personal items, they can not be deducted; regardless of gain or loss. Source Later in the year 2016 (October), I started an LLC (October - December) If these are items that you did not record early in the process of your LLC, then it is reported as a 100% gain as you can not prove any business expenses or costs to acquire associated with it. Source Refer to above answer. Refer to above answer. Conclusion Again, this is a income tax question that is split between business and personal use items. This is not a question of other's assessment of the value of the asset. It is solely based on the instruments of the IRS and their assessment of gains and losses from businesses. As OP does not have the necessary documents to prove otherwise, a cost basis of $0 must be assumed; thus you have a 100% gain on sale.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e863c8d274a0822740d59a90181625e4",
"text": "Per IRS regulations, if your stipend is not paying you for qualified expenses (primarily, tuition and books; explicitly not room and board or travel), it is taxable. It doesn't require self-employment taxes (which are Medicare and FICA, normally paid in part by an employer), but it is taxable income from an income tax perspective. You can generally deduct your books and such if you have your receipts - expenses 'required' by the institution for the coursework. Do verify that the amount on the 1099-MISC reflects what you actually received in cash above and beyond the tuition waiver - don't assume the college did this the way you expect, or even properly. Your bank statements should match the amount on the form. You should definitely include it in your gross income and pay taxes on it. If you received alternate instruction, you should clarify that with the people doing the filing, and follow up with a supervisor perhaps (it's possible the volunteers helping at an event like this aren't familiar with this part of tax preparation). (Source, in addition to IRS regulations - I was my wife's tax preparer many of the years she was in her Ph.D. program.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3af1afbfbdf47f2c1f93b4371879912",
"text": "There are many different types of 1099 forms. Since you are comparing it to a W-2, I'm assuming you are talking about a 1099-MISC form. Independent contractor income If you are a worker earning a salary or wage, your employer reports your annual earnings at year-end on Form W-2. However, if you are an independent contractor or self-employed you will receive a Form 1099-MISC from each client that pays you at least $600 during the tax year. For example, if you are a freelance writer, consultant or artist, you hire yourself out to individuals or companies on a contract basis. The income you receive from each job you take should be reported to you on Form 1099-MISC. When you prepare your tax return, the IRS requires you to report all of this income and pay income tax on it. So even if you receive a 1099-MISC form, you are required to pay taxes on it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a4ea401a7db431a02f515cee6f65660",
"text": "\"You can report it as illegal income and you don't have to elaborate any further. For instance, spirit the cash off to a state where pot is legal and set up a dispensary. That is not legal at the Federal level, so it is in fact \"\"illegal income\"\" vis-a-vis your Form 1040 and that's all you say. Make sure you look, walk, and quack like a fairly successful pot distributor. That will most likely be the end of their inquiry, since they're not terribly driven to investigate the income you do report. Having to give 33% of it to the IRS is generally strong motivation for folks to not report fake income. You're not claiming the money is from pot, you're allowing them to infer it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f5439eccba9927dbad2c3edb01e31dd",
"text": "Such activity is normally referred to as bartering income. From the IRS site - You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship), or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship). If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF), Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Refer to Topic 308 and Amended Returns for information on filing an amended return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b9fe28c51270b476811f2bf99389add",
"text": "The correct, legal way to handle this would be to file an amended return for that year (probably best to talk to a CPA). If you don't have the 1099, the IRS has a process to handle that here. It sounds like they would just try to contact the employer themselves, but it doesn't say exactly what would happen if the employer is out of business.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f26c99c0f284399995f478057ab7b24",
"text": "One of the triggers for audit is when the IRS can't match 1099 income to the tax return. Whoever got the 1099 in her name should include that income on her return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45390f1ecd215cbde66ecaa8e7578bd6",
"text": "\"Gifts given and received between business partners or employers/employees are treated as income, if they are beyond minimal value. If your boss gives you a gift, s/he should include it as part of your taxable wages for payroll purposes - which means that some of your wages should be withheld to cover income, social security, and Medicare taxes on it. At the end of the year, the value of the gift should be included in Box 1 (wages) of your form W-2. Assuming that's the case, you don't need to do anything special. A 1099-MISC would not be appropriate because you are an employee of your boss - so the two of you need to address the full panoply of employment taxes, not just income tax, which would be the result if the payment were reported on 1099-MISC. If the employer wants to cover the cost to you of the taxes on the gift, they'll need to \"\"gross up\"\" your pay to cover it. Let's say your employer gives you a gift worth $100, and you're in a 25% tax bracket. Your employer has to give you $125 so that you end up with a gain of $100. But the extra $25 is taxable, too, so your employer will need to add on an extra $6.25 to cover the 25% tax on the $25. But, wait, now we've gotta pay 25% tax on the $6.25, so they add an extra $1.56 to cover that tax. And now they've gotta pay an extra $.39 . . . The formula to calculate the gross-up amount is: where [TAX RATE] is the tax rate expressed as a percentage. So, to get the grossed-up amount for a $100 gift in a 25% bracket, we'd calculate 1/(1-.25), or 1/.75, or 1.333, multiply that by the target gift amount of $100, and end up with $133.33. The equation is a little uglier if you have to pay state income taxes that are deductible on the federal return but it's a similar principle. The entire $133.33 would then be reported as income, but the net effect on the employee is that they're $100 richer after taxes. The \"\"gross-up\"\" idea can be quite complicated if you dig into the details - there are some circumstances where an additional few dollars of income can have an unexpected impact on a tax return, in a fashion not obvious from looking at the tax table. If the employer doesn't include the gift in Box 1 on the W-2 but you want to pay taxes on it anyway, include the amount in Line 7 on the 1040 as if it had been on a W-2, and fill out form 8919 to calculate the FICA taxes that should have been withheld.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9346e3e432cbd31c696b86e795de9aa7",
"text": "Are the amounts in those boxes taxes that have already been removed? Yes. If they are, how do I report these totals? When I entered the information from the 1099-MISC, it only asked for the total, and didn't ask for (what I thought were) the taxes already taken out. It should appear on your 1040 line 64 (and similar line on your State tax return). If the program doesn't ask for all the 1099 fields (which is stupid), you can add it as additional taxes paid in the Credits section, somewhere in the area where they ask about estimated payments etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b01955977794a02a7d27bdbfa46c7c1",
"text": "Contractors regularly deposit checks like this; if the income is legitimate don't worry. Report it to the IRS as income whether or not the customer issues you a 1099. With deposits like this you should be making quarterly payments to the IRS for your projected income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4bdf77bd6c433338ae2798676b50331",
"text": "\"There are many people who have deductions far above the standard deduction, but still don't itemize. That's their option even though it comes at a cost. It may be foolish, but it's not illegal. If @littleadv citation is correct, the 'under penalty of perjury' type issue, what of those filers who file a Schedule A but purposely leave off their donations? I've seen many people discuss charity, and write that they do not want to benefit in any way from their donation, yet, still Schedule A their mortgage and property tax. Their returns are therefore fraudulent. I am curious to find a situation in which the taxpayer benefits from such a purposeful oversight, or, better still, a cited case where they were charged with doing so. I've offered advice on filings return that wasn't \"\"truthful\"\". When you own a stock and cannot find cost basis, there are times that you might realize the basis is so low that just entering zero will cost you less than $100 in extra tax. You are not truthful, of course, but this kind of false statement isn't going to lead to any issue. If it gets noticed within an audit, no agent is going to give it more than a moment of time and perhaps suggest, \"\"you didn't even know the year it was bought?\"\" but there would be no consequence. My answer is for personal returns, I'm sure for business, accuracy to the dollar is actually important.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa54fda0a92cf027e4c6bb162493e245",
"text": "The higher the debt, the higher inflation needs to be to wash the debt away. This is why the debt and US equities move upward hand in hand. The same goes for US housing. Just as homeowners borrow money through mortgages so that house prices rise, the banks borrow the money for mortgages through the central banks. Thus, the cycle circulates. The more debt, the higher the prices! Everybody makes money from debt. That is why the US has the highest external debt on the globe, yet they are considered one of the wealthiest countries in the world.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
96d284ce81466b888d354ed24f45058b
|
Are cashiers required to check a credit card for a signature in the U.S.?
|
[
{
"docid": "fd2350e9d1d0244e9c469071fa7541d2",
"text": "The signature actually harks back to the days before every business checked every transaction online. When charge cards were introduced modems didn't exist. Nowadays, stolen credit cards are usually reported within 24 hours and the card won't work. Businesses that face low fraud rates don't bother checking. They probably figure that a certain percentage of charges get charged back because the cardholder claims that they didn't make them, and the credit card company usually just passes the cost on to the merchant, so it's really the merchant who should be worried about fraud since he or she is going to pay for it. The real question for the merchant is whether checking signatures actually reduces charge backs. If the credit card is stolen, how hard would it be for thieves to practice the signature on the card a few times until they can reproduce it well enough to fool someone? Businesses that face high fraud rates are often more careful. In New York City, try buying some Nikes on 34th Street, and you'll get your signature checked, your driver's license checked, and they'll call up your 5th grade social studies teacher.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebb7dea9e666ea6193564987d81e0107",
"text": "\"I'm not sure if they're required to do so, but I have been neglecting to sign my cards for some time now. If they do check, that triggers an ID check, where they'll find my signature. I know of at least one person that writes \"\"see ID\"\" instead of signing their cards. He began that practice over 10 years ago.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ad235adbc365a7f267a915eb6b63ab2",
"text": "Per their merchant agreements, Visa and MasterCard say that the signature on the back of the card is the proper way to identify the card holder. If a card is not signed, the merchant is supposed to check your ID and make you sign the card before accepting it for payment. Merchants are not allowed the require an ID for paying with a signed card. Of course, store employees rarely know all these things. Some will gladly accept an unsigned card. Some will try to make you show your ID.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62f5fdeefee499722b068437210fedfc",
"text": "It depends on the business. Some ask for ID and check against the signature (rare); some ask for ID but barely glance at it; some check just that it's signed (also rare); some ask for me to input my ZIP code on the card reader (KMart); and some don't do anything (most common). What they do doesn't seem connected to whether I put the card in the reader myself, or hand it to the cashier for them to scan. It does seem silly to check IDs, etc., as there are places such as gas stations where I never even see an employee, and can spend just as much there as at WalMart, KMart, or the grocery store, all places that tend to do more checking.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "408321035e37e28e13a3b3933ba797ef",
"text": "\"Working retail myself, I do not accept an unsigned card without verification. If I received one I would ask for ID and verify the photo with the Name. I would also let the buyer know it was unsigned and remind them that anyone finding it can sign it and use the card without issue. Putting on the back of the card \"\"SEE ID\"\" is the way buyers have protected themselves from thieves as long as people are actually looking at the cards. How does this protect? 1- a lost card cant be signed by a complete stranger as there is already writing on the card. 2- It provides a photo identification for use. I know with today's technology that this is going away and fewer people are actually checking but shame on those companies who handle the cards and don't look. Obviously this process does not apply to self checks, but safety protocols there require a pin of some form that only the authorized user should know.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd86c575bf2a438ab2443e2b0eaf8ea1",
"text": "So my wife was at work today and got yelled at by both a cop and her managers for simply LOOKING at the card. I don't understand I also work in retail and of course I must see the card to ensure it is a real card, it is a very strict policy that we must have a valid physical card to run any credit/debit transactions. People put skimmers everywhere you use your card and can pick up the info off the strip and put it onto another card and use it without you noticing right away. With the right equipment they can put their name on it or the name on their fake I.d. so the only red flag would be them trying to use several different cards",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ef149a73103b9af313e0ee816669ff9",
"text": "Who cares? If your card gets stolen, most cards provide you with 100% liability protection. Just sign the thing!",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c05c869e4935166e9ed6d58d4660102f",
"text": "\"I looked this up on Wikipedia, and was hoping the answer would be \"\"no - stores cannot refuse legal tender\"\", but unfortunately, it's not the case! If the retailer wants to go to the lengths of refusing certain denominations to protect themselves from counterfeit currency, they are fully within their rights to do so. The \"\"Legal Tender\"\" page on Wikipedia says this about Canadian bills: [...] Retailers in Canada may refuse bank notes without breaking the law. According to legal guidelines, the method of payment has to be mutually agreed upon by the parties involved with the transactions. For example, convenience stores may refuse $100 bank notes if they feel that would put them at risk of being counterfeit victims [...] What is interesting about what I found out, is that legal tender cannot be refused if it is in repayment of an existing debt (i.e. not a store transaction for which there existed no previous debt). So you could offload your $100 bills when repaying your Sears credit card account (or pay in pennies if you wanted to!) and they couldn't refuse you!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58798764a5f701a63768787f72841c06",
"text": "Chip and Pin cards are popular in Europe, however in the US we don't have them. Visa/MC and Amex can issue chip and pin cards but no merchants or machines are set up here to take them. Only certain countries in Europe use them and since you could possibly have a US visitor or a non-chip and pin person using your machine or eating at your restaurant they usually allow you to sign or just omit the pin if the card doesn't have a chip. It is definitely less secure, but the entire credit card industry in the US is running right now without it, so I don't think the major credit card companies care too much (they just pass the fraud on to the merchants anyway).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23667feab337560ee5ea3323e14c23a9",
"text": "\"> The bottom line is that everyone would not mind to enter a PIN to get the transaction through, but a stupid ego trip of the credit card companies who don't want to be \"\"like ATMs\"\". That's it. I mind. If a crook standing behind me in line seems me enter my pin he might then try to mug me for my card outside the store. If he sees me sign my name he's less likely to do that. This is obvious. > That's true... if the amount is over $25. Did you notice it? Actually, at Costco is over $50. That is a relatively new policy a specific few merchants. > so I just put couple of lines... That's got less to do with the screen being unable to comprehend your signature, it could d that if they wanted it to, and the fact that many people have terrible signatures. Look at doctors for example.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7317fb4f46b375b628a969a195c49b5f",
"text": "\"At least in the US, a Cashier's Check is just like a regular personal check - only it's guaranteed by the bank itself, so the person accepting it can be pretty certain the check won't be returned for insufficient funds...if the check is genuine! Most banks therefore have a policy for cashier's checks that is very similar to their policies on regular checks and money orders: if you are a member with an account in good standing, they'll make all or part of the money available to you according to their fund availability policy, which is usually anywhere from \"\"immediately\"\" to 7-10 days. With amounts over $5,000, banks will tend to put a hold on the funds to ensure it clears and they get their money. If you are not a member then many banks will refuse to cash the check at all, unless the cashier's check is drawn on on that brand of bank. So if the cashier's check is issued by, say, Chase Bank, Chase banks will usually be willing to cash out the entire check to you immediately (with properly provided ID). Because the bank is guaranteed by them they are able to check their system and ensure the check is real and can clear the check instantly. This policy isn't just up to individual banks entirely, as it is defined by United States federal banking policies and federal regulations on availability of funds. If you really must cash the check without a holding period and won't/can't have a bank account of your own to perform this, then you will generally need to go into a branch of the bank that is guaranteeing the check to be able to cash it out fully right away. Note that since the check might be issued by a bank with no branch near you, you should have a back-up plan. Generally banks will allow you to setup a special/limited savings-only account to deposit your check, even if you don't have a checking account, so if no other option works you might try that as well. The funds availability policies are the same, but at least you'll be able to cash it generally in 10 days time (and then close the account and withdraw your money).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f49afe59c2066b628a48a29923719045",
"text": "\"This isn't so much a legal issue, the prohibition on giving discounts was written into the merchant agreements that most of the major credit card companies enforced on businesses that accepted their credit cards. That is, until the recent Financial Reform Bill (2010) passed Congress. It changes everything. (The logic on this is a little convoluted, so read carefully) Credit card companies can no longer prohibit merchants from requiring a minimum purchase amount to use a credit card. Meaning: That if merchants want to, they can now stop taking credit cards for a $4 latte. Credit card companies can no longer prohibit merchants from giving discounts for cash. Here is an article with a lot more detail: Financial Reform Bill Good News for Credit Card Holders Here is a link to the actual bill details and content: HR 4173 - Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Here is the relevant part: This subsection is supposed to take affect \"\"at the end of the 12-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.\"\" In other words, July 21st, 2011.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5decb6a6d267bdd7e47d67861b736515",
"text": "The only card I've seen offer this on credit card purchases is Discover. I think they have a special deal with the stores so that the cash-over amount is not included in the percentage-fee the merchant pays. (The cash part shows up broken-out from the purchase amount on the statement--if this was purely something the store did on its own without some collaboration with Discover that would not happen). The first few times I've seen the offer, I assumed it would be treated like a cash-advance (high APR, immediate interest with no grace period, etc.), but it is not. It is treated like a purchase. You have no interest charge if you pay in full during the grace period, and no transaction fee. Now I very rarely go to the ATM. What is in it for Discover? They have a higher balance to charge you interest on if you ever fail to pay in full before the grace period. And Discover doesn't have any debit/pin option that I know of, so no concern of cannibalizing their other business. And happier customers. What is in it for the grocer? Happier customers, and they need to have the armored car come around less often and spend less time counting drawers internally.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14dfd4204061a8a6f575f0f1353fff93",
"text": "In my experience, you don't need to endorse a check with a signature to deposit it into your account. You do if you are exchanging the check for cash. Businesses usually have a stamp with their account number on them. Once stamped, those checks are only able to be deposited into that account. Individuals can do the same. I have had issues depositing insurance and government checks in the past that had both my and my wife's name on them. Both of us had to endorse the check to be able to deposit them. I think this was some kind of fraud prevention scheme, so that later one of us couldn't claim they didn't know anything about the check.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27c36d33072f1f3c03abebb2b95e40c9",
"text": "\"Yes. \"\"There is, ...no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services.\"\" Taken from the US Department of the Treasury.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "120e270553633f80af82609eac83f444",
"text": "The U.S. Treasury said the same thing on the lawfulness of retailers refusing legal tender at point of sale - retailers are allowed to refuse any denomination of U.S. currency: [...]all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. [...]",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85a8fa3ea0118924eac2c26224b0fb5d",
"text": "\"I believe the banks are protecting themselves when they \"\"require\"\" your endorsement. Years ago. they used to ask for your endorsement, and not require it. If you endorse the check, it legally authorizes them to debit your account, if the check is later returned for non-sufficient funds (NSF). It mostly protects the bank, and not the customer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5823db14aaace486dab89c419822af6d",
"text": "If you go to a grocery store and purchase retail gift cards along with other products, and you pay with a credit card, your credit card company generally does not know what you spent the money on; they don't get an itemized receipt.* If this is the case with your rewards card, then yes, you would get the cashback reward on the gift cards, because all the credit card company knows is that you spent $100 at the grocery store; they don't know (or care, really) that $50 of it was for an Olive Garden gift card. This, of course, should be fairly easy to test. Buy the gift card, wait for your statement, and see if they included the purchase when calculating your rewards. * Note: I don't have an American Express card, but from some quick googling I see that it is possible that American Express does actually receive itemized billing details on your purchases from some merchants. If your grocery store is sending this data to AmEx, it is possible that the gift cards could be excluded from rewards. But again, I suggest you just test it out and see.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1ff502edeca8b9aa55cce01a654cb0e",
"text": "\"A business can refuse cash (paper currency) payment pretty much in all cases provided it's a reasonable policy and/or notified during/in advance of contracting. Details in this link. \"\"all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services.\"\" Even if the payment is being made to settle a debt or other obligation, the creditor may refuse payment if their rationale is reasonable (as determined by the courts).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cad8151c8bf74c3cb7cd47218f79ec3c",
"text": "Summarized article: Recent mishaps causing supply disruptions at 14 California refineries caused wholesale gas prices to reach an all-time high of $4.39 per gallon. Local gas stations increased prices to 30 cents or more per gallon overnight, with some stations charging as much as $5.79 per gallon. Some stations chose not to buy high-priced wholesale gas for fear they wouldn't be able to sell it. While others shut off their pumps after they ran out of the gas they bought at lower wholesale prices. Some of the refinery mishaps include an oil pipeline problem, a power outage at Exxon Mobil Corp's Torrance refinery and a shutdown of the crude distillation unit at Chevron Corp's Richmond refinery. It is unknown when wholesale prices will come down but one solution may be to allow refineries to switch over from the summer blend to the cheaper winter blend earlier than planned. The California Energy Commission is considering the idea but notes an early switch over could impact air quality. The summer blend reduces evaporation of pollutants during warm weather which would be less damaging to air quality in California's current heat wave. * For more summarized news, subscribe to the [/r/SkimThat](http://www.reddit.com/r/SkimThat) subreddit",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6c91d59a4fc2f74edce1e2045913676",
"text": "Yes, depending on what you're trying to achieve. If its just a symbolic gift - you can use a service like this. There are several companies providing this service, look them up, but the prices are fairly the same. You'll end up getting a real stock certificate, but it will cost a lot of overhead (around $40 to get the certificate, and then another $40 to deposit it into a brokerage account if you want to sell it on a stock exchange). So although the certificate is real and the person whose name on it is a full-blown shareholder, it doesn't actually have much value (unless you buy a Google or Apple stock, where the price is much much higher than the fees). Take into account that it takes around 2 months for the certificate to be issued and mailed to you, so time accordingly. Otherwise, you can open a custodial brokerage account, and use it to buy stocks for the minor. Both ways are secure and legal, each for its own purpose and with its own fees.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d0ea3bd6e63f545ef67402cdc21057c7
|
Is the return on investment better with high or low dividends?
|
[
{
"docid": "3b24411e84ecc56597e67ce068060d8d",
"text": "It is a bit more complicated than whether it pays more or less dividends. You should make your decision based on how well the company is performing both fundamentally and technically. Concentrating mainly on the fundamental performance for this question, most good and healthy companies make enough profits to both pay out dividends and invest back into the company to keep growing the company and profits. In fact a good indication of a well performing company is when their dividend per share and earnings per share are both growing each year and the dividends per share are less than the earnings per share (that way you know dividends are being paid out from new profits and not existing cash holdings). This information can give you an indication of both a stable and growing company. I would rather invest in a company that pays little or no dividends but is increasing profits and growing year after year than a company that pays higher dividends but its profits are decreasing year after year. How long will the company continue to pay dividends for, if it starts making less and less profits to pay them with? You should never invest in a company solely because they pay dividends, if you do you will end up losing money. It is no use making $1 in dividends if you lose $2+ because the share price drops. The annual returns from dividends are often between 1% and 6%, and, in some cases, up to 10%. However, annual returns from capital gains can be 20%, 50%, 100% or more for a stable and growing company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92388431b9fc8ad3f676a1f056912571",
"text": "Let's say two companies make 5% profit every year. Company A pays 5% dividend every year, but company B pays no dividend but grows its business by 5%. (And both spend the money needed to keep the business up-to-date, that's before profits are calculated). You are right that with company B, the company will grow. So if you had $1000 shares in each company, after 20 years company A has given you $1000 in dividends and is worth $1000, while company B has given you no dividends, but is worth a lot more than $2000, $2653 if my calculation is right. Which looks a lot better than company A. However, company A has paid $50 every year, and if you put that money into a savings account giving 5% interest, you would make exactly the same money either way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ed058f7de8d238c01c3ce90f9ae86b7",
"text": "\"Someone (I forget who) did a study on classifying total return by the dividend profiles. In descending order by category, the results were as follows: 1) Growing dividends. These tend to be moderate yielders, say 2%-3% a year in today's markets. Because their dividends are starting from a low level, the growth of dividends is much higher than stocks in the next category. 2) \"\"Flat\"\" dividends. These tend to be higher yielders, 5% and up, but growing not at all, like interest on bonds, or very slowly (less than 2%-3% a year). 3) No dividends. A \"\"neutral\"\" posture. 4) Dividend cutters. Just \"\"bad news.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "db351fb142066f802e9dfed69b44acb6",
"text": "In the scenario you describe, the first thing I would look at would be liquidity. In other words, how easy is it to buy and sell shares. If the average daily volume of one share is low compared to the average daily volume of the other, then the more actively traded share would be the more attractive. Low volume shares will have larger bid-offer spreads than high volume shares, so if you need to get out of position quickly you will be at risk of being forced to take a lowball offer. Having said that, it is important to understand that high yielding shares have high yields for a reason. Namely, the market does not think much of the company's prospects and that it is likely that a cut in the dividend is coming in the near future. In general, the nominal price of a share is not important. If two companies have equal prospect, then the percentage movement in their share price will be about the same, so the net profit or loss you realise will be about the same.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff6a6b8b9211bde03bed2c76076b87f7",
"text": "Usually when a company is performing well both its share price and its dividends will increase over the medium to long term. Similarly, if the company is performing badly both the share price and dividends will fall over time. If you want to invest in higher dividend stocks over the medium term, you should look for companies that are performing well fundamentally and technically. Choose companies that are increasing earnings and dividends year after year and with earnings per share greater than dividends per share. Choose companies with share prices increasing over time (uptrending). Then once you have purchased your portfolio of high dividend stocks place a trailing stop loss on them. For a timeframe of 1 to 3 years I would choose a trailing stop loss of 20%. This means that if the share price continues going up you keep benefiting from the dividends and increasing share price, but if the share price drops by 20% below the recent high, then you get automatically taken out of that stock, leaving your emotions out of it. This will ensure your capital is protected over your investment timeframe and that you will profit from both capital growth and rising dividends from your portfolio.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e05a30c4c2dd0cf27738493f5d1a2b47",
"text": "This investment strategy may have tax advantages. In some countries, income received from dividends is taxed as income, whereas profits on share trades are capital gains. If you have already exceeded your tax-free income limit for the year, but not your capital gains tax allowance, it may be preferable to make a dealing profit rather than an investment income. These arrangements are called a bed-and-breakfast.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa896ef199e1088f7bdc3a379dbc2767",
"text": "Less shares outstanding means that, holding the dividend per share constant you would have a lower total dividend expenditure. The more likely outcome is that, if you want to return capital to shareholders through a dividend, you just pay a higher amount per share.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e3c8d461b7b18ae5317d268334ae9b0",
"text": "Dividend Stocks like any stock carry risk and go both up and down. It is important to choose a stock based on the company's potential and performance. And, if they pay a dividend it does help. -RobF",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a13a5183fa18ad97d0487ffeb6827fd9",
"text": "\"is it worth it? You state the average yield on a stock as 2-3%, but seem to have come up with this by looking at the yield of an S&P500 index. Not every stock in that index is paying a dividend and many of them that are paying have such a low yield that a dividend investor would not even consider them. Unless you plan to buy the index itself, you are distorting the possible income by averaging in all these \"\"duds\"\". You are also assuming your income is directly proportional to the amount of yield you could buy right now. But that's a false measure because you are talking about building up your investment by contributing $2k-$3k/month. No matter what asset you choose to invest in, it's going to take some time to build up to asset(s) producing $20k/year income at that rate. Investments today will have time in market to grow in multiple ways. Given you have some time, immediate yield is not what you should be measuring dividends, or other investments, on in my opinion. Income investors usually focus on YOC (Yield On Cost), a measure of income to be received this year based on the purchase price of the asset producing that income. If you do go with dividend investing AND your investments grow the dividends themselves on a regular basis, it's not unheard of for YOC to be north of 6% in 10 years. The same can be true of rental property given that rents can rise. Achieving that with dividends has alot to do with picking the right companies, but you've said you are not opposed to working hard to invest correctly, so I assume researching and teaching yourself how to lower the risk of picking the wrong companies isn't something you'd be opposed to. I know more about dividend growth investing than I do property investing, so I can only provide an example of a dividend growth entry strategy: Many dividend growth investors have goals of not entering a new position unless the current yield is over 3%, and only then when the company has a long, consistent, track record of growing EPS and dividends at a good rate, a low debt/cashflow ratio to reduce risk of dividend cuts, and a good moat to preserve competitiveness of the company relative to its peers. (Amongst many other possible measures.) They then buy only on dips, or downtrends, where the price causes a higher yield and lower than normal P/E at the same time that they have faith that they've valued the company correctly for a 3+ year, or longer, hold time. There are those who self-report that they've managed to build up a $20k+ dividend payment portfolio in less than 10 years. Check out Dividend Growth Investor's blog for an example. There's a whole world of Dividend Growth Investing strategies and writings out there and the commenters on his blog will lead to links for many of them. I want to point out that income is not just for those who are old. Some people planned, and have achieved, the ability to retire young purely because they've built up an income portfolio that covers their expenses. Assuming you want that, the question is whether stock assets that pay dividends is the type of investment process that resonates with you, or if something else fits you better. I believe the OP says they'd prefer long hold times, with few activities once the investment decisions are made, and isn't dissuaded by significant work to identify his investments. Both real estate and stocks fit the latter, but the subtypes of dividend growth stocks and hands-off property investing (which I assume means paying for a property manager) are a better fit for the former. In my opinion, the biggest additional factor differentiating these two is liquidity concerns. Post-tax stock accounts are going to be much easier to turn into emergency cash than a real estate portfolio. Whether that's an important factor depends on personal situation though.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07bfc4bf7cdff666fb929873475d0159",
"text": "Large companies whose shares I was looking at had dividends of the order of ~1-2%, such as 0.65%, or 1.2% or some such. My savings account provides me with an annual return of 4% as interest. Firstly inflation, interest increases the numeric value of your bank balance but inflation reduces what that means in real terms. From a quick google it looks like inflation in india is currently arround 6% so your savings account is losing 2% in real terms. On the other hand you would expect a stable company to maintain a similar value in real terms. So the dividend can be seen as real terms income. Secondly investors generally hope that their companies will not merely be stable but grow in value over time. Whether that hope is rational is another question. Why not just invest in options instead for higher potential profits? It's possible to make a lot of money this way. It's also possible to lose a lot of money this way. If your knowlage of money is so poor you don't even understand why people buy stocks there is no way you should be going near the more complicated financial products.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1fd4f52a70a3ab8bb2cfc60c534f5106",
"text": "Also keep in mind that most REITs have high dividend yields. If you short, you are responsible for payment of the dividend to the party you are borrowing the shares from. This can add costs to your position over time. Short REITS for a long time period is not necessarily an optimal strategy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae148a4b9aca1e2103a1c57a04f56f16",
"text": "This is great, thank you. Can you think of any cases where expected return is greater than interest payments (like in #2) but the best choice would still be raise money through equity issuing? My intuition tells me this may be possible for an expensive company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12ba592d2f049943973920988ce2b57c",
"text": "The general difference between high dividend paying stocks and growth stocks is as follows: 1) A high dividend paying stock/company is a company that has reached its maximum growth potential in a market and its real growth (that is after adjustment of inflation) is same (more or less) as the growth of the economy. These companies typically generate a lot of cash (Cash Cow) and has nowhere to really invest the entire thing, so they pay high dividends. Typically Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) ,Power/Utility companies, Textile (in some countries) come into this category. If you invest in these stocks, expect less growth but more dividend; these companies generally come under 'defensive sector' of the market i.e. whose prices do not fall drastically during down turn in a market. 2) Growth stocks on the other hand are the stocks that are operating in a market that is witnessing rapid growth, for example, technology, aerospace etc. These companies have high growth potential but not much accumulated income as the profit is re-invested to support the growth of the company, so no dividend (you will be typically never get any/much dividend from these companies). These companies usually (for some years) grow (or at least has potential to grow) more than the economy and provide real return. Usually these companies are very sensitive to results (good or bad) and their prices are quite volatile. As for your investment strategy, I cannot comment on that as investment is a very subjective matter. Hope this helps",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03b5874b3cdae035a4a2bfba3261aedd",
"text": "Dividends indicate that a business is making more profit than it can effectively invest into expansion or needs to regulate cash-flow. This generally indicates that the business is well established and has stabilized in a dominant market position. This can be contrasted against businesses that: Dividends are also given preferential tax treatment. Specifically, if I buy a stock and sell it 30 days later, I will be taxed on the capital gains at the regular income rate (typically 25-33%), but the dividends would be taxed at the lower long-term capital gains rate (typically 15%).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2644f6e1393dd5456a5622d75f2ca7f",
"text": "Yep, there just is no free lunch. So called high dividend stocks are usually from companies that have stable cash flows but relatively little or moderate growth potential. Utility companies come to mind, let's take telecommunications as an example. Such stocks, usually, indeed are considered more conservative. In a bull market, they won't make high jumps, and in a bear market they shouldn't experience deep falls. I mean, just because the stock market fell by 10%, you're not going to stop using your phone. The stock might suffer a bit but the divided is still yielding you the same. However, fundamental data can have a significant impact. Let's say a recession hits the country of the telco. People might not get the newest iPhone and lock in to an expensive contract anymore, they might use cheaper forms of communication, they might stop paying bills, go bankrupt etc. This will have a severe impact on the company's cash flow and thus hit the stock in a double whammy: One, the dividend is gone. Two, the price will fall even further. There are basically two scenarios after that. Either the recession is temporary and your stock became a regular growth stock that at some point might bounce back and re-establish at the previous levels. Or the economy has contracted permanently but regained stability in which case you will again have a stock with a high dividend yield but based on a lower price. In conclusion: High dividend stocks make sense in a portfolio. But never consider their income to be safe. Reduce your risk by diversifying.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef5f93bc5a831258afd86f1561b402ba",
"text": "\"The difference between dividend and growth in mutual funds has to do with the types of stocks the mutual fund invests in. Typically a company in the early stages are considered growth investments. In this phase the company needs to keep most of its profits to reinvest in the business. Typically once a company gets a significant size the company's growth prospects are not as good so the company pays some of its profits in the form of a dividend to the shareholders. As far as which is the best buy is totally a personal choice. There will be times when one is better then the other. Most likely you will want to \"\"diversify\"\" and invest in both types.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22dfc1874b671568caacf18252b7cbd0",
"text": "Firstly, investors love dividend paying company as dividends are proof of making profit (sometimes dividend can be paid out of past profits too) Secondly, investor cash in hand is better than potential earnings by the company by way of interest. Investor feels good to redeploy received cash (dividend) on their own Thirdly, in some countries dividend are tax free income as tax on dividends has already been paid. As average tax on dividend is lower than maximum marginal tax; for some investor it generates extra post tax income Fourthly, dividend pay out ratio of most companies don't exceed 30% of available fund for paying (surplus cash) so it is seen as best of both the world Lastly, I trust by instinct a regular dividend paying company more than not paying one in same sector of industry",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f55bb3f3499c894a67cb3c1ac0d20ce",
"text": "If you assume the market is always 100% rational and accurate and liquid, then it doesn't matter very much if a company pays dividends, other than how dividends are taxed vs. capital gains. (If the market is 100% accurate and liquid, it also doesn't really matter what stock you buy, since they are all fairly priced, other than that you want the stock to match your risk tolerance). However, if you manage to find an undervalued company (which, as an investor, is what you are trying to do), your investment skill won't pay off much until enough other people notice the company's value, which might take a long time, and you might end up wanting to sell before it happens. But if the company pays dividends, you can, slowly, get value from your investment no matter what the market thinks. (Of course, if it's really undervalued then you would often, but not always, want to buy more of it anyway). Also, companies must constantly decide whether to reinvest the money in themselves or pay out dividends to owners. As an owner, there are some cases in which you would prefer the company invest in itself, because you think they can do better with it then you can. However, there is a decided tendency for C level employees to be more optimistic in this regard than their owners (perhaps because even sub-market quality investments expand the empires of the executives, even when they hurt the owners). Paying dividends is thus sometimes a sign that a company no longer has capital requirements intense enough that it makes sense to re-invest all of its profits (though having that much opportunity can be a good thing, sometimes), and/or a sign that it is willing, to some degree, to favor paying its owners over expanding the business. As a current or prospective owner, that can be desirable. It's also worth mentioning that, since stocks paying dividends are likely not in the middle of a fast growth phase and are producing profit in excess of their capital needs, they are likely slower growth and lower risk as a class than companies without dividends. This puts them in a particular place on the risk/reward spectrum, so some investors may prefer dividend paying stocks because they match their risk profile.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8ba4be4a19c5b0ed1f72b7b57e84c705
|
Can I write off time spent learning my trade - Two-Man S-Corp
|
[
{
"docid": "5498f94a9a9b67688adc5bf8897be351",
"text": "\"I'm not sure what you mean by \"\"writing off your time,\"\" but to answer your questions: Remember that, essentially, you are a salaried employee of a corporation. So if you are spending time at your job, even if you are not billing anything to a client, you are earning your salary. If there are costs involved with these activities (maybe class fees, a book purchase, or travel expenses), the corporation should be paying the costs as business expenses. However, the logistics of this, whether the corporation writes a business check to the vendor directly, or you put the expenses on a personal credit card and are reimbursed with an expense check from the corporation, don't matter. Your accountant can show you the right way to do this.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9b4a51564be3849c4c55bf66e6249c02",
"text": "Good answer. I set up an S-Corp on my own, but I intend to transfer our intellectual property to an LLC at a later date. I would say hiring an attorney to draft an operating agreement is a must and worth the expense.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17567bfba349e7d795986a3fd177a416",
"text": "Let me first start off by saying that you need to be careful with an S-Corp and defined contribution plans. You might want to consider an LLC or some other entity form, depending on your state and other factors. You should read this entire page on the irs site: S-Corp Retirement Plan FAQ, but here is a small clip: Contributions to a Self-Employed Plan You can’t make contributions to a self-employed retirement plan from your S corporation distributions. Although, as an S corporation shareholder, you receive distributions similar to distributions that a partner receives from a partnership, your shareholder distributions aren’t earned income for retirement plan purposes (see IRC section 1402(a)(2)). Therefore, you also can’t establish a self-employed retirement plan for yourself solely based on being an S corporation shareholder. There are also some issues and cases about reasonable compensation in S-Corp. I recommend you read the IRS site's S Corporation Compensation and Medical Insurance Issues page answers as I see them, but I recommend hiring CPA You should be able to do option B. The limitations are in place for the two different types of contributions: Elective deferrals and Employer nonelective contributions. I am going to make a leap and say your talking about a SEP here, therefore you can't setup one were the employee could contribute (post 1997). If your doing self employee 401k, be careful to not make the contributions yourself. If your wife is employed the by company, here calculation is separate and the company could make a separate contribution for her. The limitation for SEP in 2015 are 25% of employee's compensation or $53,000. Since you will be self employed, you need to calculate your net earnings from self-employment which takes into account the eductible part of your self employment tax and contributions business makes to SEP. Good read on SEPs at IRS site. and take a look at chapter 2 of Publication 560. I hope that helps and I recommend hiring a CPA in your area to help.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c730a794b925cb372bb786761aaee5ff",
"text": "There is such a thing as a buy-write, which is buying a stock and writing a (covered) call simultaneously. But as far as I know brokers charge two commissions, one stock trade and one options trade so you're not going to save on commissions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a00d5959b32ca0bc12b319ae14ed2da",
"text": "IRS pub 521 has all the information you need. Expenses reimbursed. If you are reimbursed for your expenses and you use the cash method of accounting, you can deduct your expenses either in the year you paid them or in the year you received the reimbursement. If you use the cash method of accounting, you can choose to deduct the expenses in the year you are reimbursed even though you paid the expenses in a different year. See Choosing when to deduct, next. If you deduct your expenses and you receive the reimbursement in a later year, you must include the reimbursement in your income on Form 1040, line 21 This is not unusual. Anybody who moves near the end of the year can have this problem. The 39 week time test also can be an issue that span over 2 tax years. I would take the deduction for the expenses as soon a I could, and then count the income in the later year if they pay me back. IF they do so before April 15th, then I would put them on the same tax form to make things easier.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78ae8d2e3a6fd1e9b448c0e6d931e615",
"text": "thanks for the advice, I still have few weeks before my master course starts and would like to do more reading regarding trading, any books that you would recommend ? Also I always assume that modelling skill is not that important in sales and trading, is my assumption correct ? Modelling is probably one of my weak skills but if it is needed I would like to work further on it thank you",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7f98dd7ed1bf4829b4c4624c3f71b51",
"text": "\"You should probably have a tax professional help you with that (generally advisable when doing corporation returns, even if its a small S corp with a single shareholder). Some of it may be deductible, depending on the tax-exemption status of the recipients. Some may be deductible as business expenses. To address Chris's comment: Generally you can deduct as a business on your 1120S anything that is necessary and ordinary for your business. Charitable deductions flow through to your personal 1040, so Colin's reference to pub 526 is the right place to look at (if it was a C-corp, it might be different). Advertisement costs is a necessary and ordinary expense for any business, but you need to look at the essence of the transaction. Did you expect the sponsorship to provide you any new clients? Did you anticipate additional exposure to the potential customers? Was the investment (80 hours of your work) similar to the costs of paid advertisement for the same audience? If so - it is probably a business expense. While you can't deduct the time on its own, you can deduct the salary you paid yourself for working on this, materials, attributed depreciation, etc. If you can't justify it as advertisement, then its a donation, and then you cannot deduct it (because you did receive something in return). It might not be allowed as a business expense, and you might be required to consider it as \"\"personal use\"\", i.e.: salary.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d11e107b45fdc610c799bfd97e53ba5",
"text": "\"This seems to depend on what kind of corporation you have set up. If you're set up as a sole proprietor, then the Solo 401k contributions, whether employee or employer, will be deducted from your gross income. Thus they don't reduce it. If you're set up as an S-Corp, then the employer contributions, similar to large employer contributions, will be deducted from wages, and won't show up in Box 1 on your W-2, so they would reduce your gross income. (Note, employee contributions also would go away from Box 1, but would still be in Box 3 and 5 for FICA/payroll tax purposes). This is nicely discussed in detail here. The IRS page that discusses this in more (harder to understand) detail is here. Separately, I think a discussion of \"\"Gross Income\"\" is merited, as it has a special definition for sole proprietorships. The IRS defines it in publication 501 as: Gross income. Gross income is all income you receive in the form of money, goods, property, and services that is not exempt from tax. If you are married and live with your spouse in a community property state, half of any income defined by state law as community income may be considered yours. For a list of community property states, see Community property states under Married Filing Separately, later. Self-employed persons. If you are self-employed in a business that provides services (where products are not a factor), your gross income from that business is the gross receipts. If you are self-employed in a business involving manufacturing, merchandising, or mining, your gross income from that business is the total sales minus the cost of goods sold. In either case, you must add any income from investments and from incidental or outside operations or sources. So I think that regardless of 401(k) contributions, your gross income is your gross receipts (if you're a contractor, it's probably the total listed on your 1099(s)).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e41f2d5ccac706564bf5b0af4e17ff6",
"text": "Unless you own a business and the car is used in that business you can't write off your auto repairs. If you start a sole-proprietorship in your own name there are all sorts of things you can write off as long as there is a reasonable expectation of profit. This includes a portion of your car repairs, a portion of your home expenses (assuming it's a home-based business), any tools used in the business, all kinds of stuff. The portion of your auto is based on total miles driven in the year vs. total miles driven for business purposes. Eligible auto expenses include repairs, gas/oil, insurance, parking, and interest on the auto loan. There are some things to remember: I'm no expert on California business law. Talk to a lawyer and an accountant if you wish to go this way. Many offer a half-hour free session for new clients.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a36ebec5f995e73425f1d8eab546d735",
"text": "Only if your work on the side is making you at least £60,000 profit a year. The overheads are just not worth it if you make less. Working as a sole trader, you can still claim for expenses incurred in the course of your business. You can also claim a percentage of your computer costs, even though you may use the computer for gaming. This is not unreasonable as the computer is necessary for your work. The Inland Revenue accept the fact that some assets are part work-related. In your case, as a web and mobile phone developer, I expect the percentage to be at least half, if not a lot more. If you need to travel in the course of your work you can claim a percentage for your car. You can include other small expenses such as telephone, stationery, electricity etc but don't go overboard. The important point to remember is that you must be able to defend the expenses claimed as work-related, so long as you can do this there is no problem. Remember to keep good records of all your expenses. This is on-going throughout the year and is much more work than filling out your tax return. The software on the IR self-assessment site is excellent, so it's conceivable that you may not need an accountant if you are prepared to do your own tax return. However, if you feel unsure employ an accountant initially and take it from there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4cae8238f6e26c4d379e57e9b1da0a6c",
"text": "How much is your time worth This has been useful for me, judging things based on how much their time value is worth to me, weighted more heavily than their actual worth. For instance, there was a time when I used to work on the weekends and pay to have my laundry done. Doing the laundry myself would have cost 25 cents, but taken two hours at least. Since I was making $45 an hour, I would have lost $90 dollars by doing my laundry, instead of paying specialists $28 to do it for me, much better than I would. Your own capital should begin growing at a rate that makes many MANY things worth less than the time it takes for you to entertain it. So in your cable bill example, you shouldn't have argued for a $5 credit for two hours, unless you make $2.25 an hour, after tax. This is simplistic, as you would extrapolate how much this would cost you over a year or two, but such cost benefit analysis' become easy with this simple concept. This can also be used to rationalize your lavish expenditures. Such as not really comparing the costs for a flight, because its a 2 hour flight for $400 and you've found yourself making at least $200 an hour with your $416,000 annual earnings and capital gains. This will cure your frugality while retaining safe guards on your spending.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0831ba49c07783c11cda19799c2448d6",
"text": "If I sell it for $50 can I write off the $50 loss. Only if you can establish that it is a normal part of your business and that you did not get $50 worth of use out of it. That's the technical, legal argument. As a practical matter, it's unlikely that they'll ding you for selling something after using it, as they won't know. If they did catch you, you would be in trouble. You can't deduct loss due to personal use. The larger problem is that if you sell one TV for a $50 loss, they aren't going to believe that you are in the business of selling TVs. If you sell a larger amount for a loss, then they still are unlikely to believe that you are in business. If you sell a large amount for an overall gain, they are unlikely to notice that you took a loss on one TV. They could only notice that if they were already auditing you, as that wouldn't be visible in your tax forms.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1edabf71079db023da4aede27f2275c7",
"text": "Probably not. If you were at a small company and asked such a question, you'd get advice and links to erisa or other case law, etc. it's safe to say that a Fortune 500 company such as IBM is going to have their facts in order, and not going to run afoul of the rules in these cases (vesting rules and takeover of other company). I was in a company that cancelled its pension program. Those of us with the required years got the option of a lump sum payout, those with less than 5 years had no vested value and got nothing. One month longer employment, in the case of a particular coworker, would have given him a lump sum worth nearly 6 months pay.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "baafc7faa6bfbfcb4e5e51674043a1bd",
"text": "Assuming your country is the United States there is. See schedule C line 9 and the corresponding instructions. There are many rules associated with this, in some cases the entire purchase can be written off but typically if the truck is only used for business. Most people write off partial usage in the form of credits for mileage. You are best to consult with a CPA once your business earns a profit. Good luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "052cdbc0b5131c019a97ef5aaafb1df6",
"text": "You need to clarify with Bob what your agreement is. If you and Bob are working together on these jobs as partners, you should get a written partnership agreement done by a lawyer who works with software industry entity formation. You can legally be considered a partnership if you are operating a business together, even if there is nothing in writing. The partnership will have its own tax return, and you each will be allocated 50% of the profits/losses (if that's what you agree to). This amount will be reported on your own individual 1040 as self-employment income. Since you have now lost all the expense deductions you would have taken on your Schedule C, and any home office deduction, it's a good idea to put language in the partnership agreement stating that the partnership will reimburse partners for their out-of-pocket expenses. If Bob is just hiring you as a contractor, you give him your SSN, and he issues you a 1099, like any other client. This should be a situation where you invoice him for the amount you are charging. Same thing with Joe - figure out if you're hiring him as an independent contractor, or if you have a partnership. Either way, you will owe income and self-employment tax on your profits. In the case of a partnership, the amount will be on the K-1 from the partnership return. For an independent contractor who's operating as a sole proprietor, you report the income you invoiced for and received, and deduct your expenses, including independent contractors that you hired, on your Schedule C. Talk to your tax guy about quarterly estimated payments. If you don't have a tax guy, go get one. Find somebody people in your city working in your industry recommend. A good tax person will save you more money than they cost. IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa6ac06db3552d08eda4e4d6ff3339b3",
"text": "Your freelance income will not qualify you for the work-from-home deductions, for that you would need a T2200 form signed by your employer. But, you are allowed to be self employed as a sole-proprietorship while still being an employee of another company. If you take that route, you'll be able to write-off even more expenses than those you linked to. Things like a portion of your internet bill can be claimed, for example. But note that these deductions would only apply to offset the self-employment income, so if you're not earning very much from the freelance work, it might not be worth all the hassle. Filing taxes when self-employed is definitely more complicated, and many people will get professional tax preparation help - at least for the first time.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3d58c929c12a52c736c048f6b1c6ab1e
|
Are there any countries where citizens are free to use any currency?
|
[
{
"docid": "cda9331c5800927240653668f7334abc",
"text": "\"Wikipedia has a list of countries which ban foreign exchange use by its citizens. It's actually quite short but does include India and China. Sometimes economic collapse limits enforcement. For example, after the collapse of the Zimbabwean dollar (and its government running out of sufficient foreign exchange to buy the paper necessary to print more), the state turned a blind eye as the US dollar and South African rand became de facto exchange. Practicality will limit the availability of foreign exchange even in free-market economies. The average business can't afford to have a wide range of alternative currencies sitting around. Businesses which cater to large numbers of addled tourists sometimes offer one or two alternative currencies in the hopes of charging usurous rates of exchange. Even bureaux de change sometimes require you to order your \"\"rarer\"\" foreign exchange in advance. So, while it may be legal, it isn't always feasible.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b830b23272edea7523fbd60e05bdec03",
"text": "Sounds like you have a goldbug whispering in your ear. The Coinage Act doesn't restrict you from using foreign currency or lawful commodity or service to fulfill a debt. You are free to do that whenever you enter into an explicit or implicit contract with another party. If that wasn't the case, your kid trading his bag of chips for a bag of cookies at lunch would be a criminal act. It does mean that you ultimately must accept US currency to settle a debt. Following the previous example, if your kid gives his friend the bag of chips, but the cookies get destroyed somehow before being transferred, the friend can offer a couple of dollars to complete the transaction. The whole point of the Coinage Acts is to set a level playing field. If you don't pick one dominant store of value, you have a situation where it is impossible to evaluate the cost of goods and services. It has nothing to do with some competition with foreign currency. A robust, modern economy requires an adequate supply of capital and a common reference point for value within the economy. Think about it further with respect to Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution. Would you want a fiscally profligate state like California or New York to be able to print money and compel you as a contractor, employee or creditor to accept their scrip as payment? (Or worse, require payment in Gold or Vermont-issued dollars, but pay you in their money.) Of course not. That's why the Federal government controls the currency, and a dollar in Alaska is the same as a dollar in Georgia.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f192e3451471bd51285576936d970749",
"text": "If I understand correctly, you're actually asking why there isn't a society whose members generally accept/use any currency for transactions, and just like, Google the exchange rate or something. The answer is because it's exceptionally inconvenient. Can you imagine having a wallet with 200 pouches for all the different currencies? Why would you want to deal with exchange rates all the time? What if the value of a currency changes? (A single currency at least has the illusion of being stable). Et cetera.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e76aee75fef6dbe440515cd180e1599e",
"text": "Shops in most touristic places tend to accept major currencies (at least dollar and euro). I remember a trip in Istanbul before the euro existed, the kids selling postcards near the blue mosque were able to guess your country and announce in your language the price in your currency.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "cbf4a5de9f84ac8dfd484389fa250ed0",
"text": "\"Currently, there is simply no reason to do so. It's not a problem. It is no more of a problem or effort to denote \"\"5,000\"\" than it is to denote \"\"50.00\"\". But if there were a reason to do so, it wouldn't be all that difficult. Of course there would be some minor complications because some people (mostly old people presumably) would take time getting used to it, but nothing that would stop a nation from doing so. In Iceland, this has happened on several occasions in the past and while Iceland is indeed a very small economy, it shouldn't be that difficult at all for a larger one. A country would need a grace period while the old currency is still valid, new editions of already circulating cash would need to be produced, and a coordinated time would need to be set, at which point financial institutions change their balances. Of course it would take some planning and coordination, but nothing close to for example unifying two or more currencies into one, like the did with the euro. The biggest side-effect there was an inflation shot when the currencies got changed in each country, but this can be done even with giant economies like Germany and France. Cutting off two zeros would be a cakewalk in comparison. But in case of currencies like the Japanese Yen, there is simply no reason to take off 2 zeros yet. Northern-Americans may find it strange that the numbers are so high, but that's merely a matter of what you're used to. There is no added complication in paying 5.000 vs. 50 at a restaurant, it merely takes more space on a computer screen and bill, and that's not a real problem. Besides, most of the time, even in N-America, the cents are listed as well, and that doesn't seem to be enough of a problem for people to concern themselves with. It's only when you get into hyper-inflation when the shear space required for denoting prices becomes a problem, that economies have a real reason to cut off zeros.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07a3309a18a2c1be2bdf75d191c98722",
"text": "If this is your money, and if you can - if asked - prove that you legally made it, there is no limit. You pay taxes on your income, so sending it into the world is tax free. Your citizenship is not relevant for that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edb1f705ad85940e241269d785bb0f6b",
"text": "Originally dollars were exchangeable for specie at any time, provided you went to a govt exchange. under Bretton Woods this was a generally fixed rate, but regardless there existed a spread on gold. This ceased to be the case in 71 when the Nixon shock broke Bretton woods.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "791b9c92810949d5143fb8de3b0426a3",
"text": "I am a US citizen by birth only. I left the US aged 6 weeks old and have never lived there. I am also a UK citizen but TD Waterhouse have just followed their policy and asked me to close my account under FATCA. It is a complete nightmare for dual nationals who have little or no US connection. IG.com seem to allow me to transfer my holdings so long as I steer clear of US investments. Furious with the US and would love to renounce citizenship but will have to pay $2500 or thereabouts to follow the US process. So much for Land of the Free!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ce931d868b678112c38d510efe1c7d3",
"text": "\"I think the important fact here is that all of our currencies are Fiat Currencies. So currency technically means nothing, because (as you mentioned) the country could print more any time it wants. Now what makes it useful is the combination of two big things: So I would say, we know they owe us 100 \"\"dollars\"\", and the dollar is just a word we use to represent value. It is not technically worth anything, beyond the fact that the government controls the amount of that currency in circulation and you trust that people still want more of that currency.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "302019998d8505c3d4064045d88f4dcc",
"text": "TD Bank (Northeast US) has free change counting machines at its branches. You don't have to have an account to use them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bd58cfcf59df1678bf6560942b4d86c",
"text": "No, there is nothing on the sidelines. Currency is an investment. There is no such thing as uninvested wealth. If you had a million in USD at the beginning of 2017, you would currently be out about sixty grand. There is no neutral way to store wealth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b45f748a0c31dd76eb6f670978f51320",
"text": "Fist money does not have legal tender. And technically there are thousands of people willing to fight for bitcoin, who can be seen as an army so in that logic bitcoin has some intrinsic value. But both don't have intrinsic value. Most sources on the internet I can find agree with that. Wikipedia, investopedia and many others. Not that money needs intrinsic value. If the market value is 1000 times above the intrinsic value then the intrinsic value is not even relevant. But 1000 * 0 = 0 and the intrinsic value of the dollar itself (not coins) will always be 0. Same for the EUR and then YUAN.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03a02fa136bd870c1b7e0c6f9b687c59",
"text": "Dollars are bits you don't control. The banking system has your bits and they can charge you more bits to move your bits around. At any point, they could freeze your accounts and suddenly you have no bits. It's all designed to make it so you can't function in society without them controlling your bits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47d7e6b46352b8e46c514f9e74f02502",
"text": "There are several local currency initiatives in the US list here. Most are attempts to normalize a value as a living wage, or encourage local consumption networks. If you are in the catchment region of one of these, see if you can get a grant or loan to get started (if you are willing to buy into the philosophy of the group such as a $10 minimum wage) m",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7640319b1c12b9083eb1af33680b292",
"text": "US currency doesn't expire, it is always legal tender. I can see some trouble if you tried to spend a $10,000 bill (you'd be foolish to do so, since they are worth considerably more). Maybe some stores raise eyebrows at old-style $100's (many stores don't take $100 bills at all), but you could swap them for new style at a bank if having trouble with a particular store. Old-series currency can be an issue when trying to exchange US bills in other countries, just because it doesn't expire here, doesn't mean you can't run into issues elsewhere. Other countries have different policies, for example, over the last year the UK phased in a new five pound note, and as of last month (5/5/2017) the old fiver is no longer considered legal tender (can still swap out old fivers at the bank for now at least). Edit: I mistook which currency you took where, and focused on US currency instead of Canadian, but it looks like it's the same story there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1497dff2d1b493e990d08b1c6eb2a8f",
"text": "Any person at any time may produce their own currency, one can even do so on the back of a paper napkin, ripped beer coaster or whatever. This is NOT a banking privilege, it is within the lawful ability of anyone capable of engaging in commerce. It is called a 'negotiable instrument' ... it gives the holder rights to a sum of money. Notice that I say 'holder' ... this is what distinguishes it from a non-negotiable instrument, the fact that you don't need to redeem it from source, you can pass it to another who then becomes the 'holder in due course' and thus obtains the rights conferred. The conferable rights over a sum of money (or, indeed, other asset) are themselves 'value' Do banks do this ? Yes, all the time! ... one of the simplest examples are cheques drawn against the bank, which are considered 'as good as cash'. Usually they will be drawn out to the order of the person you wish to pay ... but can equally be drawn out to bearer. The only reasons they resist making out to bearer is : But you can write your own at 'any time' on 'any thing' ... See the apocryphal, yet deliciously entertaining, tale of the 'negotiable cow'",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bffafb1c110a47aebd15ce939c82941e",
"text": "This is more of an economics question than personal finance. That said, I already started writing an answer before I noticed, so here are a few points. I'll leave it open for others to expand the list. Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages The flip-side to the argument that more users means more stability is that the impact of a strong economy (on the value of the currency) is diluted somewhat by all the other users. Indeed, if adopted by another country with similar or greater GDP, that economy could end up becoming the primary driver of the currency's value. It may be harder to control counterfeiting. Perhaps not in the issuing country itself, but in foreign countries that do not adopt new bills as quickly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3048fcd106371966f419a784a95ddf8e",
"text": "The closest thing that you are looking for would be FOREX exchanges. Currency value is affected by the relative growth of economies among other things, and the arbritrage of currencies would enable you to speculate on the relative growth of an individual economy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc17bf0c8d9eecdcd412998741cfc8f4",
"text": "Short answer: No. Some of those 'automatic' payments you've agreed to (presumably by signing a PAD form) are initiated in batch by the company whom you're buying from (phone company, cable company etc). So no, the bank has no indication from one day to the next what is coming through. And the request goes from say, your cable company to THEIR merchant bank to YOUR bank. Typically you have a monthly bill date which is fixed, and they should have terms established when it is due. If a payment comes back NSF they can retry once - but only for the same amount and I believe it is 14 days from the initial payment attempt. It makes it predictable, and you'd figure banks would clue in and start to predict for you when things may come out - but strictly speaking your bank doesn't know when or how much.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
02cf99ad5cfd52f53306f0fdd4127e8e
|
Why do companies have a fiscal year different from the calendar year?
|
[
{
"docid": "e7e27751dba88a72cd630751ffa52621",
"text": "I know some companies or entities have large incomes or expenses at certain times of the year, and like to close their books after these large events. For example where I work, the primary seasonal income comes after summer, so our fiscal year ends at the last days of October. This gives the accountants enough time to collect all the funds, reconcile whatever they have to, pay off whatever they have to and get working on a budget for the next year sooner than a calendar year would. There also might be tax reasons. To get all of your income at the beginning of your fiscal year, even if that is in the middle of the calendar year would allow a company to plan large deductible investments with more certainty. I am not to sure of the tax reasons.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af08a3158906d68c230fb7a3822377d6",
"text": "I can think of a few good reasons: A company, especially public, usually wants their fourth-quarter earnings to be the strongest of the year. That ends each fiscal year on a high note for the company and its investors, which helps public sentiment and boosts stock prices. So, travel agencies and airlines usually like ending their year in October or March, in the lull between the summer and winter travel seasons with a large amount of that revenue falling within the company's fiscal Q4. Oil companies sometimes do the same because fuel prices are seasonal for much the same reasons. December is a really bad month to try to close out an entire year's accounting books. Accountants and execs are on vacation for large parts of the month, most retail stores are flooded with revenue (and then contra-revenue as items are returned) that takes time to account at the store level and then filter up to the corporate office, etc etc. It also doesn't tell the whole story for most retail outfits; December sales are usually inflated by purchases that are then returned in January after all the hullaballoo. As a result, a fiscal year end in January or even February keeps the entire season's revenues and expenses in one fiscal year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36a2251f0e3038728874ef6f3cf0ad31",
"text": "My grandfather owned a small business, and I asked him that very question. His answer was that year-end closeout is very time-consuming, both before and after EOY (end of year), and that they didn't want to do all that around Christmas and New Year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7925c388a4ae383d3f58c8a67ecb5e9",
"text": "Maybe it's just because of the foundation date. If I start a company on August 1st, I would like its FY starts on that date too, in order to track my first whole year. Would be quite useless to finish my year on December, after just five months. I want to have data of my first year after a twelve months activity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c522e1e5a10c5380d40f06148f473874",
"text": "In addition to the company-specific annual business cycle reasons and company-specific historical reasons mentioned in the other answers, there is another reason. Accounting firms tend to be very busy during January (and February and March) when most companies are closing and auditing their calendar-year books. If a company chooses its fiscal year to end at a different time of year, the accounting firms are more available, and the auditing costs might be lower.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1679f0d2d26beadcd18ecfb9aa29f15e",
"text": "What makes you think corporations don't have to pay sales taxes or property taxes (or excise taxes, or environmental impact fees or fuel taxes or any of a million other taxes that we all end up paying) even if they lose money that year?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77f11f50bbd997629b688c1747b28103",
"text": "The reason is in your own question. The answer is simple. They use that code to tax the product otherwise it would just be out of pocket expenses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "505fb9fe950bb7b81cfa2666c58de8e0",
"text": "Okay, but the point is that the models are the calendar-meant for long terms. They're not designed to capture short term trends. You're pointing to a calendar and telling us it's wrong because it won't tell you if it's 1:30 or 4pm.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86e04ee7c259645ffe49a8ddb61d46d2",
"text": "For an international company, being in a different timezone seems like an advantage. The east coast is close enough to have a large overlap between normal business hours with the west coast, but expands the amount of time that they can cover with HQ workers working normal hours.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3d56be34cfc8de0abbc03ac42ee8256",
"text": "As with most things accounting/tax related it depends. In general though yes. As an example, if the client were to buy equipment on credit before fiscal year end, in lets say December, but did not pay until the next year started in January, then under cash basis they would not have the purchase accounted for until they made payment. That means they could not claim any deductions from the purchase. Under accrual, the purchase would have been put on the books in December, when the equipment was installed, and they would have been able to claim any deductions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7774c2bceeeac395e113b4bb31b43ee7",
"text": "Many of the custodians (ie. Schwab) file for an extension on 1099s. They file for an extension as many of their accounts have positions with foreign income which creates tax reporting issues. If they did not file for extension they would have to send out 1099s at the end of January and then send out corrected forms. Obviously sending out one 1099 is cheaper and less confusing to all. Hope that helps,",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b85a80a0757c91175a58fc2bf64fda5b",
"text": "In many countries, giving something free to the employee is considered a taxable income equivalent, and taxes have to be paid on it. As it cannot be assigned to specific employees, the company pays a flat tax on it, so it actually costs the company more. Also, not all employees value it equally, or consider it as a part of their income, so reducing the salary accordingly would not be considered ok by many employees. As a result, the company can only do it as an additional offer, which is too expensive for small businesses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29834763126125feae688d2a6584967f",
"text": "Your question is missing information. The most probable reason is that the company made a split or a dividend paid in stock and that you might be confusing your historical price (which is relevant for tax purposes) with your actual market price. It is VERY important to understand this concepts before trading stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ef47ed887fa8f884430c6b071e1e720",
"text": "This answer assumes you're asking about how to handle this issue in the USA. I generally downvote questions that ask about a tax/legal issue and don't bother providing the jurisdiction. In my opinion it is extremely rude. Seeing that you applied for an LLC, I think that you somehow consider it as a relevant piece of information. You also attribute some importance to the EIN which has nothing to do with your question. I'm going to filter out that noise. As an individual/sole-proprietor (whether under LLC or not), you cannot use fiscal years, only calendar years. It doesn't matter if you decide to have your LLC taxed as S-Corp as well, still calendar year. Only C-Corp can have a fiscal year, and you probably don't want to become a C-Corp. So the year ends on December 31, and whether accrual or cash - you can only deduct expenses you incurred until then. Also, you must declare the income you got until then, which in your case will be the full amount of funding - again regardless of whether you decided to be cash-based or accrual based. So the main thing you need to do is to talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) and learn about the tax law relevant to your business and its implications on your actions. There may be some ways to make it work better, and there are some ways in which you can screw yourself up completely in your scenario, so do get a professional advice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "973cb5be67f212b096e1480696eac5df",
"text": "Fuck managerial accounting to death. Anywho, I'm not sure what they mean by the variance being higher or lower in the budget. Variance in principle is the discrepancy from a budget and actual. I'll try to answer this from what I can see. The budget variance in this problem is unfavorable for Busy Community Support, mostly caused by a significant underestimating of your salaries expense in the budget.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5048e4d9632df7eaba7dfc268e86f37",
"text": "\"Hi, accounting major here! A lot of people mentioned both tax advantages and \"\"cheap\"\" money (money you can borrow at a low interest rate). Another reason businesses do this is to reward investors. Generally people with stock in a company want to see some of its operations financed with debt, instead of all of it financed from investors' money or profit. This way the company can grow more and still pay better dividends to its investors. However, you don't want too much debt either. It's a balance, and a way to see how much debt vs equity a company has is called a leverage ratio (leverage=debt). Hope this helps!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01dc0a97e9737837fc1a151aacdca3fe",
"text": "If the period is consistent for company X, but occurs in a different month as Company Y, it might be linked to the release of their annual report, or the payment of their annual dividend. Companies don't have to end their fiscal year near the end of the Calendar year, therefore these end of year events could occur in any month. The annual report could cause investors to react to the hard numbers of the report compared to what wall street experts have been predicting. The payment of an annual dividend will also cause a direct drop in the price of the stock when the payment is made. There will also be some movement in prices as the payment date approaches.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f67397e8aa4882f62733d4d80aaabdf3",
"text": "They need to spread the work for all customers over the whole month, and they don't work on weekends. Combine the two, and the rule becomes clear - if months have minimum of N working days, 1/N of all customers gets set on each day. You seem to be on day 5: If the month starts with a Monday, the fifth working day is the 5. (Friday); if there is a Sat or Sun in between, it will be the 6th, and if there is both a Sat and a Sun in there, it will be the 7th. However, the statement itself is not very important at all. It is just the day where they print it on paper (or even only on a PDF). You can see your bank account activity every day 24/7 by checking online, and nothing keeps you from printing it on every 1st of the month if you want (or every day, or whenever you prefer).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18fed7389ec685027120ed1f6cef8f3c",
"text": "that means fiscal year 2015,Most internal company in China or India have different fiscal year to estimate financial state when it run to the end of year",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3eb06ff7ab226eddd36864af44dba95c",
"text": "\"They could have printed 5.0T or 10.0T or 1000 quadrillion. It doesnt make any difference for the steps a Central Bank takes. They choose a figure based on balancing inflation vs interest rates. The legal powers Central Banks or IMF have do vary (i.e. to perform quantitative easing, purchasing company bonds, purchasing retail bank bonds) but they all follow that principle. Their tools are very limited and theyre legally obligated to seek certain targets like \"\"inflation between 0 to 2%\"\"\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4523760c55aa2b098bc2a73c2f849f16
|
Non Resident Alien(Working full time on F1-OPT) new car sales tax deduction
|
[
{
"docid": "1525ae32cf52879d47052ec31a67d930",
"text": "A non-resident alien is only allowed for deductions connected to producing a US-sourced income (See IRC Sec. 873). Thus you can only deduct things that qualify as business expenses, and State taxes on your wages. In addition you can deduct a bunch of stuff explicitly allowed (like tax preparation, charitable contributions, casualty losses, etc) but sales tax is not in that list.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "505e9b5d00c1c37a1fa0fc01c0688472",
"text": "No, if you are a nonresident alien, you cannot deduct sales tax. You can only deduct state income tax. 1040NR Schedule A (which is page 3 of 1040NR) does not contain an option for sales tax, like 1040 Schedule A does. If you are a resident alien, then you can deduct sales tax.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "abd138c01e6d5a971c99c8f92350dfec",
"text": "\"That's a tricky question and you should consult a tax professional that specializes on taxation of non-resident aliens and foreign expats. You should also consider the provisions of the tax treaty, if your country has one with the US. I would suggest you not to seek a \"\"free advice\"\" on internet forums, as the costs of making a mistake may be hefty. Generally, sales of stocks is not considered trade or business effectively connected to the US if that's your only activity. However, being this ESPP stock may make it connected to providing personal services, which makes it effectively connected. I'm assuming that since you're filing 1040NR, taxes were withheld by the broker, which means the broker considered this effectively connected income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "255ced4517b0b7d6b04e2db97cfaec4c",
"text": "The answer on the Canadian Government's website is pretty clear: Most employees cannot claim employment expenses. You cannot deduct the cost of travel to and from work, or other expenses, such as most tools and clothing. However, that is most likely related to a personal vehicle. There is a deduction related to Public Transportation: You can claim cost of monthly public transit passes or passes of longer duration such as an annual pass for travel within Canada on public transit for 2016. The second sleeping residence is hard to justify as the individual is choosing to work in this town and this individual is choosing to spent the night there - it is not currently a work requirement. As always, please consult a certified tax professional in your country for any final determinations on personal (and corporate) tax laws and filings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e316d41336ca3bda6eb126bcc4115790",
"text": "\"Can I use the foreign earned income exclusion in my situation? Only partially, since the days you spent in the US should be excluded. You'll have to prorate your exclusion limit, and only apply it to the income earned while not in the US. If not, how should I go about this to avoid being doubly taxed for 2014? The amounts you cannot exclude are taxable in the US, and you can use a portion of your Norwegian tax to offset the US tax liability. Use form 1116 for that. Form 1116 with form 2555 on the same return will require some arithmetic exercises, but there are worksheets for that in the instructions. In addition, US-Norwegian treaty may come into play, so check that out. It may help you reduce the tax liability in the US or claim credit on the US taxes in Norway. It seems that Norway has a bilateral tax treaty with the US, that, if I'm reading it correctly, seems to indicate that \"\"visiting researchers to universities\"\" (which really seems like I would qualify as) should not be taxed by either country for the duration of their stay. The relevant portion of the treaty is Article 16. Article 16(2)(b) allows you $5000 exemption for up to a year stay in the US for your salary from the Norwegian school. You will still be taxed in Norway. To claim the treaty benefit you need to attach form 8833 to your tax return, and deduct the appropriate amount on line 21 of your form 1040. However, since you're a US citizen, that article doesn't apply to you (See the \"\"savings clause\"\" in the Article 22). I didn't even give a thought to state taxes; those should only apply to income sourced from the state I lived in, right (AKA $0)? I don't know what State you were in, so hard to say, but yes - the State you were in is the one to tax you. Note that the tax treaty between Norway and the US is between Norway and the Federal government, and doesn't apply to States. So the income you earned while in the US will be taxable by the State you were at, and you'll need to file a \"\"non-resident\"\" return there (if that State has income taxes - not all do).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b09b1f94fb03bd10155b889cd8f16b08",
"text": "\"To claim medical expenses on your taxes they need to exceed 7.5% of your AGI, and then only the amount over 7.5% is deductible. That's not much. There is no \"\"floor\"\" if you use an FSA as it's all pre-tax. If you're concerned about use or lose, then allot less next year. It's all what you're comfortable with.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "682533ea6458ceb27586506887e053bb",
"text": "Since you're a US citizen, submitting W8-BEN was wrong. If you read the form carefully, when you signed it you certified that you are not a US citizen, which is a lie and you knew it. W9 and W8 are mutually exclusive. You're either a US person for tax purposes or you're not, you cannot be both. As a US citizen - you are a US person for tax purposes, whether you have any other citizenship or not, and whether you live in (or have ever been to) the US or not. You do need to file tax returns just like any other US citizen. If you have an aggregate of $10K or more on your bank accounts outside of the US at any given day - you need to file FBAR. FATCA forms may also be applicable, depending on your balances. From foreign banks' perspective you're a US person, with regard to their FATCA obligations. Whether or not you'll be punished is hard to tell. Whether or not you could be punished is easy to tell: you could. You knowingly broke the law by certifying that you're not a US citizen when you were. That is in addition to un-filed tax returns, FBAR, etc etc. The fact that you were born outside of the US and have never lived there is technically irrelevant. Not knowing the law is not a reasonable cause for breaking it. Get a US-licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in the US) to help you sort it out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "785d81e7e261c8f73ca537ce8b2c9d75",
"text": "\"There are a couple of things that are missing from your estimate. In addition to your standard deduction, you also have a personal exemption of $4050. So \"\"D\"\" in your calculation should be $6300 + $4050 = $10,350. As a self-employed individual, you need to pay both the employee and employer side of the Social Security and Medicare taxes. Instead of 6.2% + 1.45%, you need to pay (6.2% + 1.45%) * 2 = 15.3% self-employment tax. In addition, there are some problems with your calculation. Q1i (Quarter 1 estimated income) should be your adjusted annual income divided by 4, not 3 (A/4). Likewise, you should estimate your quarterly tax by estimating your income for the whole year, then dividing by 4. So Aft (Annual estimated federal tax) should be: Quarterly estimated federal tax would be: Qft = Aft / 4 Annual estimated self-employment tax is: Ase = 15.3% * A with the quarterly self-employment tax being one-fourth of that: Qse = Ase / 4 Self employment tax gets added on to your federal income tax. So when you send in your quarterly payment using Form 1040-ES, you should send in Qft + Qse. The Form 1040-ES instructions (PDF) comes with the \"\"2016 Estimated Tax Worksheet\"\" that walks you through these calculations.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9185b59e583e909cad0d185ab8c724d4",
"text": "You cannot deduct anything. Since you're actually moving, your tax home will move with you. You can only deduct the moving expenses (actual moving - packing, shipping, and hotels while you drive yourself there).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f54cb2a890547946bb92bb2091023b4",
"text": "\"ECI is relevant to non-resident aliens who are engaged in trade or business in the US. For that, you have to be present in the US, to begin with, or to own a business or property in the US. So the people to whom it is relevant are non-resident aliens in the US or business/property owners, not foreign contractors. From the IRS: The following categories of income are usually considered to be connected with a trade or business in the United States. 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. If you are a member of a partnership that at any time during the tax year is engaged in a trade or business in the United States, you are considered to be engaged in a trade or business in the United States. You usually are engaged in a U.S. trade or business when you perform personal services in the United States. If you own and operate a business in the United States selling services, products, or merchandise, you are, with certain exceptions, engaged in a trade or business in the United States. For example, profit from the sale in the United States of inventory property purchased either in this country or in a foreign country is effectively connected trade or business income. Gains and losses from the sale or exchange of U.S. real property interests (whether or not they are capital assets) are taxed as if you are engaged in a trade or business in the United States. You must treat the gain or loss as effectively connected with that trade or business. Income from the rental of real property may be treated as ECI if the taxpayer elects to do so.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19a5eaff889e256c24b4d030e13e7d2c",
"text": "As a general rule, you must choose between a mileage deduction or an actual expenses deduction. The idea is that the mileage deduction is supposed to cover all costs of using the car. Exceptions include parking fees and tolls, which can be deducted separately under either method. You explicitly cannot deduct insurance costs if you claim a mileage deduction. Separately, you probably won't be able to deduct the deductible for your car as a casualty loss. You first subtract $100 from the deductible and then divide it by your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) from your tax return. If your deductible is over 10% of your AGI, you can deduct it. Note that even with a $1500 deductible, you won't be able to deduct anything if you made more than $14,000 for the year. For most people, the insurance deductible just isn't large enough relative to income to be tax deductible. Source",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d34cb5f443878184b7f7c24914d6b8db",
"text": "Since you were a nonresident alien student on F-1 visa then you will be considered engaged in a trade or business in the USA. You must file Form 1040NR. Here is the detailed instruction by IRS - http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Taxation-of-Nonresident-Aliens",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b0c964ba22d93e8451148742228fe18",
"text": "Resident Alien is liable for the same taxes as a citizen. Citizenship has nothing to do with taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "547b4e9e1520ac085e0ddc41d12abe56",
"text": "It sounds like something is getting lost in translation here. A business owner should not have to pay personal income tax on business expenses, with the caveat that they are truly business expenses. Here's an example where what you described could happen: Suppose a business has $200K in revenue, and $150K in legitimate business expenses (wages and owner salaries, taxes, services, products/goods, etc.) The profit for this example business is $50K. Depending on how the business is structured (sole proprietor, llc, s-corp, etc), the business owner(s) may have to pay personal income tax on the $50K in profit. If the owner then decided to have the business purchase a new vehicle solely for personal use with, say, $25K of that profit, then the owner may think he could avoid paying income tax on $25K of the $50K. However, this would not be considered a legitimate business expense, and therefore would have to be reclassified as personal income and would be taxed as if the $25K was paid to the owner. If the vehicle truly was used for legitimate business purposes then the business expenses would end up being $175K, with $25K left as profit which is taxable to the owners. Note: this is an oversimplification as it's oftentimes the case that vehicles are partially used for business instead of all or nothing. In fact, large items such as vehicles are typically depreciated so the full purchase price could not be deducted in a single year. If many of the purchases are depreciated items instead of deductions, then this could explain why it appears that the business expenses are being taxed. It's not a tax on the expense, but on the income that hasn't been reduced by expenses, since only a portion of the big ticket item can be treated as an expense in a single year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a57851d680f06d0d027cbc370f7c762e",
"text": "I contacted Stephen Fishman, J.D., the author of Home Business Tax Deductions, to let him know that this question was missing from his book. He was kind enough to send a reply. My original phrasing of the question: If your car is used for both business and personal use, and you deduct via the actual expense method, do trips to the mechanic, gas station, and auto parts store to service or repair the car count as business miles, personal miles, or part-business-part-personal miles? What about driving the newly-purchased car home from the dealership? And his response: Good question. I can find nothing about this in IRS publication or elsewhere. However, common sense would tell us that the cost of driving to make car repairs should be deductible. If you use your car for business, it is a business expense, just like transporting any other piece of business equipment for repairs is a business expense. This should be so whether you use the standard mileage rate or actual expense method. You should probably reduce the amount of your deduction by the percentage of personal use of the car during the year. The same goes for driving a car home from the dealer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49be38301e97d9b2978e78799196a64a",
"text": "\"I'm going to look just at purchase price. Essentially, you can't always claim the whole of the purchase price (or 95% your case) in the year (the accounting period) of purchase, but you get a percentage of the value of the car each year, called writing down allowance, which is a capital allowance. It is similar to depreciation, but based on HRMC's own formula. In fact, it seems you probably can claim 95% of the purchase price, because the value is less than £1000. The logic is a bit involved, but I hope you can understand it. You could also claim simplified expenses instead, which is just based on a rate per mile, but you can't claim both. Note, by year I mean whatever your account period is. This could be the normal financial year, but you would probably have a better idea about this. See The HMRC webpage on this for more details. The big idea is that you record the value of any assets you are claiming writing down allowance on in one of a number of pools, that attract the same rate of writing down allowance, so you don't need to record the value of each asset separately. They are similar to accounts in accounting, so they have an opening balance, and closing balance. If you use an asset for personal use, it needs a pool to itself. HRMC call that a single asset pool. So, to start with, look at the Business Cars section, and look at the Rates for Cars section, to determine the rate you can claim. Each one links to a further article, which gives more detail if you need it. Your car is almost certainly in the special rate category. Special rate is 8% a year, main rate is 18%, and First year allowance is essentially 100%. Then, you look at the Work out what you can claim article. That talks you through the steps. I'll go through your example. You would have a pool for your car, which would end the account period before you bought the vehicle at zero (step 1). You then add the value of the car in the period you bought it (Step 2). You would reduce the value of the pool if you dispose of it in the same year (Step 3). Because the car is worth less than £1,000 (see the section on \"\"If you have £1,000 or less in your pool\"\"), you would normally be able to claim the whole value of the pool (the value of the car) in the first accounting period, and reduce the value of the pool to zero. As you use the car for personal use, you only claim 95% of the value, but still reduce the pool to zero. See the section on \"\"Items you use outside your business\"\". This £1000 is adjusted if your accounting period lasts more or less than 12 months. Once the pool is down to zero that it you don't need to think about it any more for tax purposes, apart from if you are claiming other motoring expenses, or if you sell it. It gets more complicated if the car is more expensive. I'll go through an example for a car worth £2,000. Then, after Step 3, on the year of purchase, you would reduce the value of the pool by 8%, and claim 95% of the reduction. This would be a 160 reduction, and 95%*160 = 152 claim, leaving the value of 1860 in the pool. You then follow the same steps for the next year, start with 1840 in the pool, reduce the value by 8%, then claim 95% of the reduction. This continues until you sell or dispose of the car (Step 3), or the value of the pool is 1000 or less, then you claim all of it in that year. Selling the car, or disposing of the car is discussed in the Capital allowances when you sell an asset article. The basic idea is that if you have already reduced the value of the pool to zero, the price you sell the car for is added you your profits for that year (See \"\"If you originally claimed 100% of the item\"\"), if you still have anything in the pool, you reduce the value of the pool by the sale value, and if it reduces to below zero (to -£200, say), you add that amount (£200, in this case), to your profits. If the value is above zero, you keep applying writing down allowances. In your case, that seems to just means if you sell the car in the same year you buy it, you claim the difference (or 95% of it) as writing down allowance, and if you do it later, you claim the purchase price in the year of purchase, and add 95% of the sale price to your profits in the year you sell it. I'm a bit unclear about starting \"\"to use it outside your business\"\", which doesn't seem to apply if you use it outside the business to start with. You can claim simplified expenses for vehicles, if you are a sole trader or partner, but not if you claim capital allowances (such as writing down allowances) on them, or you include a separate expense in your accounts for motoring expenses. It's a flat rate of 45p a mile for the first 10,000 miles, and 25p per mile after that, for cars, and 24p a mile for motorcycles. See the HRMC page on Simplifed Mileage expenses for details. For any vehicle you decide to either claim capital allowances claim running costs separately, or claim simplified mileage expenses, and \"\"Once you use the flat rates for a vehicle, you must continue to do so as long as you use that vehicle for your business.you have to stick with that decision for that vehicle\"\". In your case, it seems you can claim 95% of the purchase price in the accounting period you buy it, and if you sell it you add 95% of the sale price to your profits in that accounting period. It gets more complicated if you have a car worth more than £1000, adjusted for the length of the accounting period. Also, if you change how you use it, consult the page on selling selling an asset, as you may have disposed of it. You can also use simplified mileage expenses, but then you can't claim capital allowances, or claim running costs separately for that car. I hope that makes sense, please comment if not, and I'll try to adjust the explanation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb5ad2a26e78ae916de76fa854300476",
"text": "\"While you'd need to pay tax if you realized a capital gain on the sale of your car, you generally can't deduct any loss arising from the sale of \"\"personal use property\"\". Cars are personal use property. Refer to Canada Revenue Agency – Personal-use property losses. Quote: [...] if you have a capital loss, you usually cannot deduct that loss when you calculate your income for the year. In addition, you cannot use the loss to decrease capital gains on other personal-use property. This is because if a property depreciates through personal use, the resulting loss on its disposition is a personal expense. There are some exceptions. Read up at the source links.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
74de828a0fcc584c7848373bf0268446
|
Assessing the value of an ETF
|
[
{
"docid": "a6ee4e5de0eaac8cd605fe3bd7730482",
"text": "\"You seem to be assuming that ETFs must all work like the more traditional closed-end funds, where the market price per share tends—based on supply and demand—to significantly deviate from the underlying net asset value per share. The assumption is simplistic. What are traditionally referred to as closed-end funds (CEFs), where unit creation and redemption are very tightly controlled, have been around for a long time, and yes, they do often trade at a premium or discount to NAV because the quantity is inflexible. Yet, what is generally meant when the label \"\"ETF\"\" is used (despite CEFs also being both \"\"exchange-traded\"\" and \"\"funds\"\") are those securities which are not just exchange-traded, and funds, but also typically have two specific characteristics: (a) that they are based on some published index, and (b) that a mechanism exists for shares to be created or redeemed by large market participants. These characteristics facilitate efficient pricing through arbitrage. Essentially, when large market participants notice the price of an ETF diverging from the value of the shares held by the fund, new units of the ETF can get created or redeemed in bulk. The divergence quickly narrows as these participants buy or sell ETF units to capture the difference. So, the persistent premium (sometimes dear) or discount (sometimes deep) one can easily witness in the CEF universe tend not to occur with the typical ETF. Much of the time, prices for ETFs will tend to be very close to their net asset value. However, it isn't always the case, so proceed with some caution anyway. Both CEF and ETF providers generally publish information about their funds online. You will want to find out what is the underlying Net Asset Value (NAV) per share, and then you can determine if the market price trades at a premium or a discount to NAV. Assuming little difference in an ETF's price vs. its NAV, the more interesting question to ask about an ETF then becomes whether the NAV itself is a bargain, or not. That means you'll need to be more concerned with what stocks are in the index the fund tracks, and whether those stocks are a bargain, or not, at their current prices. i.e. The ETF is a basket, so look at each thing in the basket. Of course, most people buy ETFs because they don't want to do this kind of analysis and are happy with market average returns. Even so, sector-based ETFs are often used by traders to buy (or sell) entire sectors that may be undervalued (or overvalued).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1004cf6b56fd3977ba674b6a4263bb37",
"text": "You can follow the intra-day NAV of an ETF, for instance SPY, by viewing its .IV (intra-day value) ticker which tracks it's value. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=spy http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^SPY-IV Otherwise, each ETF provider will update their NAV after business each day on their own website. https://www.spdrs.com/product/fund.seam?ticker=spy",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "75ffcd067af42e2df03285f2b01a8697",
"text": "\"From Wikipedia: Usage Because EV is a capital structure-neutral metric, it is useful when comparing companies with diverse capital structures. Price/earnings ratios, for example, will be significantly more volatile in companies that are highly leveraged. Stock market investors use EV/EBITDA to compare returns between equivalent companies on a risk-adjusted basis. They can then superimpose their own choice of debt levels. In practice, equity investors may have difficulty accurately assessing EV if they do not have access to the market quotations of the company debt. It is not sufficient to substitute the book value of the debt because a) the market interest rates may have changed, and b) the market's perception of the risk of the loan may have changed since the debt was issued. Remember, the point of EV is to neutralize the different risks, and costs of different capital structures. Buyers of controlling interests in a business use EV to compare returns between businesses, as above. They also use the EV valuation (or a debt free cash free valuation) to determine how much to pay for the whole entity (not just the equity). They may want to change the capital structure once in control. Technical considerations Data availability Unlike market capitalization, where both the market price and the outstanding number of shares in issue are readily available and easy to find, it is virtually impossible to calculate an EV without making a number of adjustments to published data, including often subjective estimations of value: In practice, EV calculations rely on reasonable estimates of the market value of these components. For example, in many professional valuations: Avoiding temporal mismatches When using valuation multiples such as EV/EBITDA and EV/EBIT, the numerator should correspond to the denominator. The EV should, therefore, correspond to the market value of the assets that were used to generate the profits in question, excluding assets acquired (and including assets disposed) during a different financial reporting period. This requires restating EV for any mergers and acquisitions (whether paid in cash or equity), significant capital investments or significant changes in working capital occurring after or during the reporting period being examined. Ideally, multiples should be calculated using the market value of the weighted average capital employed of the company during the comparable financial period. When calculating multiples over different time periods (e.g. historic multiples vs forward multiples), EV should be adjusted to reflect the weighted average invested capital of the company in each period. In your question, you stated: The Market Cap is driven by the share price and the share price is determined by buyers and sellers who have access to data on cash and debts and factor that into their decision to buy or sell. Note the first point under \"\"Technical Considerations\"\" there and you will see that the \"\"access to data on cash and debts\"\" isn't quite accurate here so that is worth noting. As for alternatives, there are many other price ratios one could use such as price/earnings, price/book value, price/sales and others depending on how one wants to model the company. The better question is what kind of investing strategy is one wanting to use where there are probably hundreds of strategies at least. Let's take Apple as an example. Back on April 23, 2014 they announced earnings through March 29, 2014 which is nearly a month old when it was announced. Now a month later, one would have to estimate what changes would be made to things there. Thus, getting accurate real-time values isn't realistic. Discounted Cash Flow is another approach one can take of valuing a company in terms of its future earnings computed back to a present day lump sum.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94fd0ac68a72a65937095c6edeaedb74",
"text": "Thanks very much. 12b1 is a form that explains how a fund uses that .25-1% fee, right? So that's part of the puzzle im getting at. I'm not necessarily trying to understand my net fees, but more who pays who and based off of what. For a quick example, betterment bought me a bunch of vanguard ETFs. That's cool. But vanguard underperformed vs their blackrock and ssga etfs. I get that vanguard has lower fees, but the return was less even taking those into account. I'm wondering, first what sort of kickback betterment got for buying those funds, inclusive of wholesale deals, education fees etc. I'm also wondering how this food chain goes up and down the sponsor, manager tree. I'm sure it's more than just splitting up that 1%",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66b7ccc105a31477357e8d060940712c",
"text": "This ETFchannel.com page shows which ETFs hold Wells Fargo and you can search other stocks the get the same information on that site. This the same information for Google This even tells you what percentage of an ETF is a particular stock. Be warned that this site is not entirely free. You will be limited to 6 pages in 6 hours unless you pay for a subscription. Additionally ETFdb.com offers a similar tool.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60c9eac57d227944f7dd9dfc37899a80",
"text": "\"First, to mention one thing - better analysis calls for analyzing a range of outcomes, not just one; assigning a probability on each, and comparing the expected values. Then moderating the choice based on risk tolerance. But now, just look at the outcome or scenario of 3% and time frame of 2 days. Let's assume your investable capital is exactly $1000 (multiply everything by 5 for $5,000, etc.). A. Buy stock: the value goes to 103; your investment goes to $1030; net return is $30, minus let's say $20 commission (you should compare these between brokers; I use one that charges 9.99 plus a trivial government fee). B. Buy an call option at 100 for $0.40 per share, with an expiration 30 days away (December 23). This is a more complicated. To evaluate this, you need to estimate the movement of the value of a 100 call, $0 in and out of the money, 30 days remaining, to the value of a 100 call, $3 in the money, 28 days remaining. That movement will vary based on the volatility of the underlying stock, an advanced topic; but there are techniques to estimate that, which become simple to use after you get the hang of it. At any rate, let's say that the expected movement of the option price in this scenario is from $0.40 to $3.20. Since you bought 2500 share options for $1000, the gain would be 2500 times 2.8 = 7000. C. Buy an call option at 102 for $0.125 per share, with an expiration 30 days away (December 23). To evaluate this, you need to estimate the movement of the value of a 102 call, $2 out of the money, 30 days remaining, to the value of a 102 call, $1 in the money, 28 days remaining. That movement will vary based on the volatility of the underlying stock, an advanced topic; but there are techniques to estimate that, which become simple to use after you get the hang of it. At any rate, let's say that the expected movement of the option price in this scenario is from $0.125 to $ 1.50. Since you bought 8000 share options for $1000, the gain would be 8000 times 1.375 = 11000. D. Same thing but starting with a 98 call. E. Same thing but starting with a 101 call expiring 60 days out. F., ... Etc. - other option choices. Again, getting the numbers right for the above is an advanced topic, one reason why brokerages warn you that options are risky (if you do your math wrong, you can lose. Even doing that math right, with a bad outcome, loses). Anyway you need to \"\"score\"\" as many options as needed to find the optimal point. But back to the first paragraph, you should then run the whole analysis on a 2% gain. Or 5%. Or 5% in 4 days instead of 2 days. Do as many as are fruitful. Assess likelihoods. Then pull the trigger and buy it. Try these techniques in simulation before diving in! Please! One last point, you don't HAVE to understand how to evaluate projected option price movements if you have software that does that for you. I'll punt on that process, except to mention it. Get the general idea? Edit P.S. I forgot to mention that brokers need love for handling Options too. Check those commission rates in your analysis as well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6473d727ce6f8ff477b24768d2c05b49",
"text": "\"Option pricing models used by exchanges to calculate settlement prices (premiums) use a volatility measure usually describes as the current actual volatility. This is a historic volatility measure based on standard deviation across a given time period - usually 30 to 90 days. During a trading session, an investor can use the readily available information for a given option to infer the \"\"implied volatility\"\". Presumably you know the option pricing model (Black-Scholes). It is easy to calculate the other variables used in the pricing model - the time value, the strike price, the spot price, the \"\"risk free\"\" interest rate, and anything else I may have forgotten right now. Plug all of these into the model and solve for volatility. This give the \"\"implied volatility\"\", so named because it has been inferred from the current price (bid or offer). Of course, there is no guarantee that the calculated (implied) volatility will match the volatility used by the exchange in their calculation of fair price at settlement on the day (or on the previous day's settlement). Comparing the implied volatility from the previous day's settlement price to the implied volatility of the current price (bid or offer) may give you some measure of the fairness of the quoted price (if there is no perceived change in future volatility). What such a comparison will do is to give you a measure of the degree to which the current market's perception of future volatility has changed over the course of the trading day. So, specific to your question, you do not want to use an annualised measure. The best you can do is compare the implied volatility in the current price to the implied volatility of the previous day's settlement price while at the same time making a subjective judgement about how you see volatility changing in the future and how this has been reflected in the current price.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daeb68910f70be984d51f671d0e67cae",
"text": "The Creation/Redemption mechanism is how shares of an ETF are created or redeemed as needed and thus is where there can be differences in what the value of the holdings can be versus the trading price. If the ETF is thinly traded, then the difference could be big as more volume would be where the mechanism could kick in as generally there are blocks required so the mechanism usually created or redeemed in lots of 50,000 shares I believe. From the link where AP=Authorized Participant: With ETFs, APs do most of the buying and selling. When APs sense demand for additional shares of an ETF—which manifests itself when the ETF share price trades at a premium to its NAV—they go into the market and create new shares. When the APs sense demand from investors looking to redeem—which manifests itself when the ETF share price trades at a discount—they process redemptions. So, suppose the NAV of the ETF is $20/share and the trading price is $30/share. The AP can buy the underlying securities for $20/share in a bulk order that equates to 50,000 shares of the ETF and exchange the underlying shares for new shares in the ETF. Then the AP can turn around and sell those new ETF shares for $30/share and pocket the gain. If you switch the prices around, the AP would then take the ETF shares and exchange them for the underlying securities in the same way and make a profit on the difference. SEC also notes this same process.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70591461ef9fce7e7b32b7b259bf14f6",
"text": "The quant aspect '''''. This is the kind of math I was wondering if it existed, but now it sounds like it is much more complex in reality then optimizing by evaluating different cost of capital. Thank you for sharing",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adcbfc7ed50dda109ff508fe92da26ec",
"text": "I'm honestly not well versed on healthcare ETFs. I have seen a few mentioned here and there on various threads around /r/investing and /r/wallstreetbets. My pro-Vanguard bias would lead me to looking most closely at VHT, but there seem to be [many other great looking picks](http://etfdb.com/type/sector/healthcare/) out there such as IBB, XLV, and IHI, among others. Right now I am generally concerned about valuations in technology and perhaps simply in general, but we'll see what happens. As I craft my goals for the near and long term, I would favor the defense industry ($ITA), technology (broad definition -- $VGT, $V, $AAPL, $BABA, various video games companies short term), healthcare (above), some specific international exposure (such as $EWGS), and boring stuff ($VOO, $VTI).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b7485e54f14bda079a021ac233b0c0d",
"text": "I think that assuming that you're not looking to trade the fund, an index Mutual Fund is a better overall value than an ETF. The cost difference is negligible, and the ability to dollar-cost average future contributions with no transaction costs. You also have to be careful with ETFs; the spreads are wide on a low-volume fund and some ETFs are going more exotic things that can burn a novice investor. Track two similar funds (say Vanguard Total Stock Market: VTSMX and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF: VTI), you'll see that they track similarly. If you are a more sophisticated investor, ETFs give you the ability to use options to hedge against declines in value without having to incur capital gains from the sale of the fund. (ie. 20 years from now, can use puts to make up for short-term losses instead of selling shares to avoid losses) For most retail investors, I think you really need to justify using ETFs versus mutual funds. If anything, the limitations of mutual funds (no intra-day trading, no options, etc) discourage speculative behavior that is ultimately not in your best interest. EDIT: Since this answer was written, many brokers have begun offering a suite of ETFs with no transaction fees. That may push the cost equation over to support Index ETFs over Index Mutual Funds, particularly if it's a big ETF with narrow spreads..",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cda4e508cbccdc13fb6c2499982293b",
"text": "You are correct about the first two questions. At the time it was last measured those were the percent invested in the Basic Materials sector for the ETF and its benchmark. Note, this ETF will be significantly different from its benchmark as it is an equal-weight index rather than the more common capitalization-weighted index. Meaning that this ETF could have materially different performance from its benchmark. The third column is the average sector weights of all the ETFs in Morningstar's Large Blend category. These are ETFs that generally invest in a broad collection of large U.S. stocks and (weighted?) average of all of them will be generally fairly close to the benchmark.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a7f714f0a3b50be1430a11363a34698",
"text": "Aswath Damodaran's [Investment Valuation 3rd edition](http://www.amazon.com/Investment-Valuation-Techniques-Determining-University/dp/1118130731/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1339995852&sr=8-12&keywords=aswath+damodaran) (or save money and go with a used copy of the [2nd edition](http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0471414905/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used)) He's a professor at Stern School of Business. His [website](http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/) and [blog](http://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.com/) are good resources as well. [Here is his support page](http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/Inv3ed.htm) for his Investment Valuation text. It includes chapter summaries, slides, ect. If you're interested in buying the text you can get an idea of what's in it by checking that site out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afb5b4fbf1539e64167c69d8252f847b",
"text": "Use a compound interest calculator to project the difference with ETFs in the S&P 500 (or the asset mix of your choosing), and subtract the expected pension amount. If the difference is positive, or around around even, I would do it to avoid the risk of company failure.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a9de080444de75c710b8e60527623c7",
"text": "\"I'm trying to understand how an ETF manager optimized it's own revenue. Here's an example that I'm trying to figure out. ETF firm has an agreement with GS for blocks of IBM. They have agreed on daily VWAP + 1% for execution price. Further, there is a commission schedule for 5 mils with GS. Come month end, ETF firm has to do a monthly rebalance. As such must buy 100,000 shares at IBM which goes for about $100 The commission for the trade is 100,000 * 5 mils = $500 in commission for that trade. I assume all of this is covered in the expense ratio. Such that if VWAP for the day was 100, then each share got executed to the ETF at 101 (VWAP+ %1) + .0005 (5 mils per share) = for a resultant 101.0005 cost basis The ETF then turns around and takes out (let's say) 1% as the expense ratio ($1.01005 per share) I think everything so far is pretty straight forward. Let me know if I missed something to this point. Now, this is what I'm trying to get my head around. ETF firm has a revenue sharing agreement as well as other \"\"relations\"\" with GS. One of which is 50% back on commissions as soft dollars. On top of that GS has a program where if you do a set amount of \"\"VWAP +\"\" trades you are eligible for their corporate well-being programs and other \"\"sponsorship\"\" of ETF's interests including helping to pay for marketing, rent, computers, etc. Does that happen? Do these disclosures exist somewhere?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "80df8f80a32972fa0445cd1e0d529ac9",
"text": "This is the chart going back to the first full year of this fund. To answer your question - yes, a low cost ETF or Mutual fund is fine. Why not go right to an S&P index? VOO has a .05% expense. Why attracted you to a choice that lagged the S&P by $18,000 over this 21 year period? (And yes, past performance, yada, yada, but that warning is appropriate for the opposite example. When you show a fund that beat the S&P short term, say 5 years, its run may be over. But this fund lagged the S&P by a significant margin over 2 decades, what makes you think this will change?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43740123fa97c27cf5e4af82928e3592",
"text": "But if you add a security to the index you also remove one from the index, thus both a buy and sell. If weights change some go up, some go down thus some need to be purchased and some need to be sold. So I still don't see how ETFs are net sinks beyond their simple AUM.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fc22eb72fb7a54e1f3bad44f41372044
|
Do my parents need to pay me minimum wage?
|
[
{
"docid": "6218612dc59b0980c2ead70ffc9ac90c",
"text": "Yes they do. Here is the main page on minimum wage for the province of British Columbia. This page lists exemptions from BC minimum wage laws, but there are none for working in a family business, or for being underage. Students are exempted only if they are on approved work study. Generally all provinces apply minimum wage laws to every employee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ebc53826c024c667f0b10d903d8ae4f",
"text": "\"There is actually a restriction on how high a wage they can pay you. There didn't use to be, but now it has to be reasonable for the work you are doing, so they can't pay you $100/hr while other people doing the same work get minimum wage. You might ask why on earth a parent would want to pay a child way more than they're worth? The salary is tax deductible to the company. Then the child pays their \"\"expenses\"\" - hockey fees and equipment, field trips, birthday presents for their friends and so on - out of the money the company paid them. They also save for their post-secondary education. The rest of the family budget now has a little more room, and the parents can lower their own salaries if they have expensive children. This means more net money in the company and less total income tax paid by the family for the same total income. My concern is that if your parents don't know whether or not you must be paid minimum wage (you must, there's no family exemption) then they also don't know whether you should have EI deducted (probably not) and various other special cases like eligibility for summer student subsidies. The firm's accountant should be able to help with these things and the company should know all this. It's not the role of a 14 year old to ask the Internet how to run a business, the business owners should know it.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d309c1285c4ff1de58ed745230afc016",
"text": "The problem is not just the minimum wage. It's that the minimum wage is not enough to live on, and yet it's simultaneously extremely difficult to earn more than minimum wage if you're trapped in the cycle of earning minimum wage and spending all your money and free time keeping your head above water.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c26adec9cef75f007e818799e32d911c",
"text": "Grants come in several flavors: federal aid, college aid, and independent aid. We'll immediately ignore the last option, independent aid (usually in the forms of scholarships), as these can come from all sorts of organizations for various reasons and are generally merit-based. For federal and college aid, you will need to file a FAFSA. Since your parents are divorced, you will need to use the financial information of whichever one of them you lived with more during the last 12 months. Once you submit the FAFSA, you will receive your EFC, which is the amount of money your family is estimated to be able to contribute to your education for the year. The EFC isn't an obligation, but the simplified formula to determine how much you are in need is: (tuition cost + room and board + overhead (books, transport, etc)) - EFC = estimated need. This need will then allow your school to give you an aid package which is comprised of federal loans, grants, work-study programs, and college grants/scholarships (a scholarship is based on some kind of merit, be it academic or something else, while a grant is either general or need-based). There is no good way to determine how much you will be given, so apply and find out. You may be able to talk with a financial aid officer at your school for an estimate, but it would just be an educated guess. If you have an EFC lower than your estimated yearly cost, you will generally be offered a Pell grant by the government (free money, basically) which currently has a yearly cap of $5775, though you may receive less than this. There are also a few other federal grant programs if you have exceptional financial need, but all of the grants are determined for you, you can't apply for them. Your college may also assign grants based on its own internal programs, and like federal funding you can't ask for them, they are simply given as part of an aid package. Lastly, you will probably be offered a combination of subsidized, unsubsidized, and parent loans to cover any difference in cost vs funding. There are also work-study programs you can opt in for, which is just an on-campus job in some capacity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2b3ac3e04f16008caaa1ceb136d3ef0",
"text": "If you think that your parents' home is in danger, you might want to check what it would take to make sure their house is safe, and what the financial situation actually is. You are paying rent, there are brothers who may or may not be paying rent. We don't have the information, you have. Saving that house might be a worthwhile investment. I assume that if you moved out, either rented or by buying a house, they wouldn't get any rent from you anymore and whatever the situation is, it would be much worse.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "283aec045c7f9a9ebbd33dc6f9a26f8c",
"text": "Is your argument that a company should be responsible for paying an employee enough to support whatever lifestyle that employee chooses? Because that's definitely what it sounds like you're arguing for. The minimum wage should be exactly $0. If you don't have the skills to earn enough to support yourself, then you need better skills not laws forcing someone to pay you more money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56366def285b890e0e187764b2691abf",
"text": "\"After doing a little research, I was actually surprised to find many internet resources on this topic (including sites from Intuit) gave entirely incorrect information. The information that follows is quoted directly from IRS Publication 929, rules for dependents First, I will assume that you are not living on your own, and are claimed as a \"\"dependent\"\" on someone else's tax return (such as a parent or guardian). If you were an \"\"emancipated minor\"\", that would be a completely different question and I will ignore this less-common case. So, how much money can you make, as a minor who is someone else's dependent? Well, the most commonly quoted number is $6,300 - but despite this numbers popularity, this is not true. This is how much you can earn in wages from regular employment without filing your own tax return, but this does not apply to your scenario. Selling your products online as an independent game developer would generally be considered self-employment income, and according to the IRS: A dependent must also file a tax return if he or she: Had wages of $108.28 or more from a church or qualified church-controlled organization that is exempt from employer social security and Medicare taxes, or Had net earnings from self-employment of at least $400. So, your first $400 in earnings triggers absolutely no requirement to file a tax return - blast away, and good luck! After that, you do not necessarily owe much in taxes, however you will need to file a tax return even if you owe $0, as this was self-employment income. If you had, for instance, a job at a grocery store, you could earn up to $6,300 without filing a return, because the store would be informing the IRS about your employment anyway - as well as deducting Medicare and Social Security payments, etc. How much tax will you pay as your income grows beyond $400? Based upon the IRS pages for Self-Employment Tax and Family Businesses, while you will not likely have to pay income tax until you make $6,300 in a year, you will still have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes after the first $400. Roughly this should be right about 16% of your income, so if you make $6000 you'll owe just under $1000 (and be keeping the other $5000). If your income grows even more, you may want to learn about business expense deductions. This would allow you to pay for things like advertisement, software, a new computer for development purposes, etc, and deduct the expenses out of your income so you pay less in taxes. But don't worry - having such things to wonder about would mean you were raking in thousands of dollars, and that's an awfully good problem to have as a young entrepreneur! So, should you keep your games free or try to make some money? Well, first of all realize that $400 can be a lot harder to make when you are first starting in business than it probably sounds. Second, don't be afraid of making too much money! Tax filing software - even totally free versions - make filing taxes much, much easier, and at your income level you would still be keeping the vast majority of the money you earn even without taking advantage of special business deductions. I'd recommend you not be a afraid of trying to make some money! I'd bet money it will help you learn a lot about game development, business, and finances, and will be a really valuable experience for you - whether you make money or not. Having made so much money you have to pay taxes is not something to be afraid of - it's just something adults like to complain about :) Good luck on your adventures, and you can always come back and ask questions about how to file taxes, what to do with any new found wealth, etc!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f548159b229a16c96b2da6206c8b433b",
"text": "Yes but the employee losing that job can be devastating because as someone who works for minimum wage (in college and living at home right now so my cost of living is low) but without that I would have no savings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24f57d4a14e3f6a6a4a25536b8f3d554",
"text": "The fact that you're a minor really only factors into who pays the taxes, you or your parents. If you are below the age where you can legally earn money (and therefore pay taxes), then the income will be considered your parent's or guardian's income, and they will be responsible for the taxes. If you are of the age where you are legally allowed to earn your own money, then yes, you will have to pay taxes. Either way, taxes must be paid. If age were a way of escaping the taxes, every big youtuber would simply open their account in the name of one of their children or a child they know...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "949f3a4e415633760c540268921a224e",
"text": "\"This might sound harsh, but the first thing I would suggest is to stop making excuses. I wasn't able to continue due to pressure from college and family The college I went to was horrible. Employers can very easily hire foreign work-force for very cheap; for example as a citizen if I work $10 an hour, they can get someone from outside to work for $5 per hour There's no guarantee that the project will succeed. I cannot really work and at the same time develop software on my free time. Despite my failures in the past, I was not the main person that's responsible for those failures. Even if all of this is true, it's not helping you move forward and it seems to be getting in the way of creating a good action plan and motivating yourself to succeed. If you believe (based on past experiences) that you are doomed to fail, then you are indeed doomed to fail. You need to take a step back and re-evaluate your current circumstances and what you can do to reach your goals. You have a couple of things working in your favor here. It's great that you are debt free. That already puts you ahead of a lot of your peers. You have the option of living with your parents. Presumably for no rent, or at least much lower rent than you would have to pay if you move out. This is worth literally thousands of $/£/€ for every year you stay. Now, onto your questions: 1) Should I quit regular programming for a normal job because I never monetized programming so I can move out of my parents' home? Are you being paid for this \"\"regular programming\"\"? If so, are you being paid more than minimum wage? If not, it's perfectly acceptable to consider alternative ways to spend your time and generate income. However, this doesn't have to be at the expense of living with your parents. Have you thought about getting a new or second job while still living with them? If you absolutely must move out of your parent's home, consider renting a room in a house with other people to keep the rent costs to a minimum. That way, even if your main job is low paying, you should be able to put aside some money each month for future endeavors. 2) Should I monetize programming and gamble with the future? What does this mean? Are you thinking you'll write a mobile app and sell thousands of copies for 99¢ each? That would indeed be a big gamble, but maybe that's not what you meant, so you'll need to clarify. 3) Would it be wise to essentially quit programming for the sake of a minimum wage job? I'm not sure how this is different from question 1. So I'll reiterate what I said there - moving out is going to be expensive. You can still do it, but you're asking on a Personal Finance site where the focus is usually how to minimize living costs and maximize income. Without knowing more about where you live (employment opportunities, cost of living) the default recommendation is usually to save money by staying in your parents house. TLDR: Don't focus on anyone else. They are not preventing you from getting the job you want. Look at your own skills and qualifications (not just programming, consider all of your abilities). What are you good at? Who might need those skills? What is the cost of reaching those people (commute time, moving nearer)? What is the reward? If the reward exceeds the cost, start approaching those people. Show them what you can do.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fe00a78dd66de649ffcfa0dfa140ba1",
"text": "\"Part of your first link has this statement that I suspect you are missing: However, Section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA provides an exemption from both minimum wage and overtime pay for employees employed as bona fide executive, administrative, professional and outside sales employees. Note that executive is in that list. As for the additional note: To qualify for exemption, employees generally must meet certain tests regarding their job duties and be paid on a salary basis at not less than $455 per week. Generally which means, \"\"in most cases; usually.\"\" is not a universal qualifier and thus exceptions can exist. I'd imagine that restricted stock could be a way around some of the rules as there would be a monetary value there in the case of the stock for companies of a particular size.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b257a8eb2e106d7e598a1f6efa62a3ca",
"text": "AFAIU, you don't need pay any taxes for you amount in NRE account since this amount is already taxed. I also think, you do not need to pay taxes on the interest earned on NRE account. However, you need to disclose the amount in your Indian Bank(s), if at any point of time, exceed $10K (When converted from INR to $). This is FBAR. Sending money to non-NRE account would come under Indian Tax scanner. For instance, if your parents use that money to pay EMIs or any huge purchase, then that might cause an issue. Most of the times, these type of purchases go unnoticed. However, the party who is taking money, may ask for source, especially if its a financial institution or Govt bodies. Also, for non-NRE accounts, you need to pay taxes and on interest earned. Hope this helps!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a9c0077daed80612c8241b232366478",
"text": "Here is what I was able to find: Yes, but there are special instructions for minors: Working hours: New York State labor laws are slightly more strict than the federal: https://www.labor.state.ny.us/workerprotection/laborstandards/workprot/nyvsfed.shtm Minimum wage: The Dept of Labor's Youth & Labor page states: Occupations such as babysitting are not subject to the minimum wage law. No supporting documentation is given. Another page describes the Youth Minimum Wage Program: A minimum wage of not less than $4.25 may be paid to employees under the age of 20 for their first 90 consecutive calendar days However, I can't find any such exception in New York State minimum wage law. According to Publication 926, Household Employer's Tax Guide: Federal income tax withholding No, I am not required to withhold federal income taxes from a household employee. If we both want them to be withheld, a W-4 should be submitted to me. State income tax withholding No, according to NYS Pub 27: Withholding income tax (federal or New York State) from wages paid to household employees is voluntary on your part and your employee Social security and medicare No, I am not required to withhold FICA taxes because when calculated wages, I should not include: An employee who is under the age of 18 at any time during the year. Exception: Count these wages if providing household services is the employee's principal occupation. If the employee is a student, providing household services is not considered to be his or her principal occupation. Unemployment insurance No, I don't think I have to pay federal unemployment tax. I think the exception for FICA applies to FUTA. For New York (according to Household Employers Guide for Unemployment Insurance), there is an exception for paying state unemployment insurance: Daytime students who attend elementary or high school (However, you must pay UI taxes on wages you pay these students if you are liable under FUTA.) I can't find any specific requirements, but aside from numbers of hours times rate of pay, you might want to consider the information required by the Wage Theft Prevention Act: Also, consider this requirements from the NY Minimum Wage Act Every employer shall keep true and accurate records of hours worked by each employee covered by an hourly minimum wage rate, the wages paid to all employees, and such other information as the commissioner deems material and necessary, and shall, on demand, furnish to the commissioner or his duly authorized representative a sworn statement of the same.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2140584e169d629a1d505262f59597bf",
"text": "Smart parents not wanting to get stuck with a student loan or co-signing on a loan. because rent is so high Are you able to live with your parents? Is there anyway to reduce the cost of rent like renting a room? Can you move somewhere where the rent is cheaper? working 25 hours per week Working 25 hours per week and taking 6 hours is a pretty light schedule. It is not even 40 hours per week. What is stopping you from working 40 hours and paying for school from your salary? In my own life I created a pretty crappy situation for myself when I was a young man. I really wanted to go to a prestigious university, but ended up going to a community college, and then to a university that was lesser known in a less expensive area. I had to work like crazy, upwards of 50 hours per week. I also took a full load in a difficult degree program. You probably don't have to go to the extremes that I went through, but you can work more. Most adults work at their jobs well more than 40 hours per week, then come home and continue to work (on the house, raising kids, trying to start a side business, etc...). So you might as well become an adult now. There are ways to become independent from your parents for FAFSA like have a baby, get married, or join the military. I'd only recommend the last one as you will also receive the GI Bill. Another option is to try and obtain a job that offers financial aid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aaa391cfed23a79f97d9a55fbf024542",
"text": "yes and no its definitely not charitable as they are making money of off you but depending on the outside conditions if you had to pay a mortgage on that condo with only 35k in payments to start off it would more than likely exceed 500 dollars a month however there would always be a point were the mortgage would end and it dosent sound like thats going to be the case with you paying your parents so it depends on how long your going to have that condo and how much mortgage would have been.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4042edc1b15b5ef9e49fc907d8b2ba76",
"text": "\"idea that somehow people will take a lower income job and automatically grow into a higher paying one. It doesn't happen automatically. But it does happen all the time. It's climbing the corporate ladder if you will. \"\"leads to trying to have a workforce that's minimum wage with little room for growth\"\" Simply untrue at most successful companies. If you provide value, they pay you what your worth or you jump (if you are smart enough). I see it all the time. Minimum wage may or may not have kept up with inflation, by that's like saying working at McDonald's only affords me such and such lifestyle. Defined circumstances are required to solve the problem. Inflation isn't directly solved by upping the minimum wage so move on to a better solution. \"\"Jobs a worthy cry but can't be only metric to ensure people have opportunity to live decently\"\". Jobs are the opportunity. Where there is specific abuse in the workplace denying people equal job opportunity, we fight it. If you don't pay me enough, and I am forced to work for you... that's called indentured servitude which is an abuse and illegal as humans are property in such a case. But if you force me to pay you more than I want to, somehow that's okay? Goes both ways. Leave to a company that pays you what your worth if I don't pay you enough. This is how the most people grow over time to better salaries and more prestigious titles. \"\"Lots of college grads with low paying jobs\"\" Define \"\"low paying\"\". I'm a college grad. Wife is too. Lots of people I know are. What $ we make varies greatly from person to person based largely upon the opportunities we created/took not because of a mandated min wage.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3050769ddb0d2dc1ca67b52a9e6185d3",
"text": "First you need to ensure that you are not violating any Federal child labor laws. I would look at this: U.S. Dept of Labor, Wage & Hour Div., Standards for 14- and 15-Year Olds in Nonagricultural Employment. These were the items that pertained to Federal Law, for 14 year olds: 14 is the minimum age for employment in specified occupations outside of school hours for limited periods of time each day and each week. Fourteen- and 15-Year-Olds May Not Be Employed: There is a section on minimum allowed wage payment to young workers, and also a list of allowed types of work for 14 and 15 year old's. The type of household helper tasks described definitely fell within what was allowed for child labor. The same page details what sort of forms need to be filled out. I think this is something that is done quite commonly. Here are specifics in New York State for minimum wage for minors and for employing 14 year olds.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f1ed3dc30df363bd45a0edc32da9f870
|
Why are prices in EUR for consumer items often the same number as original USD price, but the GBP price applies the actual exchange rate?
|
[
{
"docid": "2923139f67bc06512a813a131913ad4a",
"text": "\"The simplest answer would be: Because they can. Why charge less for something if people will pay more? One example are Apple products. While there the price number is not exactly the same in EUR and USD, they are so close that, effectively, the EUR product is more expensive. Many things go into a price. There might be reasons for products in the EU being more expensive to produce or distribute. Or people in the EU might be in general more willing to pay more for a certain product. In that case, a company would forgo profits when they offered it cheaper. Also, prices are relative. Is the USD price the \"\"correct\"\" one and the exchange rate should dictate what the EUR price is? Or vice versa?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e59a63d10df5a7548a3f8ee00b16ce53",
"text": "It's mostly VAT (value added tax or sales tax). For example an US IPad is $499 without tax, and a German IPad is EUR 499 including 17% VAT. The base price is actually only EUR 417. In addition to that, cost of business is a little higher in Europe because of tax structures and because smaller countries cause higher overheads.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67fe623c1bd326a05f16c1beb2e452db",
"text": "In the EU prices on consumer-focussed sites* are quoted inclusive of VAT. In the USA prices are quoted exclusive of sales tax. Consumer pricing is usually driven at least partly by psychological concerns. Some pricepoints are more appealing to certain types of buyers than others. The Euro vs dollar exchange rate has fluctuated a bit over the years but it's generally averaged somewhere around 1.2 dollars per Euro over the last decade. VAT has varied around 15%-20% in most cases. Put these things together and the same headline price points are generally appropriate in both the USA and the Eurozone. OTOH the Brisith pound has been worth substantially more than the dollar or the Euro. So it makes sense to have a lower headline price in the UK. * B2B focussed sites often quote prices exclusive of VAT, you need to be aware of this when comparing prices.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d1b4070ae8f86c7d172defb39f9cd1a7",
"text": "Rates are arrived at by the cumulative buying and selling on the foreign exchange market, much the same way that stock prices are arrived at. If there are more people wanting to buy dollars with euros, EUR/USD goes down. If more people want to buy euros with dollars, then EUR/USD goes up. The initial rate was about $1.18 per euro when it began trading on January 1st, 1999. It replaced the European Currency Unit at that time, which was a weighted basket of currencies of (more or less) the participating countries. You're correct about the printing press in the US and other countries. The exchange rates do reflect in part how much of a relative workout those printing presses get.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8947354d06ec1aace23b62b1302de55f",
"text": "You're assuming here that anything that is difficult to obtain will be highly desired. For me, value is largely determined by the buyer. Even if it takes the same effort to get 20 bushels of apples and a nugget of gold, if the majority of people find a nugget of gold to be worth 100 bushels, that will be the value of gold. Conversely, lets say there is an element buried deep in the earth that has no use whatsoever. Even if it takes the effort of 10 nuggets of gold, because nobody has any use for it, its value will be zero. Even though there is high effort to procure. I hope that clarifies your question of the exchange rate. It is determined by how much each party values the goods involved.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "942a3f398e3d98d215c135e3a7153627",
"text": "\"From my limited experience with foreign exchange... Money is a commodity.. people buy it and sell it like other products.. if \"\"money\"\" is in demand the price goes up.. this is the case when a countries stocks are hot, and you need to purchase that countries currency to buy that stock... I've also seen the currency rise on news and speculation. Many years ago, I administered foreign receivables... My job was to settle letters of credit from Britain... I remember on one ocassion Margaret Thatcher said something to upset the markets.. her remark caused the price of the UK pound to fluctuate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47b1fe6ea3938c0a89565d110d6fdfd8",
"text": "You probably can get away with only updating the exchange rates once a day and specify that any prices quoted in units other than your home currency are estimates only. If you're planning to accept more than one currency as payment, I'd (a) see about whatever regulations there are for doing so, and (b) build in a nice spread for yourself if you're allowed to, since it is a service you're providing to your customers. If you Google currency converter the first result is just that: a currency converter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f7f2fda621530a629a225dc7f9ae2dd",
"text": "Why do these fees exist? From a Banks point of view, they are operating in Currency A; Currency B is a commodity [similar to Oil, Grains, Goods, etc]. So they will only buy if they can sell it at a margin. Currency Conversion have inherent risks, on small amount, the Bank generally does not hedge these risks as it is expensive; but balances the position end of day or if the exposure becomes large. The rate they may get then may be different and the margin covers it. Hence on highly traded currency pairs; the spread is less. Are there back-end processes and requirements that require financial institutions to pass off the loss to consumers as a fee? The processes are to ensure bank does not make loss. is it just to make money on the convenience of international transactions? Banks do make money on such transactions; however they also take some risks. The Forex market is not single market, but is a collective hybrid market place. There are costs a bank incurs to carry and square off positions and some of it is reflected in fees. If you see some of the remittance corridors, banks have optimized a remittance service; say USD to INR, there is a huge flow often in small amounts. The remittance service aggregates such amounts to make it a large amount to get a better deal for themselves and passes on the benefits to individuals. Such volume of scale is not available for other pairs / corridors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f03a5a32f7df5a49a93eb16e4e7bd82",
"text": "Because the standard contract is for 125,000 euros. http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/fx/g10/euro-fx_contractSpecs_futures.html You don't want to use Microsoft as an analogy. You want to use non financial commodities. Most are settled in cash, no delivery. But in the early 80's, the Hunt brothers caused a spectacular short squeeze by taking delivery sending the spot price to $50. And some businesses naturally do this, buying metal, grain, etc. no reason you can't actually get the current price of $US/Euro if you need that much.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f133cca76377676a8232941e01f0ef7",
"text": "This would effectively be currency speculation, betting that the Pound will be stronger vs. the Euro in November (or whenever) than it is today. This would be a profitable transaction if the exchange fees are less than the swing between the two. In my (very limited) experience, exchange fees are going to be at least a few percent, and she's going to have to do the exchange twice if she wants to turn current Euros into Pounds and back into Euros later; that's at least a 6% hit. I'd recommend against this. While it's quite plausible for the two currencies to move more than 6% against each other in that time, it's also quite possible for them to move the other way, causing her a large loss. The unfortunate thing about large, heavily traded things like GBP/EUR is that you're very unlikely to have some information that the big traders don't. While lots of people think that the pound is going to become stronger, just as many people think that the Euro is going to be stronger. These two camps are constantly bidding against each other, resulting in the 1.15 Pounds/Euro exchange rate as of this writing. The current price and current direction that the line is moving in no way tells you what it's going to do next.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef4596cc691792cd683cf0bc01b94162",
"text": "If I understand your question, you're misunderstanding the buy/sell spread, and at least in this instance seem to be in an unfortunate situation where the spread is quite large. The Polish Zloty - GBP ideal exchange rate is around 5.612:1. Thus, when actually exchanging currency, you should expect to pay a bit more than 5.612 Zloty (Zloties?) to get one Pound sterling, and you should expect to get a bit less than 5.612 Zloty in exchange for one Pound sterling. That's because you're giving the bank its cut, both for operations and so that it has a reason to hold onto some Zloty (that it can't lend out). It sounds like Barclay's has a large spread - 5.211 Buy, 5.867 Sell. I would guess British banks don't need all that many Zloty, so you have a higher spread than you would for USD or EUR. Other currency exchange companies or banks, particularly those who are in the primary business of converting money, may have a smaller spread and be more willing to do it inexpensively for you. Also, it looks like the Polish banks are willing to do it at a better rate (certainly they're giving you more Zloty for one Pound sterling, so it seems likely the other way would be better as well, though since they're a Polish bank it's certainly easier for them to give you Zloty, so this may be less true). Barclay's is certainly giving you a better deal on Pounds for a Zloty than they are Zloty for a Pound (in terms of how far off their spread is from the ideal).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc53d9760e6493e8be78fe83c5079c90",
"text": "The company says it's out of their control - it isn't. All they have to do is to INSTRUCT HSBC to send a certain amount of GBP, and then HSBC MUST send GBP. Obviously the bank doesn't like that because they make money through the conversion. That's not your problem. When told to send GBP, they must send GBP. Depending on what your relationship with that company is, you lost money because they didn't send the GBP. At the very least, they sent you four percent less in Euros than they should have sent you. So send them a bill for the difference. It's unfortunate that your bank charged for the conversion Euro to GBP, but fact is that less than the agreed amount arrived at your bank, and that's the responsibility of the sender.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a563599240df32f6f33488f04190e1bb",
"text": "Yes. When the currency of a country appreciates, it benefits some groups and disadvantages others. In particular, exporters suffer when a currency increases in value relative to other countries. In a country like the US, where exporters are small relative to the economy, this isn't a big deal. In germany, where exporters make up a big part of the economy, a currency increasing in value leads to large numbers of layoffs and other negative net effects to the economy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e61919cc2567f96df4868a9c4de17281",
"text": "At any instant, three currencies will have exchange rates so if I know the rate between A and B, and B to C, the A to C rate is easily calculated. You need X pounds, so at that moment, you are subject to the exchange rate right then. It's not a deal or bargain, although it may look better in hindsight if the currencies move after some time has passed. But if a currency is going to depreciate, and you have the foresight to know such things, you'd already be wealthy and not visiting here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5bc73aa50634a8e28447a7f2f5f2eb9",
"text": "My instinct says that there should be no difference. Your instincts are right. Your understanding of math is not so much. You sold $100K at the current price of 7500000RUB, but ended up buying at 3500000, you earned 3500000RUB. That's 100% in USD (50% in RUB). You bought 7500000RUB for the current price of $100K, but sold later for $200K. You earned $100K (100% in USD), which at that time was equal 3500000RUB. You earned 3500000RUB. That's 50% in RUB. So, as your instincts were saying - no difference. The reason percentages are different is because you're coming from different angles. For the first case your currency is RUB, for the second case your currency is USD, and in both cases you earned 100%. If you use the same currency for your calculations, percentages change, but the bottom line - is the same.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a3a4bfb1af5d188ee9d565c1c846036",
"text": "\"There's an ideological/psychological aspect of this too apart from the practical problems. Eurozone leaders keep saying the mantra: conversion to the euro is \"\"irreversible\"\". There are analogies of this in recent history, it reminds me of the soviet leaders and their belief that communism is where history ends. They genuinely thought that once a communist system is built up in a country, it would stay forever. They believed in the superiority of their system, among other things this lead to the isolation of the Soviet Union from the West and the start of the Cold War. Then, in 1956 they were proven wrong with the Hungarian revolution and while they tried to \"\"clean up\"\" the situation as fast as they could and forget about it, their downhill inevitably started. Back to the present, you can easily see the importance of keeping Greece in the EZ. If Greece exits, the illusion of the irreversibility of the Euro is gone, and it would start to fall apart.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bd9e0b185fddf1f7f858aa463ab5619",
"text": "The exchange rate between two currencies is simply the price that the most recent market participants were able to agree on, when trading. ie: if the USDCAD is 1.36, it's because the last trade that happened where someone bought 1 USD cost 1.36 CAD. There is no one person/organization which 'decides' the rate between two currencies. The rate moves you see is just the reality of money changing hands as people in various situations trade currencies for various reasons. Just like with stocks or any other market product, foreign exchange rates can fluctuate wildly based on many things. It is very difficult to forecast where rates will go, because the biggest changes in rates can often be unpredictable news events. For example, when Brexit happened, the value of the GBP plummeted relative to other currencies, because the market traders had less faith in the UK economy, and therefore weren't willing to pay as much to buy GBP. See more here: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/76482/44232. There is a very high level of risk in the foreign exchange market; for your sake, don't get involved in any trading that you do not well understand, first.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b5d19c84907af1282291361ec88cd5c",
"text": "\"Any clearing/ legal experts out there? Is this possible- and if so, is it that big of a deal? Here are my thoughts: 1. The EU is right to request euros to be cleared on \"\"home soil\"\" for sovereignty reasons since 2/3s of euro currency is cleared in London. 2. Moving euro clearing back to the eurozone... would just mirror US regulations. Whats the big deal?\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
bbc424a7fa14ed8c526bde986cde479a
|
Why is retirement planning so commonly recommended?
|
[
{
"docid": "73cb8371016921ef58e4aa8ca47d7116",
"text": "1) People aren't always going to be able to do their occupation, or their desired hobby. 2) Government assistance, or whatever you want to call it, is available at a certain age. Some people look forward to this and plan to rely on it, but it isn't really sufficient for living off of and keeping the standard of living you will be used to. Therefore, such situations require you to plan using a variety of other institutions to help you in that time. Finally, more is more: if your retirement funds exceed what you need, you can leave something for your family to help them start at a more stable financial place after you are gone.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebb37efcf6c6f324d1e273efd6ad2bce",
"text": "You don't have to retire. But the US government and other national governments have programs that allow you to set aside money when you are young to be used when you are older. To encourage you to do this, they reduce your taxes either now or when your are older. They also allow your employer to match your funds. In the US they have IRAs, 401Ks, and Social Security. You are not required to stop working while tapping into these funds. Having a job and using these funds will impact your taxes, but your are not forbidden from doing both. Decades ago most retirement funds come from pensions and Social Security. Most people are going to reach their senior years without a pension, or with only a very small pension because they had one in one of their early jobs. So go ahead, gamble that you will not need to save for retirement. Then hope that decades later you were right about it, because you can't go back in time and fix your choice. Some never save for retirement, either because they can't or they think they can't. Many that don't save end up working longer than they imagined. Some work everyday until they die, or are physically unable to work. Sometimes it is because they love the job, but often it is because they cannot afford to quit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e155a7538f8822b59bcea7d7e2f5090d",
"text": "In addition to what others have said, I think it is important to consider that government retirement assistance (whatever it is called in each instance) is basically a promise that can be revoked. I talked to a retired friend of mine just yesterday and we got onto that subject; she mentioned that when she was young, the promise was for 90% of one's pay, paid by the government after retiring. It is very different today. Yes, you can gamble that you won't need the saved money, and thus decide not to save anything. What then if you do end up needing the money you did not set aside, but rather spent? You are just now graduating college, and assuming of course that you get a decently-paying job, are likely going to have loads more money than you are used to. If you make an agreement with yourself to set aside even just 10-15% of the difference in income right from the start, that is going to grow into a pretty sizable nest egg by the time you approach retirement age. Then, you will have the option of continuing to work (maybe part-time) or quitting in a way you would not have had otherwise. Now I'm going to pull numbers out of thin air, but suppose that you currently have $1000/month net, before expenses, and can get a job that pays $1800/month net starting out. 10-15% of the difference means you'll be saving around $100/month for retirement. In 35 years, assuming no return on investment (pessimistic, but works if returns match inflation) and no pay rises, that will still be over $40K. That's somewhere on the order of $150/month added to your retirement income for 25 years. Multiply with whatever inflation rate you think is likely if you prefer nominal values. It becomes even more noticable if you save a significant fraction of the additional pay; if you save 1/3 of the additional money (note that you still effectively get a 50% raise compared to what you have been living on before), that gives you a net income of $1500/month instead of $1800 ($500/month more rather than $800/month more) which grows into about $110K in 35 years assuming no return on investment. Nearly $400 per month for 25 years. $100 per week is hardly chump change in retirement, and it is still quite realistic for most people to save 30% of the money they did not have before.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7932adddbeaf55a358f7116ed15a8fb",
"text": "\"Another thing that \"\"retirement\"\" lets you do is do what you love without worrying about making enough money to live on by doing it. For example, volunteering your time or starting your own business. These are much easier to do when you don't have to worry about getting paid. Having a source of income provides a lot more freedom to pursue what you love.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d207ee331864241d260bee9c73f4be88",
"text": "If you can afford it, there are very few reasons not to save for retirement. The biggest reason I can think of is that, simply, you are saving in general. The tax advantages of 401k and IRA accounts help increase your wealth, but the most important thing is to start saving at an early age in your career (as you are doing) and making sure to continue contributing throughout your life. Compound interest serves you well. If you are really concerned that saving for retirement in your situation would equate to putting money away for no good reason, you can do a couple of things: Save in a Roth IRA account which does not require minimum distributions when you get past a certain age. Additionally, your contributions only (that is, not your interest earnings) to a Roth can be withdrawn tax and penalty free at any time while you are under the age of 59.5. And once you are older than that you can take distributions as however you need. Save by investing in a balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds. You won't get the tax advantages of a retirement account, but you will still benefit from the time value of money. The bonus here is that you can withdraw your money whenever you want without penalty. Both IRA accounts and mutual fund/brokerage accounts will give you a choice of many securities that you can invest in. In comparison, 401k plans (below) often have limited choices for you. Most people choose to use their company's 401k plan for retirement savings. In general you do not want to be in a position where you have to borrow from your 401k. As such it's not a great option for savings that you think you'd need before you retire. Additionally 401k plans have minimum distributions, so you will have to periodically take some money from the account when you are in retirement. The biggest advantage of 401k plans is that often employers will match contributions to a certain extent, which is basically free money for you. In the end, these are just some suggestions. Probably best to consult with a financial planner to hammer out all the details.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0ce83d198bf60a3671f979a769a22d1",
"text": "\"I suggest that you think in terms of \"\"financial independence\"\" rather than retirement. You do not need to retire in the stereotypical sense of playing golf and moving to Florida. If you reach a point where your \"\"day job\"\" does not need to pay your bills, you open up more options for what you can do. I am not saying to wait until retirement to do something you love. I am saying that lower salary requirements open up more options.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bdeeb17470fe69bea6085cc226ac6929",
"text": "I like many of the answers, but here is a summary of reasons: Almost everyone will retire, and it is almost certain that government or company pensions schemes will not alone give you a lifestyle you would like in retirement. Money invested early is worth much more in retirement than money invested late, thanks to the miracle of compound interest. In some countries there are tax advantages to investing a little bit of money every year, compared with nothing for a few years and then a lump sum later. Much investment advice is given by investment consultants, who profit when you make investments. It's always in their interests to have you invest as early and as often as possible (that doesn't invalidate the first three reasons). Having said that, it isn't always in your best interests to invest in retirement funds very heavily at the start of your career. You might want to consider paying off any debts, or saving for a house, or even having a bit of fun while you are young enough to enjoy it. That back-packing trip to Nepal is going to be a lot easier when you are 23 than when you are 40 with kids.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84f8dd45254f628a4ba97aa69cdcad15",
"text": "\"In addition to the choice that saving for retirement affords - itself a great comfort - the miracle of compounding is so great that even if you chose to work in old age, having set aside sums of money that grow will itself help your future. The are so many versions of the \"\"saving money in your 20s\"\" that equals millions of dollars that the numbers aren't worth showing here. Still, any time value of money example will illustrate the truth. That said, time value of money does start with the assumption that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow. Inflation, after all, eats away at the value of a dollar. It's just that compounding so outshines inflation that any mature person who is willing to wait, should be convinced. Until you work the examples, however, it's not at all obvious. It took my daughter years to figure out that saving her allowance let her get way better stuff. The same is true of everyone.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f279e504791098054af39017d08c245b",
"text": "I actually really like the way you positioned this question. If you love what you are doing every day, why would you ever want to quit, right? I'd think of retirement as a safety net instead. Your retirement can be a fall back for if something happens if you are unable to work or deicide to work less. There are some really good answers listed here, but I think it depends on how you want to view, or rather define retirement.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fb5df2a06d67ee66755cb6d8d65d8c2e",
"text": "Another consideration that is not in the hard numbers. Many people, myself included, find it hard to have the discipline to save for something that is so far off. The 401K plan at work has the benefit of pulling the money out before you see it, so you learn to live on what is left more easily. Also, depending on the type of 401K it attaches penalties to using the money early disincentive you to pull it out for minor emergencies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a23a0acd3a982d7eab2ce03fe76d5ac",
"text": "The reason the article recommends a Roth 401k for those who have a long time until retirement is based on your salary, marginal tax rates, and effective tax rates and some assumptions. You want to contribute to Roth IRAs when your marginal tax rate now is better than your effective tax rate at the time of withdrawal. That is most likely to be true when your salary is smaller (for you) and your salary is most likely to be smaller (compared to your future salaries) when you have more years until retirement. The article is presenting a rule of thumb. It won't hold true for everyone in every situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa5d7fc90781b75afd3e03ba8cc686cb",
"text": "\"There are a lot of funds that exist only to feed people's belief that existing funds are not diversified or specialized enough. That's why you have so many options. Just choose the ones with the lowest fees. I'd suggest the following: I wouldn't mess around with funds that try and specialize in \"\"value\"\" or those target date funds. If you really don't want to think and don't mind paying slightly higher fees, just pick the target date fund that corresponds to when you will retire and put all your money there. On the traditional/Roth question, if your tax bracket will be higher when you retire than it is now (unlikely), choose Roth. Otherwise choose traditional.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51457b958268ac8a3d1178be8b471cb0",
"text": "The primary advantage of an IRA or 401k is you get taxed effectively one time on the money (when you contribute for Roth, or when you withdraw for Traditional), whereas you get taxed effectively multiple times on some of the money in a taxable account (on all the money when you contribute, plus on the earnings part when you withdraw). Of course, you have to be able to withdraw without penalty for it to be optimally advantageous. And you said you want to retire decades early, so that is probably not retirement age. However, withdrawing early does not necessarily mean you have a penalty. For example: you can withdraw contributions to a Roth IRA at any time without tax or penalty; Roth 401k can be rolled over into Roth IRA; other types of accounts can be converted to Roth IRA and the principal of the conversion can be withdrawn after 5 years without penalty.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2f8f38fd4980be3ead50b16da75a484",
"text": "Why would anyone listen to someone else's advice? Because they believe that the person advising them knows better than they do. It's as simple as that. The fact that you're doing any research at all - indeed, the fact that you know about a site on the internet where personal finance questions get asked and answered - puts you way ahead of the average member of the population when it comes to pensions. If you think you know better than the SJP adviser (and I don't mean that aggressively, just as a matter of fact), then by all means do your own thing. But remember about unknown unknowns - you don't know everything the adviser might say, depending on your circumstances and changes to them over time...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b24c9a7d92256bd10cb736a31dce103",
"text": "I'm concerned about your extreme focus on Roth. In today's dollars it would take nearly $2 million to produce enough of an annual withdrawal to fill the 15% bracket. If you are able to fund both 401(k)s and 2 IRAs (total $43K) you're clearly in the 25% bracket or higher. If you retire 100% with Roth savings, and little to no pretax money, you miss the opportunity to receive withdrawals at zero(1), 10, and 15% brackets. Missing this isn't much better than having too much pretax and being in a higher bracket at retirement. One factor often overlooked is that few people manage a working life with no gaps. During times when income is lower for whatever reason, it's a great time to convert a bit to Roth. (1)by zero bracket, I mean the combined standard deduction and exemptions. For two people this is currently (for 2017) $20,800 total. And it goes up a bit most years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da87ad09f8ea417326955b272c8086e8",
"text": "\"To answer, I'm going to make a few assumptions. First, the ideal scenario for a pre-tax 401(k) is the deposit goes in at a 25% tax rate (i.e. the employee is in that bracket) but withdrawn at 15%. This may be true for many, but not all. It's to illustrate a point. The SPY (S&P 500 index ETF) has a cost of .09% per year. If your 401(k) fees are anywhere near 1% per year total, over 10 years you've paid nearly 10% in fees, vs less than 1% for the ETF. Above, I suggest the ideal is that the 401(k) saves you 10% on your taxes, but if you pay 10% over the decade, the benefit is completely negated. I can add to the above that funds outside the retirement accounts give off dividends which are tax favored, and if you were to sell ETFs held over a year, they receive favorable cap-gains rates. The \"\"deposit to get the matching funds\"\" should always be good advice, it would take many years of high fees to destroy that. But even that seemingly reasonable 1% fee can make any other deposits a bad approach. Keep in mind, when retired you will have a zero bracket (in 2011, the combined standard deduction and exemption) adding to $9500, as well as a 10% bracket (the next $8500), so having some pretax money to take advantage of those brackets will help. Last, the average person changes jobs now and then. The ability to transfer the funds from the (bad) 401(k) to an IRA where you can control the investments is an option I'd not ignore in the analysis. I arbitrarily picked 1% to illustrate my thoughts. The same math will show a long time employee will get hurt by even .5%/yr if enough time passes. What are the fees in your 401(k)? Edit - Study of 401(k) fees - put out by the Dept of Labor. Unfortunately, it's over 10 years old, but it speaks to my point. Back then, even a 2000 participant plan with $60M in assets had 110 basis points (this is 1.1%) in fees on average. Whatever the distribution is, those above this average shouldn't even participate in their plans (except for matching) and those on the other side should look at their expenses. As Radix07 points out below, yes, for those just shy of retirement, the fee has less impact, and of course, they have a better idea if they will retire in a lower bracket. Those who have some catching up to do, may benefit despite the fees.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84fa26c30305287135f30a0459bd1b8d",
"text": "\"Statistics are often tough to grasp. Specifically, we need to understand the exact context and implication of the data and how it's presented. An example - I look at real estate sales data for a given town, and find that for the last 10 years, the average sale price has dropped, 3%/yr, every year for these 10. What can I conclude? Now, to your data. You don't mention age. When we look at this chart, combined with the next - The picture, while still bleak, is at least more clear. Nearly half of pre-retirees have no \"\"retirement\"\" savings. If that lower half is running close to zero, the average for the upper half is nearly twice the reported $164K. Even now, there are important bits going unaddressed. People who have had no access to retirement accounts, either through lack of company availability, or self-employeds who just ignored them, may very well have saved outside of retirement-labled accounts. You can see these graphs are tracking only 401(k), IRA, and Keogh accounts. Last, social security for the $30K earner will replace nearly half their working income at retirement, almost 65% if they work till 70. I don't advocate counting on SS for the entirety of one's retirement income, but the way SS benefits are structured, replacement benefits are far higher (as a percent) for lower wage workers, as the system intended. To conclude, median alone is too small a data point to be useful, in my opinion. This kind of information presented in these charts is far more preferable to get a fuller picture.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "209aaa4027838078239f01826af971a3",
"text": "You are describing a situation that is different, than what the video presented. The video is mainly pointing out concentrated wealth. Sure, what you are doing to retire early is good. However, if you get to the point where you start to be a hoarder of wealth; then, you become part of the issue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9eee8e19e9f44b9229656342cdb3bcb6",
"text": "\"Excellent question, though any why question can be challenging to answer because it depends on the financial products in question. At least, I haven't seen many target date retirement funds that include a high percent of foreign stocks, so below explains the ones I've seen which are primarily US stocks. The United States (before the last twenty years) has been seen as a country of stability. This is not true anymore, and it's difficult for my generation to understand because we grew up in the U.S.A being challenged (and tend to think that China and India have always been powers), but when we read investors, like Benjamin Graham (who had significant influence with Warren Buffett), we can see this bias - the U.S.A to them is stable, and other countries are \"\"risky.\"\" Again, with the national debt and the political game in our current time, it does not feel this way. But that bias is often reflect in financial instruments. The US Dollar is still the reserve currency, though it's influence is declining and I would expect it to decline. Contrary to my view (because I could be wrong here) is Mish, who argues that no one wants to have the reserve currency because having a reserve currency brings disadvantages (see here: Bogus Threats to US Reserve Currency Status: No Country Really Wants It!; I present this to show that my view could be wrong). Finally, there tends to be the \"\"go with what you know.\"\" Many of these funds are managed by U.S. citizens, so they tend to have a U.S. bias and feel more comfortable investing their money \"\"at home\"\" (in fact a famous mutual fund manager, Peter Lynch, had a similar mentality - buy the company behind the stock and what company do we tend to know best? The ones around us.). One final note, I'm not saying this mentality is correct, just what the attitude is like. I think you may find that younger mutual fund managers tend to include more foreign stocks, as they've seen that different world.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e134c8e2dc970331adafc60acda2ed44",
"text": "\"Welcome to the 'what should otherwise be a simple choice turns into a huge analysis' debate. If the choice were actually simple, we've have one 'golden answer' here and close others as duplicate. But, new questions continue to bring up different scenarios that impact the choice. 4 years ago, I wrote an article in which I discussed The Density of Your IRA. In that article, I acknowledge that, with no other tax favored savings, you can pack more value into the Roth. In hindsight, I failed to add some key points. First, let's go back to what I'd describe as my main thesis: A retired couple hits the top of the 15% bracket with an income of $96,700. (I include just the standard deduction and exemptions.) The tax on this gross sum is $10,452.50 for an 'average' rate of 10.8%. The tax, paid or avoided, upon deposit, is one's marginal rate. But, at retirement, the withdrawals first go through the zero bracket (i.e. the STD deduction and exemptions), then 10%, then 15%. The above is the simplest snapshot. I am retired, and our return this year included Sch A, itemized deductions. Property tax, mort interest, insurance, donations added up fast, and from a gross income (IRA withdrawal) well into the 25% bracket, the effective/average rate was reported as 7.3%. If we had saved in Roth accounts, it would have been subject to 25%. I'd suggest that it's this phenomenon, the \"\"save at marginal 25%, but withdraw at average sub-11%\"\" effect that account for much of the resulting tax savings that the IRA provides. The way you are asking this, you've been focusing on one aspect, I believe. The 'density' issue. That assumes the investor has no 401(k) option. If I were building a spreadsheet to address this, I'd be sure to consider the fact that in a taxable account, long term gains are taxed at 15% for higher earners (I take the liberty to ignore that wealthier taxpayers will pay a maximum 20% tax on long-term capital gains. This higher rate applies when your adjusted gross income falls into the top 39.6% tax bracket.) And those in the 10 or 15% bracket pay 0%. With median household income at $56K in 2016, and the 15% bracket top at $76K, this suggests that most people (gov data shows $75K is 80th percentile) have an effective unlimited Roth. So long as they invest in a way that avoids short term gains, they can rebalance often enough to realize LT gains and pay zero tax. It's likely the $80K+ earner does have access to a 401(k) or other higher deposit account. If they don't, I'd still favor pretax IRAs, with $11K for the couple still 10% or so of their earnings. It would be a shame to lose that zero bracket of that first $20K withdrawal at retirement. Again working backwards, the $78K withdrawal would take nearly $2M in pretax savings to generate. All in today's dollars.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4967fe2c74d0aeec195b34cb27b16a01",
"text": "\"First of all, \"\"going risky\"\" doesn't mean driving to Las Vegas and playing roulette. The real meaning is that you can afford higher risk/return ratio compared to a person who will retire in the following ten years. Higher return is very important since time works for you and even several extra percent annually will make a big difference in the long run because of compound interest effect. The key is that this requires the investment to not be too risky - if you invest in a single venture and it fails you lose all the money and that's worse that some conservative investment that could yield minimum income. So you still need the investment to be relatively safe. Next, as user Chris W. Rea mentions in the comment funds and ETFs can be very risky - depending on the investment policy they can invest into some very risky ventures or into some specific industry and that poses more risk that investing into \"\"blue chips\"\" for example. So a fund or an ETF can be a good fit for you if you choose a right one.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b3f1db667f6fef6484590e164986c9e",
"text": "\"I'm afraid you have missed a few of the outcomes commonly faced by millions of Americans, so I would like to take a moment to discuss a wider range of outcomes that are common in the United States today. Most importantly, some of these happen before retirement is ever reached, and have grave consequences - yet are often very closely linked to financial health and savings. Not planning ahead long-term - 10-20+ years - is generally associated with not planning ahead even for the next few months, so I'll start there. The most common thing that happens is the loss of a job, or illness/injury that put someone out of work. 6 in 10 adults in the US have less than $500 in savings, so desperation can set in very quickly, as the very next paycheck will be short or missing. Many of these Americans have no other source of saved money, either, so it's not like they can draw on retirement savings, as they don't have that either. Even if they are able to get another job or recover enough to get back to work in a few weeks, this can set off a desperate cycle. Those who have lost their jobs to technical obsolescence, major economic downturns, or large economic changes are often more severely affected. People once making excellent, middle-class (or above) wages with full benefits find they cannot find work that pays even vaguely similarly. In the past this was especially common in heavy labor jobs like manufacturing, meat-packing, and so on, but more recently this has happened in financial sectors and real estate/construction during the 2008 economic events. The more resilient people had padding, switched careers, and found other options - the less resilient, didn't. Especially during the 1970s and 1980s, many people affected by large losses of earning potential became sufficiently desperate that they fell heavily (or lost their functioning status) into substance abuse, including alcohol and drugs (cocaine and heroine being especially popular in this segment of the population). Life disruption - made even more major by a lack of savings - is a key trigger to many people who are already at risk of issues like substance addiction, mental health, or any ongoing legal issues. Another common issue is something more simple, like loss of transportation that threatens their ability to hold their job, and a lack of alternatives available through support networks, savings, family, and public transit. If their credit is bad, or their income is new, they may find even disreputable companies turn them away, or even worse - the most disreputable companies welcome them in with high interest and hair-trigger repossession policies. The most common cycle of desperation I have seen usually starts with banking over-drafts, and its associated fees. People who are afraid and desperate start to make increasingly desperate, short-sighted choices, as tunnel-vision sets in and they are unable to consider longer-term strategy as they focus on holding on to what they have and survival. Many industries have found this set of people quite profitable, including high-interest \"\"check cashing\"\", payday loans, and title loans (aka legal loan sharks), and it is not rare that desperate people are encouraged to get on increasing cycles of loan amounts and fees that worsen their financial situation in exchange for short-term relief. As fees, penalties, and interest add up, they lose more and more of their already strained income to stay afloat. Banks that are otherwise reputable and fair may soon blacklist them and turn them away, and suddenly only the least reputable and most predatory places offer to help at all - usually with a big smile at first, and almost always with awful strings attached. Drugs and alcohol are often readily available nearby and their use can easily turn from recreational to addictive given the allure of the escapism it offers, especially for those made vulnerable by increasing stress, desperation, loss of hope, isolation, and fear. Those who have not been within the system of poverty and desperation often do not see just how many people actively work to encourage bad decision making, with big budgets, charm, charisma, and talent. The voices of reason, trying to act as beacons to call people to take care of themselves and their future, are all too easily drowned out in the roar of a smooth and enticing operation. I personally think this is one of the greatest contributions of the movement to build personal financial health and awareness, as so many great people find ever more effective ways of pointing out the myriad ways people try to bleed your money out of you with no real concern for your welfare. Looking out for your own well-being and not being taking in by the wide array of cons and bad deals is all too often fighting against a strong societal current - as I'm sure most of our regular contributors are all too aware! With increasing desperation often comes illegal maneuvers, often quite petty in nature. Those with substance abuse issues often start reselling drugs to others to try to cover lost income or \"\"get ahead\"\", with often debilitating results on long-term earning potential if they get caught (which can include cost barriers to higher education, even if they do turn their life around). I think most people are surprised by how little and petty things can quickly cycle out of control. This can include things like not paying minor parking or traffic tickets, which can snowball from the $10-70 range into thousands of dollars (due to non-payment often escalating and adding additional penalties, triggering traffic stops for no other reason, etc.), arrest, and more. The elderly are not exempt from this system, and many of America's elderly spend their latter years in prison. While not all are tied to financial desperation as I've outlined above, a deeper look at poverty, crime, and the elderly will be deeply disturbing. Some of these people enter the system while young, but some only later in life. Rather than homelessness being something that only happens after people hit retirement, it often comes considerably earlier than that. If this occurs, the outcome is generally quite a bit more extreme than living off social security - some just die. The average life expectancy of adults who are living on the street is only about 64 years of age - only 2 years into early retirement age, and before full retirement age (which could of course be increased in the next 10-20 years, even if life expectancy and health of those without savings don't improve). Most have extremely restricted access to healthcare (often being emergency only), and have no comforts of home to rest and recuperate when they become ill or injured. There are many people dedicated to helping, yet the help is far less than the problem generally, and being able to take advantage of most of the help (scheduling where to go for food, who to talk to about other services, etc) heavily depends on the person not already suffering from conditions that limit their ability to care for themselves (mental conditions, mobility impairments, etc). There is also a shockingly higher risk of physical assault, injury, and death, depending on where the person goes - but it is far higher in almost every case, regardless. One of the chief problems in considering only retirement savings, is it assumes that you'll only have need for the savings and good financial health once you reach approximately the age of 62 (if it is not raised before you get there, which it has been multiple times to-date). As noted above, if homelessness occurs and becomes longstanding before that, the result is generally shortened lifespan and premature death. The other major issue of health is that preventative care - from simple dentistry to basic self-care, adequate sleep and rest, a safe place to rejuvenate - is often sacrificed in the scrambling to survive and limited budget. Those who develop chronic conditions which need regular care are more severely affected. Diabetic and injury-related limb loss, as one example, are far more likely for those without regular support resources - homeless, destitute, or otherwise. Other posters have done a great job in pointing out a number of the lesser-known governmental programs, so I won't list them again. I only note the important proviso that this may be quite a bit less in total than you think. Social Security on average pays retired workers $1300 a month. It was designed to avoid an all-too-common occurrence of simple starvation, rampant homelessness, and abject poverty among a large number of elderly. No guarantee is made that you won't have to leave your home, move away from your friends and family if you live in an expensive part of the country, etc. Some people get a bit more, some people get quite a bit less. And the loss of family and friend networks - especially to such at-risk groups - can be incredibly damaging. Note also that those financially desperate will be generally pushed to take retirement at the minimum age, even though benefits would be larger and more livable if they delayed their retirement. This is an additional cost of not having other sources of savings, which is not considered by many. Well, yes, many cannot retire whether they want to or not. I cannot find statistics on this specifically, but many are indeed just unable to financially retire without considerable loss. Social Security and other government plans help avoid the most desperate scenarios, but so many aspects of aging is not covered by insurance or affordable on the limited income that aging can be a cruel and lonely process for those with no other financial means. Those with no savings are not likely to be able to afford to regularly visit children and grandchildren, give gifts on holidays, go on cruises, enjoy the best assistive care, or afford new technological devices to assist their aging (especially those too new and experimental to be covered by the insurance plans they have). What's worse - but most people do not plan for either - is that diminished mental and physical capacity can render many people unable to navigate the system successfully. As we've seen here, many questions are from adult children trying to help their elderly parents in retirement, and include aging parents who do not understand their own access to social security, medicaid/medicare, assistive resources, or community help organizations. What happens to those aging without children or younger friend networks to step in and help? Well, we don't really have a replacement for that. I am not aware of any research that quantifies just how many in the US don't take advantage of the resources they are fully qualified to make use of and enjoy, due to a lack of education, social issues (feeling embarrassed and afraid), or inability to organize and communicate effectively. A resource being available is not very much help for those who don't have enough supportive resources to make use of it - which is very hard to effectively plan for, yet is exceedingly common. Without one's own independent resources, the natural aging and end of life process can be especially harsh. Elderly who are economically and food insecure experience far heightened incidence of depression, asthma, heart attack, and heart failure, and a host of other maladies. They are at greater risk for elder-abuse, accidental death, life-quality threatening conditions developing or worsening, and more. Scare-tactics aren't always persuasive, and they do little to improve the lives of many because the people who need to know it most generally just don't believe it. But my hope here is that the rather highly educated and sophisticated audience here will see a little more of the harsher world that their own good decisions, good fortune, culture, and position in society shields them from experiencing. There is a downside to good outcomes, which is that it can cause us to be blind to just how extremely different is the experience of others. Not all experience such terrible outcomes - but many hundreds of thousands in the US alone - do, and sometimes worse. It is not helpful to be unrealistic about this: life is not inherently kind. However, none of this suggests that being co-dependent or giving up your own financial well-being is necessary or advised to help others. Share your budgeting strategies, your plans for the future, your gentle concerns, and give of your time and resources as generously as you can - within your own set budgets and ensuring your own financial well-being. And most of all - do not so easily give up on your family and friends, and count them as life-long hopeless ne'er-do-wells. Let's all strive to be good, kind, honest, and offer non-judgmental support and advice to the best of our ability to the people we care about. It is ultimately their choice - restricted by their own experiences and abilities - but need not be fate. People regularly disappoint, but sometimes they surprise and delight. Take care of yourself, and give others the best chance you can, too.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a62de7c839adaec6cb463239c9d06ab",
"text": "Years before retirement isn't related at all to the Pretax IRA/Roth IRA decision, except insomuch as income typically trends up over time for most people. If tax rates were constant (both at income levels and over time!), Roth and Pretax would be identical. Say you designate 100k for contribution, 20% tax rate. 80k contributed in Roth vs. 100k contributed in Pretax, then 20% tax rate on withdrawal, ends up with the same amount in your bank account after withdrawal - you're just moving the 20% tax grab from one time to another. If you choose Roth, it's either because you like some of the flexibility (like taking out contributions after 5 years), or because you are currently paying a lower marginal rate than you expect you will be in the future - either because you aren't making all that much this year, or because you are expecting rates to rise due to political changes in our society. Best is likely a diversified approach - some of your money pretax, some posttax. At least some should be in a pretax IRA, because you get some tax-free money each year thanks to the personal exemption. If you're working off of 100% post-tax, you are paying more tax than you ought unless you're getting enough Social Security to cover the whole 0% bucket (and probably the 10% bucket, also). So for example, you're thinking you want 70k a year. Assuming single and ignoring social security (as it's a very complicated issue - Joe Taxpayer has a nice blog article regarding it that he links to in his answer), you get $10k or so tax-free, then another $9k or so at 10% - almost certainly lower than what you pay now. So you could aim to get $19k out of your pre-tax IRA, then, and 51k out of your post-tax IRA, meaning you only pay $900 in taxes on your income. Of course, if you're in the 25% bucket now, you may want to use more pretax, since you could then take that out - all the way to around $50k (standard exemption + $40k or so point where 25% hits). But on the other hand, Social Security would probably change that equation back to using primarily Roth if you're getting a decent Social Security check.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30ba162804859dd1871475d85a83ae6b",
"text": "To answer your question, Retirement Revolution may fit the bill to some extent. I'd also like to address some of the indirect assumptions that were made in your bullet points. I'm convinced that the best way to overcome this is not simply to hold down a good job with COLAs every year, max out your IRA accounts and 401(k)s, invest another 10-20% on top, and live off of the savings and whatever Social Security decides to pay you. Instead, the trick is to not retire -- to make a transition into an income-producing activity that can be done in the typical retirement years, hopefully one that is closer to one's calling (i.e., more fulfilling). This takes time, not money. If people just shut off the TV and spent the time building up a side business that has a high passive component, they'd stand a much better chance of not outliving their money.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c937cd9d1fbac7961ac11e3b020333e8
|
Where I can find the exact time when a certain company's stock will be available in the secondary market?
|
[
{
"docid": "42e71f7a8b01aa528beaa8246c665bf8",
"text": "Twitter is planning to go public on NYSE. You'll be able to start trading once the stock is listed for trading, which would be the day of the IPO. Note that since you're trading on the secondary market, you won't be able to buy at the IPO prices, whatever the time is. You're buying from someone who bought at IPO price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26bc7f91b8e382b3c90f5c302e9fee61",
"text": "\"Very often, the word secondary market is used synonymously with the stock market as we all know it. In this case, the primary market would be the \"\"closed\"\" world of VCs, business angels, etc to which stock market investors do not have access, e.g. the securities are not trading on a public stock market.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ff7f871a450e24d96f85664029365357",
"text": "Investopedia has one and so does marketwatch I've always used marketwatch, and I have a few current competitions going on if you want me to send the link They recently remodeled the website so it works on mobile and not as well on desktop Don't know anything about the investopedia one though",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1de4f9aa53884a7706ec901cd7a5d604",
"text": "\"http://finance.yahoo.com/stock-alerts/stock-watch/add/?.done=/stock-alerts/ You will have to have a yahoo account. If you want to provide an alternative delivery email address, visit the URL above. Click \"\"Stocks Watch\"\", enter ticker(s) and price(s) at which you want alerts, then at the bottom select the \"\"email\"\" radio button. If your preferred email address is not listed, click the \"\"Add an email address\"\" link and follow the instructions. I don't know what their limit is, but I currently have three addresses set up -- two to non-@yahoo addresses -- and it works fine.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7883e2d280b6f58e8966be6b1ae7cdc3",
"text": "No matter how a company releases relevant information about their business, SOMEBODY will be the first to see it. I mean, of all the people looking, someone has to be the first. I presume that professional stock brokers have their eyes on these things closely and know exactly who publishes where and when to expect new information. In real life, many brokers are going to be seeing this information within seconds of each other. I suppose if one sees it half a second before everybody else, knows what he's looking for and has already decided what he's going to do based on this information, he might get a buy or sell order in before anybody else. Odds are that if you're not a professional broker, you don't know when to expect new information to be posted, and you probably have a job or a family or like to eat and sleep now and then, so you can't be watching somebody's web site constantly, so you'll be lagging hours or days behind the full-time professionals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6525fabe5b4facfd715c4d176e28d7c",
"text": "They could have different quotes as there are more than a few pieces here. Are you talking a Real Time Level II quote or just a delayed quote? Delayed quotes could vary as different companies would be using different time points in their data. You aren't specifying exactly what kind of quote from which system are you using here. The key to this question is how much of a pinpoint answer do you want and how prepared are you to pay for that kind of access to the automated trades happening? Remember that there could well be more than a few trades happening each millisecond and thus latency is something to be very careful here, regardless of the exchange as long as we are talking about first-world stock exchanges where there are various automated systems being used for trading. Different market makers is just a possible piece of the equation here. One could have the same market maker but if the timings are different,e.g. if one quote is at 2:30:30 and the other is at 2:30:29 there could be a difference given all the trades processed within that second, thus the question is how well can you get that split second total view of bids and asks for a stock. You want to get all the outstanding orders which could be a non-trivial task.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9823767759e3d43146cfab231ab5ed36",
"text": "The first moment of trading usually occurs even later than that. It may take a few hours to balance the current buy/sell orders and open the stock. Watch CNBC when a hot IPO is about to open and you'll see the process in real time. If you miss it, look at a one day Yahoo chart to see when the open occurred.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c3ce52de9c86c161b7c8be72e8139b4",
"text": "Yes, http://shares.telegraph.co.uk/stockscreener/ has what you're looking for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "684939ebba51de25344e1ff641d21134",
"text": "\"Try the general stock exchange web page. http://www.aex.nl I did a quick trial myself and was able to download historical data for the AEX index for the last few years. To get to the data, I went to the menu point \"\"Koersen\"\" on the main page and chose \"\"Indices\"\". I then entered into the sub page for the AEX index. There is a price chart window in which you have to choose the tab \"\"view data\"\". Now you can choose the date range you need and then download in a table format such as excel or csv. This should be easy to import into any software. This is the direct link to the sub page: http://www.aex.nl/nl/products/indices/NL0000000107-XAMS/quotes\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6614c80a1bfd3d9994c53dd2e02b2ba",
"text": "Try Google Finance Screener ; you will be able to filter for NASDAQ and NYSE exchanges.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe41bd844ccdd880ae9b1f59abe82487",
"text": "\"Google Finance certainly has data for Tokyo Stock Exchange (called TYO on Google) listings. You could create a \"\"portfolio\"\" consisting of the stocks you care about and then visit it once per day (or write a script to do so).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e50fbda863f078d02e1be7577f198d04",
"text": "http://www.euroinvestor.com/exchanges/nasdaq/macromedia-inc/41408/history will work as DumbCoder states, but didn't contain LEHMQ (Lehman Brother's holding company). You can use Yahoo for companies that have declared bankruptcy, such as Lehman Brothers: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=LEHMQ&a=08&b=01&c=2008&d=08&e=30&f=2008&g=d but you have to know the symbol of the holding company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "991a7bff6d74666b8e4d83d5eb0c32d6",
"text": "Depends on how you measure liquidity. There's papers out there that approach this very question. Measured in order book spreads for a consolidated $100m trade, I'd say the second biggest market is FX swaps, followed or par'd by the money market (government bonds). If you disallow OTC venues, it's most definitely exchange listed government bonds. If, however, you happen to think in terms of sheer volume per time, the most liquid market phase could be considered the NYSE closing auction, as you can move billions in a matter of minutes, or expressed in speed terms: several m$/s (million dollars per second). You should pick a definition and we can provide you with a more accurate list of candidates and actual data.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52e41eaf6ab2a990bfe7c69d2d688a11",
"text": "There are lots of good answers on here already. There are actually lots of answers for this question. Lots. I have years of experience on the exchange feed side and there are hundreds and thousands of variables. All of these variables are funneled into systems owned by large financial institutions (I used to manage these - and only a few companies in the world do this so not hard to guess who I work for). Their computers then make trades based on all of these variables and equations. There are variables as whacky as how many times was a company mentioned in an aggregate news feed down to your basic company financials. But if there is a way to measure a company (or to just guess) there is an equation for it plugged into a super computer at a big bank. Now there are two important factors on why you see this mad dash in the morning: Now most of the rest of the day is also automated trades but by the time you are an hour into market open the computers for the most part have fulfilled their calendar buys. Everyone else's answer is right too. There is futures contracts that change, global exchange info changes, options expiring, basic news, whatever but all of these are amplified by the calendar day changing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05df9270e1259daad20959e2a75da64e",
"text": "I will be messaging you on [**2017-10-06 17:57:23 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2017-10-06 17:57:23 UTC To Local Time) to remind you of [**this link.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/7354iz/roku_ipo_stock_price_closes_up_67_on_first_day_of/dnolw5y) [**3 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=[https://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/7354iz/roku_ipo_stock_price_closes_up_67_on_first_day_of/dnolw5y]%0A%0ARemindMe! 1 week) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete Comment&message=Delete! dnolwn7) _____ |[^(FAQs)](http://np.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/24duzp/remindmebot_info/)|[^(Custom)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=[LINK INSIDE SQUARE BRACKETS else default to FAQs]%0A%0ANOTE: Don't forget to add the time options after the command.%0A%0ARemindMe!)|[^(Your Reminders)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List Of Reminders&message=MyReminders!)|[^(Feedback)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBotWrangler&subject=Feedback)|[^(Code)](https://github.com/SIlver--/remindmebot-reddit)|[^(Browser Extensions)](https://np.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/4kldad/remindmebot_extensions/) |-|-|-|-|-|-|",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ad78c252c10c6b6a1ea91d8e2332a20",
"text": "\"A company whose stock is available for sale to the public is called a publicly-held or publicly-traded company. A public company's stock is sold on a stock exchange, and anyone with money can buy shares through a stock broker. This contrasts with a privately-held company, in which the shares are not traded on a stock exchange. In order to invest in a private company, you would need to talk directly to the current owners of the company. Finding out if a company is public or private is fairly easy. One way to check this is to look at the Wikipedia page for the company. For example, if you take a look at the Apple page, on the right sidebar you'll see \"\"Type: Public\"\", followed by the stock exchange ticker symbol \"\"AAPL\"\". Compare this to the page for Mars, Inc.; on that page, you'll see \"\"Type: Private\"\", and no stock ticker symbol listed. Another way to tell: If you can find a quote for a share price on a financial site (such as Google Finance or Yahoo Finance), you can buy the stock. You won't find a stock price for Mars, Inc. anywhere, because the stock is not publicly traded.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91fb41385d3ed83338b90b32b5f44787",
"text": "I don't know that I can answer the question fully, but 2 points. The percent that represent capital gains certainly can't exceed 100. Did you mean 50% but the 500% is a typo? More important, funds held in retirement accounts have no issue with this, Cap Gains are meaningless within tax deferred accounts. I don't know the ratio of stocks held in these accounts vs outside, just that the 2011 year end total retirement account worth was $17 trillion. (That's 12 zeros) This strikes me as a high ratio, although more numbers digging is in order.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
48d7183ca933cc7c7ab05798a2112876
|
Tracking my spending, and incoming and outgoing (i.e cashflow)
|
[
{
"docid": "faef59d5875f40e992a989808dd55827",
"text": "Systems to research that may help you out: Less Accounting and Wave are great because they can import data from banks / credit cards. I know you said your bank doesn't export it but it seems like something as a small business you would want.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07d2dc099d9877410a2f73be08142986",
"text": "Honing in on your last question: Is there a better way? I think there is, but it would require you to change the way you handle your spending, and that may not be of interest to you. Right now you have a lot of manual work, keeping track of expenditures and then entering the, every day. The great thing about switching to a habit where you pay for everything using a debit or credit card is that you can skip the manual entry by importing your transactions from your bank. You mention that your bank doesn't allow for exporting. There's still a chance that your bank can connect with a solution like Wave Accounting (http://www.waveaccouting.com), which is free and made for small business accounting. (Full disclosure: I represent Wave.) If your current bank doesn't permit export or connections with Wave, it may be worth switching to a different bank. It's a bit of a pain to make the switch, I know, but you really will save a massive amount of time and effort over the course of the year, as well as minimize the risk of human error, compared to entering your receipts on a daily basis. In Wave, you can still enter all of your cash receipts manually if you want to continue with your current practice of cash payments. One important thing to mention, too: If you're looking for a better way of doing things, make sure it includes proper backup. There would be nothing worse than entering all that data onto a spreadsheet and then something happening to your computer and you lose it all. Wave Accounting is backed up hourly and uses bank-level security to keep your information safe. One last thing: as I mention above, Wave Accounting is free. So if it is a good match for your small business accounting needs, it will also be a nice fit for your wallet.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0507b77c98c3fcf6da71fa48b8d2b9c8",
"text": "My bank will let me download credit card transactions directly into a personal finance program, and by assigning categories to stores I can get at least a rough overview of that sidd of things, and then adjust categories/splits when needed. Ditto checks. Most of my spending is covered by those. Doesn't help with cash transactions, though; if I want to capture those accurately I need to save receipts. There are ocr products which claim to help capture those; haven't tried them. Currently, since my spending is fairly stable, I'm mostly leaving those as unknown; that wouldn't work for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "002e6b42dcf753ed26b4cc285fc9a1f4",
"text": "\"I'm not convinced this is completely possible without additional data. I'm categorizing my purchases now, and I keep running into things like \"\"was this hardware store purchase for home repair, hobby tools and supplies, cookware, ...\"\" Ditto for department stores, ditto for cash purchases which appear only as an ATM withdrawal. Sometimes I remember, sometimes I guess, sometimes I just give up. In the end, this budget tracking isn't critical for me so that's good enough. If you really want accuracy, though, I think you are stuck with keeping all your receipts, of taking notes, so you can resolve these gaps.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8018eefd837fd80fcc3c6bd9a4cb2eb5",
"text": "\"JoeTaxpayer's answer mentions using a third \"\"house\"\" account. In my comment on his answer, I mentioned that you could simply use a bookkeeping account to track this instead of the overhead of an extra real bank account. Here's the detail of what I think will work for you. If you use a tool like gnucash (probably also possible in quicken, or if you use paper tracking, etc), create an account called \"\"Shared Expenses\"\". Create two sub accounts under that called \"\"his\"\" and \"\"hers\"\". (I'm assuming you'll have your other accounts tracked in the software as well.) I haven't fully tested this approach, so you may have to tweak it a little bit to get exactly what you want. When she pays the rent, record two transactions: When you pay the electric bill, record two transactions: Then you can see at a glance whether the balances on \"\"his\"\" and \"\"hers\"\" match.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4fd4caeba66a11f04131154e9c7d968",
"text": "Track your spending and expected income -- on paper, or with a personal-finance program. If you know how much is committed, you know how much is available. Trivial with checks, requires a bit more discipline with credit cards.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a8aa234932951e462e9c75416d5fab0",
"text": "If you want to keep any consistent standard, you need to knuckle down and make those transaction entries. Honestly, this is a lot faster doing in bulk than doing day-by-day. But change how you account so it isn't annoying. I minimize my bookable transactions. For instance I deposit all income whole (for tracking) but stop tracking when the money is converted to cash or gift card money - I log adding $50 to a McDonalds gift card, but not the individual meals. I only use cash for the myriad small things I do not want to track - fast food, parking meters, etc. Anything big or that I want to track goes on a credit card. Then it's easy to reconcile credit cards to accounting system. (Cathy) Ryan's Law: if it wasn't written down, it didn't happen.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ee3149b12c0eb37a8beb933962a0205",
"text": "I recently made the switch to keeping track of my finance (Because I found an app that does almost everything for me). Before, my situation was fairly simple: I was unable to come up with a clear picture of how much I was spending vs saving (altho I had a rough idea). Now I here is what it changes: What I can do now: Is it useful ? Since I don't actually need to save more than I do (I am already saving 60-75% of my income), 1) isn't important. Since I don't have any visibility on my personal situation within a few years, 2) and 3) are not important. Conclusion: Since I don't actually spend any time building theses informations I am happy to use this app. It's kind of fun. If I did'nt had that tool... It would be a waste of time for me. Depends on your situation ? Nb: the app is Moneytree. Works only in Japan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ecad338e1109d173bd965ba1f489795",
"text": "\"What I've found works best when working on my personal budget is to track my income and spending two different ways: bank accounts and budget categories. Here is what I mean: When I deposit my paycheck, I do two things with it: It goes into my checking account, so the balance of my checking account goes up by the amount of my paycheck. I also \"\"deposit\"\" the money from my checking account into my various budget category balances. This is separate from my bank account balances. Some of my paycheck money goes into my groceries category, some goes into clothing, some into car fuel, entertainment, mortgage, phone, etc. Some goes into longer range bills that only happen once or twice a year, such as car insurance, life insurance, property tax, etc. Some goes into savings goals of ours, such as car replacement, vacation, furniture, etc. Every dollar that we have in a bank account or in cash in our wallets is also accounted for in a budget category. If you add up the balances of our bank accounts and cash, and you add up the balances of our budget categories, they add up to the same number. When we make a purchase, this also gets accounted for twice: The appropriate bank account (or cash wallet) balance gets reduced by the purchase amount. The appropriate budget category gets reduced by the purchase amount. In this way, we don't really need to worry about having separate bank accounts for different purposes. We don't need to put our savings goal money in a separate bank account from our grocery money, if we don't want to. The budget category accounting keeps track of how much money is allocated to each purpose. Now, the budget category amounts are not spent yet; the money in them is still in our bank account, and we can move money around in the categories, if we change our mind on how to allocate them. For example, if we don't spend all of our gas money for the month, we can either keep that money in the gas category, or we can move it to a different category, such as the car replacement category or the vacation category. If the phone bill is more than we expect, we can move money around from a different category to cover it. Now, back to your question: We allocate some money from each paycheck into our furniture category. But the money is not really spent until we actually buy some furniture. When we do, the furniture category balance and bank account balance both go down by the amount of the purchase. All of this can be kept track of on the computer in a spreadsheet. However, it's not easy to keep track of so many categories and bank balances. An easier solution is custom budgeting software designed for this purpose. I use and recommend YNAB.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82556cf6dd6ff545b2163acfa5412108",
"text": "\"An accounting general ledger is based on tracking your actual assets, liabilities, expenses, and income, and Gnucash is first and foremost a general ledger program. While it has some simple \"\"budgeting\"\" capabilities, they're primarily based around reporting how close your actual expenses were to a planned budget, not around forecasting eventual cash flow or \"\"saving\"\" a portion of assets for particular purposes. I think the closest concept to what you're trying to do is that you want to take your \"\"real\"\" Checking account, and segment it into portions. You could use something like this as an Account Hierarchy: The total in the \"\"Checking Account\"\" parent represents your actual amount of money that you might reconcile with your bank, but you have it allocated in your accounting in various ways. You may have deposits usually go into the \"\"Available funds\"\" subaccount, but when you want to save some money you transfer from that into a Savings subaccount. You could include that transfer as an additional split when you buy something, such as transferring $50 from Assets:Checking Account:Available Funds sending $45 to Expenses:Groceries and $5 to Assets:Checking Account:Long-term Savings. This can make it a little more annoying to reconcile your accounts (you need to use the \"\"Include Subaccounts\"\" checkbox), and I'm not sure how well it'd work if you ever imported transaction files from your bank. Another option may be to track your budgeting (which answers \"\"How much am I allowed to spend on X right now?\"\") separately from your accounting (which only answers \"\"How much have I spent on X in the past?\"\" and \"\"How much do I own right now?\"\"), using a different application or spreadsheet. Using Gnucash to track \"\"budget envelopes\"\" is kind of twisting it in a way it's not really designed for, though it may work well enough for what you're looking for.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c509b1b72a4cbf876193786938eb9a1",
"text": "Use one journal entry, and split the expenses into the appropriate accounts. This can happen even if you never mix business and personal on the same receipt: say you order office supplies (which where I live are immediately deductible as an expense) and software or hardware (which must be depreciated because they are assets) on the same order. We have an account called Proprietors Loan which represents money the company is lending to the humans who own it, or that the humans are lending to the company. Were I to pay for my personal lunch on a business credit card, it would go through that account, increasing the amount the company has lent me or decreasing the amount I have lent it. Similarly if I made a business purchase with a personal card it would go through that account in the other direction. Where I live, I can lend my company all the money I want any time, but if the company lends me money there can't be an outstanding balance over the corporate year end. If you make two credit card entries of 5 and 10 when you go to reconcile your accounts it will be harder because you'll have to realize they together match the single 15 line on your statement. Making a single entry (your A option) will make reconciling your statement much easier. And that way, you'll probably reconcile your statements, which is vital to knowing you actually recorded everything.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b4e473675196ea73e28c4a46e3d696f",
"text": "You're lending the money to your business by paying for it directly. The company accounts must reflect a credit (the amount you lend to it) and a debit (what it then puts that loan towards). It's fairly normal for a small(ish) owner-driven company to reflect a large loan-account for the owners. For example, if you have a room at home dedicated for the business it is impractical to pay rent directly via the company. The rental agreement is probably in your name, you pay the rent, and you reconcile it with the company later. You could even charge your company (taxable) interest on this loan. When you draw down the loan from the company you reverse this, debit your loan account and credit the company (paying off the debt). As far as tracking that expenditure, simply handle those third-party invoices in the normal way and file them for reference.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5ac2c4ff3c5d1c545838bec51ac3bb8",
"text": "\"Other responses have focused on getting you software to use, but I'd like to attempt your literal question: how are such transactions managed in systems that handle them? I will answer for \"\"double entry\"\" bookkeeping software such as Quicken or GnuCash (my choice). (Disclaimer: I Am Not An Accountant and accountants will probably find error in my terminology.) Your credit card is a liability to you, and is tracked using a liability account (as opposed to an asset account, such as your bank accounts or cash in your pocket). A liability account is just like an asset except that it is subtracted from rather than added to your total assets (or, from another perspective, its balance is normally negative; the mathematics works out identically). When you make a purchase using your credit card, the transaction you record transfers money from the liability account (increasing the liability) to the expense account for your classification of the expense. When you make a payment on your credit card, the transaction you record transfers money from your checking account (for example) to the credit card account, reducing the liability. Whatever software you choose for tracking your money, I strongly recommend choosing something that is sufficiently powerful to handle representing this as I have described (transfers between accounts as the normal mode of operation, not simply lone increases/decreases of asset accounts).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5d1e8cea7fd9c7f67b3b8a3b5051f7f",
"text": "Personally, I have a little checkbook program that I use to keep track of my spending and balance. Like you -- and I presume like most people -- I have certain recurring bills: the mortgage, insurance payments, car payment, etc. I simply enter these into the checkbook program about a month before the bill is due. Then I can run a transaction list that shows the date, amount, and remaining balance after each transaction. So if I want to know how much money I really have available to spend, I just look for the last transaction before my next payday, and see what the balance will be on that day. Personally, I always keep a certain amount of pad in my account so if I made a mistake and entered an incorrect amount for a check, or forgot to enter one completely, I don't overdraw the account. (I like to keep $1000 in such padding but that's way more than really necessary, it's very rare that I make a mistake of more than $100.) In my case, I don't enter electric bills or heating bills because I don't know the amount until I get the bill, and the amounts fall well within my padding, and for just two bills I can factor them in in my head. BTW I wrote this program myself but I'm sure there are similar products on the market. I used to use a spreadsheet and that worked pretty well. (Mainly I wrote the program because I have a tiny side business that I have to keep tax records for even though it makes almost no money.) You could in principle do it on paper, but the catch to that is that when you write payments on your paper ledger in advance of actually writing the check, you will often be writing down payments out of order, and so it becomes difficult to see what your balance is or was or will be on any given date. But a computer system can easily accept transactions out of order and then sort them and re-do the balance calculations in a fraction of a second.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e18d1212fa62a4a052dbb4b096fb6db",
"text": "\"Congratulations on keeping better track of your finances! Typically there will be a class of accounts labelled \"\"Income\"\", under which you will have a separate account for each type of income (stock dividends, paychecks, home appreciation, etc). In that case, showing your income would be a transfer from the Paycheck account to your Checking account. Note that, as there are no offsetting transactions, this means your income account will steadily accrue a balance over time - just ignore this number, it's only the sum of all your paychecks. There are methods of dealing with that number (and making the income account have a zero balance), but you don't need to worry about it at this stage. Just learning to properly track expenses is the major accomplishment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f10a2dce412274f1481a39aa4a09c44",
"text": "There are several reports under the Reports>Income & Expenses menu which could be useful. Cash Flow - shows, for a particular set of accounts, where incoming and outgoing money from those accounts came from and went to. Expense BarChart/PieChart - shows top N expenses. Income Statement (also called Profit & Loss) - shows all incomes and expenses for the time period. Each of these reports have an options dialog which will let you change the period that they are reporting on and the accounts to be included in the reports. The Cash Flow report sounds particularly useful for your second scenario.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "498db99de29e752203935a5442bc5447",
"text": "You have to track your spending for a month, down to the cent. Without those records, the person trying to help you has no real data. Even a week would be a start. Heck, try just doing this today. See if it works for you. Throughout each day: Each evening: At the end of a month (or week, or whatever period you want): Each day you do it successfully it will get easier. Let us know how it works out! Best wishes!",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
06274fc2afe98e5c827a51f5bb34a0f7
|
What determines price fluctuation of groceries
|
[
{
"docid": "efe70ea839b8b2502a417b3f0cdc2d5f",
"text": "\"Yes and no. First off, commodity prices reflect the cost of a good about 3 steps back in the retail supply chain; the agreed-upon price for the raw foodstuff between farmers/ranchers and manufacturers. Your grocer may carry bags of whole grain wheat, but that's certainly not all he carries that contains it. Same for corn, rice and other staple grains, as well as for fruits and vegetables, herbs (yes, you can buy basil by the ton on the CME), meats, various sugars, etc. So, a long-term sustained change in prices of a commodity foodstuff will eventually affect the real cost to you to buy things they're made from. However, in the short term, the retail supply chain will generally act as a buffer between these prices and the ones you see on the store shelf. Consumers don't like price increases, especially of necessities like food. When food costs go up, consumers can and will very quickly change their spending habits, buying cheaper options to get their needed calories. That makes manufacturers nervous; consumers not buying their product is a worse scenario than consumers buying their product at a reduced gain or even at a loss. So, manufacturers, and suppliers and retailers, will all absorb as much as they can of the cost of a commodities increase before beginning to pass it on to consumers. On the flip side, while consumers like price drops, they don't notice them as much as price increases. So, the supply chain will also absorb a fall in commodity prices by resisting price reductions in the consumer goods, as long as they can get away with it (which is usually longer than the price reduction actually lasts). The net effect is that processed food prices typically follow the gentle upward climb of long-term inflation, and only rarely do you see drastic price increases or decreases. Where this model breaks down a little bit is in highly perishable foodstuffs, especially seasonal or \"\"wild-managed\"\" foods; fruits and vegetables, seafood, etc. The limited time in which the stuff can be sold makes the process of getting a fish out of the ocean and a fruit off the tree and into your grocery store much more market-driven; the producers, suppliers and grocers are all in constant contact over what's available and how much they can get for what price. The prices therefore are typically a lower markup (unlike highly processed grain-based foods, there's not much added value to be marked up between the apple farmer picking the fruit and the grocer putting it on display), but also much more volatile; if there's a bumper crop of fruit, the farmer has to unload it all or it goes to waste, while similarly if an early freeze decimated the apple crop, the suppliers can't just get some of last year's bumper crop out of storage; they fight with everyone else for what little made it to market. Farmers will sometimes intentionally let excess crop spoil in order to maintain a minimum price for what they sell (the rest can at least be composted and used for fertilizer, saving them some money on maintenance), but there's no silver bullet for a shortage. This is why a lot of these foods, especially seafood, are considered luxury items; they're not stable enough for everyone to get as much as they want whenever they want, unlike staple grains.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af8936f2118d658d9f57e27f1caf14bd",
"text": "\"No. Some grocery stores may discount specific products based on inventory to drive sales using \"\"loss leaders\"\" where the product is intentionally priced as a loss for the business. While commodity futures may impact some prices, I'm not sure one can easily extract the changes solely due to futures shifts.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c95a3f96955c131806f5b56e19a89780",
"text": "That is true. Since commodities are basically a futures contract, their actual price is not reflected in grocery stores. It is more of a supply and demand issue with your grocer.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "371e8f2e82be060229ed7fa33316d364",
"text": "The mechanism of supply and demand is imperfect. Producers don't know exactly how many purchasers/consumers for a good there are. Some goods, by their nature, are in short supply, and some are plentiful. The process of price discovery is one where (in a nominally free market) producers and purchasers make offers and counter-offers to assess what the price should be. As they do this the historical price changes, usually floating around some long-term average. As it goes up, we experience inflation. As it goes down, deflation. However, there isn't a fixed supply of producers and purchasers, so as new ones arrive and old ones leave, this too has an impact on supply and prices. Money (either in electronic or physical form) needs to be available to reflect the transactions and underpin the economy. Most central banks (at least in more established economies) aim for inflation of 2-4% by controlling the availability of money and the cost of borrowing new money. There are numerous ways they can do this (printing, issuing bonds, etc.). The reason one wants some degree of inflation is because employees will never accept a pay cut even when one would significantly improve the overall economy. Companies often decrease their prices in order to match lower demand, but employees don't usually accept decreased wages for decreased labour demand. A nominal degree of overall money inflation therefore solves this problem. Employees who get a below-inflation wage increase are actually getting a wage cut. Supply and demand must be matched and some inflation is the inevitable consequence of this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d7340d23e5f571dc750165921c2e144",
"text": "It's the buying and selling of the stock that causes the fluctuation in prices, not the news. People buy and sell all the time, and not just for newsworthy reasons. They may have to send a child to college, or fix a roof, etc. Or they may be technical traders looking for signals. All kinds of reasons.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "685969de8f725ad8bdedd6839e4ee42c",
"text": "The general discussion of inflation centers on money as a medium of exchange and a store of value. It is impossible to discuss inflation without considering time, since it is a comparison between the balance between money and goods at two points in time. The whole point of using money, rather than bartering goods, is to have a medium of exchange. Having money, you are interested in the buying power of the money in general more than the relative price of a specific commodity. If some supply distortion causes a shortage of tobacco, or gasoline, or rental properties, the price of each will go up. However, if the amount of circulating money is doubled, the price of everything will be bid up because there is more money chasing the same amount of wealth. The persons who get to introduce the additional circulating money will win at the expense of those who already hold cash. Most of the public measures that are used to describe the economy are highly suspect. For example, during the 90s, the federal government ceased using a constant market basket when computing CPI, allowing substitutions. With this, it was no longer possible to make consistent comparisons over time. The so-called Core CPI is even worse, as it excludes food and energy, which is fine provided you don't eat anything or use any energy. Therefore, when discussing CPI, it is important to understand what exactly is being measured and how. Most published statistics understate inflation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09ebbb0d5e20d22affce6d9fd51e8ae3",
"text": "We need to be careful what we are talking about here. Inflation on a economy-level scale at an expected rate will not change consumer habits because the price increase is manageable. You have to realize that prices are not increasing in isolation: wages will have to rise along too. High inflation that is expected will increase consumption of durable goods, as people attempt to 'get rid of their money' before the price changes on them. A good example of this was post-WWI germany, where hyperinflation was so bad that offices began to pay their employees twice daily, so they could adjust their wages, and so that their employees could go out during lunch and after work to buy something with the money before the price changed on them. Unexpected inflation may cause a temporary dip in spending until wages adjust, however consumers still need to buy, so they will likely push for higher wages, leading to consumption to stay about level. There is another effect to inflation as well: People who have savings will have their savings eroded over time if the economy is inflationary. To preserve their wealth, they will invest it. In a deflationary environment, money will increase in value simply by being hoarded, so they will be less willing to invest it. Deflation also increases the cost of interest on a loan, while inflation decreases it. So the overall effect is for an increase in spending under inflation, and a decrease under deflation. The person you have quoted is quite wrong. Price increases in a particular sector will cause consumer spending to decrease but this is a bad example, as it is not inflation, but rather a supply/demand problem of a particular consumer good. They are applying a micro-economic model (price increases of a single good) to a macroeconomic problem (price increases in the entire economy) when price increases at a global scale have the opposite effects. A good theoretical test of this is: what would happen if everyone in the US suddenly had twice as much money? (Ignoring international trade, of course). The answer: prices will double, and nothing else will change. The reason is, people will have more money to spend, but will require more money for their services, so in the end it all cancels out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56a2c9dd60a135526a28f93fea2b388f",
"text": "An economy produces goods and services and people use money to pay for those goods and services. Money has value because people believe that they can buy and sell goods and services with it in that economy. How much the value of money is, is determined by how much money there is in comparison to goods and services (supply and demand). In most economies it is the job of the federal/national reserve bank to ensure that prices stay stable (ie the relationship of goods and services to how much money there is is stable); as this is necessary for a well running economy. The federal reserve bank does so by making more (printing, decreasing interest rates) or less (increasing interest rates) available to the economy. To determine how much money needs to be in the economy to keep prices stable is incredibly hard as many factors have an impact: If the reserve bank gets it wrong and there is more money compared to goods and services than previous, prices will rise to compensate; this is inflation If it's the other way round is deflation. Since it is commonly regarded that deflation is much more destabilizing to an economy than inflation the reserve banks tend to err on the side of inflation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfe88486c116475b6d9a7b924daff410",
"text": "\"Inflation as defined in the general, has many impacts at a personal level. For example, you say that the reduction in the price of oil has no impact on you. That's absolutely not true, unless you're a hermit living off of the land. Every box or can or jar of food you buy off the shelf of the grocery store has the price of oil baked into it, because it had to get there somehow. High fuel costs for trucks mean increased costs to put food on shelves, which mean increased prices for that food. Even tobacco prices can affect you, because they affect what other people are spending. Demand is always a significant factor in prices, particularly retail prices, and if people are spending more money on tobacco, they're probably spending less on other things - either buying less snacks, for example, or buying cheaper brands of those snacks. So the price of Doritos may drop a bit (or not rise), for example. General inflation also tends to drive raises, particularly in industries with relatively small performance ties to raises. If inflation is 3%, wages need to raise 3% or so in order to keep up, on average; even if your personal cost-of-living went up 0%, or 5%, or 10%, the default wage inflation will be closer to that of the national average. Any raise less than national average is effectively a pay cut (which is one reason why inflation is needed in a healthy economy). So your company probably has a cost-of-living raise everyone gets that's a bit less than inflation, and then good performers get a bump up to a bit more than inflation. You can read more on this topic for a more in-depth explanation. Finally, inflation rates tend to be major factors in stock market movement. Inflation that is too high, or too low, can lead to higher volatility; inflation that is \"\"right\"\" can lead to higher stability. An economy that has consistently \"\"right\"\" inflation (around 2-3% typically) will tend to have more stable stock market in general, and thus more reliable returns from that market. There are many other factors that lead to stock markets rising and falling, but inflation is one very relevant one, particularly if it's not in the \"\"right\"\" zone.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bdeff7d8ea58b2abda76c4781c153ec6",
"text": "I'm not an economics expert or anything, but what seems strange to me is the randomising part. Everything else looks fine but why does it randomly select the next item for price increase, wouldn't this depend on supply/demand and the players in the game?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81fcbd17cb5f0333d87d3fda0447cda8",
"text": "I do appreciate the explanation. I was being a bit facetious about hotdogs in that I don't buy the SAME hotdog over and over again. But seriously, I still don't see why rising house prices shouldn't count towards inflation. 100s of thousands of homes are bought per day affecting millions of consumers per day. The price fluctuations in housing absolutely affect the spending habits of consumers in every other facet of the economy. Or put another way, what if in some wacky world everyone stopped buying virtually all other items except bare essentials because they were all focused on buying homes. A huge construction industry boom ensues. Millions are working building homes. Home prices skyrocket 1000% and become like 80% of GDP. Is inflation dead? Or has it just shifted to another asset under our typical inflation radar? Living costs are still very much affected by housing in this scenario. They're just affected by millions of separate people at once each day. To say that because one person doesn't repeat buy housing too often, means policy regarding inflation should be ignorant of housing prices, just isn't right. That they are bought and sold by millions of consumers each month is just as important to the economy as food, energy, or any other major facet of our economy. In any event, inflation might be lagging, but it sure as hell isn't lagging when it comes to housing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3809349303c40ac4957d1925bf846e8",
"text": "Bren's comment is right on the mark. The typical solution is to divide all bills by 5, and for special items, the person buying it just marks his name that it's not community food. Your attempt at a granularity level this detailed is admirable, but produces false results. What happens when I claim to be a zero percent milk drinker but when someone gives me cookies, I have a glass of milk? The effort to get true accuracy will cost far more in time spent than the results are worth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f395ab2911cf726f0f95ad459c5c8e8",
"text": "Excellent explanation. Upvote to you sir. I would like to add something: How do we know how many bushels of apples is worth a chunk of deer meat? You did not touch on the concept of value. The way I see it, value is related to the human energy required to procure a specific good. For example: it takes a man all day to find a nugget of gold, while it take another man all day to pick 20 bushels of apples. Because gold is scarce, it is worth a lot of apples: it has a high value. At it's core, value is assigned based on the amount of human labor required to acquire a good or service. For example: Many years ago there may have been an equal number of bears and skunks. However, it would take many brave hunters with bows and arrows to kill a bear, while any hunter could kill a skunk solo. Thus, even though they had the same scarcity, a bear hide would be more valuable because the human labor required was greater. Many economics classes simply say value depends on supply and demand. However, if something is in low supply and high demand, it is BECAUSE it takes so much human effort to procure. If it did not take large amounts of human labor, everyone would sell said item and the value would drop. What is your take on this? do you have a better explanation for value?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b0d59e3f864aab765fbc03b515de78f",
"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:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae17995aa49a297c3f165878d3b6b62e",
"text": "That is an assumption that sales would not go down if prices go up. If you lose even .5% of sales due to an increase of 17 cents, you're not going to cover your $15 wage. Fast food is an incredibly competitive space, if you don't think 17 cents is significant, go look at how many places still offer a dollar/99 cent menu.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc1bf4de61c4935ba16ddaa14ac96f2f",
"text": "according to me it's the news about a particular stock which makes people to buy or sell it mostly thus creates a fluctuation in price . It also dependents on the major stock holder.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03cb743babeee57970ba9c8594eaaa52",
"text": "I am very interested to see what Market Basket's sales look like in another two months. Consumers tend to do their grocery shopping out of habit, and all a competitor (manufacturer or retailer)needs is one chance to show them a better option. Market Basket has lost many customers for good, but will this story lead to even more new customers?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d1babfc30d5ff74831c9c3ab4156b3c",
"text": "\"If you want to make a profit from long term trading (whatever \"\"long term\"\" means for you), the best strategy is to let the good performers in your portfolio run, and cull the bad ones. Of course that strategy is hard to follow, unless you have the perfect foresight to know exactly how long your best performing investments will continue to outperform the market, but markets don't always follow the assumption that perfect information is available to all participants, and hence \"\"momentum\"\" has a real-world effect on prices, whether or not some theorists have chosen to ignore it. But a fixed strategy of \"\"daily rebalancing\"\" does exactly the opposite of the above - it continuously reduces the holdings of good performers and increases the holdings of bad. If this type of rebalancing is done more frequently than the constituents of benchmark index are adjusted, it is very likely to underperform the index in the long term. Other issues in a \"\"real world\"\" market are the impact of increased dealing costs on smaller parcels of securities, and the buy/sell spreads incurred in the daily rebalancing trades. If the market is up and down 1% on alternate days with no long tern trend, quite likely the fund will be repeatedly buying and selling small parcels of the same stocks to do its daily balancing.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a85ef6ae1692e2efd9d34d28e0998c7a
|
Is this formula accurate for weighing the difference between an S-Corp and LLC?
|
[
{
"docid": "de92587f4c34d0733ffc73a07c95127c",
"text": "FICA/SE taxes are not 30%. They are at most ~15%, including the employer portion. Employer also pays FUTA tax, and has additional payroll expenses (like fees and worker compensation insurance). The employee's FICA portion is limited up to a certain level of earnings (110100 this year, IIRC). Above it you only pay medicare taxes, not social security. S-Corp earnings are not taxed at 15%, these are not dividends. They're taxed at your ordinary income rate. You don't pay SE taxes on it, that's the only difference. I hope you're talking about tax treatment decision, because there are entirely different factors to keep in mind when you're organizing a business and making a decision between being it a LLC or a corporation. I believe you should pay some money to get a real advice that would apply to you, from a EA/CPA who would be doing the number-crunching (hopefully correctly). I'm a tax practitioner, and this answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3690f57050d3a70467bddf10e4f5f4c",
"text": "\"It might be best to step back and look at the core information first. You're evaluating an LLC vs a Corporation (both corporate entities). Both have one or more members, and both are seen similarly (emphasis on SIMILAR here, they're not all the same) to the IRS. Specifically, LLC's can opt for a pass-through tax system, basically seen by the IRS the same way an S-Corp is. Put another way, you can be taxed as a corporate entity, or it's P/L statements can \"\"flow through\"\" to your personal taxes. When you opt for a flow-through, the business files and you get a separate schedule to tie into your taxes. You should also look at filing a business expense schedule (Schedule C) on your taxes to claim legitimate business expenses (good reference point here). While there are several differences (see this, and this, and this) between these entities, the best determination on which structure is best for you is usually if you have full time employ while you're running the business. S corps limit shares, shareholders and some deductions, but taxes are only paid by the shareholders. C corps have employees, no restrictions on types or number of stock, and no restrictions on the number of shareholders. However, this means you would become an employee of your business (you have to draw monies from somewhere) and would be subject to paying taxes on your income, both as an individual, and as a business (employment taxes such as Social Security, Medicare, etc). From the broad view of the IRS, in most cases an LLC and a Corp are the same type of entity (tax wise). In fact, most of the differences between LLCs and Corps occur in how Profits/losses are distributed between members (LLCs are arbitrary to a point, and Corps base this on shares). Back to your question IMHO, you should opt for an LLC. This allows you to work out a partnership with your co-worker, and allows you to disburse funds in a more flexible manner. From Wikipedia : A limited liability company with multiple members that elects to be taxed as partnership may specially allocate the members' distributive share of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit via the company operating agreement on a basis other than the ownership percentage of each member so long as the rules contained in Treasury Regulation (26 CFR) 1.704-1 are met. S corporations may not specially allocate profits, losses and other tax items under US tax law. Hope this helps, please do let me know if you have further questions. As always, this is not legal or tax advice, just what I've learned in setting several LLCs and Corporate structures up over the years. EDIT: As far as your formulas go, the tax rate will be based upon your personal income, for any pass through entity. This means that the same monies earned from and LLC or an S-corp, with the same expenses and the same pass-through options will be taxed the same. More reading: LLC and the law (Google Group)\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "cb98230292e4dc41833451410c889127",
"text": "You're confusing a lot of things here. Company B LLC will have it's sales run under Company A LLC, and cease operating as a separate entity These two are contradicting each other. If B LLC ceases to exist - it is not going to have it's sales run under A LLC, since there will be no sales to run for a non-existent company. What happens is that you merge B LLC into A LLC, and then convert A LLC into S Corp. So you're cancelling the EIN for B LLC, you're cancelling the EIN for A LLC - because both entities cease to exist. You then create a EIN for A Corp, which is the converted A LLC, and you create a DBA where A Corp DBA B Shop. You then go to the bank and open the account for A Corp DBA B Shop with the EIN you just created for A Corp. Get a better accountant. Before you convert to S-Corp.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22dcd0ba9de89e97f557a7a9a927f198",
"text": "Thanks for this, great in depth answer. I had previously calculated a WACC and have used it for my discount rate. As part of your last point on revenue vs. cash, I've set a accounts receivable period of 30 days, and then applied a factor of 30/365 * revenue to understand what portion of my revenue is not cash in hand. Does that make sense?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28ca8044728004376da120c7f572a56f",
"text": "\"It doesn't generally matter, and I'm not sure if it is in fact in use by the IRS other than for general statistics (like \"\"this year 20% of MFJ returns were with one spouse being a 'homemaker'\"\"). They may be able to try and match the occupation and the general levels and types of income, but for self-employed there's a more precise and reliable field on Schedule C and for employees they don't really need to do this since everything is reported on W2 anyway. So I don't think they even bother or give a lot of value to such a metric. So yes, I'm joining the non-authoritative \"\"doesn't matter\"\" crowd.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be8cc9df94ea427b68eba92216842cbc",
"text": "I find the higher estimates a bit unbelievable. A big part of my job is liability valuation and small assumption changes can have a huge impact on results. They may be right (future) dollar value wise but the proper way to think about this stuff is in present value terms. This could actually be a really interesting study - you all just gave me a great idea for a potential masters thesis :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01146864ca51d161601ebe09cd8359b9",
"text": "First of all, this is a situation when a consultation with a EA working with S-Corporations in California, CA-licensed CPA or tax preparer (California licenses tax preparers as well) is in order. I'm neither of those, and my answer is not a tax advice of any kind. You're looking at schedule CA line 17 (see page 42 in the 540NR booklet). The instructions refer you to form 3885A. You need to read the instructions carefully. California is notorious for not conforming to the Federal tax law. Specifically, to the issue of the interest attributable to investment in S-Corp, I do not know if CA conforms. I couldn't find any sources saying that it doesn't, but then again - I'm not a professional. It may be that there's an obscure provision invalidating this deduction, living in California myself - I wouldn't be surprised. So I suggest hiring a CA-licensed tax preparer to do this tax return for you, at least for the first year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c4eec481cd96016588a5da0051cb9b8",
"text": "Profits and losses in a partnership, LLC or S-corp are always reported proportional to the share of ownership. If you have a 30% share in a partnership, you will report 30% of the profit (or loss) of the respective tax year on your personal return. If you look at Part II, section J of your K-1, it should show your percentage of ownership in the entity. All numbers in Part III should reflect the amount of your share (not the entity's total amounts, which will be on Form 1065 for a partnership):",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "473b89d88dbe46c26fc30c3a059e5370",
"text": "In no ways. Both will be reported to the members on their K1 in the respective categories (or if it is a single member LLC - directly to the individual tax return). The capital gains will flow to your personal Schedule D, and the business loss to your personal Schedule C. On your individual tax return you can deduct up to 3K of capital losses from any other income. Business loss is included in the income if it is active business, for passive businesses (like rental) there are limitations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f22a212586d8b23b70bd6ceb830ee793",
"text": "I'm not sure why you think that it matters that the distribution goes to an S-Corp vs an individual tax payer. You seem to think it has any relevance to your question, but it doesn't. It only confuses your readers. The situation is like this: LLC X is deriving income in State #2. It has two members (I and S) residents of State #1. Members I and S pay all their taxes to State #1, and don't pay taxes to State #2. State #2 audited member I and that member now needs to pay back taxes and penalties to State #2 on income derived from that State. Your question: Does that mean that member S should be worried, since that member was essentially doing the exact same thing as member I? My answer: Yes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bf9c168d813c28cba490998fef20d5e",
"text": "\"Be careful of the other answers here. Many are wrong or partially wrong. The question implies that you knew this, but for everyone else's benefit, you can keep you LLC organization and still elect to be treated as a S-Corp by the IRS just for tax purposes. You do this by filing Form 2553 with the IRS. (You can also, by the way, elect to be taxed as a \"\"regular\"\" C-Corp if you want, although that's probably not advantageous. See Form 8832.) The advantage of electing to be treated as an S-Corp is that income beyond what constitutes a \"\"reasonable salary\"\" are not subject to social security and medicare taxes as they would when paid was wages or counted as self-employment income on Schedule C. Depending on what you need to pay yourself to meet the \"\"reasonable salary\"\" test, your overall income, and other factors about your business, this could result in tax savings. Contrary to other answers here, making this election will not force you to create a board of directors. You are still an LLC for all purposes except taxes, so whatever requirements you had in organization and governance at the state level will not change. You will have to file a \"\"corporate\"\" tax return on Form 1120S (and likely some corresponding state tax form), so that is additional paperwork, but this \"\"corporate\"\" return does not mean the S-Corp pays taxes itself. With a couple of exceptions, the S-Corp pays no taxes directly (and therefore does not pay at the corporate tax rate). Instead the S-Corp apportions its income, expenses, and deductions to the owner(s) on Schedule K. The owners get their portion reported from the S-Corp on Schedule K1 and then include that on their personal Form 1040 to pay tax at their personal rate. In addition to filing Form 1120S, you will have to handle payroll taxes, which will create some additional administrative work and/or cost. Using a payroll service for this will likely be your best option and not terribly expensive. You've also got the issue of determining your reasonable salary within the rules, which is the subject of other questions on this site and other IRS guidance.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0cc9f29299b97f983d66979dc8a38088",
"text": "Are you talking about domicile? An LLC is treated differently than a corporation in the terms of citizenship of the law. An LLC is a citizen of whichever state it's members (shareholders) are citizens. I would recommend you just spend the money on a business attorney to ensure that all the t's are crossed correctly so it doesn't end up costing you more later on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3ddaf7271004c475e64b50bd5c65277",
"text": "\"This formula is not calculating \"\"Earnings\"\". Instead, it is calculating \"\"Free Cash Flow from Operations\"\". As the original poster notes, the \"\"Earnings\"\" calculation subtracted out depreciation and amortization. The \"\"Free Cash Flow from Operations\"\" adds these values back, but for two different reasons:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd19288b9fa9daea043139afb9f8ad08",
"text": "\"From the IRS perspective, there's no difference between \"\"your taxes\"\" and \"\"your sole proprietorship's taxes\"\", they're all just \"\"your taxes\"\". While I could see it being very useful and wise to track your business's activities separately, and use separate bank accounts and the like, this is just a convenience to help you in your personal accounting, and not something that needs to relate directly to how tax forms are completed or taxes are paid. When calculating your taxes, if you want to figure out how much \"\"you\"\" owe vs. how much \"\"your business\"\" owes, you'll have to do so yourself. One approach might be just to take the amount that your Schedule C puts as income on your return and multiply by your marginal tax rate. Another approach might be to have your tax software run the calculations as though you had no business income, and see what just \"\"your personal\"\" taxes would have been without the business. If you think of the business income as being \"\"first\"\" and should use up the lower brackets rather than your personal income, maybe do it the other way around and have your software run the calculations as though you had only the business income and no other personal/investment income, and see what the amount of taxes would be then. Once you've figured out a good allocation, the actual mechanics of paying some \"\"personal tax amount\"\" from your personal bank account and some \"\"business tax amount\"\" from your business bank account are up to you. I'd probably just transfer the money from my business account to my personal account and pay all the taxes from the personal account. Writing two separate checks, one from each account, that total to the correct amount, I'm sure would work just fine as well. You can probably make separate payments from each account electronically through Direct Pay or EFTPS as well. As long as all taxes are paid by the deadline, I don't think the IRS is too picky about the details of how many payments are made.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9778326e1fec8127404acd88bc3c0085",
"text": "I wouldn't stress out too much about what you call the category. As long as it makes sense to you and your tax accountant it should be fine. Besides, it's usually pretty easy to rename a category in the future. Just for reference, my accountant set up my categories (also for S-Corp) like this (though this was 8 years ago but I still use them today):",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8272dc25995314578ce4b67916ebc6f",
"text": "\"The basic equation taught in day one of accounting school is that Assets = Liabilities + Equity. My first point was that I looked at the actual financial statements published as of the end of the 2nd quarter 2017, and the total liabilities on their audited balance sheet were like $13 billion, not $20b. I don't know where the author got their numbers from. My second point: Debt usually needs to be paid on prearranged terms agreed upon by the debtor and the debtee, including interest, so it is important for a business to keep track of what they owe and to whom, so they can make timely payments. As long as they have the cash on hand to make payments plus whatever interest they owe, and the owners are happy with the total return on their investment, then it doesn't really matter how debt they have on the balance sheet. Remember the equation A=L+E. There are precisely two ways to finance a business that wants to acquire assets: liabilities and/or equity. The \"\"appropriate\"\" level of debt vs equity on a balance sheet varies wildly, and totally depends on the industry, size of the business, cash flow, personal preferences of the CEO, CFO, shareholders et al, etc. It gets way more detailed and complicated than that obviously, but the point is that looking at debt alone is a meaningless metric. This is corporate finance and accounting 101, so you can probably find tons of great articles and videos if you want to learn more.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66d1c6d62fb4b1cb88089c3cfedc583b",
"text": "You're doing great. I'd suggest trying get putting 5-10% towards your retirement and the balance to the student loans. You are a little weak in retirement savings, but you have $550k house with 20% equity that you bought at the bottom of the market. That's a smart investment IMO, and in my mind compensates somewhat for your low 401k balance. If I were you, I would retire the student loans ASAP to reduce the money that you have to shell out each month. That way, you have the option of scaling back you or your wife's work somewhat to avoid paying thousands for child care. In my mind, less debt == more options, and I like options.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
098344be07def21b293377287443a36e
|
Are there any benefits of FMLA beyond preserving your job?
|
[
{
"docid": "66f90d0fc6804953b4c245195b40a168",
"text": "How will your employer treat your pay and benefits status while you're on leave? Disability income coverage and leave policies work in tandem to solve very different problems. Disability income coverage covers your income, leave policies guarantee your status as an employee. Typically, STD coverage requires an actual loss of income and will offset it's stated benefit for any income you're receiving. In general you can't begin a STD claim after the 7 day waiting period and also draw income from vacation or sick time. Also, typically STD will cover some percentage of your covered pay (sometimes including commission/bonus income) up to some weekly maximum. FLMA requires employers to allow certain amounts of time for certain types of leave. FMLA is not necessarily an income replacement tool like STD coverage. Contrary to your post it's my understanding that if sick and vacation time accrue in to a single PTO bucket your employer is prohibited from requiring employees to exhaust accrued time prior to beginning FMLA leave. In general, you're not missing anything because the point of FMLA is to guarantee your job and status as an employee from a benefits perspective. Benefits language from the Department of Labor Website A covered employer is required to maintain group health insurance coverage, including family coverage, for an employee on FMLA leave on the same terms as if the employee continued to work.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "435f095c00fd0b097b98c27a0a57a9df",
"text": "In your situation, it sounds like the only added benefit would be insurance continuance. For employees who can't access short-term disability it is a critical protection against losing their job. I just want to emphasize that given that you are in a pretty decent employment situation.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8528836692ef2f383dfe4333371524a4",
"text": "No, but they do have a moral obligation to give the employees that stay commensurately for the share if productivity. If a company had 100 clerks, and fired 90 with the introduction of computers, shouldn't there be a somewhat balanced share of those savings going to the computer clerks?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e5a296417919a3349a32bef497bbb96",
"text": "\"The company itself doesn't benefit. In most cases, it's an expense as the match that many offer is going to cost the company some percent of salary. As Mike said, it's part of the benefit package. Vacation, medical, dental, cafeteria plans (i.e. both flexible spending and dependent care accounts, not food), stock options, employee stock purchase plans, defined contribution or defined benefit pension, and the 401(k) or 403(b) for teachers. Each and all of these are what one should look at when looking at \"\"total compensation\"\". You allude to the lack of choices in the 401(k) compared to other accounts. Noted. And that lack of choice should be part of your decision process as to how you choose to invest for retirement. If the fess/selection is bad enough, you need to be vocal about it and request a change. Bad choices + no match, and maybe the account should be avoided, else just deposit to the match. Note - Keith thanks for catching and fixing one typo, I just caught another.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8387478efeb42f07130050ef4de9134e",
"text": "almost all unions want the business they are in to survive. Most of the stories you hear are such an extreme outlier or just plain made up. Believe it or not, everyone in the union, wants the corp to survive to pay them retirement benefits. They dont want to rape the corp like corps rape resources. They want fair pay. They want pay to go up when the company does better, just like companies tend to demand pay cuts or fire people when the company does worse. quit treating people like a commodity and instead treat them like actual people helping your actual corp to actually grow.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8727042c22aefe9e3adf5f21e60d2b2",
"text": "I recently rejected an offer at a different firm that would have provided a 14k yearly increase. The reason for the rejection was because I would have had to give up two work from home days, my commute would have been about an hour and half each way, I would have lost about 14 extra days of PTO and holiday pay, and the new company didn't match anything for 401k.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7b691b09ae341c38fe213061e04c5eb",
"text": "Financial benefit? No. No matter whether you are paid based on a salary or by the hour, the frequency of your pay check has no effect since at the end of the year you will have received the exact same amount of money. Psychological benefit? Well, from the many answers and comments on this page that seem to think there is a difference, then apparently there is a large psychological difference. Whether that is a benefit or not, I guess, depends on your personality.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1fbd5d6787b133fa068de9ba6ec91ab",
"text": "Other than the guaranteed 5% bonus (assuming you sell it right away), no benefits. Keep in mind that the price from which the discount is calculated is not necessarily the market price at the date of the ESPP purchase, so the actual discount may be more than 5% (depending on the volatility of the stock - much more).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9cdaa61a2421adce6c2d2297ddbb8541",
"text": "\"I write software myself and was involved in a couple of start ups. One failed, another was wildly successful, but I did not receive much in compensation. The former I received stock, but since it failed, it was worthless anyway. There should be compensation for your time in addition to equity in a company. Any agreement needs be in writing. In the later situation I was told to expect about a 17%/year bonus, but nothing could be guaranteed. Translation: \"\"It will never happen.\"\" It didn't, but I meet my lovely wife there so I have that for a bonus. Agreements need to address the bad things can happen. What happens if one of you is no longer interested in continuing? What happens if one of you die, or addicted to something? What happens if one of you gets thrown in jail or disabled? Right now you are full of optimism and hope, but bad things happen. Cover those things while you still like each other. It might be enough to have a good salary, and some stock options. You man not be interested in running the day to day business. Most of all good luck, I wish you all the best!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1540d70c6537c53cb376783708dfe6e0",
"text": "I've always been a proponent that being laid off or fired is the best thing that can happen to an individual. It's very painful and scary in the short term, but the long term results in a much better life and level of happiness. I've seen it in friends, read it in articles, and experienced it personally. This hurts today - but they're going to attain a new level of happiness and reward.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0171b4ba66d57b41b836a5166351bbce",
"text": "\"I was on a form of a retainer for a little over a year. My situation kind of sucked but there's ways in which it would be favourable. I was pretty green at the time and just agreed to what they wanted. I worked for them as an employee for over a year, but they didn't pay overtime so I asked to work part time for them instead. They bait and switched me to work contractor. I renegotiated pay to be higher to fit that. I was paid minimum 22.5 hours a week, on a monthly schedule, plus any extra hours I worked. In reality a retainer would pay in advance and you wouldn't have to actually be present for the minimum hours like I was. Still was better than being an employee. I worked as an \"\"application developer\"\". But this isn't an unheard of thing in the tech sector; former employees that built your systems to be contracted at a later date to provide their expertise at a higher rate because they are the most familiar with the system and/or have a track record of being very good at satisfying the business' specifications or needs.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22590ba1c5c21a811a2440d8212d2517",
"text": "I don't want to argue any, either, I'll just reiterate what I was originally trying to get at: Your boss/owner/manager is dependant on you creating enough value to pay their paycheck as well. Managers do not directly create value for the company. They might bring in deals, they might 'know' someone, etc. but in the end, workers make the product. If a worker leaves, they'll just have to get another one, or that value ceases. Taken to the extreme, they'd be a company of bosses & managers, and no work at all being done. (but plenty of TPS reports done with the correct cover sheets.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47a525b91c3d229c722e3fd90eb65dca",
"text": "\"I just don't know how else an employee gains any bargaining power without one? It seems to me in companies in my industry that those without unions bargain their own wage in secret. Then the company wins because its me vs you all the time. A union makes wages and benefits more transparent. You can pick up a copy of my collective bargaining agreement and see what everyone makes. Also you gain the backing legally with resources not available to most persons on their own. I just don't know another way employees can have any \"\"advantage\"\" in a common workplace.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f548159b229a16c96b2da6206c8b433b",
"text": "Yes but the employee losing that job can be devastating because as someone who works for minimum wage (in college and living at home right now so my cost of living is low) but without that I would have no savings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff99d5fb81a5d32d09feec4cac7be5c8",
"text": "\"Bad employees are a risk when they are not easily replaceable or have great responsibility, neither of which apply to Subway. I am aware of the multiplier effect, but there must be a corresponding value added to the economy, otherwise you artificially inflate prices and no one is better off. Caring for good employees and their well being is not the same as giving everyone a blanket \"\"living wage\"\" which could be honestly anything, depending on the standard of living used as an index.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cec5dc93f01333c2f3239e1432657220",
"text": "Conversly, then you should not enjoy the benefits privided by being in a union then right? That seems simple enough, but that's not how it works. Unions by law have the duty of fair representaion, so even if you are not a member, you still are awarded all the benefits and protections of the contract. So, it's not that simple, because how do you balance that if not for fair share? The union still has to pay to protect you, but you don't have to pay for any of the work they do. So then, if you can get all the benefits of being in the union and not pay a dime for it, why would you? Seems logical right, it's a good deal, we all want to save money. Well as everyone stops paying and the union can't afford to operate as it did, like any organization, it restructures and lays off staff. Now the union no longer has the resources to offer you good representation, which causes the dues paying members to be frustrated and to drop out and or ditch the union entirely. Now no one in your workplace has a voice, a contract, or any protections. That may turn out to be great, but you know, the company wants to save money too.. The company is also no longer obligated to offer you the same wages or benefits that your coworkers negotiated. So now the company is free to cut wages, benefits and workforce to improve thier bottom line or executive bonuses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee4f235b4d714e73d6ee48e3cc39143b",
"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.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8dc207f2a6c52f1fae196abb8ea3f709
|
What benefits do “title search companies” have over physically visiting a land records offices?
|
[
{
"docid": "e17ffc2a0f6e9a51037f2a78ea0f3f8a",
"text": "Title agencies perform several things: Research the title for defects. You may not know what you're looking at, unless you're a real-estate professional, but some titles have strings attached to them (like, conditions for resale, usage, changes, etc). Research title issues (like misrepresentation of ownership, misrepresentation of the actual property titled, misrepresentation of conditions). Again, not being a professional in the domain, you might not understand the text you're looking at. Research liens. Those are usually have to be recorded (i.e.: the title company won't necessarily find a lien if it wasn't recorded with the county). Cover your a$$. And the bank's. They provide title insurance that guarantees your money back if they missed something they were supposed to find. The title insurance is usually required for a mortgaged transaction. While I understand why you would think you can do it, most people cannot. Even if they think they can - they cannot. In many areas this research cannot be done online, for example in California - you have to go to the county recorder office to look things up (for legal reasons, in CA counties are not allowed to provide access to certain information without verification of who's accessing). It may be worth your while to pay someone to do it, even if you can do it yourself, because your time is more valuable. Also, keep in mind that while you may trust your abilities - your bank won't. So you may be able to do your own due diligence - but the bank needs to do its own. Specifically to Detroit - the city is bankrupt. Every $100K counts for them. I'm surprised they only charge $6 per search, but that is probably limited by the State law.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "930d2dd6856311a88438bb17a60e944f",
"text": "\"Basically what @littleadv said, but let me amplify what I think is the most important point. As he/she says, one thing you're paying them for is their expertise. If the title on record at the county office had a legal flaw in it, would you recognize it? In a way your question is like asking, Why should I go to a doctor when I could just make my own medicine out of herbs I grow in my garden and treat myself? Maybe you could. But the doctor and the pharmacist have years of training on how to do this right. You probably don't. Is it possible for you to learn everything you need to do it right? Sure. But do you want to spend the time to study all that for something that you will do -- buy a house -- maybe once every ten years? Will you remember it all next time or have to learn it all over? But really most important is, title companies offer insurance in case the title turns out to be flawed. That, to me, is the big reason why I would use a title company even if I was paying cash and there was no bank involved to insist on it. If there's some legal flaw in the title and it turns out that someone else has a claim to my house, and I lose in court, I would be out about $100,000. Your house might be costing you much more. That's a huge risk to take. Paying the couple of hundred dollars for insurance against that risk seems well worth it to me. And by the way, I don't think the \"\"due diligence\"\" is easy. It's NOT just a matter of making sure a title is really on file at the court house and has the proper stamp on it. It's all about, Does someone else have a legal claim to this property? Like, maybe three owners ago someone forged a signature on a deed, so the sale is fraudulent, and now the person who was defrauded or his heirs discover the issue and claim the property. Or maybe the previous owner failed to pay a contractor who did repairs on the house, and now he goes to court and gets a lien on the property. It's unlikely that you have the expertise to recognize a forged document. You almost surely have no way to recognize a forged signature of someone you never met on an otherwise valid-looking document. And you'd have to do a lot of research to find every contractor who ever worked on the house and insure none of them have a claim. Etc.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "abed55baf048eefe97f2ddadb318c77d",
"text": "Some examples where an HOA is a positive thing: 1) Amenities: Maybe it is professionally maintained landscaping at the front of the subdivision, or a playground, or community pool. An HOA provides a convenient way to have things like that and share the costs among all the people who benefit. 2) Legal Advocacy: I live in a neighborhood (rural) without an HOA. My neighbor decided to start an auto-repair shop on his property which was CLEARLY a violation of the covenants. There isn't really a Government body you can report them to that will swoop in and make them stop a neighbor from destroying your property values even if they signed an agreement when they bought it to the contrary. You need to hire a lawyer and sue them and that costs money and time. Also, in many cases if you wait too long they can get an exception grandfathered in because no one raised an issue about it. An HOA exists to watch for this kind of thing and nip it in the bud rather than making homeowners have to hassle with the time/expense. 3) Independence: Assuming no HOA, and assuming you are okay with suing your neighbor over violating a covenant. That makes for a very uncomfortable situation between you and that neighbor. Having a neutral 3rd party take action on your behalf anonymously can greatly help that situation. It's not all about making people ditch their basketball goals, or garden gnomes. They also protect you from other obnoxious stuff like junky mobile homes in high-end neighborhoods, the guy who blocks half the street permanently with his RV/Boat parked on the curb, three foot tall grass that is an eyesore and a fire hazard, a taco stand opening in your neighbors garage, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47d2401e8c9dcd835a24ea517a73bda6",
"text": "I've seen this tool. I'm just having a hard time finding where I can just get a list of all the companies. For example, you can get up to 100 results at a time, if I just search latest filings for 10-K. This isn't really an efficient way to go about what I want.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "115ffc4a1e702919e0b5eb98226b394a",
"text": "@MichaelBorgwardt gave an excellent answer. Let me add a little analogy here that might help. Suppose you bought a car from Joe's Auto Sales. You pay your money, do all the paperwork, and drive your car home. The next day Joe's goes bankrupt. What affect does that have on your ownership rights to your car? The answer is, Absolutely none. Same thing with stocks and a stock exchange. A stock exchange is basically just a store where you can buy stock. Once you buy it, it's yours. That said, there could potentially be a problem with record keeping. If you bought a car from Joe's Auto Sales, and Joe went out of business before sending the registration paperwork to the state, you might find that the state has no record that you legally own the car and you could have difficulty proving it. Likewise if a stock exchange went out of business without getting all their records properly updated, their might be an issue. Actually I think the bigger concern here for most folks would be their broker and not the stock exchange, as your broker is the one who keeps the records of what stocks you own long term. In practice, though, most companies are responsible enough to clean up their paperwork properly when they go out of business, and if they don't, a successor company or government regulators or someone will try to clean it all up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a0ad0deb270b252db9bdeb58f22d331",
"text": "\"Title insurance protects you from losing rights to your property in case of a court decision. Let's look at an example I recently found in local newspapers. One old woman sold her apartment to person A. The deed was attested by a notary public who verified that indeed in was that old woman putting her signature on the deed. Then person A sold the apartment to person B, etc, then after several deals some unfortunate Buyer bought that apartment. The deal looked allright, so he's got a mortgage to pay for the apartment. Later it turned out that the old lady died three months before she \"\"sold\"\" the apartment and the notary public was corrupt. Old lady's heirs filed a lawsuit and the deal was void. So the ultimate Buyer lost all rights to the apartment although he purchased it legally. This is the case when title insurance kicks in. You need one if there's a chance for a deal to be deemed void.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30027b1c4f087c6113a9f335c856edd9",
"text": "For various reasons, real estate prices exhibit far more memory than stock prices. The primary reason for this is that real estate is much less liquid. Transaction costs for stock trading are on the order of 10 basis points (0.1%), whereas a real estate transaction will typically have total costs (including title, lawyers, brokers, engineers, etc.) of around 5% of the amount of the transaction. A stock transaction can be executed in milliseconds, whereas real estate transactions typically take months. Thus today's behavior is a much better indicator of future price behavior for real estate than for stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69b86f3654b9194f188b80eabf2295ae",
"text": "For purposes of the EIN the address is largely inconsequential. The IRS cannot (read: won't) recover the EIN if you fail to write it down after the website generates it for you. On your actual tax form the address is more consequential, and this is more so a question of consistency than anything. But an entity can purchase property anywhere and have a different address subsequent years. Paying the actual taxes means more than the semantical inconsistencies. The whole purpose of separate accounts is to make an audit easier, so even if someone imagines that some action (such as address ambiguity) automatically triggers an audit, all your earnings/purchases are not intermingled with personal stuff, which just streamlines the audit process. Consequences (or lack thereof) aside, physical means where physical property is. So if you have an actual mailing address in your state, you should go with that. Obviously, this depends on what arrangement you have with your registered agent, if all addresses are in Wyoming then use the Wyoming address and let the Registered Agent forward all your mail to you. Don't forget your $50 annual report in Wyoming ;) How did you open a business paypal without an EIN? Business bank accounts? Hm... this is for liability purposes...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c63354cffacbd0dd596f593b412164d3",
"text": "\"There are very few circumstances where forming an out of state entity is beneficial, but a website is within these circumstances in certain instances. Businesses with no physical operations do not need to care what jurisdiction they are registered in: your home state, a better united state or non-united state. The \"\"limited liability\"\" does it's job. If you are storing inventory or purchasing offices to compliment your online business, you need to register in the state those are located in. An online business is an example of a business with no physical presence. All states want you to register your LLC in the state that you live in, but this is where you need to read that state's laws. What are the consequences of not registering? There might be none, there might be many. In New York, for example, there are no consequences for not registering (and registering in new york - especially the city - is likely the most expensive in the USA). If your LLC needs to represent itself in court, New York provides retroactive foreign registrations and business licenses. So basically, despite saying that you need to pay over $1000 to form your LLC \"\"or else\"\", the reality is that you get the local limited liability protection in courts whenever you actually need it. Check your local state laws, but more times than not it is analogous to asking a barber if you need a haircut, the representative is always going to say \"\"yes, you do\"\" while the law, and associated case law, reveals that you don't. The federal government doesn't care what state your form an LLC or partnership in. Banks don't care what state you form an LLC or partnership in. The United States post office doesn't care. Making an app? The Apple iTunes store doesn't care. So that covers all the applicable authorities you need to consider. Now just go with the cheapest. In the US alone there are 50 states and several territories, all with their own fee structures, so you just have to do your research. Despite conflicting with another answer, Wyoming is still relevant, because it is cheap and has a mature system and laws around business entity formation. http://www.incorp.com has agents in every state, but there are registered agents everywhere, you can even call the Secretary of State in each state for a list of registered agents. Get an employer ID number yourself after the business entity is formed, it takes less than 5 minutes. All of this is also contingent on how your LLC or partnership distributes funds. If your LLC is not acting like a pass through entity to you and your partner,but instead holding its own profits like a corporation, then again none of this matters. You need to form it within the state you live and do foreign registrations in states where it has any physical presence, as it has becomes its own tax person in those states. This is relevant because you said you were trying to do something with a friend.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "205ba635b6f74b720d5e8402c38e5b58",
"text": "Moreover to make items easier, company owners can uncover several expert neighborhood company listing support providers inside the industry nowadays. The professionals support increases the effects of [local business listing](http://come2ourdeals.com.au) with the aid of Seo Google Maps and numerous others. Why is that this crucial? Given below would be the 5 rewards.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f70a67d924690e27c7d881ed024bb809",
"text": "From my experience, I opened a business account to handle my LLC which owns a rental property. The account process and features were similar to shopping for a personal checking account. There would be fees for falling below a minimum balance, and for wanting a paper statement. In my case, keeping $2000 avoids the fee, and I pull the statements online and save the PDFs. Once open for a certain amount of time, you might be able to get credit extended based on the money that flows through that account. The online access is similar to my personal checking, as is the sending of payments electronically.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba04448badcb9bc41ad6831c7f60a19d",
"text": "I agree with mhoran_psprep's answer, but would like to add a few additional points to consider. TurboTax and the professional it will send to represent you in case of a tax audit have no more information about your tax return than what you entered into the program. Now, there are three (or four) different kinds of audits. The correspondence audit is the most common kind where IRS sends a letter requesting copies of documents supporting a deduction or tax credit that you have claimed. Representation is hardly necessary in this case. The office audit is more serious where you have to make an appointment and go to the local IRS office with paperwork that the examining agent needs to see physically, and to answer questions, etc. It would be better to be accompanied by a representative at these meetings. But, office audits are not as common as correspondence audits, and, because they are expensive for the IRS, usually occur when the IRS is fairly sure of recovering a substantial sum of money. If you have been cutting corners and pushing the envelope in taking large enough deductions to make it worthwhile for the IRS to go after you, you probably should not have been using TurboTax to file your income tax return but should have been using an accountant or tax preparer, who would be representing you in case of an audit. If the reason that you used TurboTax is that no accountant was willing to prepare a tax return with the deductions that you wished to claim, I doubt that having TurboTax's representative with you when you go to the IRS office will help you all that much. An example of a field audit is when the IRS agent comes to your home to see if you actually have a space set aside to use exclusively as your home office as you claimed you did etc. A Taxpayer Compliance Measurement Program (TCMP) audit is where the IRS randomly chooses returns for statistical checks that taxpayers are complying with the regulations. The taxpayer has to prove every line of the return. You claim to be filing as Married Filing Jointly? Bring in your marriage certificate. Submit birth certificates and Social Security cards of your dependent children. And so on. Yes, having TurboTax represent you for only $49.95 will help, but not if you are not married and cannot provide the IRS with a marriage certificate etc. So, pay the fee for peace of mind if you like, and as insurance as littleadv suggests. But be sure you understand what you might be getting for the money. Most tax returns selected for audit are selected for what the IRS believes are good reasons, not at random. If what you said If my tax return is randomly selected for audit they will represent me. is interpreted literally, TurboTax will represent you only if your return is selected for examination under the TCMP program, not if it is selected for audit because the IRS believes that something is fishy about your return. And as always, you get what you pay for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18cd8234a214ff8a7f311bcf36715bc1",
"text": "If you need to shop coins, you could do your personal improvement, however, this may be tricky because of even easy documentation errors fee extra. For many little employer proprietors, the high-quality picks the use of a business enterprise company, which is a fee-powerful preference to make sure your documentation is accurate and filed right away with conditions. If you're concerned in Delaware LLC with as little quotes as viable, begin with the aid of considering conditions wherein you'll include. You do no longer require work within the state you select, however it may be more reasonable for pick out your home circumstance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2373055bf573b0f842fdadd7e95d5969",
"text": "Linear Title provides high quality title and escrow services to companies in the real estate industry, but Linear Title’s service orientation doesn’t end there—Linear Title is proud to support its community through philanthropic efforts, including most recently Linear Title’s involvement in the Eastern 4H Country Fair, Rhode Island.The contributions of sponsors such as Linear Title help defray the expenses of the fair so that it can remain affordable for the families who participate in it",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f19b8f09b463f28517e582674f13ebc4",
"text": "You might think it as a simple multi-page document, but the fact is that property related contracts are very complicated with hundreds of terms that are beyond the understanding of a common man. In such circumstances, these professionals can be very helpful; as they will go through the contact and help you understand the terms and conditions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77b59558c9d957cfd8149d31f8d1c34c",
"text": "Disadvantage is that tenant could sue you for something, and in an unfavorable judgement they would have access to your house as property to possess. You could lose the house. Even if you make an LLC to hold the house, they'll either sue you or the LLC and either way you could lose the house. This might be why the landlord is moving to Florida where their house cannot be possessed in a judgement because of the state's strong homestead exemption ;)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6282e3f8f1250824493ca2c1516ab5b",
"text": "Google Maps and Craig’s List are easy wins and free. I would offer free inspections and estimates. What about getting into one of those new mover mailings. That is when most people will be updating their fixtures.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f2ec7e5d61c2fa9e4d8eac61ddb0d9ff
|
Best way for for soon to turn 18 to learn about money?
|
[
{
"docid": "0c3222f7e7299fa077a176bf2df9e034",
"text": "\"Excellent questions! Asking such questions indicates something special about yourself. The desire to learn and adjust your beliefs will increase your chance of success in your life. I would use a wide variety of authors to increase your education. Myself I prefer Dave Ramsey to Clark Howard, but I think Clark is very good. The first thing you should focus on is learning how to do and live by a budget. Often times, adults will assume that you are on a budget because you are broke. It happens with my friends and my youngest child is older than you. Nothing could be further from the truth. A budget is simply a plan on how you will spend your income so you don't run out of money before you run out of month. Along with budgeting I would also focus on goal setting. This is the type of \"\"investing\"\" you should be doing at your age. For example if your primary goal was to become an engineer, my recommendation is to hold off buying stocks/mutual funds and using your current income to get through school with little or no student loans. Another example might be to open your own HVAC business. Your best bet might be to learn the trade, working for someone else, and take night classes for business management. Most 18 year olds have very little earning power. Your focus at this point should be increasing your income and learning how to manage the income you have. Please keep in mind that most debt is bad. It robs you of your income which is your greatest wealth building tool. Car loans and credit card debt is just plain stupid. Often times a business case can be made for reasonable student loans. However, why not challenge yourself to take none. How much further ahead could you be if you graduate, with a degree, when your peers are strapped with a 40K loan? Keep up the good work and keep asking questions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35b68904bb743b2710abc0b2670b6233",
"text": "Do you have a smart phone? Check out the Clark Howard Podcast. I listen every day. Of course you can listen from your computer but its far easier to consume from a pod catcher",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1db35e8bb017eb451eefdecf893b4c9d",
"text": "\"The most common way to handle this in the US is with a UTMA account. UTMA is the Uniform Transfers / Gifts to Minors Act (\"\"UTMA\"\" or \"\"UGMA\"\") which is a standard model law that most states have passed for special kinds of accounts. Once you open an account, anyone can contribute. Usually parents and grandparents will contribute $13,000 or less per year to make it a tax free transfer, but you can transfer more. The account itself would just be a standard brokerage account of any sort, but the title of the account would include your son's name, the applicable law depending on your state, and the name of the custodian who would control the account until your son turned 18. When your son does turn 18, the money is his. Until then, the money is his, but you control how it's invested. I'm a huge fan of Vanguard for UTMA/UGMAs. You may prefer to diversify a bit away from one company by selling the GE shares and buying an index mutual fund so that your child's education is not jeopardized by a rogue trader bringing down General Electric sometime in the next decade...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8add9881577b24388f6d952cf3f5936a",
"text": "To me, the most important thing for young people to learn about personal finance is the connection between service and income. Most, rightly look for a way to earn money and advance the lifestyle of their home life. How does one do that? Grinding it out in a 9-5 does not seem attractive while living the lifestyles of those on TV would be awesome. The temptation is to try all these tricks to get money, but absent from their plan is how they serve their fellow man in order to receive that money. Stars, like the Kardashians are a marketing machine despite the carefree life displayed on the TV. They have served many budding companies well by selling their products to certain demographics. Most young people do not make that connection. So they try things like trading Forex, gold or whatever the latest thing is. It does not work as there is no service to their fellow man. They get a job at a fast food chain and complain about their pay in accordance with their work. Well sure, but again they are serving such few people that one can only expect a small income. The better and more people one can serve, in general, the higher a person's income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15a4a36ca9115c7c592c71c45a605560",
"text": "\"Just speaking from my experience here. When I was younger (lol only 23 now), I didn't really get pocket money. If I wanted something I had to work for this, luckily at 13 I scored a paper round gaining £10 per week. I would personally say to encourage children to do some \"\"work\"\", whether its a paper round, or even just house chores. I learned early on, that to get money you have to work for it. I've always had a job since 13, most of my college years I held 2 jobs at a time, even 3 at 1 point. Many of my friends didn't work for their pocket money, they relied on handouts, quite a few of these friends have later on in life taken the easy route, not working and rely on state (pocket money), or still have mummy and daddy pay for everything So my moral is; don't just give out willy-nilly, teach some value to money and it will go a long way ;) /2 cents\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91e8bcfb1597f1dd879bb0546c4bce4e",
"text": "If you have no immediate need for the money you can apply the Rule of 72 to that money. Ask your parent's financial advisor to invest the money. Based on the rate of return your money will double like clockwork. At 8% interest your money will double every 9 years. 45 years from now that initial investment will have doubled 5 times. That adds up pretty fast. Time is your best friend when investing at your age. Odds are you'll want to be saving for a college education though. Graduating debt free is by far the best plan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "732b1d87850d18987f69ce516b933752",
"text": "\"This Stack Exchange site is a nice place to find answers and ask questions. Good start! Moving away from the recursive answer... Simply distilling personal finance down to \"\"I have money, I'll need money in the future, what do I do\"\", an easily digestible book with how-to, multi-step guidelines is \"\"I Will Teach You To Be Rich\"\". The author talks about setting up the accounts you should have, making sure all your bills are paid automatically, saving on the big things and tips to increase your take home pay. That link goes to a compilation page on the blog with many of the most fundamental articles. However, \"\"The World’s Easiest Guide To Understanding Retirement Accounts\"\" is a particularly key article. While all the information is on the free blog, the book is well organized and concise. The Simple Dollar is a nice blog with frugal living tips, lifestyle assessments, financial thoughts and reader questions. The author also reviews about a book a week. Investing - hoping to get better returns than savings can provide while minimizing risk. This thread is an excellent list of books to learn about investing. I highly recommend \"\"The Bogleheads' Guide to Investing\"\" and \"\"The Only Investment Guide You'll Ever Need\"\". The world of investment vehicles is huge but it doesn't have to be complicated once you ignore all the fads and risky stuff. Index mutual funds are the place to start (and maybe end). Asset allocation and diversification are themes to guide you. The books on that list will teach you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6353322ad3183b95f792c73fe495d6b4",
"text": "As AskAboutGadgets notes, there's no lower age limit. You current age (24) is a pretty good one; you'll have four decades or so for your money to grow and compound, allowing it to become a veritable fortune when you're ready to retire if you invest it fairly aggressively.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ecb0540437b5bb2ef2925238b1a3ff69",
"text": "Pre-finance major here and new to this sub. Quick background, I’m 18 and I’m starting school at the University of Iowa in January. My question is: what resources are out there that you would recommend to help me get introduced to the world of finance? Could be books, online courses, videos, etc. and could be on any subject within the umbrella of finance. Thanks in advance for any recommendations!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4ad0c93e416a8ca9c94448e846829a7",
"text": "Also, my wealth manager doesn't like to discuss my money with me. To some extent, I understand this because finances are not my forte This is akin to porn surfing all day at your job instead of writing code, fire him ASAP. For now I would stick it in a bank account until you are comfortable and understand the investments you are purchasing. Here are some options to consider: The last one is tricky. You might have to interview several in order to find that one gem. With you being so young it is unlikely any of your friends have a need for such a service. I would concentrate on asking older work colleagues or friends of your parents for recommendations. Ask if they are educated by their adviser. In the end it would really pay for you to educate yourself about finances. No one can quite do as good as a job as you can in this area. You recognize that there was a problem with your current guy, that shows wisdom. If you have an interest in this area, I would recommend attending a Financial Peace University class. All my kids (about your age and older) are required to take it. It will help you navigate debt, mortgages, insurance, and investing and will cost you about $100. If you don't learn enough the first time, and you won't, you can repeat the course as many times as you wish for no additional cost.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6a9e919222d50155f265ee9a1dfe37c",
"text": "As a young investor, you should know that the big secret is that profitable long term investing is boring. It is is not buying one day and selling the next and keeping very close tabs on your investments and jumping on the computer and going 'Buy!' , 'Sell'. That makes brokers rich, but not you. So look at investments but not everyday and find something else that's exciting, whether it's dirt biking or WOW or competitive python coding. As a 19 year old, you have a ton of time and you don't need to swing for the fences and make 50% or 30% or even 20% returns every year to do well. And you don't have to pick the best performing stocks, and if you do, you don;t have to buy them at their lowest or sell them at their highest. Go read A Random Walk's guide to Investing by Burton Malkiel and The only Investment Guide you'll ever need by Andrew Tobias. Buy them at used bookstores because it's cheaper that way. And if you want more excitement read You Can Be a Stock Market Genius by Joel GreenBlatt, One up On Wall Street By Peter Lynch, something by Warren Buffet and if you want to be really whacked, read Fooled By Randomness by Nassim Nicholas Talib, But never forget about Tobias and Malkiel, invest a regular amount of money every month from 19 to 65 according to what they write and you'll be a wealthy guy by 65.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26939aa6eeca2b834916babe29f760bf",
"text": "At this stage of the game your best investment is yourself. Rather than putting it in stocks, use any spare money you have to get yourself the best education you can. See if you can drop that part-time job and give yourself more time to study. Or maybe you can go to a better, more expensive college. Or maybe college will give you some opportunity to travel and learn more that way. You don't want to exclude yourself from those opportunities by not having enough spare cash. So in short, spend what you need to get yourself the best education you can, and keep any spare money you have somewhere you can use it to take advantage of any opportunities that come your way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3048767f63dd94d3d400c5ef3cc67c92",
"text": "If you're trying to teach them the value of money and quantifying the dollar difference between prices, one very effective way to do this is by using bar charts. For instance, if a toy is $5, and movie they really want to see is $10, and a vacation they want to go on costs $2000, it can be a useful tool to help explain how the relative costs work.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1616d8bf5ea75501f47408abdac52ee",
"text": "\"Although my kid just turned 5, he's learning the value of money now, which should help him in the future. First thing, teach him that you exchange money for goods and services. Let him see the bills, and explain what they're for (i.e. \"\"I pay ISP Co to give us Internet; that lets us watch Youtube and Netflix, as well as play games with Grandma on your GameStation\"\"). After a little while, they will see where it goes, and why. Then you have your automatic bills, such as mortgage payments. I make a habit of taking out the cash after I get paid, and my son comes with me to the bank where I deposit it again (I get paid monthly, so it's only one extra withdraw). He can physically see the money, and understand that if the stack is gone, it's gone. Now that he is understanding things cost money, he wants to make money himself. He volunteers to help clean up the kitchen and vacuum rooms in the house, usually without being asked. I give him a dollar or two for the simple chores like that. Things like cleaning his room or his own mess, he does not get paid for. He puts all his money into his piggy bank, and he has some goals in mind: a big fire truck, a police helicopter, a pool, a monster truck, a boat. Remember he's only 5. He has his goals, and we have the money he's been saving up. We calculate how many times he needs to vacuum the living room, or clean up dishes, to get there, and he realizes it takes a long time. He looks for other ways to make money around the house, and we come up with solutions together. I am hoping in a year or two that I can show him my investments and get him to understand why they make or lose money. I want to get him in to the habit of investing a little bit every few months, then every month, to help his income grow, even if he can't touch the money quite yet.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f4d2782016a99449f0364ecead401b2",
"text": "https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/most-important-finance-books-2017-1 Bloomberg, finacial times, chat with traders, calculated risk, reuters, wsj, cnbc(sucks), bnn (if canadian) Audio books on youtube helped me read a lot of finance books in a short amount of time, listen while working out. One thing that helped me stand out at my student terms (4th year here) was learning outside of the classroom and joining an investment club. Learning programming can help if thats a strength, but its really not needed and it can waste time if yoi wont reach a point to build tools. Other than that at 18 you have more direction than i did, good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af223850d5c390d6a986d4bdb93cfedf",
"text": "Establish good saving and spending habits. Build up your savings so that when you do buy a car, you can pay cash. Make spending decisions, especially for housing, transportation and entertainment, that allow you to save a substantial portion of your income. The goal is to get yourself to a place where you have enough net worth that the return on your assets is greater than the amount you can earn by working. (BTW, this is basically what I did. I put my two sons through top colleges on my dime and retired six years ago at the age of 56).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07c4b462447a984829ccd4f74b9b84a2",
"text": "\"Everyone buys different kinds of goods. For example I don't smoke tobacco so I'm not affected by increased tobacco prices. I also don't have a car so I'm not affected by the reduced oil prices either. But my landlord increased the monthly fee of the apartment so my cost of living per month suddenly increased more than 10% relative to the same month a year before. This is well known, also by the statistical offices. As you say, the niveau of the rent is not only time- but also location specific, so there are separate rent indices (German: Mietspiegel). But also for the general consumer price indices at least in my country (Germany) statistics are kept for different categories of things as well. So, the German Federal Statistical Office (Statistisches Bundesamt) not only publishes \"\"the\"\" consumer price index for the standard consumer basket, but also consumer price indices for oil, gas, rents, food, public transport, ... Nowadays, they even have a web site where you can put in your personal weighting for these topics and look at \"\"your\"\" inflation: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Service/InteraktiveAnwendungen/InflationsrechnerSVG.svg Maybe something similar is available for your country?\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
207085685c8aa686a8b4350f63e821ed
|
Why do consultants or contractors make more money than employees?
|
[
{
"docid": "1f0b77539fde6780785caa9c608426fb",
"text": "The benefits and taxes thing, in my opinion is the biggie. Most people don't realize that the cost to the company for a full-time employee with benefits can be 2x or even 3x the amount they see in their paycheck. Health plans are extremely expensive. Even if you are having money taken from your check for health insurance, it is often just a fraction of the total cost, and the employer is subsidizing the rest. More expensive benefits that contractors don't typically get are 401K matches and paid vacation days. When contractors call in sick or don't work because it is a national holiday, they don't get paid for that day. Also, see that line on your paycheck deducting for Social security and Medicare? That is only half of the tax. The employer pays an equal amount that is not shown on that statement. Also, they pay taxes that go towards unemployment benefits , and may be required to pay higher taxes if they churn through a lot of full-time employees. You can usually let contractors go with relative impunity . For the unemployment tax reasons, not paying for people's days off or benefits, a lot less paperwork, and less risk to the business associated with committing to full-time employees all provide value to the company. Thus companies are willing to pay more because they are getting more. Think of it like a cell phone-contract. If you commit to a three year contract it can be a pain/expensive to get out of the deal early, but you will probably get a better rate in exchange for the risk being shifted to your end of the deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cbba9f9a97598b856571dd0ece8ca5a",
"text": "There are a couple of reasons, including:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d887055c4633a9d621e067397ea7054f",
"text": "All the existing answers are right and the general theme is: contracting is a different kind of relationship. It's a business-to-business relationship rather than a business-to-employee relationship. This has implications such as: Of course, some contractors are effectively just over-paid employees, and some of the above points don't apply to them, but that's the idea behind bona fide contracting.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48ded5000df4ac102a0442e44683b48e",
"text": "In addition to the other answers, consultants and contractors face a real risk (though admittedly small) of not getting paid. The more short-term the gigs are, the higher the risk of not getting paid for a particular job. As an employee, there are laws to ensure that you get your paycheck. As a contractor, you're just another creditor. I know a couple of contractors (software engineers) who have had difficulty collecting after a job. (I'm not even sure one ever got paid the full amount.) I also personally witnessed a contractor show up for a job who was then told by the company that they unilaterally decided that they would pay half of their pre-arranged rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc594698dd1ad6a756b63a6805e32759",
"text": "\"The \"\"more money\"\" aspect is only true if you ignore the lack of symmetry between employment and contracting. Consulting is another story altogether. Companies are willing to pay consultants for a number of reasons but the most important is deniability. If a decision is recommended and goes wrong then the consultants can be sued. Liability cover is expensive. Cynicism aside, it often isn't cost-effective to keep specialists permanently on the payroll for tasks that are performed once a year. Recently I've noticed that the nature of consulting is changing. Companies are starting to assemble brains-trusts of internal consultants who can create and manage projects while outsourcing only the labour-intensive data-collection roles. Expect this to have a big impact on the management consulting industry.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f803ab9782a2449162023ce51e03255",
"text": "Note too that being a contractor means that you will unavoidably have periods between contracts; you tend to be out of work more often than a salaried employee would. You need to set your rates so your average income, including those down times, adds up to a living wage including all those benefits that aren't being covered. If a company hires a contractor, they understand that this is part of the trade-off. They avoid making a long-term commitment when they don't have a long-term need, and they accept that this convenience may cost a bit more in the short term.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f12458b70cd2478cc729e6218834baf",
"text": "Contractors earn less. Especially the people that are hired under them. They usually have no education, and base pay; long hours and hard work.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "496bc8c184def81836ac19d3315ff668",
"text": "\"Comission is a must when doing sales. That is the best (and only good) incentive to sell more. How much you want to give all depends on margins, the salary level that is accepted in your state/country and what sellers you have (young or old). Salary costs at 30 - 35% of total order value is normal including salary tax and all tax oriented costs around that employee. There are 2 ways of doing it. Only high commission and fixed salary + lower commission. Even if you use fixed salary + commission you can have \"\"restrictions\"\" so they have to sell above a certain level to get that commission. That means that you don't take any risks. An example of a salary model that I found was popular. (The numbers are just made up according to what is normal to have in Sweden). It's a step-model. If you sell for: Step 1: 0 - $3000 you get high commission 20% of everything you sell Step 2: $3000 - $4000 you get fixed salary of $1000 + 10% commission Step 3: $4000 - $6000 you get fixed salary of $1700 + 15% commission And so on. Your weakest points are when going to a higher step. You have to change the steps so it works with your salary statistics so you have most people under a step to motivate them to go to the next instead of having them exactly above one step. As you can see, with a step model, you just put a disquise on the commission model but make it more attractive. What the seller think is that they have a fixed salary. If a seller is happy, he/she is selling a lot. I have also had a criteria saying that if you can keep youself at 1 step for more than 3 months you will start there each month. Then it's up to the team leader to warn if that seller IS good or just LUCKY.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffba2432d7a3d925dc9489f2fa0dfb87",
"text": "\"Says who? Or is this just something you *think* makes sense, because on first glance it does. Many studies show privatizing basic government functions like waste removal, prisons etc. to contractors ends up costing the government more. Recent study that shows that its more expensive: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/us/13contractor.html Specifically on government military private contractors, via this link, bottom of the page: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/contractors/ceff.html Steven Schooner Professor, The George Washington University Law School; expert on government contracting \"\"I don't think there's any question that no one knows whether it's cheaper or not. One of the best studies we've seen on whether outsourcing saves money is the RAND study, which is now a few years old. And what the RAND study says is there's the potential for immense cost-saving in outsourcing. But it hasn't been proven yet. There's a number of episodic studies since, but there has not been a compelling case made that government outsourcing, particularly this type of outsourcing, saves money.\"\" Full interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/interviews/schooner.html He makes your point however that the savings is thought to come from savings in paying someone before and keeping them on payroll when we're not in a military activity that requires their services. No pension after, no payroll before. Thus the increase in compensation is a lot higher. However it doesn't mean its conclusive to show that it *does*save money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f38accaef6968caccc33d09b5420068",
"text": "> A lot of contract positions have become less or equal pay than the permanent workers. That many be true in many industries, but not in IT. Technology contractors typically make far more than employees. The example in the article was someone working for IBM. IBM is a low paying IT contractor, and still pays more than $50 per hour for legally resident contractors (H1B's is a completely different story).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75019fd7b1f430fe4279514984cefb53",
"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.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68919f0912bfbd16dfbe5a385b0b8b5a",
"text": "\"Or doing work, that has value, but with an experienced employee looking over their shoulder for more total time than it would take said employee to just do the work him/herself. In which case they're learning something, and \"\"doing work that has value\"\", but at the cost of a similar amount of value from elsewhere. That's pretty extreme, though, and at least in a field like programming where the pros get paid quite a bit...so say it takes the pro 10hrs to do something, and it takes the intern 40hrs and 5hrs of help to do the same thing. But if the pro gets paid $80/hr, and the intern only gets paid $10...haha that works out perfectly. Even if it hadn't the point stands—the intern can get paid something as long as they're doing _some_ useful work, even if it takes them an exorbitant amount of time to do it. If they actually need as much help as it would take the pro to just do it...consider another field, dude.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "758a54c8be7ce15a1adb67056ac832a0",
"text": "Because many companies are not willing to pay more to attract those employees. They figure fuck it, the government says I can pay this little. I am. In fact, many wait jobs are paid the 2.50$ min because tips. So employers can make as much as possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ea2b5c4dcb980607ec1d19ebaff7089",
"text": "This is exactly how I feel. I've been doing contract design for the last 5 years. I've made an OK salary, not quite as much as I could in the corporate world. But I don't have any one to answer to but myself, which means more to me than the extra money I could be making.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a2a765a7cfc832278978c121597cd18",
"text": "Running a sandwich shop and, say, a software consulting service are quite different things. I had two employees at one point, following the kind of thinking in the article. But I found what that meant was that I had to spend more time being a manager and salesperson and much less time doing the work I enjoyed. To make it viable I would have had to scale up to the point where I had at least one salesperson and maybe a manager, which would have required more income-producing staff to support them. Instead, I scaled back to just myself, and have been very happy with that decision. The article also underestimates what can be made in consulting or IT contracting. Rates well above $100/hr are common for people with expertise (as opposed to commodity providers), and billing at least 40 hours a week is not usually a problem. It's certainly true that a one-man operation is much more likely to put a ceiling on your earnings, but (a) that ceiling can be a lot higher than the article suggests, and (b) depending on the business, breaking that ceiling and earning much more is certainly possible in some businesses, for example where you have the opportunity to sell your work in product form rather than hourly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b309f17fbc0e5efd1e078045cdb0831",
"text": "sure, and I'm happy they're getting paid more... this is important work. people shouldn't have to scrape by just because it's not the most desirable career. but saying that increase in cost won't affect an increase in price and that average people will be better able to afford higher construction costs is misleading. just because construction workers have more money in their pockets, doesn't mean the average person will have more as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fae7445a6fdafb6ad56b61b48dcdec7",
"text": "\"But you're forgetting that the problem under discussion here is that the owners who set the wages tend to prefer higher profits over \"\"best employees, they are happier, lower turn over\"\". In a lot of industries that employ a lot of people, a marginal increase in productivity isn't going to overcome the increase in wages required to create it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a1415ca435cf0a2559a2f754a136869",
"text": "But there's a difference freelancing for your craft and managing people to so similar tasks. Sometimes you just want the flexibility of working for yourself and you enjoy mastering the craft. Not everyone's end game is more money. If marketing and sales are not your strengths, yet you still have a steady stream of future clients, or can pick some up when you need to...why over complicate things? When I first started out many moons ago, there was a contract programmer working at one of my first jobs. He worked 6-9 months a year, and then traveled and relaxed the rest. The summer I met him he was going to complete visiting every National Park in the US; sounds like a nice goal to me :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34cca84ba41b26e2377f6b6c2285c615",
"text": "Our consultant driven economy has removed all robustness from the economy. Their drive for efficiency has produced an incredibly fragile economy. Corporations are not suppose to retain any redundancy. They force this on subcontractors. As a result there are no trained and ready workers to step in as boomers retire. The tendency to rely on H-1B has caused young workers to avoid any field where they are likely to be replaced by foreign workers. Now that foreign workers are finding things better at home we have giant holes in the economy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5597c924fe5b5e96210502d7d8756eba",
"text": "\"Why would you just look at salary and not total comp for a first year? It's pretty misleading to say \"\"$60k to work 100 hours a week\"\" when you do in fact get paid well above that. Also, in my 2 years of consulting, I've never come anywhere close to 100 hour work weeks. It usually fluctuates between 45-60 hours. Not to mention Fridays are usually pretty casual/relaxed days since you're working from home or in your home office doing random firm activities/networking.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fe39059905ec8dc96ad3b388e818b19",
"text": "\"The \"\"independent contractor\"\" vs. \"\"employee\"\" distinction is a red herring to this discussion and not at all important just because someone suggested you use your LLC to do the job. Corp-2-Corp is a very common way to do contracting and having an LLC with business bank accounts provides you with more tax deductions (such as deducting interest on credit lines). Some accounting practices prefer to pay entities by their Tax ID numbers, instead of an individual's social security number. The actual reasoning behind this would be dubious, but the LLC only benefits you and gives you more advantages by having one than not. For example, it is easier for you to hire subcontractors through your LLC to assist with your job, due to the opaqueness of the private entity. Similarly, your LLC can sign Non Disclosure and Intellectual Property agreements, automatically extending the trade secrets to all of its members, as opposed to just you as an individual. By signing whatever agreement with the company that is paying you through your LLC, your LLC will be privy to all of this. Next, assuming you did have subcontractors or other liability inducing assets, the LLC limits the liability you personally have to deal with in a court system, to an extent. But even if you didn't, the facelessness of an LLC can deter potential creditors, for example, your client may just assume you are a cog in a wheel - a random employee of the LLC - as opposed to the sole owner. Having a business account for the LLC keeps all of your expenses in one account statement, making your tax deductions easier. If you had a business credit line, the interest is tax deductible (compared to just having a personal credit card for business purposes). Regarding the time/costs of setting up and managing an LLC, this does vary by jurisdiction. It can negligible, or it can be complex. You also only have to do it once. Hire an attorney to give you a head start on that, if you feel that is necessary. Now back to the \"\"independent contractor\"\" vs. \"\"employee\"\" distinction: It is true that the client will not be paying your social security, but they expect you to charge more hourly than an equivalent actual employee would, solely because you don't get health insurance from them or paid leave or retirement plans or any other perk, and you will receive the entire paycheck without any withheld by the employer. You also get more tax deductions to utilize, although you will now have self employment tax (assuming you are a US citizen), this becomes less and less important the higher over $105,000 you make, as it stops being counted (slightly more complicated than that, but self employment tax is it's own discussion).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bd9d272d2c1f443beb8f7f2851e50c7",
"text": "\"(Selling apps is AFAIK business, not freelancing - unless the type of app you produce is considered a freelancing subject. The tax office will give you a questionnaire and then decide). As Einzelunternehmer, you can receive the payments for the apps to the same account where your wages go. However, there are lots of online accounts that do not cost fees, so consider to receive them on a separate account so you have the business and private kind of separate (for small Einzelunternehmer, there is no legal separation between business and private money - you have full liability with your private money for the business). The local chamber of commerce can tell you everything about setting up such a business, ask them (you'll probably have to become a member there anyways). They have information as well on VAT (Umsatzsteuer, USt) which you need to declare unless you get an exemption (probably possible), and about Gewerbesteuer (the income tax of the business) etc. For the tax, you have \"\"subforms\"\" for the income tax e.g. for wages and for business income, so you just submit both with the main form. You'll get an appropriate tax number when registering the business. Social security/insurance: as long as the app selling is only a side business, the social insurance payments for your main job completely cover the side job as well. You need to make sure that your employment contract is compatible with the app business, though. A quick search indicates that there is a tax treaty between Germany and the Ukraine, Wikipedia says there are no contracts about social insurance in effect (yet).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
070776ec47af2e831d041d0fb80ef1b8
|
Is inflation a good or bad thing? Why do governments want some inflation?
|
[
{
"docid": "f573cc1a292826d1bce978f3d56e90e9",
"text": "\"Sensitive topic ;) Inflation is a consequence of the mismatch between supply and demand. In an ideal world the amount of goods available would exactly match the demand for those goods. We don't live in an ideal world. One example of oversupply is dollar stores where you can buy remainders from companies that misjudged demand. Most recently we've seen wheat prices rise as fires outside Moscow damaged the harvest and the Russian government banned exports. And that introduces the danger of inflation. Inflation is a signal, like the pain you feel after an injury. If you simply took a painkiller you may completely ignore a broken leg until gangrene took your life. Governments sometimes \"\"ban\"\" inflation by fixing prices. Both the Zimbabwean and Venezuelan governments have tried this recently. The consequence of that is goods become unavailable as producers refuse to create supply for less than the cost of production. As CrimonsX pointed out, governments do desperately want to avoid deflation as much as they want to avoid hyperinflation. There is a \"\"correct\"\" level and that has resulted in the monetary policy called \"\"Inflation targetting\"\" where central banks attempt to manage inflation into a target range (usually around 2% to 6%). The reason is simply that limited inflation drives investment and consumption. With a guaranteed return on investment people with cash will lend it to people with ideas. Consumers will buy goods today if they fear that the price will rise tomorrow. If prices fall (as they have done during the two decades of deflation in Japan) then the result is lower levels of investment and employment as companies cut production capacity. If prices rise to quickly (as in Zimbabwe and Venezuela) then people cannot save enough or earn enough and so their wealth is drained away. Add to this the continual process of innovation and you see how difficult it is to manage inflation at all. Innovation can result in increased efficiency which can reduce prices. It can also result in a new product which is sufficiently unique to allow predatory pricing (the Apple iPhone, new types of medicines, and so on). The best mechanism we have for figuring out where money should be invested and who is the best recipient of any good is the price mechanism. Inflation is the signal that investors need to learn how best to manage their efforts. We hide from it at our peril.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c21cdd06b9477dc251795891cc4072e1",
"text": "\"Basically, in any financial system that features fractional reserve banking, the monetary supply expands during times of prosperity. Stable, low inflation of 2-4% keeps capital available while keeping the value of money stable. It also discourages hoarding of wealth. Banks aren't vaults. They take deposits and make an explicit promise to repay the depositor on demand. Since most depositors don't need to withdraw money regularly, the lend out the money you deposited and maintain a reserve sufficient to meet daily cash needs. When times are good, banks lend to people and businesses who need capital, who in turn do things that add value to the overall economy. When times are bad, people and businesses either cannot get capital or pay more for it, which reduces the number of times that money changes hands and has a negative impact on the wider economy. People who are trying to sell you commodities or who have a naive view of how the economy actually works decry the current monetary system and throw around scary words like \"\"fiat currency\"\" and \"\"inflation is theft\"\". What these people don't realize is that before the present system, where the value of money is based on promises to repay, the gold and silver backed systems also experienced inflation. With gold/silver based money, inflation was driven by discoveries of gold and silver deposits\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "315c115a101fd22f8e85ab9353b3178d",
"text": "\"Inflation, like trade deficits or surpluses, have winners and losers in an economy. Clear losers are people who are on a fixed income, as they often have a fixed income and a prices keep on going up, meaning they can afford less. Numerous articles on the internet discuss the inflation of the 1970s, here are Google's results. I'm not so sure that governments want \"\"some inflation\"\" as much as they desperately want to avoid deflation. Deflation means that the price for today's product, like a car, will decrease in price tomorrow (or a month from now) which creates a powerful incentive for people to put off a purchase until later, which brings consumer demand down in a country's economy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75dd423db9fa528737a4fe446df58da4",
"text": "\"Although there are some good points made here as to the cause of inflation (mostly related to supply and demand), azcoastal does head in a different direction, one which I myself was going to take. Let me give a different angle, however. Another cause of inflation is the printing of money by the government (not simply replacing old money with new, but adding to the total money in circulation). If the government doubles the amount of currency in circulation (for the sake of argument and easy math), the value of all money decreases by a factor of 2. That's inflation, and the way G. Edward Griffin in The Creature From Jekyll Island puts it, it's really tantamount to a hidden tax. In a nutshell, the federal government wants to buy some cool stuff like new tanks or planes, or they want to give a bunch of food stamps to poor people, or they want to fly their private jets around, but they don't have enough money from taxes. So, they print money and spend it and buy their stuff. Because they've just increased the money in circulation, however, money loses its value. For example, your savings has dropped in value by half, despite the fact that the same number of dollars is in your savings account. This is just a way the government can tax you without taxing you. They buy stuff and you now have less money (i.e., your retirement is worth less) and you don't even know you just got taxed. Makes me sick that we let our \"\"leaders\"\" get away with this.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82c5c06d4f9b16f922b7813e5e0ba120",
"text": "Inflation is what happens, it is not good or bad in and of itself. But consider the following. In a thriving economy with low unemployment, people are buying, buying, buying. People are not saving for later, they are buying now. Industry is also making purchases. Now. From economics 101: high demand for goods/services leads to relative scarcity leading to higher prices. Inflation tends to be one byproduct of a thriving economy. Governments want the thriving economy that brings inflation with it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba326d329c8e239ec41ea6590f2d3269",
"text": "\"The classic definition of inflation is \"\"too much money chasing too few goods.\"\" Within a tight range, say 1-3%, inflation is somewhat benign. There's a nice inflation widget at The Inflation Calculator which helps me see that an item costing $1000 in 1975 would now (2010) be about $4000, and $1000 from 1984 till now, just over $2000. I chose those two years to make a point. First, I am 48, I graduated college in 1984, so in my working life I've seen the value of the dollar drop by half. On the other hand it only took 9 years from 75-84 to see a similar amount of inflation occur. I'd suggest that the 26 year period is far more acceptable than the 9. Savers should be aware of their real return vs what was a result of inflation. I'm not incensed either way but logically have to acknowledge the invisible tax of inflation. I get a (say) 6% return, pay 2% in tax, but I'm not ahead by 4%, 3% may be lost to inflation. On the flip side, my mortgage is 3.5%, after taxes that's 2.625%, but less than 0% after (long term) inflation. So as a debtor, I am benefiting by the effect of inflation on what I owe. Interesting also to hear about deflation as we've grown used to it in the case of electronics but little else. Perhaps the iPad won't drop in price, but every year it will gain features and competitors will keep the tablet market moving. Yet people still buy these items. Right now, there's not enough spending. I'd suggest that, good financial advice aside, people as a whole need to start spending to get the economy moving. The return of some inflation would be a barometer of that spending starting to occur.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b4e6745bb53021059877c09c744beb4",
"text": "\"In general the consensus is that a small amount of inflation (usually 1.5-2% per year) is desirable. That is why the Federal Reserve sets its inflation target in that range. The reasons why are quite complex though. One reason is \"\"wage stickiness\"\" - ie., the observed phenomenon that employers don't like to cut wages. Having a small rate of inflation means that when wages are steady in nominal terms, they are actually falling in real terms. This gives employers more flexibility.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "038cc37e389042cc197373214ff6003f",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa118ec88d6ba97d72957cf867b37be7",
"text": "If there's no inflation (or alternately there's deflation) people would tend to sit on money and wait for the prices to drop. This in pretty bad for pricier stuff like real estate/housing industry where a few percent can make a big difference. For a growing economy a small inflation is good as people would go out and buy new stuff when they want it knowing they will not get a better deal if they wait a year or so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8624a478d3b506cdf049b07052759cf7",
"text": "\"Inflation is a bad thing. It makes it much more difficult for people to compare prices and prosperity over a long period of time. This causes people to ignore the wisdom of their elders (who remember prices from a long time ago). Back in my day, you could get a burger and fries for 15 cents -- a dime for the burger, and a nickel for the fries. But the minimum wage was only a quarter an hour! That doesn't help me decide if things have gotten better or worse. How long is \"\"a long period of time\"\"? That depends on the inflation rate. At 1 percent per year, 50 or 100 years is \"\"a long time\"\". At 10 percent per year, 5 or 10 years. At 100 percent per year, a few months. Because of the Spanish conquests of gold and silver mines in Mexico and Peru, prices in the sixteenth century rose by a factor of 5.5 during the century. This inflation was recognized as causing lots of social and governmental problems. Note that this means an average inflation rate of 2 percent per year for a century is known to be a very bad thing. There are several reasons that most governments want some inflation:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53f31679e3888eada41157f5cbe307b5",
"text": "Inflation is theft! It is caused when banks lend money that someone deposited, but still has claim to - called fractional reserve banking. On top of that, the Federal Reserve Bank (in the US) or the Central Bank of the currency (i.e. Bank of Japan, European Central Bank, etc.) can increase the monetary base by writing checks out of thin air to purchase debt, such as US Treasury Bonds. Inflation is not a natural phenomenon, it is completely man-made, and is caused solely by the two methods above. Inflation causes the business cycle. Lower interest rates caused by inflation cause long-term investment, even while savings is actually low and consumption is high. This causes prices to rise rapidly (the boom), and eventually, when the realization is made that the savings is not there to consume the products of the investment, you get the bust. I would encourage you to read or listen to The Case Against the Fed by Murray N. Rothbard - Great book, free online or via iTunes.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "03a4b24c6aa6c38203ae620e6cd57088",
"text": "Good points. I'd like to add some more: 6. Automation is deflationary 7. Low birth rate is deflationary 8. Declining educational level is deflationary 9. Migration of uneducated people is deflationary 10. Declining EROI is deflationary The printing press only inflates the valuation of assets, causing the inequality to rise. For people who do not have assets, life becomes more and more unaffordable. Redistribution of wealth cannot solve this problem, as the financial markets require a growing money base. Otherwise, Hyperinflation would be an inevitable consequence. Economic decline is merciless.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b61eb81f67a953cfb6e04afe443616a9",
"text": "Huh? I don't see how this effects inflation in practice.... (only in theory) Basically, I sell short end bonds and buy longer end bonds pocketing the difference in yield and increasing my duration. GLD and mining are hedges against inflation, markets are stupidly short term looking and care only about current expectations, if the current macro situation deteoriates we see prices fall.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f41628a42fd424dfa5ff0a80e13edf5",
"text": "You can't really avoid inflation. As the population grows, the amount of money needed will grow as well (because the people will grow up and go to work and earn money, and someone has to create it to pay them). One of the definitions of inflation is increasing amount of money. Increasing amount of money causes devaluation (for example, if instead of 1000 dollars we now have 2000 dollars in circulation, because the population tripled in the last 50 years, while in Russia the population remained the same and they have the same 1000 rubles as they had 50 years ago - 1 ruble will no longer cost 1 dollar, but rather 2, i.e.: prices rise). This is very simplified of course, and there are a lot of causes and triggers for inflation. Inflation, when controlled and within certain limits is necessary for growth, as mentioned, but when uncontrolled and very high it causes a lot of damage, and that's what troubles people about inflation, not its mere existence. As to bringing the prices down- the prices don't go down, the gallon of gas will not go back to $0.25. It's just the buying power of the money goes down, because of inflation. You could buy a gallon of gas for 0.25 50 years ago, but you had to work for 1/2 hour to earn these 0.25. Now you have to pay $4, but if you still need to work for 1/2 hour for that, then the price didn't rise, effectively.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9b973d796d5ecad6f9f3d29421ce941",
"text": "There is empirical evidence of a correlation between independence of central banks and lower unemployment, lower inflation, and more stable prices. The argument as to why this is comes from when govts control central banking more stongly, then politicians get involved, and they vote for more/easier money, which looks good in the short run, thereby getting them votes, but causes inflation/unemployment/price volatility in the long run. When governments control banking you sometimes end up with Zimbabwe stlye inflation (well, not as bad as Zimbabwe often, but without the govt able to add money at will it is much harder). A significant feature of most successful modern central banks is to remove the control from the hands of ametuers, i.e., politicians, and put control into the hands of skilled economists. Ever notice the Fed chairman (and many of the board) are actually very well trained economists? Full transparency is also bad since some areas of monetary policy need knowledge to be kept from the markets in order to be effective, otherwise the Fed loses some of the tools they need to try and target inflation. Finally, there are quite a lot of regulations that the Fed does follow, including regular outside audits, that keep them in check.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "511d0076eb13439460e7ae3d17d7bec1",
"text": "\"Inflation means that the more money you create, the less it has value. To that I say, \"\"Meh.\"\" A funnier way of gaining wealth, which is the ultimate goal to stealing currency, would be to gain a great deal of money (through robbery or other means) then attempt to trigger a deflationary spiral while sitting on the cash. Sure it might be difficult, but I'm pretty sure the key is jacking up Fed interest rates and blowing up money printers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5118f81051f23c2de558ebb01684b73",
"text": "\"Inflation is an attempt to measure how much less money is worth. It is a weighted average of some bundle of goods and services price's increase. Money's value is in what you can exchange it for, so higher prices means money is worth less. Monthly inflation is quoted either as \"\"a year, ending on that month\"\" or \"\"since the previous month\"\". As the values differ by more than a factor of 10, you can usually tell which one is being referred to when they say \"\"inflation in August was 0.4%, a record high\"\" or \"\"inflation in August was 3.6%\"\". You do need some context of the state of the economy, and how surprised the people talking about the numbers are. Sometimes they refer to inflation since the last month, and then annualize it, which adds to the confusion. \"\"Consumer Inflation\"\"'s value depends on what the basket of goods is, and what you define as the same \"\"good\"\". Is a computer this year the same as the last? If the computer is 10x faster, do you ignore that, or factor it in? What basket do you use? The typical monthly consumables purchased by a middle class citizen? By a poor citizen? By a rich citizen? A mixture, and if so which mixture? More detailed inflation figures can focus on inflation facing each quntile of the population by household income, split durable goods from non-durable goods from services, split wage from non-wage inflation, ignore volatile things like food and energy, etc. Inflation doesn't directly cause prices to raise; instead it is a measure of how much raise in prices happened. It can easily be a self-fullfilling prophesy, as inflation expectations can lead to everyone automatically increasing the price they charge for everything (wages, goods, etc). Inflation can be viewed as a measurement of the \"\"cost of holding cash\"\". At 10% inflation per year, holding a million dollars in cash for a year costs you 100,000$ in buying power. At 1% inflation it costs 10,000$. At 0.1% inflation, 1000$. Inflation of 10% in one year, followed by 10% the next, adds up to 1.1*1.1-1 = 21% inflation over the two years. For low inflation numbers this acts a lot like adding; the further from 0% you get the more the lower-order terms make the result larger. 1% inflation for two years adds up to 2.01%, 10% over two years 21%, 100% over two years 300%, 1000% over two years 12000%, etc. (and yes, some places suffer 1000% inflation)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fd2abbe8153ffbff95970ca5c3d394d",
"text": "The reason is governments print extra money to cause inflation (hopefully reasonable) so that people don't just sit comfortably but do something to make money work. Thus inflation is an artificial measure which leads to money value gradually decreasing and causing people invest money in one way or another to beat inflation or maybe even gain some more money. Printing money is super cheap unlike producing any kind of commodity and that makes money different from commodities - commodities have their inherent value, but money has only nominal value, it's an artificial government-controlled product.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fefb2bebc863d73f23a0dfeed3af1802",
"text": "Question: So basically the money created in this globalized digital world where capital is free to roam, it is referring to digital money and not actual physical cash. So the goldbugs that talk about america becoming weimar republic is delusional, since there isn't enough physical cash in relations to how big the economy is. And it is actually the debt lending that acts as a derivative of cash money that goes around posing as the money supply or the blood supply of an economy, and that feels like inflation, but when the debt is defaulted on or destroyed, underwritten or even paid back closing the circuit then it's deflationary? But does defaulting on ones debt create inflation since that money is still in the system and not being paid off? You know, when debts are paid off they are taken out of the system.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2eb573161fb05e0424582e3be1785ea3",
"text": "\"There are several causes of inflation. One is called cost push — that is, if the price of e.g. oil goes up sharply (as it did in the 1970s), it creates inflation by making everything cost more. Another is called demand pull: if labor unions bargain for higher wages (as they did in the 1960s), their wage costs push up prices, especially after they start buying. The kind of inflation that the banks cause is monetary inflation. That is, for every dollar of deposits, they can make $5 or $10 of loans. So even though they don't \"\"print\"\" money (the Fed does) it's as if they did. The result could be the kind of inflation called \"\"too much money chasing too few goods.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "154d7f5c99eb49598a76e1db747b22f3",
"text": "I'm not sure what point you think I was making. It looks like you think I'm supporting the idea that QE causes inflation, which it doesn't. At least not when it is being used as it has been. What it does seem to have done is depress interest rates and create a speculative market that doesn't match up with economic reality. It has also created a ridiculous profit loop for investment banks selling bonds to the Fed. You can't talk about QE without mentioning that banks are now incentivized to hold onto reserves because they can collect interest. So the banks screwed up, were heavily subsidized under the pretense of it being best for the taxpayer, and were then rewarded for sitting on all of that money. If I support any viewpoint it is this. The government agreed to give the banks a thin veneer of solvency by granting them enormous sums in a short period. Obviously if that much currency went straight into the market it would be a disaster, so it put a mechanism in place to reward them for holding onto it. All QE did was massively increase the debt burden of the government, which will be passed on to taxpayers in the form of taxes, fines, fewer benefits, worsening infrastructure, and more restrictions. QE may have not caused inflation, but it certainly didn't help the vast majority of Americans who will simply see their standard of living decline at a quicker pace. I'm sure this will get blamed on immigrants or something instead of the reality that our government is tacitly rewarding banks for not lending to individuals. Why would they? An individual might not pay them back, but the government always will by simply extracting more out of those very individuals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c213852bbd84536d7d530f5163e37c72",
"text": "Any such number would depend on the country, the market, and the economic situation - especially inflation ratio. Generally, if you are not in a booming or a dying technology, getting a raise above the inflation ratio is 'good'; anything below is poor.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c315f7f93fe5809761da6de1f2350eab",
"text": "u just dont understand how money works. u think u do, but u dont. u dont even understand the problem. the govt printed over 7 trillion, where is the hyperinflation? explain to me what caused the inflation from 2001 to 2007 up until the bubble collapse and financial collapse of 2008. and don't say fed 'money printing' coz it ain't true. don't say fractional reserve multiplier effect, coz that ain't true either. see u don't even know. if u keep arguing with me ur gonna get embarassed. if u ask nicely, maybe i'll tell u.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "663112925ee04cb3694812a81d60eeba",
"text": "\"I don't think QE \"\"masks\"\" inflation. The upward wage pressures to create inflation simply aren't there, and for that reason an increase in the monetary base is non-inflationary (as we've seen). Only during the exit, if the banks flood the economy with their excess reserves, could we see higher-than-moderate inflation\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "595c37029f889dceb75e71aab18e1658",
"text": "The problem is that at full employment demand in the market is supposed to increase as people spend money. More money in the market means more inflation, but because wages have not risen even at full unemployment inflation is not rising. If it is not rising the problem is that it might really be deflating, deflation is the enemy of the rich as the price for goods, services and assets decline.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d2b6fbe48101ebb881deb9bc368cca2",
"text": "Inflation is bad for people with lots of cash assets. It's good for debtors, particularly debtors with unsecured debt.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1a9ac72995145a52cd5c6910b1bfedad
|
Ideal investments for a recent college grad with very high risk tolerance?
|
[
{
"docid": "67a8f8a83db55a5a110890deeebbdcf3",
"text": "\"You have a high risk tolerance? Then learn about exchange traded options, and futures. Or the variety of markets that governments have decided that people without high income are too stupid to invest in, not even kidding. It appears that a lot of this discussion about your risk profile and investing has centered around \"\"stocks\"\" and \"\"bonds\"\". The similarities being that they are assets issued by collections of humans (corporations), with risk profiles based on the collective decisions of those humans. That doesn't even scratch the surface of the different kinds of asset classes to invest in. Bonds? boring. Bond futures? craziness happening over there :) Also, there are potentially very favorable tax treatments for other asset classes. For instance, you mentioned your desire to hold an investment for over a year for tax reasons... well EVERY FUTURES TRADE gets that kind of tax treatment (partially), whether you hold it for one day or more, see the 60/40 rule. A rebuttal being that some of these asset classes should be left to professionals. Stocks are no different in that regards. Either educate yourself or stick with the managed 401k funds.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a65594a18d3dd998b566955e0836c790",
"text": "If you're sure you want to go the high risk route: You could consider hot stocks or even bonds for companies/countries with lower credit ratings and higher risk. I think an underrated cost of investing is the tax penalties that you pay when you win if you aren't using a tax advantaged account. For your speculating account, you might want to open a self-directed IRA so that you can get access to more of the high risk options that you crave without the tax liability if any of those have a big payout. You want your high-growth money to be in a Roth, because it would be a shame to strike it rich while you're young and then have to pay taxes on it when you're older. If you choose not to make these investments in a tax-advantaged account, try to hold your stocks for a year so you only get taxed at capital gains rates instead of as ordinary income. If you choose to work for a startup, buy your stock options as they vest so that if the company goes public or sells privately, you will have owned those stocks long enough to qualify for capital gains. If you want my actual advice about what I think you should do: I would increase your 401k percentage to at least 10% with or without a match, and keep that in low cost index funds while you're young, but moving some of those investments over to bonds as you get closer to retirement and your risk tolerance declines. Assuming you're not in the 25% tax bracket, all of your money should be in a Roth 401k or IRA because you can withdraw it without being taxed when you retire. The more money you put into those accounts now while you are young, the more time it all has to grow. The real risk of chasing the high-risk returns is that when you bet wrong it will set you back far enough that you will lose the advantage that comes from investing the money while you're young. You're going to have up and down years with your self-selected investments, why not just keep plugging money into the S&P which has its ups and downs, but has always trended up over time?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7dca2e519c440ad97edc1473cbb806d5",
"text": "If you have been putting savings away for the longer term and have some extra funds which you would like to take some extra risk on - then I say work yourself out a strategy/plan, get yourself educated and go for it. If it is individual shares you are interested then work out if you prefer to use fundamental analysis, technical analysis or some of both. You can use fundamental analysis to help determine which shares to buy, and then use technical analysis to help determine when to get into and out of a position. You say you are prepared to lose $10,000 in order to try to get higher returns. I don't know what percentage this $10,000 is of the capital you intend to use in this kind of investments/trading, but lets assume it is 10% - so your total starting capital would be $100,000. The idea now would be to learn about money management, position sizing and risk management. There are plenty of good books on these subjects. If you set a maximum loss for each position you open of 1% of your capital - i.e $1,000, then you would have to get 10 straight losses in a row to get to your 10% total loss. You do this by setting stop losses on your positions. I'll use an example to explain: Say you are looking at a stock priced at $20 and you get a signal to buy it at that price. You now need to determine a stop price which if the stock goes down to, you can say well I may have been wrong on this occasion, the stock price has gone against me so I need to get out now (I put automatic stop loss conditional orders with my broker). You may determine the stop price based on previous support levels, using a percentage of your buy price or another indicator or method. I tend to use the percentage of buy price - lets say you use 10% - so your stop price would be at $18 (10% below your buy price of $20). So now you can work out your position size (the number of shares to buy). Your maximum loss on the position is $2 per share or 10% of your position in this stock, but it should also be only 1% of your total capital - being 1% of $100,000 = $1,000. You simply divide $1,000 by $2 to get 500 shares to buy. You then do this with the rest of your positions - with a $100,000 starting capital using a 1% maximum loss per position and a stop loss of 10% you will end up with a maximum of 10 positions. If you use a larger maximum loss per position your position sizes would increase and you would have less positions to open (I would not go higher than 2% maximum loss per position). If you use a larger stop loss percentage then your position sizes would decrease and you would have more positions to open. The larger the stop loss the longer you will potentially be in a position and the smaller the stop loss generally the less time you will be in a position. Also as your total capital increases so will your 1% of total capital, just as it would decrease if your total capital decreases. Using this method you can aim for higher risk/ higher return investments and reduce and manage your risk to a desired level. One other thing to consider, don't let tax determine when you sell an investment. If you are keeping a stock just so you will pay less tax if kept for over 12 months - then you are in real danger of increasing your risk considerably. I would rather pay 50% tax on a 30% return than 25% tax on a 15% return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "caa7c09b4aff575996aba05e03ae5f23",
"text": "Congratulations on being in this position. Your problem - which I think that you identified - is that you don't know much about investing. My recommendation is that you start with three goals: The Motley Fool (www.fool.com) has a lot of good information on their site. Their approach may or may not align with what you want to do; I've subscribed to their newsletters for quite a while and have found them useful. I'm what is known as a value investor; I like to make investments and hold them for a long time. Others have different philosophies. For the second goal, it's very important to follow the money and ask how people get paid in the investment business. The real money in Wall Street is made not by investment, but by charging money to those who are in the investment business. There are numerous people in line for some of your money in return for service or advice; fees for buying/selling stocks, fees for telling you which stocks to buy/sell, fees for managing your money, etc. You can invest without spending too much on fees if you understand how the system works. For the third goal, I recommend choosing a few stocks, and creating a virtual portfolio. You can then then get used to watching and tracking your investments. If you want a place to put your money while you do this, I'd start with an S&P 500 index fund with a low expense ratio, and I'd buy it through a discount broker (I use Scottrade but there are a number of choices). Hope that helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e7f88b56677a917045c41db97d6ced0",
"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.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7b99052068ae7cb6abb83d7591cd932",
"text": "Theoretically there is limited demand for risky investments, so higher-risk asset classes should outperform lower-risk asset classes over sufficiently long time periods. In practice, I believe this is true, but it could be several decades before a risky portfolio starts to outperform a more conservative one. Stocks are considered more risky than most assets. Small-cap stocks and emerging market stocks are particularly high-risk. I would consider low-fee ETFs in these areas, like VB or VWO. If you want to seek out the absolute riskiest investments, you could pick individual stocks of companies in dire financial situations, as Bank of America was a couple years ago. Most importantly, if you don't expect to need the money soon, I would maximize your contribution to tax-advantaged accounts since they will grow exponentially faster than taxable accounts. Over 50 years, a 401(k) or IRA will generally grow at least 50% more than a taxable account, maybe more depending on the tax-efficiency of your investments. Try to contribute the maximum ($17,500 for most people in 2014) if you can. If you can save more than that, I'd suggest contributing a Roth 401k rather than a traditional 401(k) - since Roth contributions are post-tax, the effective contribution limit is higher. Also contribute to a Roth IRA (up to $5,500 in 2014), using a backdoor Roth if necessary.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db4f592662f61d0769da885278c96784",
"text": "An ideal investment for a highly risk tolerant college grad with a background in software and programming, is a software company. That's because it's the kind of investment that you will be able to judge better than most other people, including yours truly. Hopefully, one day the software company for a highly risk tolerant investor will be your own.(Ask Bill Gates or even Michael Dell, although the latter was more involved in hardware.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ec31ff25a842884336420f39e6b4a99",
"text": "I am in a very similar situation as you (software engineer, high disposable income). Maximize your contributions to all tax-advantaged accounts first. From those accounts you can choose to invest in high risk funds. At your age and date-target funds will invest in riskier investments on your behalf; and they'll do it while avoiding the 30%+/- haircut that you'll be paying in taxes anyhow. If, after that, you're looking for bigger risk plays then look into a brokerage account that will let you buy and sell options. These are big risk swingers and they are sophisticated, complicated products which are used by many people who likely understand finance far better than you. You can make money with them but you should consider it akin to gambling. It might be more to your liking to maintain a long position in a stock and then trade options against your long position. Start with trading covered calls, then you could consider buying options (defined limited downside risk).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91cbe6463d6bee3a60a59449dc4aff85",
"text": "Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum. Then check their prices daily. With daily price swings of over 10% (both up and down) being a common occurrence, you'll quickly learn how high your risk tolerance really is. :) A lot of IT people believe that cryptocurrencies will stay. Whether Bitcoin or Ethereum will be among them is anyone's guess. Compare to the Dotcom boom, which will be Amazon.com and which will be Pets.com?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "114919b2d796acd6c72888553ba2b2f3",
"text": "Sorry to be boring but you have the luxury of time and do not need high-risk investments. Just put the surplus cash into a diversified blue-chip fund, sit back, and enjoy it supporting you in 50 years time. Your post makes me think you're implicitly assuming that since you have a very high risk tolerance you ought to be able to earn spectacular returns. Unfortunately the risks involved are extremely difficult to quantify and there's no guarantee they're fairly discounted. Most people would intuitively realise betting on 100-1 horses is a losing proposition but not realise just how bad it is. In reality far fewer than one in a thousand 100-1 shots actually win.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "be1457dce52fb089a066c59174891798",
"text": "\"First, I'd like to congratulate you on your financial discipline in paying off your loans and living well within your means. I have friends who make more than twice your salary with similar debt obligations, and they barely scrape by month to month. If we combine your student loan debt and unallocated income each month, we get about $1,350. You say that $378 per month is the minimum payment for your loans, which have an average interest rate of about 3.5%. Thus, you have about $1,350 a month to \"\"invest.\"\" Making your loan payments is basically the same as investing with the same return as the loan interest rate, when it comes down to it. An interest rate of 3.5% is...not great, all things considered, and barely above inflation. However, that's a guaranteed return of 3.5%, more or less like a bond. As noted previously, the stock market historically averages 10% before inflation over the long run. The US stock market is right around its historic high at this point (DJIA is at 20,700 today, April 6th, 2017 - historic high hit just over 21,000 on March 1, 2017). Obviously, no one can predict the future, but I get the feeling that a market correction may be in order, especially depending on how things go in Washington in the next weeks or months. If that's the case (again, we have no way of knowing if it is), you'd be foolish to invest heavily in any stocks at this point. What I would do, given your situation, is invest the $1,350/month in a \"\"portfolio\"\" that's 50/50 stocks and \"\"bonds,\"\" where the bonds here are your student loans. Here, you have a guaranteed return of ~3.5% on the bond portion, and you can still hedge the other 50% on stocks continuing their run (and also benefiting from dividends, capital gains, etc. over time). I would apply the extra loan payments to the highest-interest loan first, paying only the minimum to the others. Once the highest-interest loan is paid off, move onto the next one. Once you have all your loans paid off, your portfolio will be pretty much 100% stocks, at which point you may want to add in some actual bonds (say a 90/10 or 80/20 split, depending on what you want). I'm assuming you're pretty young, so you still have plenty of time to let the magic of compounding interest do its work, even if you happen to get into the market right before it drops (well, that, and the fact that you won't really have much invested anyway). Again, let me stress that neither I nor anyone else has any way of knowing what will happen with the market - I'm just stating my opinion and what my course of action would be if I were in your shoes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4967fe2c74d0aeec195b34cb27b16a01",
"text": "\"First of all, \"\"going risky\"\" doesn't mean driving to Las Vegas and playing roulette. The real meaning is that you can afford higher risk/return ratio compared to a person who will retire in the following ten years. Higher return is very important since time works for you and even several extra percent annually will make a big difference in the long run because of compound interest effect. The key is that this requires the investment to not be too risky - if you invest in a single venture and it fails you lose all the money and that's worse that some conservative investment that could yield minimum income. So you still need the investment to be relatively safe. Next, as user Chris W. Rea mentions in the comment funds and ETFs can be very risky - depending on the investment policy they can invest into some very risky ventures or into some specific industry and that poses more risk that investing into \"\"blue chips\"\" for example. So a fund or an ETF can be a good fit for you if you choose a right one.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03bd51af0037dd95496e5d212684437d",
"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.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94e4d5ca28ad25d8016392b2891ba804",
"text": "\"As many before me said but will say again for the sake of completeness of an answer: First off provision to have an emergency fund of 6 months living expenses to cover loss of employment, unforeseen medical issues etc. When that is done you re free to start investing. Do remember that putting all your eggs in one basket enable risks, so diversify your portfolio and diversify even within each investment vehicle. Stocks: I would personally stay away from stocks as it's for the most part a bear market right now (and I assume you re not interested day-trading to make any short term return) and most importantly you dont mention any trading experience which means you can get shafted. Mutual Funds: Long story short most of these work; mainly for the benefit for their management and people selling them. Bonds Instead, I would go for corporate bonds where you essentially buy the seller(aka the issuing company) and unlike gambling on stocks of the same company, you dont rely on speculation and stock gains to make a profit. As long as the company is standing when the bond matures you get your payment. This allows you to invest with less effort spent on a daily basis to monitor your investments and much better returns(especially if you find opportunities where you can buy bonds from structurally sound companies that have for reasons you deem irrelevant, purchase prices in the secondary market for cents in the dollar) than your other long term \"\"stable options\"\" like German issued bonds or saving accounts that are low in general and more so like in the current situation for German banks. Cryptocurrency I would also look into cryptocurrency for the long term as that seems to be past its childhood diseases and its also a good period of time to invest in as even the blue chips of that market are down party due to correction from all time highs and partly due to speculation. As Im more knowledgeable on this than German-locale bonds, a few coins I suggest you look into and decide for yourself would be the obvious ETH & BTC, then a slew of newer ones including but not limited to OmiseGO, Tenx(Pay), Augur and IOTA. Beware though, make sure to understand the basics of security and good practices on this field, as there's no central bank in this sector and if you leave funds in an exchange or your wallet's private key is compromised the money are as good as gone.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b54c9a163b57b74af7d24a687fc96af8",
"text": "\"The person who told you \"\"no-load funds\"\" had the right idea. Since you are risk-averse, you tend to want a \"\"value\"\" fund; that is, it's not likely to grow in value (that would be a \"\"growth\"\" fund), but it isn't like to fall either. To pick an example more-or-less at random, Fidelity Blue Chip Value Fund \"\"usually\"\" returns around 8% a year, which in your case would have meant about $20,000 every year -- but it's lost 4.35% in the last year. I like Fidelity, as a brokerage as well as a fund-manager. Their brokers are salaried, so they have no incentive to push load funds or other things that make them, but not you, money. For intermediate investors like you and me, they seem like a good choice. Be careful of \"\"short term\"\". Most funds have some small penalty if you sell within 90 days. Carve off whatever amount you think you might need and keep that in your cash account. And a piece of personal advice: don't be too risk-averse. You don't need this money. For you, the cost of losing it completely is exactly equal as the benefit of doubling it. You can afford to be aggressive. Think of it this way: the expected return of a no-load fund is around 5%-7%. For a savings account, the return is within rounding error of zero. Do you spend that much, $15,000, on anything in your life right now? Any recreation or hobby or activity. Maybe your rent or your tuition. Why spend it for a vague sense of \"\"safety\"\", when you are in no danger of losing anything that you need?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7777b222351bc03f73b9c5d9a640863",
"text": "Your asset mix should reflect your own risk tolerance. Whatever the ideal answer to your question, it requires you to have good timing, not once, but twice. Let me offer a personal example. In 2007, the S&P hit its short term peak at 1550 or so. As it tanked in the crisis, a coworker shared with me that he went to cash, on the way down, selling out at about 1100. At the bottom, 670 or so, I congratulated his brilliance (sarcasm here) and as it passed 1300 just 2 years later, again mentions how he must be thrilled he doubled his money. He admitted he was still in cash. Done with stocks. So he was worse off than had he held on to his pre-crash assets. For sake of disclosure, my own mix at the time was 100% stock. That's not a recommendation, just a reflection of how my wife and I were invested. We retired early, and after the 2013 excellent year, moved to a mix closer to 75/25. At any time, a crisis hits, and we have 5-6 years spending money to let the market recover. If a Japanesque long term decline occurs, Social Security kicks in for us in 8 years. If my intent wasn't 100% clear, I'm suggesting your long term investing should always reflect your own risk tolerance, not some short term gut feel that disaster is around the corner.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40965c0ba17523dcab20b0d0a7b79a96",
"text": "\"(Since you used the dollar sign without any qualification, I assume you're in the United States and talking about US dollars.) You have a few options here. I won't make a specific recommendation, but will present some options and hopefully useful information. Here's the short story: To buy individual stocks, you need to go through a broker. These brokers charge a fee for every transaction, usually in the neighborhood of $7. Since you probably won't want to just buy and hold a single stock for 15 years, the fees are probably unreasonable for you. If you want the educational experience of picking stocks and managing a portfolio, I suggest not using real money. Most mutual funds have minimum investments on the order of a few thousand dollars. If you shop around, there are mutual funds that may work for you. In general, look for a fund that: An example of a fund that meets these requirements is SWPPX from Charles Schwabb, which tracks the S&P 500. Buy the product directly from the mutual fund company: if you go through a broker or financial manager they'll try to rip you off. The main advantage of such a mutual fund is that it will probably make your daughter significantly more money over the next 15 years than the safer options. The tradeoff is that you have to be prepared to accept the volatility of the stock market and the possibility that your daughter might lose money. Your daughter can buy savings bonds through the US Treasury's TreasuryDirect website. There are two relevant varieties: You and your daughter seem to be the intended customers of these products: they are available in low denominations and they guarantee a rate for up to 30 years. The Series I bonds are the only product I know of that's guaranteed to keep pace with inflation until redeemed at an unknown time many years in the future. It is probably not a big concern for your daughter in these amounts, but the interest on these bonds is exempt from state taxes in all cases, and is exempt from Federal taxes if you use them for education expenses. The main weakness of these bonds is probably that they're too safe. You can get better returns by taking some risk, and some risk is probably acceptable in your situation. Savings accounts, including so-called \"\"money market accounts\"\" from banks are a possibility. They are very convenient, but you might have to shop around for one that: I don't have any particular insight into whether these are likely to outperform or be outperformed by treasury bonds. Remember, however, that the interest rates are not guaranteed over the long run, and that money lost to inflation is significant over 15 years. Certificates of deposit are what a bank wants you to do in your situation: you hand your money to the bank, and they guarantee a rate for some number of months or years. You pay a penalty if you want the money sooner. The longest terms I've typically seen are 5 years, but there may be longer terms available if you shop around. You can probably get better rates on CDs than you can through a savings account. The rates are not guaranteed in the long run, since the terms won't last 15 years and you'll have to get new CDs as your old ones mature. Again, I don't have any particular insight on whether these are likely to keep up with inflation or how performance will compare to treasury bonds. Watch out for the same things that affect savings accounts, in particular fees and reduced rates for balances of your size.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "655caf02c7a72345927269b3ff4e2b1a",
"text": "It's tough to borrow fixed and invest risk free. That said, there are still some interesting investment opportunities. A 4% loan will cost you 3% or less after tax, and the DVY (Dow high yielders) is at 3.36% but at a 15% favored rate, you net 2.76% if my math is right. So for .5%, you get the fruits of the potential rise in dividends as well as any cap gains. Is this failsafe? No. But I believe that long term, say 10 years or more, the risk is minimal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1885e147e142cd6a0fdf6862afa5b80a",
"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.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc3f52a375bc36ded7c59d6cf3dd77f3",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef0e9ae89d9c52b31c87383d6b21d9af",
"text": "Financial advisers like to ask lots of questions and get nitty-gritty about investment objectives, but for the most part this is not well-founded in financial theory. Investment objectives really boils down to one big question and an addendum. The big question is how much risk you are willing to tolerate. This determines your expected return and most characteristics of your portfolio. The addendum is what assets you already have (background risk). Your portfolio should contain things that hedge that risk and not load up on it. If you expect to have a fixed income, some extra inflation protection is warranted. If you have a lot of real estate investing, your portfolio should avoid real estate. If you work for Google, you should avoid it in your portfolio or perhaps even short it. Given risk tolerance and background risk, financial theory suggests that there is a single best portfolio for you, which is diversified across all available assets in a market-cap-weighted fashion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "700d562ac8cc25dccfd48cd894eb4ef0",
"text": "\"Some thoughts: 1) Do you have a significant emergency fund (3-6 months of after-tax living expenses)? If not, you stand to take a significant loss if you have an unexpected need for cash that is tied up in investments. What if you lose/hate your job or your car breaks down? What if a you want to spend some time with a relative or significant other who learns they only have a few months to live? Having a dedicated emergency fund is an important way to avoid downside risk. 2) Lagerbaer has a good suggestion. Given that if you'd reinvested your dividends, the S&P 500 has returned about 3.5% over the last 5 years, you may be able to get a very nice risk-free return. 3) Do you have access to employer matching funds, such as in a 401(k) at work? If you get a dollar-for-dollar match, that is a risk-free pre-tax 100% return and should be a high priority. 4) What do you mean by \"\"medium\"\" volatility? Given that you are considering a 2/3 equity allocation, it would not be at all out of the realm of possibility that your balance could fall by 15% or more in any given year and take several years to recover. If that would spook you, you may want to consider lowering your equity weights. A high quality bond fund may be a good fit. 5) Personally, I would avoid putting money into stocks that I didn't need back for 10 years. If you only want to tie your money up for 2-5 years, you are taking a significant risk that if prices fall, you won't have time to recover before you need your money back. The portfolio you described would be appropriate for someone with a long-term investment horizon and significant risk tolerance, which is usually the case for young people saving for retirement. However, if your goals are to invest for 2-5 years only, your situation would be significantly different. 6) You can often borrow from an investment account to purchase a primary residence, but you must pay that amount back in order to avoid significant taxes and fees, unless you plan to liquidate assets. If you plan to buy a house, saving enough to avoid PMI is a good risk-free return on your money. 7) In general, and ETF or index fund is a good idea, the key being to minimize the compound effect of expenses over the long term. There are many good choices a la Vanguard here to choose from. 8) Don't worry about \"\"Buy low, sell high\"\". Don't be a speculator, be an investor (that's my version of Anthony Bourdain's, \"\"don't be a tourist, be a traveler\"\"). A speculator wants to sell shares at a higher price than they were purchased at. An investor wants to share in the profits of a company as a part-owner. If you can consistently beat the market by trying to time your transactions, good for you - you can move to Wall Street and make millions. However, almost no one can do this consistently, and it doesn't seem worth it to me to try. I don't mean to discourage you from investing, just make sure you have your bases covered so that you don't have to cash out at a bad time. Best of luck! Edit Response to additional questions below. 1) Emergency fund. I would recommend not investing in anything other than cash equivalents (money market, short-term CDs, etc.) until you've built up an emergency fund. It makes sense to want to make the \"\"best\"\" use of your money, but you also have to account for risk. My concern is that if you were to experience one or more adverse life events, that you could lose a lot of money, or need to pay a lot in interest on credit card debt, and it would be prudent to self-insure against some of those risks. I would also recommend against using an investment account as an emergency fund account. Taking money out of investment accounts is inefficient because the commissions/taxes/fees can easily eat up a significant portion of your returns. Ideally, you would want to put money in and not touch it for a long time in order to take advantage of compounding returns. There are also high penalties for early disbursements from retirement funds. Just like you need enough money in your checking account to buy food and pay the rent every month, you need enough money in an emergency fund to pay for things that are a real possibility, even if they are less common. Using a credit card or an investment account is a relatively expensive way to do this. 2) Invest at all? I would recommend starting an emergency fund, and then beginning to invest for retirement. Once your retirement savings are on track, you can begin saving for whatever other goals you may have\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5b9a2379fe0e363b5e4f935c7eda594",
"text": "\"Defining risk tolerance is often aided with a series of questions. Such as - You are 30 and have saved 3 years salary in your 401(k). The market drops 33% and since you are 100% S&P, you are down the same. How do you respond? (a) move to cash - I don't want to lose more money. (b) ride it out. Keep my deposits to the maximum each year. Sleep like a baby. A pro will have a series of this type of question. In the end, the question resolves to \"\"what keeps you up at night?\"\" I recall a conversation with a coworker who was so risk averse, that CDs were the only right investment for her. I had to explain in painstaking detail, that our company short term bond fund (sub 1 year government paper) was a safe place to invest while getting our deposits matched dollar for dollar. In our conversations, I realized that long term expectations (of 8% or more) came with too high a risk for her, at any level of her allocation. Zero it was.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "034885719490c4aa45d6c1e091c10c41",
"text": "\"What you're asking for is a short-term, large return investment. When looking for big returns in a short period of time, risk is inevitable. The more risk you are willing to assume, the higher your potential returns. Of course, the flip is is that the higher your risk, the higher the potential to lose all your money! Since this is an exercise for school (and not real money and not your life savings) your best bet is to \"\"go big or go home\"\". You can safely assume 100% risk! Don't look for value stocks, dividend stocks, or anything that pays a steady return over a long period of time. Instead, look for something risky that has the potential of going up, up, up in the next few months. Are you allowed to trade options in your fake portfolio? Options can have big risk and big reward potential. Penny stocks are super volatile, too. Do some research, look for a fad. In other words, you will most likely lose it all. But you get a little lucky, you could win this thing outright by making some risky investments. A 5% chance of winning $3000 vs 95% of going broke may be pretty good odds if everyone else is value investing for just a few months. You will need to get lucky. Go big or go home!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fed7947cf3797ff10394446994e2c9d",
"text": "The most important thing to remember is that being VAT registered, you must add VAT to every bill, so every bill will be 20% higher. If the bill payer is a company, they don't care because they deduct the 20% VAT from their own VAT bill. If the bill payer is a private person, their cost of your services has just gone up by 20% and it is going to hurt your business. So the question is, what kind of customers do you have? But if your customers are companies, then the flat rate scheme mentioned above is very little work and puts a nice little amount of extra cash in your pocket (suitable if your bills are mostly for your work and not for parts that you buy for the customer and bill them for).",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
187b926919a8119019344e3e62da920e
|
Why does my bank suddenly need to know where my money comes from?
|
[
{
"docid": "7d643ed047c1d902947122689b38d25b",
"text": "\"Banks have a financial, and regulational duty called \"\"Know your customer\"\", established to avoid a number of historical problems occurring again, such as money laundering, terrorism financing, fraud, etc. Thanks to the scale, and scope of the problem (millions of customers, billions of transactions a day), the way they're handling this usually involves fuzzy logics matching, looking for irregular patterns, problem escalation, and other warning signs. When exceeding some pre-set limit, these signal clues are then filtered, and passed on for human inspection. Needless to say, these algorithms are not perfect, although, thanks to financial pressure, they are improving. In order to understand why your trading account has been suspended, it's useful to look at the incentives: false positives -suspending your trade, and assuming you guilty until proven otherwise- could cost them merely your LTV (lifetime value of customer -how much your business brings in as profit); while false negatives -not catching you while engaging in activities listed above- might cost them multi-month investigations, penalties, and court. Ultimately, this isn't against you. I've been with the bank for 15 years and the money in the accounts has been very slowly accumulated via direct-deposit paychecks over that time. From this I gather the most likely explanation, is that you've hit somekind of account threshold, that the average credit-happy customers usually do not exceed, which triggered a routine checkup. How do you deal with it? Practice puppetry! There is only one way to survive angry customers emotionally: you have to realize that they’re not angry at you; they’re angry at your business, and you just happen to be a convenient representative of that business. And since they’re treating you like a puppet, an iconic stand-in for the real business, you need to treat yourself as a puppet, too. Pretend you’re a puppeteer. The customer is yelling at the puppet. They’re not yelling at you. They’re angry with the puppet. Your job is to figure out, “gosh, what can I make the puppet say that will make this person a happy customer?” In an investigation case, go with boredom: The puppet doesn't care, have no feelings, and is eternally patient. Figure out what are the most likely words that will have the matter \"\"mentally resolved\"\" from the investigator's point of view, tell them what they have to hear, and you'll have case closed in no time. Hope this helps.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5443ee2e6f6034ecd03ddefed7a53ab",
"text": "Most likely this is connected with new banking regulations related to the Patriot Act, which require banks to be much more inquisitive about their customers and their money. The requirements are mostly about new accounts, but there may be some provisions to backfill this information for existing accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79f31adf9ba96bc685681684d0bfdc6a",
"text": "Banks and credit unions are constantly required to improve their detection methods for suspicious transactions. It's not just big transactions anymore, it's scattered little ones, etc. Our credit union had to buy software that runs through transactions sniffing for suspicious patterns. More regulations and more costs that ultimately get passed on to customers in one way or another. Some of your transactions probably tripped a wire where there was none before.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e87339fb33848438b29492d4293e6df9",
"text": "Bank runs very complex software to detect suspicious activity - terrorism financing, money laundering, etc. How would a program know that some person's activity is suspicious? It uses a set of rules. That set might be imperfect (that likely was not intended) - there might be some rule that triggers a warning on your account dominating the fact you've been with them for 15 years. So it's highly likely that an imperfect program triggered a warning on your account and the bank employer didn't dismiss it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0e961894f3c0026db5bef446d8368b31",
"text": "\"Definitely this. The fact that it's termed \"\"identity theft\"\" is a great PR spin for banks. Someone else is attempting transactions while fraudulently claiming to be you. You did not lose your identity or even a piece of it. You are still fully you. You are not even involved in the fraudulent transaction! It's a transaction between the bank and the fraudster, and the bank has agreed to some action you did not authorize. They should be responsible for cleanup.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8aa47beede59c8ab5527ab55e505aa7",
"text": "One bank is more willing to risk losses and customer hassle in exchange for lower processing costs than the other bank is. It's strictly a business decision. Regarding how they detect suspicious transactions: Patten detection based on your past usage history. I've gotten calls asking me to confirm that I just placed a large order with a company I'd never bought from before, or in a country that I haven't previously visited, or...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7f7a88163519e4bfaff7e4bae52dc81",
"text": "I feel like no one really has he right to step in and ask me what I'm spending my own money on and why Well, yes - the bank do, and they are legally required to. It's for legal purposes and for your own protection. The bank are looking for money laundering, generally. You can't withdraw more than $10,000 cash without the bank having to report it; however, if you ask for $10,000, the bank tell you that they have to report it, and so you reduce your request to (say) $9,500, the bank will still report it - with a note on the report saying that you initially requested a higher limit. They also check spending patterns. If for the last six months you've withdrawn $1,000 in cash each month, but for the last four days you've asked for $5,000 each time, then they'll ask what the money is being used for, in case you're being defrauded. Your question implies that the 'financial people' are asking for the money in cash. If so, then that's a big (BIG!) red flag. No reputable company would ask for deposits that cannot be traced. In this case, I'd be looking for other 'financial advisors'. Interview several, not just the ones used by your friends and/or relatives. And if you don't understand an investment completely, then you shouldn't be making that investment. Your advisor would not be risking their OWN money on it, would they...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18665dc5fa080e4469ed3808a1f01234",
"text": "Most transactions that the bank performs for you are electronic ACH transactions, so the costs to them are minimal in the long run. Most banks do it now to keep up with the competition. Almost every bank does it now, so they have to do it to attract new business and keep existing customers. Also, the more you rely on the bank and use them to pay bills, the more they learn about you over time and can use that data in overall marketing plans. It's easier for them to record it into their system if it is all electronic to begin with.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad95541644e49cb3761095f39c7f52da",
"text": "\"I don't see how this concept takes off. First and foremost, BankSimple is NOT a bank but a tech company masquerading as one. BankSimple leaves industry regulation and treasury management -- the CORE of banking, to outside parties. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer to have as few stops between me and my money as possible. If not for a fear of losing it in a robbery and inability to earn interest, I'd shove it under a mattress. So why would I want to bank with an intermediary, who admittently doesn't understand how the process works? How is that \"\"looking out for my interests\"\"? And how is your security better than other institutions that offer 128-bit encryption and multiple security questions to test a customer's identity? I'd like to add that not charging overdraft fees and providing lines of credit to help customers out in the event they spend more than they have is nice in concept, but what happens when those same customers do not make deposits to cover their shortfalls? When it comes to money, people will take advantage of any opportunities they have to circumvent the system. Especially if funds are tight.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "543f4652e82ee1c5329dcd9006612b55",
"text": "As a merchant I can tell you that the only thing the bank gets from me. Is the total amount and a category for my business. No detail, not ever.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53cb7cc61f2dfbdbd6f1da0668f6fc1d",
"text": "\"Well, it took some effort to get an explanation from my bank. Turns out that some supermarkets use direct debit as a method of transferring money for purchases payed by so-called \"\"EC\"\" cards here. I was told that for some reason, a supermarket decided to reverse one of such transactions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f53938fe4acef1c5ca2cc4e5bb639f7",
"text": "\"TLDR: Why can't banks give me my money? We don't have your money. Who has my money? About half a dozen different people all over the world. And we need to coordinate with them and their banks to get you your money. I love how everyone seems to think that the securities industry has super powers. Believe me, even with T+3, you won't believe how many trades fail to settle properly. Yes, your trade is pretty simple. But Cash Equity trades in general can be very complicated (for the layman). Your sell order will have been pushed onto an algorithmic platform, aggregated with other sell order, and crossed with internal buy orders. The surplus would then be split out by the algo to try and get the best price based on \"\"orders\"\" on the market. Finally the \"\"fills\"\" are used in settlement, which could potentially have been filled in multiple trades against multiple counterparties. In order to guarantee that the money can be in your account, we need 3 days. Also remember, we aren't JUST looking at your transaction. Each bank is looking to square off all the different trades between all their counter parties over a single day. Thousands of transactions/fills may have to be processed just for a single name. Finally because, there a many many transactions that do not settle automatically, our settlements team needs to co-ordinate with the other bank to make sure that you get your money. Bear in mind, banks being banks, we are working with systems that are older than I am. *And all of the above is the \"\"simplest\"\" case, I haven't even factored in Dark Pools/Block trades, auctions, pre/post-market trading sessions, Foreign Exchange, Derivatives, KYC/AML.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f414572f1273861b9e4d36c3ad3e02a",
"text": "As I replied to someone else who said that: I'm often having to send stuff with the check. Paperwork, a bill etc. While that would work to a person who knows me, it's usually not going to work with a business or government who needs to know why I'm sending this check.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a94776ff15107b4078eabd2f71906a41",
"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.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7f53388750c3c3aa69d751131546f00",
"text": "From my reading of the wikipedia page (CRT), this only happens if you deposit or withdraw currency, not checks. The idea behind this is that checks, ACH, etc. leave paper trails that can be tracked. Cash doesn't, so it gets this extra level of scrutiny. If yu get a cashiers check or a money order to pay a bill, I don't think a CRT is created. If you withdraw $15,000 to buy a car in cash (1 stack of $100 bills), then a CRT would be generated. It still isn't a problem, as long as you can show a bill of sale showing where the money went (or came from, if you are the seller). The IRS has a FAQ about this. It says (taken from several spots at that page): Cash is money. It is currency and coins of the United States and any other country. A cashier’s check, bank draft, traveler’s check, or money order with a face amount of more than $10,000 is not treated as cash and a business does not have to file Form 8300 when it receives them. These items are not defined as cash because, if they were bought with currency, the bank or other financial institution that issued them must file a Currency Transaction Report. The exception to this is if you are buying something with a resale value of more than $10k with a check, money order, etc of less than $10k.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8c51d2323b6e68f7e7384924a79395c",
"text": "\"It means that you are expected to have received a separate piece of communication (\"\"advice\"\") which confirms who the payment came from. This is common with CHAPS payments and overseas transactions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62568d7cf61f5ac147fe877da66f9da3",
"text": "They are networked machines and they talk to all the banks in order to look up the details of your account to provide you with that money. The protocol they use has known vulnerabilities. A blackhat conference about 5 years ago they made one of the machines output money onto the street.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0700971fbc357b77224692f5644dac4a",
"text": "The person you're talking to is probably someone in the company. They need to convey the message to their bank. So you need to explain it to them as if they were 3 year old kids. You may be used to SWIFT transactions because that's how you always get paid, but unless the UK firm regularly employes Russian freelancers, this is probably the first time ever they have heard of it. Similarly, someone in the local branch of their community bank has probably never heard of it before either. In Europe they use IBANs and SWIFTs are rather uncommon. Be patient, explain the issue and the solution in as many words as you can, and suggest them putting you on speaker at the bank so that you could talk directly to the person executing the transaction. If you do the same on your side and let the bankers talk directly to each other - that would probably be ideal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "237b046a1a504aac7ff28b5d4f68910b",
"text": "lol- yeah, I know how banks work. My point is EVERY transaction should be recorded somewhere. Banks have both internal and external auditors who's only job it is to monitor the transactions to make sure everything adds up. It just doesn't make sense that the CEO of the company would have so little idea of what is going on. Shades of Enron to me.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
33df29c7b2b01c85609d6c1281399281
|
Possibility of donations in an educational site
|
[
{
"docid": "a8bf89a0d530f2ee38e176a9f9378954",
"text": "You can have a way for people to pay, i.e. some kind of payment gateway. Run as Business: Best create a company and get the funds there. This would be treated as income of the website and would be taxed accordingly. One can deduct expenses for running the website, etc. Run as Charity: Register as one, however the cause should be considered as charitable one by the tax authorities. Only then the donations would be tax free.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c192d27c9016708470d14d6d7cf7fe62",
"text": "It's a good question. We can't know for sure, but here are some things to think about. Paypal advertises a discounted transaction rate for non-profit organizations. In the U.S. at least, the rate they advertise is 2.2% + 0.30 USD. There are lots of things that can come into play here, such as international rates or any special deal that Wikimedia has struck with Paypal, but it seems reasonable to guess that of your 2€ donation, Wikipedia sees perhaps 1.65€. Note that most of the fee is a flat rate; of the next 2€ in your donation, Wikipedia gets 1.96€. Direct debit probably has lower fees. Paypal has to account for some credit card transaction fees in their fee structure, and direct debit does not. Therefore, I would guess that to maximize your gift, direct debit might result a little better than Paypal. Charities, in general, don't want to tell you the best way to donate, because they want it to be as easy for you as possible, and don't want to discourage any type of donation at all. They are very happy to get any donation, even if one method over another results in slightly higher fees. Wikimedia, in particular, offers many different options for donating.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20eeb824009e437a54f03ea54aed8ee4",
"text": "\"> The best teachers make hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, in private educational institutions. 1. I am sure some teachers do, and that these teachers are far better than average. But teacher pay correlates with a lot of other things, like seniority. 2. \"\"Education\"\" is not just one thing, and it is sometimes closer to a private good and sometimes closer to a [public good](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good). Education-as-status is a private good (which is why private schools can afford to pay prestige-bringing teachers a lot of money). Education-as-human-capital is in some cases also a private good (e.g., most of the benefits for graduate business education accrues to the student, so externalities are negligible); but in other cases it is probably not (e.g., it's better for everyone if everyone else is literate and numerate, so there are externalities involved in basic education). And civic education is an almost public good (the benefits of voting thoughtfully only exist if many people do it, and they are spread largely evenly throughout society). Right now the government has a hand in funding all of these. This may or may not be a good idea (whether from the standpoint of pure efficiency or from the taxation-is-theft). But in your opinion, which of the above educations could plausibly be funded adequately without taxation? Edit: fixed link\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b9d92a7418f20e2ef19e34d7716440d",
"text": "One possibility to consider would be making an arrangement with a registered UK charity where you would donate the necessary amount for the specific purpose of covering medical costs of that particular person. Charitable donations are expressly deductible from business profits. Some charities may be genuinely interested in helping people from developing countries get quality medical help that's not available in those countries. There may be some organizations in the proposed beneficiary's country that have contacts among the UK charities. PS. I am not a lawyer or an accountant, nor do I claim to be either. The above is not a legal or accounting advice. Consider seeking professional assistance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6824a94d1bb6405c0a1cb9c114b590e3",
"text": "Why limit yourself to $28K per year? If you pay the tuition directly to the institution, it does not count against your annual or lifetime gift-giving totals. You could pay the entire tuition each year with no tax consequences. The only thing you can't do if you want to go this route is give the money to your children; that's what causes the gift tax to kick in. The money must be paid directly to the school.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1e55ef07f1ec2dcf24c23fb3b93f488",
"text": "Economic efficiency is overrated. I would rather give money to a charity that spent 15% on human resources and 10% on marketing to get $10 million in incoming donations than to a charity with an 8% expense rate that receives $1 million in incoming donations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02fc74037147deb4142ef946e110d69c",
"text": "I worked at a for-profit school, one associated with Full Sail University. I can say this from experience: -Most of the people receiving stipends (loan money from federal or private sources) are black and from low-income neighborhoods. -In SOME instances the people enrolled in the school were obviously mentally ill and very likely homeless. -Most of the people receiving stipends either drop out themselves or are dropped for poor academic progress and attendance. This is after a hefty debt is built up. -The school goes to extraordinary lengths to enroll military vets. I can't say anything about admission tactics other than they check to see if you have a high school degree. Personally I would never go to these type of schools.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d9303a97a7532a9f39858d68b75bf2a",
"text": "Without knowing the specifics it is hard to give you a specific answer, but most likely the answer is no. If they limit the participation in the site to accredited investors, this is probably not something they are doing willingly, but rather imposed by regulators. Acredited investors have access to instruments that don't have the same level of regulatory protection & scrutiny as those offered to the general public, and are defined under Regulation D. Examples of such securities are 144A Shares, or hedgefunds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b32954549a0aca1e2742405e0d273d5",
"text": "There is no doubt that a good, quality early education is one of the base for becoming successful person in future. And Jumbobookmarks.net will provide all the articles related to education and college. If you are a writer then you can bookmark your latest findings for free and use it later.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21db1c5902c3904dcba5e7cddfd17f69",
"text": "You are thinking of something similar to [Patreon](www.patreon.com) then but more automated? I don't quite think automation works for this because you might not want to give every site you visit money, even if you visit it often in a short period of time (e.g. while doing research into cults you might not want to give the WBC money).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a24030f7d2965aba4b9fc552d7aa5c3",
"text": "For larger items such as cars this is certainly possible; I've donated a car before (in Canada) and got a tax receipt that was probably worth more than I would have got from a dealer for the car. However with donations of this kind there are two obstacles: Two other options for you to consider. Most medium towns have used book shops which you can sell them to. If the used book shops don't want them then your books really aren't worth enough to be worrying about, in which case see option two: give the books to a charity or thrift shop and don't worry about the receipt. Sometimes a nice feeling is the best return you will get.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "019b88a3ca0231446bbe14a304b499fd",
"text": "In the. US, i'd suggest hitting the Charity Navigator website for evaluation of how efficiently various charities will use your money. At this point I won't donate money to anything that gets less than three stars unless I know the organization very well indeed -- and I've been progressively swapping out 3-star groups for 4-star organizations in the same category. Many of the groups reviewed by CN are international, so you might find it useful even if you're donating from/to elsewhere.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c775494620aeef8bee1dab5754abcf17",
"text": "If you have a software company, that can produce a box of software for $5, but the box sells for $100. (You have to make a profit and cover development costs) But then you give these boxes to charity, that is a cost of $5 each and a tax rebate of $100 x 40% = $40. A profit of $35 per donation of $5. Note: You can only do this if you have taxable profit to offset it against.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f62ac4aa1bf452b003ae5b0df6d20dd8",
"text": "Not sure how authoritative it is, but according to this site, yes: Can a corporation, partnership or other non-living entity make the contribution to an ESA? Yes. The tax law does not restrict the ability to make contributions to living individuals. Corporations and other entities may make contributions without regard for the usual donor income limit. However, the same site indicates that you can just give the child the $2K and have them contribute to their own ESA, so yes, the income limit is pretty easy to get around.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd647bbb6075195664a28da2dd0b438d",
"text": "If I were donating money to a charity, i.e. an organization set up to help others, I would simply send them the money and ask that my name not be used in publicity. That would mean that the person(s) actually benefiting from my donation didn't know who I was. The charity would know, but they don't themselves benefit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f17ea3ea13adcec5a67e063bb2b58a9f",
"text": "Yes, it's considered the students asset, regardless of the custodian aspect. I don't know how you'd propose to put it in a retirement account, even with the earned income to facilitate this, the limit is $5500/yr. The larger issue is parental income. That and parental assets. Tough to game that part of the system to get aid. In the end, one should look to scholarships, both merit and non merit based to maximize college support.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9b4555bca63f9ac69095d2590816d7df
|
Definition of gross income (Arizona state tax filing requirements)
|
[
{
"docid": "b31ab8ae55f25f15b2f8ae758ea49bcd",
"text": "Disclaimer: I am not a tax professional. Please don't rely on this answer in lieu of professional advice. If your sole source of Arizona income is your commercial property, use the number on line 17 of your federal form 1040. This number is derived from your federal Schedule E. If you have multiple properties (or other business income from S corporations or LLCs), use only the Schedule E amount pertaining to the AZ property.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9438f2630d7f0c5e6cdb291a7a68cca1",
"text": "\"I would suggest reading through page 1 of the Arizona Nonresident form instructions at the web address below: https://www.azdor.gov/Portals/0/ADOR-forms/TY2015/10100/10177_inst.pdf To quote: \"\"You are subject to Arizona income tax on all income derived from Arizona sources. If you are in this state for a temporary or transitory purpose or did not live in Arizona but received income from sources within Arizona during 2015, you are subject to Arizona tax. Income from Arizona sources includes the following: ...the sale of Arizona real estate...\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "698111cd921bcfd014d15bcf5d87ae5c",
"text": "Many states have a simple method for assessing income tax on nonresidents. If you have $X income in State A where you claim nonresident status and $Y income overall, then you owe State A a fraction (X/Y) of the income tax that would have been due on $Y income had you been a resident of State A. In other words, compute the state income tax on $Y as per State A rules, and send us (X/Y) of that amount. If you are a resident of State B, then State B will tax you on $Y but give you some credit for taxes paid to State A. Thus, you might be required to file a State A income tax return regardless of how small $X is. As a practical matter, many commercial real-estate investments are set up as limited partnerships in which most of the annual taxable income is a small amount of portfolio income (usually interest income that you report on Schedule B of Form 1040), and the annual bottom line is lots of passive losses which the limited partners report (but do not get to deduct) on the Federal return. As a result, State A is unlikely to come after you for the tax on, say, $100 of interest income each year because it will cost them more to go after you than they will recover from you. But, when the real estate is sold, there will (hopefully) be a big capital gain, most of which will be sheltered from Federal tax since the passive losses finally get to be deducted. At this point, State A is not only owed a lot of money (it knows nothing of your passive losses etc) but, after it processes the income tax return that you filed for that year, it will likely demand that you file income tax returns for previous years as well.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8f5439eccba9927dbad2c3edb01e31dd",
"text": "Such activity is normally referred to as bartering income. From the IRS site - You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship), or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship). If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF), Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Refer to Topic 308 and Amended Returns for information on filing an amended return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaf49cfcd2a5ddfdcc47d4ebf7667b29",
"text": "I'm not confident that the requirements for 2017 are up yet, but assuming they don't change much from those of 2016, then probably not if you have no other earnings this year. If you make $500 a month, then you will make $6,000 this year. This is below the filing requirements for most taxpayers, unless you are married but filing separately. At the end of 2017 you should tally up your earnings (including earnings from other sources) find which category you find yourself in on the table, and make a final determination of whether you'll need to file.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bd1a5f5aeb95f5ac87bf992d454e1c0",
"text": "\"While this does fall under the \"\"All-inclusive income\"\" segment of GI (gross income), there are two questions that come up. I invested in a decentralized bitcoin business and earned about $230 this year in interest from it Your wording is confusing here only due to how bitcoin works.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ddf5935ce37f66c96defd0182a0c28d",
"text": "\"This may be closed as not quite PF, but really \"\"startup\"\" as it's a business question. In general, you should talk to a professional if you have this type of question, specifics like this regarding your tax code. I would expect that as a business, you will use a proper paper trail to show that money, say 1000 units of currency, came in and 900 went out. This is a service, no goods involved. The transaction nets you 100, and you track all of this. In the end you have the gross profit, and then business expenses. The gross amount, 1000, should not be the amount taxed, only the final profit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3b95031eb506b30bf9d5cc055cbaba9",
"text": "You should consult a US CPA to ensure your situation is handled correctly. It appears, the money is Israel source income and not US source income regardless if you receive it while living in the U.S. If you file the correct form, I suspect the form is 1040NR and your state form to disclose your income, if any, in 2015 and 2016, it should not be a problem. Having said that, if you do earn any type of income while in the U.S. , you are required to disclose it to both the IRS and state.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d19500998654ae4a95b5adbfe8450b8",
"text": "\"P/E is price to earnings, or the price of the company divided by annual earnings. Earnings, as reported, are reported on accrual basis. Accrual basis accounting is...without going too deep, like taking a timeline, chopping it up and throwing different bits and pieces of every year into different piles. Costs from 2008 might show up in 2011, or the company might take costs in 2011 that aren't necessarily costs until 2012. Examples would include one-time charges for specific investments, like new shipping centers, servers for their hosting services, etc. Free cash flow is the amount of cash Amazon is generating from its operations. Free cash flow is almost always different from earnings because it's the amount of Earnings + adjustments for non-cash activities - capital expenditures (long-term investments.) Earnings is one thing. Cash generation is a completely different animal. There are plenty of companies that \"\"earn\"\" billions, but only have a few hundred million in cash to show for it because their earnings have to be reinvested into new stuff to grow/maintain the business. To have a free cash flow yield of 2.5% is to have a company valued at $40 for each $1 of free cash flow that the company generates each year. $1/$40 = 2.5%. SGA = Selling, General, & Administrative expenses. These are the costs of running the company - paying salaries, advertising, etc. This cost is second only to COGS, which is Cost of Goods Sold. Currently, Amazon pays $.774 for every $1 product it sells. Its operations add another ~$.20 to that total. After taxes, Amazon keeps about 2 cents of every dollar's worth of product it sells. This 2 cents is Amazon's net margin of 2%. Net margin is (net income)/(sales). If Amazon earned $3 for every $100 in sales it would have a net margin of 3%. Let me know if this makes no sense. If there's anything in particular that is especially confusing, definitely reply and I'll better clarify on specific items. Fire away with any questions, also. I love to discuss finance and accounting.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2320cc41b8540a4e2b442d41f6f2f1a",
"text": "\"Without divulging too many specifics. Net income is 73k. Total income is 136k. Filed as an S-Corp. Using Quickbooks to classify expenses etc. I know its not much information but I don't know what to look out for, like \"\"whoa, net income is 73k, you gotta spend that!\"\" I have a CPA but isn't offering much in the terms of \"\"help\"\" and \"\"explanation\"\". Thanks for your time!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8083b22ff58709c2a3914067c123417b",
"text": "Here's how the CBO says the top 1% got their income in 2013 (latest data): Source|% from source :--------|---------: Cash Wages and Salaries|33.4% Business Income|23.2% Capital Gains|19.1% Capital Income|11.2% Corporate Tax Borne by Capital|7.3% Other Income|3.2% Employer's Share of Payroll Taxes|0.9% Employee's Contributions to Deferred Compensation Plans|0.7% Employer's Contributions to Health Insurance|0.5% And here are there definitions of the types of income: * Labor income—Cash wages and salaries, including those allocated by employees to 401(k) plans; employer-paid health insurance premiums; the employer’s share of Social Security, Medicare, and federal unemployment insurance payroll taxes; and the share of corporate income taxes borne by workers. * Business income—Net income from businesses and farms operated solely by their owners, partnership income, and income from S corporations. * Capital gains—Profits realized from the sale of assets. Increases in the value of assets that have not been realized through sales are not included in the Congressional Budget Office’s measure of market income. * Capital income (excluding capital gains)—Taxable and tax-exempt interest, dividends paid by corporations (but not dividends from S corporations, which are considered part of business income), positive rental income, and the share of corporate income taxes borne by owners of capital. * Other income—Income received in retirement for past services and other sources of income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "616eeb050776c24607530a993d6be9d5",
"text": "\"New York will want to you to pay taxes on income from \"\"New York sources\"\". I'm not sure what this means to a freelance web developer. If your wife is doing freelance web development under the same business entity as she did in New York (ie. a New York sole proprietor, corporation, etc), you probably do need to file. From nonresident tax form manual: http://tax.ny.gov/pdf/2011/inc/it203i_2011.pdf If you were a nonresident of New York State, you are subject to New York State tax on income you received from New York State sources in 2011. If you were a resident of New York State for only part of 2011, you are subject to New York State tax on all income you received while you were a resident of the state and on income you received from New York State sources while you were a nonresident. To compute the amount of tax due, use Form IT-203, Nonresident and Part-Year Resident Income Tax Return. You will compute a base tax as if you were a full-year resident, then determine the percentage of your income that is subject to New York State tax and the amount of tax apportioned to New York State.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9fd3b5f25bb9d6af63423130795181e",
"text": "\"Do I have to explain the source of all income on my taxes? \"\"Yes, you do\"\", say the ghosts of Ermenegildo and Mary Cesarini. https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/general/what-to-know-about-taxes-on-found-property/L9BfdKz7N The Cesarinis argued to the IRS that the money wasn’t income, and so it should not be taxed as such. The IRS wasn’t swayed by the couple’s argument. The case went to federal court, and the IRS won. “Found” property and money has been considered taxable income ever since. The IRS plainly states that taxpayers must report “all income from any source,\"\" even income earned in another country, unless it is explicitly exempt under the U.S. Tax Code. This covers a wide range of miscellaneous income, including gambling winnings. According to the Cesarini decision, money you find isn’t explicitly exempt. The tax impact won’t be significant if you find an item of property with a fair market value of only $500 and are in the 25% tax bracket. You’ll owe the IRS $125 ($500 x .25 = $125). However, if you are a finder and keeper of $10,000, your tax burden will be $2,500 ($10,000 x .25 = $2,500).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d62b0de44db8893a1aed6549889899b",
"text": "\"The Form 1040 (U.S. tax return form) Instructions has a section called \"\"Do You Have To File?\"\". Below a certain income, you are not required to file a tax return and pay any tax. This amount of income at which you are required to file depends on several things, including your dependency status (you are a dependent of your parents), your marital status, and other factors. The instructions have charts that show what these numbers are. You would fall under Chart B. Assuming that you are under age 65, unmarried, and not blind, you only have to file when you reach the following conditions: Your unearned income was over $1,050. Your earned income was over $6,300. Your gross income was more than the larger of— $1,050, or Your earned income (up to $5,950) plus $350. (Note: Income from YouTube would count as \"\"earned income\"\" for the purposes above.) However, if you are producing your own videos and receiving revenue from them, you are technically self-employed. This means that the conditions from Chart C also apply, which state: You must file a return if any of the five conditions below apply for 2015. As a self-employed person, you can deduct business expenses (expenses that you incur in producing your product, which is this case is your videos). Once your revenue minus your expenses reach $400, you will need to file an income tax return.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7717ff5a58ac270f1675ec5d99061ff6",
"text": "\"Income is income... it depends how it's structured.. personal or corporate.. but still you need to pay taxes... if you get audited, the tax man could look at your bank statements and ask, \"\"where is this money coming from\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e24013fc2d8a69a7b3cba05a99e5eb8f",
"text": "When you enter your expected gross income into the worksheet - just enter $360000 and leave everything else as is. That should give you the right numbers. Same for State (form DE-4).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca9561fce46ca68de2a189227d7c91b2",
"text": "\"ITR-4 is for incorporated business. For freelancing, You can fill ITR 2 and declare the freelancing income as \"\"income from other source\"\". Refer to the Income Tax website for more details\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4aa07f26f949b47c07d71acff501526",
"text": "Unfortunately, you are required, but most states do have agreements with neighboring states that let the states share the collected taxes without the person having to pay double taxes. So being as this is your first tax return in your current situation, you might be wise to have a professional fill it out for you this year and then next year you can use it as a template. Additionally, I really would like to see someone challenge this across state lines taxation in court. It sure seems to me that it is a inter-state tariff/duty, which the state's are expressly forbidden from doing in the constitution.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ad5878800ba3ecfed3cb29eae1c1a2f2
|
Transfer money from a real estate sale in India to the US
|
[
{
"docid": "97e9259c518f4940289b7fbc3d202c9b",
"text": "How would I go about doing this? Assuming you had purchased the house by funding from your NRE account, you can easily move back the 30K into NRE Account and out of India from NRI Account. The 30K profit would be taxed in India as per capital gains and can only be moved into NRO account. A CA would need to certify that appropriate taxes have been withheld before the bank will release the funds for repatriation out of India. There is also a limit [large 1 million USD] on how much funds can be moved out of India. Consult a CA who would help you with the formalities. If you have not funded the purchase from NRE account, the entire proceeds should be into NRO account and then move funds from there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6402f4647bbd723317bbe4ea5e5179f",
"text": "How would I go about doing this? Are there any tax laws I should be worried about? Just report it as a regular sale of asset on your form 8949 (or form 4797 if used for trade/business/rental). It will flow to your Schedule D for capital gains tax. Use form 1116 to calculate the foreign tax credit for the taxes on the gains you'd pay in India (if any).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15679e9fd10ad61388766e59a8aed1ec",
"text": "If you are using the money to invest in a property (even abroad) then you can claim tax exemption. while some people will tell you that the reinvestment should be in India only, it have been ruled that the property can be purchased abroad too..",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3bb072e755ce59b9c53a54cf0cfeffd8",
"text": "\"Transferring the money or keeping it in US does has no effect on taxes. Your residency status has. Assuming you are Resident Alien in US for tax purpose and have paid the taxes to IRS and you are \"\"Non-Resident\"\" Indian for tax purposes in India as you are more than 182 outside India. How would it effect my Tax in US and India If you are \"\"Non-Resident\"\" in India for tax purposes, there is no tax liability of this in India. I have transferred an amount of approx 15-20k$ to Indian Account (not NRE) By RBI regulation, if you are \"\"Non-Resident\"\" then you should get your savings account converted to \"\"NRO\"\". You may not may not choose to open an NRE account. To keep the paper work clear it helps that you open an NRE account in India. Any investment needed ? Where do i need to declare if any ? These are not relevant. Note any income generated in India, i.e. interest in Savings account / FDs / Rent etc; taxes need to be paid in India and declared in US and taxes paid in US as well. There is some relief under DTAA. There are quite a few question on this site that will help you clarify what needs to be done.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "113b8719c3b38c3c58e18fcdbf173cf9",
"text": "There is no tax liability for your brother in India as under gift tax,t there is no cap on amount. The transaction may be taxable to you in US, as there is a limit of USD 14000 per year per person.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41ee3561cef74975b242ec5e0bf15f49",
"text": "Online money transfer facility from Axis Remit is a quick and easy way to transfer money from USA to India. AxisRemit is Axis Bank's flagship inward remittance service enables you to transfer money to your beneficiaries through the most efficient channels like online money transfer, exchange houses and money transfer operators.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "591b432268ebed771ecbba83aded949d",
"text": "There are quite a few details missing. What was your status in India when the property was purchased. How was the property funded? As your status now is PIO, assuming you have registered as PIO, and the purchase was funded from NRE account; You can credit the original purchase price into NRE account and repatriate. The capital appreciation has to be credited to NRO, tax paid and apply for repatriation. A certificate from qualified chartered accountant is required. Essentially it certifies you have paid tax and are compiling with FEMA (Foreign exchange management act) If you are not registered as PIO, you would need to apply to RBI (Reserve Bank of India, similar to fed) for permission to sell as this transaction falls under FEMA. You would in any case need a CA. A lawyer would also help. Assuming you were reporting this property in your US IRS returns ... You are liable for taxes in US. India and US have some amount of DTAA( dual tax avoidance agreement)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa6b5fd3a2691763e0186d3daa30563b",
"text": "Buyer A didn't send money to the US government, Buyer A sent money to Seller B, a US resident. I think the most common way to facilitate a transaction like this is a regular old international wire transfer. Buyer A in India goes to their bank to exchange X INR to $1mm USD. $1mm USD is then wire transferred to Seller B's bank account. The USD was sold to Buyer A, either by funds held by Buyer A's bank, or foreign exchange markets, or possibly the US government. Seller B may owe taxes on the gain derived from the sale of this thing to Buyer A, but that taxation would arise regardless of who the buyer was. Buyer A may owe an import tax in India upon importing whatever they bought. I don't think it's common to tax imported money in this sort of transactional setting though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69215acbca7cb211aa3819f52979f193",
"text": "Yes. You may be subjected to the US gift tax (if you transfer to anyone other than your legally married spouse or yourself). The receivers will have to deal with the Indian tax laws, which I'm not familiar with.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa74f9772e688a7311fdd7a91a3b9504",
"text": "Are there any IRS regulations I should be aware of when sending money to India? None. As long as you are following the standard banking channels. You are also declaring all the accounts held outside US in your tax returns. FBAR. Is it legal to do so? Yes it is legal. do I have to declare how much I am investing and pay extra taxes? As part of FBAR. Income earned [including interest, capital gains, etc] needs to be paid in India [there are some exemptions for example interest on NRE accounts] as well as in the US [relief can be claimed under DTAA Indian version here and US here]. So if you already have paid taxes on salary and say transfer USD 10K to India; there is no tax on this 10K. If this 10K generates an income of say 2K; this 2K is taxable as per normal classification and rules.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c75d0c4b25992b394197d4d4feaa9f05",
"text": "As I understand it, capital gains from real estate sales in India can be shielded from income tax entirely if the proceeds of the sale are invested in certain specific types of bonds (Rural Highway Contruction Authority of India?) for a period of three years beginning no later than x months (6 months?) after completion of the sale. Perhaps this applies to sales of inherited real estate only and not to commercial property or residential property acquired by purchase since there is no step-up of basis on death as occurs in the US, and in all likelihood, records of the purchase price of the inherited property are lost in the mists of time, and so the basis of the investment is effectively zero (or treated as such by the revenue authorities) The interest paid by these bonds is included in taxable income. Perhaps @Dheer will be willing to correct any mistakes in the above. So, it may be necessary to check whether (a) the interest income from the bonds was declared on Form 1040 Schedule B for each year (b) whether the appropriate boxes (the ones that ask whether the taxpayer has signature authority over foreign accounts etc) were checked on Schedule B or not, (c) whether Form TD 90-22.1 was filed each year or not (this is the FBAR requirement) Note that if the total value of the accounts is less than US $10K during the entire year, then the taxpayer is supposed to check NO on Schedule B and need not file Form TD 90-22.1. Also, there is a separate requirement to file a Form 8938 for certain specific types of investments. There was a two-part article describing these rules in Forbes magazine some time ago, and this is available on-line (Part 1 and Part II) As @superjessi says, the IRS might be lenient if the only issue is not filing the forms in timely fashion, and the taxpayer is voluntarily coming into compliance even though the filing is late. They are likely to be less forgiving if the foreign income was not reported, and still remains unreported even after filing the various forms.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa50b3447866754944dd49e44d0b667d",
"text": "You friend would only be able to deposit this in NRO account. You may have to explain the source of money. If you declare it as gift, then you would need to pay gift tax. What you are doing is converting USD to INR outside the normal banking network and this maybe in volition of FEMA [Foreign Exchange Management Act].",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7c69995a03600169bdd569cdbd3f7af",
"text": "I can't find anything specifically about holding international real estate as a US taxpayer, but the act of transferring the money to (I presume) an account of yours in Italy, and any other associated accounts, will trigger requirements for reporting under FBAR and FACTA. Even with this, it is primarily a reporting requirement. I do not believe you will incur any additional taxes unless you do rent out the property (or allow someone not a reported dependent to make use of the property). Note that if you do not report and should, the penalties are quite steep, so please do comply. NOTE: I am not a tax expert, nor a lawyer, nor an accountant, nor an agent of the IRS. Please consult one or all of these before making any decisions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f88fcb019da809facd934c61dfe7b09",
"text": "On my recent visit to the bank, I was told that money coming into the NRE account can only be foreign currency and for NRO accounts, the money can come in local currency but has to be a valid source of income (e.g. rent or investments in India). Yes this is correct as per FMEA regulation in India. Now if we use 3rd party remittances like Remitly or Transferwise etc, they usually covert the foreign currency into local currency like INR and then deposit it. The remittance services are better suited for transferring funds to Normal Savings accounts of your loved ones. Most remittance services would transfer funds using a domestic clearing network [NEFT] and hence the trace that funds originated outside of India is lost. There could be some generic remittance that may have direct tie-up with some banks to do direct transfers. How can we achieve this in either NRE/NRO accounts? If not, what are the other options ? You can do a Wire Transfer [SWIFT] from US to Indian NRE account. You can also use the remittance services [if available] from Banks where you hold NRE Account. For example RemittoIndia from HDFC for an NRE account in HDFC, or Money2India from ICICI for an NRE account in ICICI or QuickRemit from SBI etc. These would preserve the history that funds originated from outside India. Similarly you can also deposit a Foreign Currency Check into Indian Bank Account. The funds would take around month or so to get credited. All other funds can be deposited in NRO account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc267f3350b78dfbd46c7d16a0e08121",
"text": "I would talk to an immigration lawyer. This sounds like the kind of thing that they'd deal with frequently. As I understand it, your concern is mostly about managing the transfer, not the sale. An immigration lawyer is going to see clients with overseas assets frequently. If this isn't something that they do themselves, they can refer you appropriately. In general when I'm looking for a lawyer, I start with the local bar association. The one for San Francisco. If that's the wrong bay area, they are normally at the county level. So you can find them by searching for bar association with the appropriate county or city name. If you explain your problem briefly, they can direct you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19248cdc1d94e3e6ce721efcdf3161b9",
"text": "Assuming that your friend is residing in India, any money that he returns to you cannot be deposited into your NRE (NonResident External) account; it must go into your NRO (NonResident Ordinary) account. You don't have an NRO account, only ordinary savings accounts in India that you established before leaving the country and becoming an NRI (NonResident Indian) ? Well, you are in violation of FEMA regulations and need to convert all those ordinary savings accounts into NRO accounts as soon as possible. Your bank will help you in doing this (by letting you hold ordinary accounts while you have NRI status, the bank too is in violation of FEMA regulations). With regard to taxation, unless you have created a paper trail by documenting the money sent to the builder as a loan to your friend, the entire amount (less INR 50,000 exemption) that your friend will return to you will be considered a gift from your friend to you, and it will be taxable income to you in India, and possibly taxable income to you in your country of residence, though there may be tax treaties that will let you pay taxes in one country only. If you do have a paper trail, then only the excess of what your friend returns to you is interest income to you; the bulk is just repayment of the loan principal, and is nontaxable. If you are residing in the US, I do hope that you have reported the fact that you had foreign bank account(s) totaling more than US$10K in value to the IRS and the US Treasury as per FBAR regulations; because if not, you have many more tax issues to worry about. The fines for not filing these reports are onerous.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ddf52fea02a2127de2b6cecea9f0f877",
"text": "\"Most personal loans in the US are for the purpose of purchasing some tangible object (usually a house or car) and that object is the collateral for the loan. Indeed, the loan proceeds are usually paid directly to the seller without passing through the bank account of the borrower, and the seller delivers the title of the car to the lender, or a mortgage lien is recorded on the real property. Except possibly in the case of a refinance of a home mortgage, there is not much cash from such a loan to send to a friend to invest in his business, whether in the US or in India. These types of loans are \"\"relatively easy\"\" to get. Much harder to get are unsecured personal loans. Unless your friend has a very friendly banker, getting an unsecured loan of, say, $20,000 \"\"just for the heck of it\"\" is not easy. Some reasonably well-off people do manage to get such loans and use the money to invest in the stock or bond markets, in which case, the interest paid on such loans can be deducted on Schedule A (but only to the extent of the actual investment income; any extras can be carried over to the next year). So, will your friend be investing in your business or making a loan to your business? and do you anticipate that your business will generate any investment income or interest for your friend? If not, and your friend still wants to finance your business (while making payments on the loan in the US), then your friend must really like you a lot (or have faith that a few years down the road, you will be able to sell your business to GoAppTel for mucho big bucks and pay him off very handsomely).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8678ed4f912e6edb926d4ad3c93d5ea7",
"text": "Shareholders have voting rights, and directors have fiduciary obligations to shareholders. Sure, shareholders have rights to the dividends, but stock confers decisionmaking powers. I'm not really sure what your answer to this is, or how you are differentiating the concept of ownership from this.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1d1c7a1eba02966dfc53ca93a621fba1
|
Do I have to pay a capital gains tax if I rebuy different stocks?
|
[
{
"docid": "a75d081940ade1bc317d8a56611a74e2",
"text": "\"Yes- you do not realize gains or losses until you actually sell the stock. After you sell the initial stocks/bonds you have realized the gain. When you buy the new, different stocks you haven't realized anything until you then sell those. There is one exception to this, called the \"\"Wash-Sale Rule\"\". From Investopedia.com: With the wash-sale rule, the IRS disallows a loss deduction from the sale of a security if a ‘substantially identical security' was purchased within 30 days before or after the sale. The wash-sale period is actually 61 days, consisting of the 30 days before and the 30 days after the date of the sale. For example, if you bought 100 shares of IBM on December 1 and then sold 100 shares of IBM on December 15 at a loss, the loss deduction would not be allowed. Similarly, selling IBM on December 15 and then buying it back on January 10 of the following year does not permit a deduction. The wash-sale rule is designed to prevent investors from making trades for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b56a85f57234547f3c59a0a0c730b0b9",
"text": "Yes. As long as the stock is in a taxable account (i.e. not a tax deferred retirement account) you'll pay gain on the profit regardless of subsequent purchases. If the sale is a loss, however, you'll risk delaying the claim for the loss if you repurchase identical shares within 30 days of that sale. This is called a wash sale.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce3fbd446013c0224cc90bf725238b8d",
"text": "Probably. It sounds like you're looking for a 1031-exchange for stocks and bonds. From the wikipedia page for 1031-exchanges: To qualify for Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, the properties exchanged must be held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment. Stocks, bonds, and other properties are listed as expressly excluded by Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, though securitized properties are not excluded. 1031-exchanges usually are applicable in real estate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3371f553b12a1b7800b33aa60fbd97b",
"text": "Yes (most likely). If you are exchanging investments for cash, you will have to pay tax on that - disregarding capital losses, capital loss carryovers, AGI thresholds, and other special rules (which there is no indication of in your question). You will have to calculate the gain on Schedule D, and report that as income on your 1040. This is the case whether you buy different or same stocks.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b71d90f468244b9112ee5d323ffe41af",
"text": "You don't generally pay capital gains taxes until you sell the stock. If you bought it in 2013 and the price goes up in 2014 but you just hold on to the stock, you won't have to pay any taxes on it. If you then sold it in 2015 for a profit, you'd have to pay capital gains taxes on the profit. Note that this excludes dividends. Dividends may complicate the matter somewhat. I'm also assuming you are in the U.S. or Canada, or a country like one of those two. It's possible some other country does taxes differently, though it'd surprise me.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1af8f81a857213cb573cf7e58603bb56",
"text": "You don't. When you sell them - your cost basis would be the price of the stock at which you sold the stocks to cover the taxes, and the difference is your regular capital gain.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e010e30f00d9eee999d65576330a6ad6",
"text": "Assuming that taxes were withheld when you received the options, you would now only owe tax on the profit from the sale of the stock. The cost basis would be whatever you bought the stock for (the strike price of the options in this case), and the profit will be the total amount received from the sale minus the total cost of those shares. Since you bought the stock more than one year ago, you will get taxed at the long-term capital gains rate of 15% (unless you are in the 39.6% tax bracket, in which case the rate is 20%). As with all tax advice on this site, you need to check with a tax specialist when you actually file, but that should give you a rough indication of what your tax liability is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07bf474c12d103b26dbb1cfc023e0938",
"text": "Yes, to change which stocks you owe you need to sell one and buy the other, which for tax purposes means taking the profit or loss accrued up to then. On the other hand this establishes a new baseline, so you will not be double-faced on those gains. It just makes a mess of this year's tax return, and forced you to set aside some if the money to cover that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48b2fd3b012dabac3583f3775f1f943d",
"text": "If you are a US resident (not necessarily citizen) then yes, you do have to pay capital gains taxes on any capital gains, including interest from assets oversees (like interest from a savings account). Additionally you have to report all your foreign bank accounts according to FATCA (https://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/foreign-account-tax-compliance-act-fatca).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf0540111a2051185227f72005547c32",
"text": "\"Generally if you are using FIFO (first in, first out) accounting, you will need to match the transactions based on the number of shares. In your example, at the beginning of day 6, you had two lots of shares, 100 @ 50 and 10 @ 52. On that day you sold 50 shares, and using FIFO, you sold 50 shares of the first lot. This leaves you with 50 @ 50 and 10 @ 52, and a taxable capital gain on the 50 shares you sold. Note that commissions incurred buying the shares increase your basis, and commissions incurred selling the shares decrease your proceeds. So if you spent $10 per trade, your basis on the 100 @ 50 lot was $5010, and the proceeds on your 50 @ 60 sale were $2990. In this example you sold half of the lot, so your basis for the sale was half of $5010 or $2505, so your capital gain is $2990 - 2505 = $485. The sales you describe are also \"\"wash sales\"\", in that you sold stock and bought back an equivalent stock within 30 days. Generally this is only relevant if one of the sales was at a loss but you will need to account for this in your code. You can look up the definition of wash sale, it starts to get complex. If you are writing code to handle this in any generic situation you will also have to handle stock splits, spin-offs, mergers, etc. which change the number of shares you own and their cost basis. I have implemented this myself and I have written about 25-30 custom routines, one for each kind of transaction that I've encountered. The structure of these deals is limited only by the imagination of investment bankers so I think it is impossible to write a single generic algorithm that handles them all, instead I have a framework that I update each quarter as new transactions occur.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c656dde86da64f3ddec1ee9aad23b39",
"text": "\"They are similar in the sense that they are transferring money from the company to shareholders, but that's about it. There is different tax treatment, yes, but that's because they are fundamentally different. Dividends transfer money equally to all shareholders, but that also reduces the value of each share by the same amount, since it's cash out the door, which drops the value of the company. Shareholders are taxed on dividends at the capital gains tax rate. A buyback returns the cash to shareholders who decide to sell. Other shareholders get a secondary benefit of now owning a slightly larger portion of the company since there are fewer shares outstanding. Shareholders only pay tax if they sell shares for a gain. It that means when company buyback their stock, the stock price will definitely go up? Not necessarily. It depends on the price that the company buys back the shares for and what the \"\"opportunity cost\"\" of that cash is - meaning what else could the company have done with the cash that would have been better? Buybacks often happen in mature companies with undervalued stock prices and fewer opportunities for further investment. If a company has an intrinsic value of $10 a share but its stock is trading at $8 a share, then it can instantly get a 25% \"\"return\"\" by buying back stock. I use the term \"\"return\"\" loosely since the company does not actually profit from the buyback, but from the shareholder's perspective the company is worth more per share.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9261b5cc8faec072e234aace913f48c3",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16fafc1f035e5b4f5afeac6a5bb0e2f0",
"text": "Normally, you don't pay capital gains tax until you actually realize a capital gain. However, there are some exceptions. The exception that affected Eduardo Saverin is the expatriation tax, or exit tax. If you leave a country and are no longer a tax resident, your former country taxes you on your unrealized capital gains from the period that you were a tax resident of that country. There are several countries that have an expatriation tax, including the United States. Saverin left the U.S. before the Facebook IPO. Saverin was perhaps already planning on leaving the U.S. (he is originally from Brazil and has investments in Asia), so leaving before the IPO limited the amount of capital gains tax he had to pay upon his exit. (Source: Wall Street Journal: So How Much Did He Really Save?) Another situation that might be considered an exception and affects a lot of us is capital gain distributions inside a mutual fund. When mutual fund managers sell investments inside the fund and realize gains, they have to distribute those gains among all the mutual fund investors. This often takes the form of additional shares of the mutual fund that you are given, and you have to pay capital gains tax on these distributions. As a result, you can invest in a mutual fund, leave your money there and not sell, but have to pay capital gains tax anyway. In fact, you could owe capital gains tax on the distributions even if the value of your mutual fund investment has gone down.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29af954b3b5d2f33d38175d849fcf8ac",
"text": "You should get a 1099-MISC for the $5000 you got. And your broker should send you a 1099-B for the $5500 sale of Google stock. These are two totally separate things as far as the US IRS is concerned. 1) You made $5000 in wages. You will pay income tax on this as well as FICA and other state and local taxes. 2) You will report that you paid $5000 for stock, and sold it for $5500 without holding it for one year. Since this was short term, you will pay tax on the $500 in income you made. These numbers will go on different parts of your tax form. Essentially in your case, you'll have to pay regular income tax rates on the whole $5500, but that's only because short term capital gains are treated as income. There's always the possibility that could change (unlikely). It also helps to think of them separately because if you held the stock for a year, you would pay different tax on that $500. Regardless, you report them in different ways on your taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c7beebb3549c75c9dd76f80232f5e9c",
"text": "What you are looking for is a 1031 exchange. https://www.irs.gov/uac/like-kind-exchanges-under-irc-code-section-1031 Whenever you sell business or investment property and you have a gain, you generally have to pay tax on the gain at the time of sale. IRC Section 1031 provides an exception and allows you to postpone paying tax on the gain if you reinvest the proceeds in similar property as part of a qualifying like-kind exchange. Gain deferred in a like-kind exchange under IRC Section 1031 is tax-deferred, but it is not tax-free. You may also sell your house for bitcoin and record the sales price on the deed with an equal or lesser amount that you bought it for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "306bbfcbeb9d36a4dfe629c06c6049d9",
"text": "\"A nondividend distribution is typically a return of capital; in other words, you're getting money back that you've contributed previously (and thus would have been taxed upon in previous years when those funds were first remunerated to you). Nondividend distributions are nontaxable, so they do not represent income from capital gains, but do effect your cost basis when determining the capital gain/loss once that capital gain/loss is realized. As an example, publicly-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) generally distribute a return of capital back to shareholders throughout the year as a nondividend distribution. This is a return of a portion of the shareholder's original capital investment, not a share of the REITs profits, so it is simply getting a portion of your original investment back, and thus, is not income being received (I like to refer to it as \"\"new income\"\" to differentiate). However, the return of capital does change the cost basis of the original investment, so if one were to then sell the shares of the REIT (in this example), the basis of the original investment has to be adjusted by the nondividend distributions received over the course of ownership (in other words, the cost basis will be reduced when the shares are sold). I'm wondering if the OP could give us some additional information about his/her S-Corp. What type of business is it? In the course of its business and trade activity, does it buy and sell securities (stocks, etc.)? Does it sell assets or business property? Does it own interests in other corporations or partnerships (sales of those interests are one form of capital gain). Long-term capital gains are taxed at rates lower than ordinary income, but the IRS has very specific rules as to what constitutes a capital gain (loss). I hate to answer a question with a question, but we need a little more information before we can weigh-in on whether you have actual capital gains or losses in the course of your S-Corporation trade.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7656f373c9e4cfffccc92e080131a065",
"text": "If the charity accepts stock, you can avoid the tax on the long term cap gain when you donate it. e.g. I donate $10,000 in value of Apple. I write off $10,000 on my taxes, and benefit with a $2500 refund. If I sold it, I'd have nearly a $1500 tax bill (bought long enough ago, the basis is sub $100). Any trading along the way, and it's on you. Gains long or short are taxed on you. It's only the final donation that matters here. Edit - to address Anthony's comment on other answer - I sell my Apple, with a near $10,000 gain (it's really just $9900) and I am taxed $1500. Now I have $8500 cash I donate and get $2125 back in a tax refund. By donating the stock I am ahead nearly $375, and the charity, $1500.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87b1311ea060117cc2ce42d5a0981452",
"text": "Purchasing stock doesn't affect your immediate taxes any more than purchasing anything else, unless you purchase it through a traditional 401k or some other pre-tax vehicle. Selling stock has tax effects; that's when you have a gain or loss to report.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29d049a637679b747e534f375740ba5f",
"text": "Brokerage->Brokerage 13-16 The loss from the previous purchase will be added to the cost basis of the security for the second purchase. Since you sold it at a loss again it would increase your losses. Your loss from the first sale will be disallowed. Your loss will be added to the cost basis of the next purchase. Your gains will be taxed on the total of the cost basis which will reduce your gains. Which you will taxed 'less'. Your gains will be taxed. Your loss is allowed. You will be taxed on both. Wash Sales really only applies to losses. If you sell for gain, the tax man will be happy to take his share. From my understanding, it does not matter if it is IRA or Brokerage, the wash sale rule affects them all. Check this link: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c1da2cfab809746e6f10194e4d442a45
|
Pros, cons, and taxation of Per Diem compensation?
|
[
{
"docid": "a55590f255c2b3d24ffece099c5370f3",
"text": "Hence new employer pays a part of the salary as per diem compensation along with regular salary and says that per-diem compensation is non-taxable. Per-diem is not taxable. But that is not what you're describing. It appears that either you or the prospective employer, misunderstood what per-diem is. As per US law is it legally allowed non taxable per diem compensation to employees? Yes. What are the pros and cons of having per diem compensation? Per-diem is not compensation. It is not part of your salary. It is not part of your employment contract. If I have to report my salary to any one like banks, insurance companies, do I need to include Per diem compensation or not? No, because it is not compensation. Back to the first item: Per-diem is paid to you during business trips when you're away from your (tax) home. It is not part of your compensation, and is only allowed for business trips. Contract work on site for any prolonged period of time (1 year or more, as a definitive rule, but can be less) is not a business trip. For that period of time your tax home becomes that location, so you're not away. You're home. You should discuss it with a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State), but it seems to me that either you misunderstood something, or your prospective employer is trying to evade taxes (both yours and his) by disguising part of your compensation as per-diem. It is very likely that when you get caught, the employer will just issue you 1099 on the amounts and leave you hanging.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3e4fe69ced0bbc9259b0bffd668b1d2",
"text": "Beware if injured on the job they will not add per diem to your wages meaning you make less and your wc benefits will be less !!",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ce7cb5a5d9b8be5affaeffbeaafb039f",
"text": "\"TLDR: There are no to few monetary downsides. The process of settling an estate is called probate. Creditors can make claims against the estate, and assets should stand to pay any debts. If more debts are owed then assets, the beneficiaries are not held liable. Final expenses are usually the first amount paid out in full. So if the estate only contains enough assets to pay final expenses, then the creditors receive nothing. Usually creditors are paid pro-rated if there is not enough to cover debts. For the record, the probate process is greatly simplified if one has a will. Get a will if you don't have one. Life insurance is a bit different though. It passes directly to the beneficiaries and depending on the state could be untouchable by creditors. The same thing could also happen with retirements accounts. With 401K accounts, you could take some of it out, and pay tax on that. You could also roll it into your own account. Property receives a really good benefit. While it does pass through probate the cost basis of real estate is reestablished at the time of death. So if grandpa bought a house for 30K in the 40's, and it is now worth 120K. You inherit a 120K piece of property and when you sell you use 120K as your cost basis not 30K. Any estate taxes are typically paid by the state, not technically the heirs. If there is a 5% estate tax and they are to inherit 100K, they will only receive 95K. They will not receive 100K then be expected to be paid 5K. \"\"Electrically\"\" the same, but a large difference in responsibility. The biggest downside is if you have a will fight on your hands. If someone disputes the validity of the will that can incur a lot of legal fees. For small estates, it may not be worth the fight. The next is if any assets do go through probate. The process is lengthy and depending on the executor, they could reduce the size of the estate for charging for their time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b55a6e2111e7fe8471dff6ab70ff208",
"text": "What you are describing is lifestyle creep. No where did you mention how to apply a living wage per person, let alone per situation. What if I was hired at a wage of 1800/mo and only used 1500 for living expenses? Would that be a livable wage? What if I then decide to have 4 children over the next 4 years? Should the employer be forced to pay more on the aspect of having children alone? If that is the case, what are you incentivizing, child production or productivity? Unless those children work too (which is bad, mkay), they are at a net loss to the employer, and he/she has no ability to put you in a more productive spot, so what should this employer do? At what point do you stop raising the UBI/minimum wage/whatever form of inflationary behavior and or redistribution? You are trying to achieve fairness across a wide spectrum of individuals and situations and there is zero gaurentee that all of them, or even most of them will benefit in a positive manner.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7469f0c0212b977ab89ab7adeedb92a",
"text": "Since we are talking about retirement accounts, I wouldn't worry too much about what your income will be in the next 10 years or so. I'd recommend basing your contributions primarily on what your likely income/tax bracket at or near retirement age will be compared to 25% today. I don't think that optimizing for the next three years will make a significant difference, given the uncertainty of the tax code as well as your income in the future. However, it may make a difference to your planning whether you are going to grad school for an M.D. compared to an MSW, however, as to what your expected income/tax bracket will be.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a29abe11d3792ac3fa82a44f4a5d3a09",
"text": "Here is an IRS citation to support my comment above - Exceptions. The 10% tax will not apply if distributions before age 59 ½ are made in any of the following circumstances: Made to a beneficiary (or to the estate of the participant) on or after the death of the participant, Made because the participant has a qualifying disability, Made as part of a series of substantially equal periodic payments beginning after separation from service and made at least annually for the life or life expectancy of the participant or the joint lives or life expectancies of the participant and his or her designated beneficiary. (The payments under this exception, except in the case of death or disability, must continue for at least 5 years or until the employee reaches age 59½, whichever is the longer period.), Made to a participant after separation from service if the separation occurred during or after the calendar year in which the participant reached age 55, Made to an alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), Made to a participant for medical care up to the amount allowable as a medical expense deduction (determined without regard to whether the participant itemizes deductions), Timely made to reduce excess contributions, Timely made to reduce excess employee or matching employer contributions, Timely made to reduce excess elective deferrals, or Made because of an IRS levy on the plan. Made on account of certain disasters for which IRS relief has been granted.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "493fff5992da61579f6f8f74553419bf",
"text": "\"This has to do with the type of plan offered: is it a 401(k) plan or a profit-sharing plan, or both? If it's 401(k) I believe the IRS will see this distribution as elective and count towards the employee's annual elective contribution limit. If it's profit sharing the distribution would be counted toward the employer's portion of the limit. However -- profit sharing plans have a formula that's standard across the board and applied to all employees. i.e. 3% of company profits given equally to all employees. One of the benefits of the profit sharing plans is also that you can use a vesting schedule. I'd consult your accountant to see how this specifically impacts your business - but in the case you describe this sounds like an elective deferral choice by an employee and I don't see how (or why) you'd make this decision for them. Give them the bonus and let them choose how it's paid out. Edit: in re-reading your question it actually sounds like you're wanting to setup a profit sharing type situation - but again, heed what I said above. You decide the amount of \"\"profit\"\" - but you also have to set an equation that applies across the board. There is more complication to it than this brief explanation and I'd consult your accountant to see how it applies in your situation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "220d7e9af4c8d0b987a25c906fde365a",
"text": "I'm not a huge fan of tax-advantaged retirement accounts anyway, so I wouldn't fault you for not contributing even if you weren't likely to develop a disability. Do you have disability insurance? I hope so. If you already have the disease then you may not be able to get it now if you don't have it already because they may not cover existing conditions. If not, try to get it however you can. You may be able to withdraw the money without much problem if you can prove it's a permanent disability. (Information here.) Do you have 401(k) matching from your employer? If that match is vested in a reasonable period of time, then even with the penalties you'll end up ahead. Beyond that (this wasn't part of your question but I'm just trying to help) I'd think about what kind of work you can do after you can't work at your current job. You have the luxury of an early warning, so plan for it. Also, check out National Industries for the Blind. Our Lions Club sells some of the Skilcraft products (brooms) as fundraisers and they're quality products.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a69c7e92def07fbbe42864b0f06baa28",
"text": "The idea is that the premiums (or costs) associated with the plan are a business expense, you know that already. The distinction here is that employees don't pay premiums, they elect to contribute. The company sponsors a plan, the employees then choose to accept less salary in order to participate in the employer's plan. The idea is that you're foregoing income. Why is the employee not taxed on this cost? One major reason is that the employee has no say in, and often no idea, what the gross costs are (some find out if they ever receive COBRA election paperwork). There are more benefits than strict healthcare that are Section 125 eligible. The government has a vested interest in keeping the population healthy, and when the ERISA laws and Section 125 were written it was (and still is) a pretty low friction way to get health insurance out to more people. At this point, taking away the tax break from the employees would be a huge government take away from most of the population. Try to get a politician to take something away from taxpayers. Why doesn't the deduction exist in kind to people buying individual coverage? Ask your legislators. There are thousands of preferential tax treatment oddities, where some industry will get some sort of benefit or break. I'm not sure what leads you to think there needs to be some supremely logical reason for this oddity to exit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "196928bfe685a39adecb60dcd4ad2cd5",
"text": "Advantage: more money. The financial tradeoff is usually to your benefit: Given these, for having your money locked up for the average length of the vesting periods (some is locked up for 3 months, some is locked up for nearly 0), you get a 10% return. Overall, it's like a 1.5% bonus for the year, assuming you were to sell everything right away. Of course, whether or not you wish to keep the stock depends on how you value MSFT as an investment. The disadvantage lies in a couple parts:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf29d354336d2585c9fbaef99b4ae97e",
"text": "\"The bill proposed to \"\"Under existing law, employers may take tax deductions for the costs associated with moving jobs out of the country. The proposed legislation would have eliminated that, and used the resulting new revenue to fund a 20 percent tax credit for the costs companies run up \"\"insourcing\"\" labor back into the U.S.\"\" From http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=16816660 as found by beermethestrength. I will explain this in an example below. Lets use allen edmonds. I manufacture shoes and sell them in the US. The facts we will assume is Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $50. Tax rate is 10%. Therefore, Profit before tax is $100 -$50 = $50. Tax is $5. Net profit is $45. However, suppose offshoring to Canada saves money. They say please and thank you at every opportunity and the positive work environment allows them to work faster. Correspondingly to make the same number of shoes our costs has decreased because we pay less for labour. The manufacturing cost decreases to $30. However, we incur costs to move such as severance payments to layoff contracted employees. (I promise to hire you and pay $1 a year for 2 years. I fire you at the end of the first year. To be fair, I pay you $1) However, it can be any legitimate expense under the sun. In this case we suppose this moving cost is $10. Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $30. Moving cost is $10. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax is $100 -$40 = $60. Tax is $6. Net profit is $54. Yay more jobs for Canadians. However, the legislation would have changed this. It would have denied that moving expense if you were moving out of the country. Therefore, we cannot consider $10 worth of expenses for tax purposes. Therefore Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $30. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax for tax purposes is $100 - $30 = $70. Tax is $7. Net profit for tax purposes is $63. However, my accounting/net/real profit is $53. I must deduct the $10 associated with moving. The difference between the two scenarios is $1. In general our net profit changes by our moving cost * our tax rate. There is no tax break associated with moving. In Canadian tax, any business expense in general can be deducted as long as it is legitimate and not specifically denied. I am uncertain but would assume US tax law is similar enough. Moving expenses in general are legitimate and not specifically denied and therefore can be deducted. Offshoring and onshoring are seen as legitimate business activities as in general companies do things to increase profit. (forget about patriotism for the moment). The bill was to make offshoring more expensive and therefore fewer companies would find offshoring profitable. However, republicans defeated this bill in congress. Most likely the house For completeness let us examine what would happen when we onshore (bring jobs from canada to us :( ). In our example, silly unions demand unrealistically high wages and increase our cost of manufacturing to $50 again. We decide to move back to the US because if it is the same everywhere for the sake of silly national pride we move our jobs back to the US. We incur the same moving cost of $10. Therefore we have Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $50. Moving cost of $10. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax for tax purposes is $100 - $60 = $40. Tax is $4. However, we are given a 20% tax credit for moving expense. $10 * .2 = 2. The government only assess us tax of 2. Net profit is $38. Tax credits are a one time deal so profit in the future will be $100 -$50 - $5 = $45. Same as the first example. insourcing = onshoring , outsourcing = offshoring for the purposes of this article. Not quite the same in real life.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d4b583ea772631d043747ac5cdfb50f",
"text": "It's one of those things where it was meant, economically, for the first purpose (opportunity cost) but has been used by big corporations for the later since you have to have international divisions to really even make it work (to some degree it does on the state level; however, the tax breaks aren't really big enough for it to make sense since the Federal is the big one). It's also a huge reason why big corps have such low effective domestic tax rates on big profits and why the government is debating about restructuring tax law to prevent most forms of FTP'ing (you'd pay taxes on Gross Income essentially. It gets MUCH more complicated than that but France effectively does this now). Also, it's very much an accounting thing, and accountants tend not to have a big seat at the table. Hence, the reasoning behind stuff often get lost on upper mgmt (or they fire the accountant, etc.). That's a BIG part of why it often makes things worse even when when the principal makes sense economically...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bae6e8d76b98b2ba96a5520be36c2c8f",
"text": "I believe moving reimbursement has to be counted as income no matter when you get it. I'd just put it under miscellaneous income with an explanation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70364a82b54c27bd75271b9cd2551aec",
"text": "Perhaps business actually like this expenditure then? I guess it would be beneficial for them in that they, in a way, coerce employees from not leaving. Trying to find another job with equal insurance can be rather rough.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "197f9a554eecd88e8c77c6eafda1e874",
"text": "Another way to look at it is that deductibles are intended as incentives or subsidies to particular industries (in this case the healthcare industry). Guaranteeing a decent standard of living and making sure everybody can meet the costs of “necessities” can be achieved much more easily by a low tax rate on the first XXX$ of income and/or generic welfare benefits rather than any measure focused on making healthcare, food or whatnot cheaper or free under certain conditions. Incidentally, many countries do have different forms of benefits or tax breaks for accommodation-related expenses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58e9f8e3ec0964b68da6ac0df0d26c12",
"text": "While the OP disses the health insurance coverage offered through his wife's employer as a complete rip-off, one advantage of such coverage is that, if set up right (by the employer), the premiums can be paid for through pre-tax dollars instead of post-tax dollars. On the other hand, Health insurance premiums cannot be deducted on Schedule C by self-employed persons. So the self-employed person has to pay both the employer's share as well as the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes on that money. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Line 29 of Form 1040 but only for those months during which the Schedule C filer is neither covered nor eligible to be covered by a subsidized health insurance plan maintained by an employer of the self-employed person (whose self-employment might be a sideline) or the self-employed person's spouse. In other words, just having the plan coverage available through the wife's employment, even though one disdains taking it, is sufficient to make a Line 29 deduction impermissible. So, AGI is increased. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Schedule A but only to the extent that they (together with other medical costs) exceed 10% of AGI. For many people in good health, this means no deduction there either. Thus, when comparing the premiums of health insurance policies, one should pay some attention to the tax issues too. Health insurance through a spouse's employment might not be that bad a deal after all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a74565edf0db6d12f62a512085a4056",
"text": "There are two things to consider: taxes - beneficial treatment for long-term holding, and for ESPP's you can get lower taxes on higher earnings. Also, depending on local laws, some share schemes allow one to avoid some or all on the income tax. For example, in the UK £2000 in shares is treated differently to 2000 in cash vesting - restricted stocks or options can only be sold/exercised years after being granted, as long as the employee keeps his part of the contract (usually - staying at the same place of works through the vesting period). This means job retention for the employees, that's why they don't really care if you exercise the same day or not, they care that you actually keep working until the day when you can exercise arrives. By then you'll get more grants you'll want to wait to vest, and so on. This would keep you at the same place of work for a long time because by quitting you'd be forfeiting the grants.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
16d0efea5a3d5d165e30247a32dde287
|
Best way to day trade with under $25,000
|
[
{
"docid": "1623a2eb8a76a355435bac24727d8667",
"text": "\"The T+3 \"\"rule\"\" relates only to accounting and not to trading. It does not prevent you from day trading. It simply means that the postings in you cash account will not appear until three business days after you have executed a trade. When you execute a trade and the order has been filled, you have all of the information you need to know the cash amounts that will hit your account three business days later. In a cash account, cash postings that arise from trading are treated as unsettled (for three days), but this does not mean that these funds are available for further trading. If you have $25,000 in your account on day 1, this does not mean that you will be able to trade more than $25,000 because your cash account has not yet been debited. Most cash accounts will include an item detailing \"\"Cash available for trading\"\". This will net out any unsettled business transacted. For example, if you have a cash account balance of $25,000 on day one, and on the same day you purchase $10,000 worth of shares, then pending settlement in your cash account you will only have $15,000 \"\"Cash available for trading\"\". Similarly, if you have a cash balance of $25,000 on day one, and on the same day you \"\"day trade\"\", purchasing $15,000 and selling $10,000 worth of shares, then you will have the net of $20,000 \"\"Cash available for trading\"\" ($20,000 = $25,000 - $15,000 + $10,000). If by \"\"prop account\"\" you mean an account where you give discretion to a broker to trade on your behalf, then I think the issues of accounting will be the least of your worries. You will need to be worried about not being fleeced out of your hard earned savings by someone far more interested in lining their own pockets than making money for you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c38fdb9c7f76677a4614faf0eaf2598a",
"text": "\"You avoid pattern day trader status by trading e-mini futures through a futures broker. The PDT rules do not apply in the futures markets. Some of the markets that are available include representatives covering the major indices i.e the YM (DJIA), ES (S&P 500) and NQ (Nasdaq 100) and many more markets. You can take as many round-turn trades as you care to...as many or as few times a day as you like. E-mini futures contracts trade in sessions with \"\"transition\"\" times between sessions. -- Sessions begin Sunday evenings at 6 PM EST and are open through Monday evening at 5 PM EST...The next session begins at 6 pm Monday night running through Tuesday at 5 PM EST...etc...until Friday's session close at 5 PM EST. Just as with stocks, you can either buy first then sell (open and close a position) or short-sell (sell first then cover by buying). You profit (or lose) on a round turn trade in the same manor as you would if trading stocks, options, ETFs etc. The e-mini futures are different than the main futures markets that you may have seen traders working in the \"\"pits\"\" in Chicago...E-mini futures are totally electronic (no floor traders) and do not involve any potential delivery of the 'product'...They just require the closing of positions to end a transaction. A main difference is you need to maintain very little cash in your account in order to trade...$1000 or less per trade, per e-mini contract...You can trade just 1 contract at a time or as many contracts as you have the cash in your account to cover. \"\"Settlement\"\" is immediate upon closing out any position that you may have put on...No waiting for clearing before your next trade. If you want to hold an e-mini contract position over 2 or more sessions, you need to have about $5000 per contract in your account to cover the minimum margin requirement that comes into play during the transition between sessions... With the e-minis you are speculating on gaining from the difference between when you 'put-on' and \"\"close-out\"\" a position in order to profit. For example, if you think the DJIA is about to rise 20 points, you can buy 1 contract. If you were correct in your assessment and sold your contract after the e-mini rose 20 points, you profited $100. (For the DJIA e-mini, each 1 point 'tick' is valued at $5.00)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "666debe67dd0fd4ebc35e1abff7339dd",
"text": "One way a lot of people bypass the pattern trading equity requirement is to open multiple brokerage accounts. You have $10k, put $5k in one and $5k in another. Although I don't recommend it!",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "32e71fb321d39a1fceb84c0481f32a5c",
"text": "Put £50 away as often as possible, and once it's built up to £500, invest in a stockmarket ETF. Repeat until you retire.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14dc35868b7480da0985d6b8c5fec786",
"text": "\"I think you have a really good idea, kudos to it. It will be difficult to break eve, and while you stressed the fact that you are ready to part with this money, it would be interesting for you not to part with this money just for the sake of trading. You will be frustrated because you are \"\"winning\"\" and breaking even or even losing money in the process. Think about that. For somebody with limited experience the derivatives market carries a very high risk also as everything in this matters carries high or very high yield. Trading futures on margin can actually work but I think you will need a bit more money. Check the mini contracts of infinity futures and calculate the commissions. You will be paying more for a contract, yes. you will need more money for your maintenance margin, yes, but if you day-trade and you have a cheapo broker this will be substantially lower. Gold contracts pay about 10 to 1 so a mini contract of 33 ounces will pay you 33 dollars per 1 dollar move. Your commissions will be about 4/5 usd in a discount broker and you will need to pay some exchange house fees, maybe about 15% of your trade will be fees. Check the contract specs and costs. As somebody said before, they wouldn't recommend trading on margin but with an account of that side I wouldn't know anything else. Trading physical gold on margin could also be an option. Just my 2 cents.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45110418c6c3d820f2eec63227754dd6",
"text": "\"If you have at least $25,000, Wells Fargo is the place to be, as you get 100 free trades per account. I have three investment accounts with them and get 100 free trades in each a year, though I only ever actually use 10-20. i can't vouch for their phone service as I've never needed it, but free is very hard to beat in the \"\"value for money\"\" department. Update: Apparently in some states the requirement is $50,000. However, they count 10% of your mortgage as well as all deposit and investment accounts toward that balance.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18543e60700a8898c04bf944bba4737f",
"text": "As I recall, the Scottrade minimum is only $500. (By the way, Scottrade has a feature to automatically reinvest any dividends which the securities pay) Once you have an account, you can buy into an index fund. SPY tracks the S&P 500. It is also currently paying nearly 2% in dividends. You can shop for other alternatives here: http://seekingalpha.com/insight/etf_hub/etf_guide/selector/article/39431-core-building-blocks-large-mid-small-cap-us-etfs",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e29195a125f800f05e4931e59d0e7e93",
"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!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ea390af4c36f7d00ae4953829b23ff9",
"text": "I like your enthusiasm and initiative. However, there are a few things you need to consider that you haven't yet thought about. First, it is important to remember that trading with fake money is not the same as trading with real money. In the fake world, you have $100k. With this fake money, you can do reckless things with it, such as put it all on one stock. If you lose, it costs you nothing, so you don't have an emotional attachment to it. With real money, it will feel different, and that is something you haven't experienced yet. Second, you mentioned that you are good at making picks. With all due respect, I suggest that you aren't old enough to make that determination. You haven't been trading for long enough to determine if you are doing well at it. :) That having been said, I don't want to completely discourage you from trying something new. Third, you mentioned long-term investing, but you also said that you need to make your money back quick and mentioned trading daily. Those things aren't really compatible. I wouldn't consider what you are doing as long-term investing. With the type of investing you are doing, picking individual stocks and hoping for the value to go up in a relatively short time-frame, it is similar to gambling. The risk of losing is very much there, and you shouldn't be investing money this way that you aren't prepared to lose. If you need the money for something soon, don't put it in the stock market. Never forget this. What can happen is that you start with small amounts of money, do well, and then, thinking that you are good at this, put in larger amounts of money. You will eventually lose. If you put in money that you need for something else, you have a problem. If you are trying this out for education and entertainment purposes, that is great. But when it starts to get serious, make sure that you are aware of the risks. Educate yourself and be smart. Here is what I would suggest: If you want to try this short-term day-trading type investing, and you understand that the money can easily be lost, I would balance that with investing in a more traditional way: Set aside an amount each month to put in a low-expense index mutual fund. Doing this will have several benefits for you: As for your specific questions about stock trading with small amounts: Yes, you can trade with small amounts; however, every time you trade, you will be paying a commission. Even with a discount broker, if you are trading frequently, the commissions you will be paying will be very significant at the dollar amounts you are talking about. The only way I can see around this would be to try the Robinhood app, which allows you to trade without paying sales commission. I have no experience with that app.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4f65c14cb339c610df2f430761c3248",
"text": "The lowest cost way to trade on an exchange is to trade directly on the exchange. I can't speak to the LSE, but in the US, there is a mandated firewall between the individual and the exchange, the broker; therefore, in the US, one would have to start a business and become a broker. If that process is too costly, the broker or trade platform that permits individuals to trade with the lowest commissions is the next lowest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92174efaea066aa7b16d666a6d03c5b8",
"text": "\"I think I understand what you're trying to achieve. You just want to see how it \"\"feels\"\" to own a share, right? To go through the process of buying and holding, and eventually selling, be it at a loss or at a gain. Frankly, my primary advice is: Just do it on paper! Just decide, for whatever reason, which stocks to buy, in what amount, subtract 1% for commissions (I'm intentionally staying on the higher side here), and keep track of the price changes daily. Instead of doing it on mere paper, some brokers offer you a demo account where you can practice your paper trading in the same way you would use a live account. As far as I know, Interactive Brokers and Saxo Bank offer such demo accounts, go look around on their web pages. The problem about doing it for real is that many of the better brokers, such as the two I mentioned, have relatively high minimum funding limits. You need to send a few thousand pounds to your brokerage account before you can even use it. Of course, you don't need to invest it all, but still, the cash has to be there. Especially for some younger and inexperienced investors, this can seduce them to gambling most of their money away. Which is why I would not advise you to actually invest in this way. It will be expensive but if it's just for trying it on one share, use your local principal bank for the trade. Hope this gets you started!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0a671734512500e733a71357cfd6b3b",
"text": "If you aren't familiar with Norbert's Gambit, it's worth looking at. This is a mechanism using a Canadian brokerage account to simultaneously execute one stock trade in CAD and one in USD. The link I provided claims that it only starts potentially making sense somewhere in the 10,000+ range.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "973f7eacf416c4b3e28ab38eeeb4fdda",
"text": "\"I recommend a Roth IRA. At your age you could turn 25K into a million and never pay taxes on these earnings. Of course there are yearly limits (5.5k) on the amount your can contribute to a Roth IRA account. If you haven't filed your taxes this year yet ... you can contribute 5.5K for last year and 5.5K for this year. Open two accounts at a discount brokerage firm. Trades should be about $10 or less per. Account one ... Roth IRA. Account two a brokerage account for the excess funds that can't be placed in the Roth IRA. Each year it will be easy transfer money into the Roth from this account. Be aware that you can't transfer stocks from brokerage acct to Roth IRA ... only cash. You can sell some stocks in brokerage and turn that into cash to transfer. This means settling up with the IRS on any gains/losses on that sale. Given your situation you'd likely have new cash to bring to table for the Roth IRA anyway. Invest in stocks and hold them for the long term. Do a google search for \"\"motley fool stock advisor\"\" and join. This is a premium service that picks two stocks to invest in each month. Invest small amounts (say $750) in each stock that they say you should buy. They will also tell you when to sell. They also give insights into why they selected the stock and why they are selling (aka learning experience). They pick quality companies. So if the economy is down you will still own a quality company that will make it through the storm. Avoid the temptation to load up on one stock. Follow the small amount rule mentioned above per stock. Good luck, and get in the market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31c10b2d23beea4ec3e15b5f62854008",
"text": "I would never trade after hours and I have 30 years of trading experience. It is a very volatile emotion driven market without a lot of the big players that arbitrage wrong pricing. If I were you I would simply use limit orders you input while the market is closed. If you want to get kute you can put in low-ball offers (and vice versa) to see if they get filled in the volatility at market open. Then check in (when?) when you wake up (or before you go to bed, etc) and revise the limit if not filled. In other words don't 'trade'. Know what your company is worth and put in orders that reflect that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "795835496c8e45d42558433f2339eb59",
"text": "The day trader in the article was engaging in short selling. Short selling is a technique used to profit when a stock goes down. The investor borrows shares of a stock from someone else and sells them. After the stock price goes down, the investor buys the shares back and returns them, pocketing the difference. As the day trader in the article found out, it is a dangerous practice, because there is no limit to the amount of money you can lose. The stock was trading at $2, and the day trader thought the stock was going to go down to $1. He borrowed and sold 8,400 shares at $2. He hoped to buy them back at $1 and earn $8,400 profit. Instead, the stock went up a lot, and he was forced to buy back the shares at $18.50 per share, or about $155,400. He had had $37,000 with E-Trade, which they took, and he is now over $100,000 in debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c09988011d193a13211bcb4d3109c7d",
"text": "Sharpe ratio can work but is often too complex for retail traders. Consider using R-Multiples, where R is the amount risked on the trade. If you're risking 100 and you make 200, that's a 2R trade. There's no right R multiple and it's dependent on your trading style. Van Tharp's books help describe it better.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "80e8a3b98c99786bb08a6abaf46fe10f",
"text": "Well, sorry to hear about your struggles! For your question, $15,000 is sadly not enough money to build a career on investing for yourself, if you’re referring to the stock market. Unfortunately you need I believe $25,000 to even have a day trading account, plus the best investors in the world probably net 5-10% which is only tops $2,500 per year! On the other hand, $15,000 maybe you could use an FHA loan and buy a small condo that you could renovate and flip. FHA lenders only require 3.5% down plus closing costs. I would need more information on what type of investing you’re referring to.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a4e020ecbb12d4579e669c3e5f2d283",
"text": "You are looking for arbitrage, not in real terms, and you may lose heavily. Big banks would suck out all profit before you get a chance to react. There are thousands of algorithmic trading systems in banks, which specifically predict such situations and try to make money from such moves. If you can invest in such a system, probably you can make a killing, else best is to forget about it. Remember that somebody before you has surely thought about it and put a system in place, so that somebody else cannot make money out of it before he/she does.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1d640384067fa7ce3864486d6d2b9b64
|
How to gift money anonymously to an individual after collection thru a donation site?
|
[
{
"docid": "0604ebabe31f6cf99563c6536cfc95aa",
"text": "Regarding the tax implications half of your question ... There seem to be a lot of articles that say there's not yet any established law concerning the tax treatment of crowdsourced funds. Since your objective is gift-giving rather than business purposes, it would seem that the gift tax rules would apply, and gift taxes are charged to the donor not the donee. (But I am not a tax attorney.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09eb4f9f059e4efdb43ffc2f2f3b3b82",
"text": "\"You mention that \"\"A great friend and couple's family\"\" which makes me think this is a couple. For gift tax concerns, you can give a couple 2 x the gift tax exemption ($28,000 in 2015). Your example of $22k would fit in this amount. To give this money anonymously, I know that people have reached out to a pastor in the area who will deliver an envelope with the gift and not disclose the source. Talking to a pastor who has done this, he said the call came out of the blue and he was happy to be able to help.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2102f925b4367dbf70ccd460f89ec49d",
"text": "In the US the best way to solve the problem, IMHO, would be via a trust. Talk to a properly licensed trust/estate attorney and a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). Using intermediary who's not a 501(c) organization may pose income tax issues to that intermediary as providing support to the needy is not a valid business expense. It may also pose gift tax issues, since the aggregate amounts may exceed the statutory exemption limits. Using a (non-revokable) trust you can avoid these issues, but others may come up (such as what to do with the trust income or undistributed moneys). Talk to the advisers about how to avoid them.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "29804bab79f47aa6d3252357b0decc82",
"text": "\"I would write them a check or give them cash money. There are payment receipt forms available online, you can print one of have them fill it out and sign it. Just google \"\"private party receipt\"\". Money transfer (via bank account or Paypal) is also an option, but in my opinion it's more convenient to meet up and handle it in person. If you want, you can have them meet you at a notary public's office (your local bank branch should have one) and have the receipt notarized. I don't think it's a scam, but make sure you are paying the right person.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ecad50d0648a674b4523a69676b615e9",
"text": "credit cards are almost never closed for inactivity. i have had dozens of cards innactive for years on end, and only one was ever closed on me for inactivity. i would bet a single 1$ transaction per calendar year would keep all your cards open. as such, you could forget automating the process and just spend 20 minutes a year making manual 1$ payments (e.g. to your isp, utility company, google play, etc.). alternatively, many charities will let you set up an automatic monthly donation for any amount (e.g. 1$ to wikipedia). or perhaps you could treat yourself to an mp3 once a month (arguably a charitable donation in the age of file sharing). side note: i use both of these strategies to get the 12 debit card transactions per month required by my kasasa checking account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd647bbb6075195664a28da2dd0b438d",
"text": "If I were donating money to a charity, i.e. an organization set up to help others, I would simply send them the money and ask that my name not be used in publicity. That would mean that the person(s) actually benefiting from my donation didn't know who I was. The charity would know, but they don't themselves benefit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4a9f359372c7bca8b88b5456e089885",
"text": "Let's define better the situation and then analyze it: Start with: End with: Process: So B has the same amount of money, just in a different bank account, but A and C changed states. A now doesn't have money, and C does, as the result of the transaction between A, B and C. The gift tax issue I see is the transfer of money from A (you) to C (your brother). If you're a US tax resident then you have $14K exemption from gift tax per person per year. £20K is more than that, so it will be subject to the tax. The fact that a third person was involved as an intermediary is irrelevant - for the purpose of gift tax there's no distinction between using a bank for transfers or a private party. Keep in mind that paying tuition directly to the institution on behalf of your brother may help you mitigate your gift tax liability - tuition payment made on behalf of your brother is exempt from gift tax. But it has to be made directly to the institution, it cannot pass through your brother.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5def525b2a57b46bcad7d51eab491630",
"text": "\"Can I teach children an invaluable skill for free and provide a website or PayPal link for anyone who appreciates the result of my gift to their child and wishes to gift me money (or maybe they don’t have a child but believe in my revolutionary contribution to the future) as they see fit, up to $10K? Two immediately obvious problems with this strategy: What about when you receive gifts from people who aren't in the US? You have to declare, and pay taxes on, foreign gifts. It seems to me that these may not be gifts because they are given in connection with the service you provided rather than from \"\"detached and disinterested generosity\"\" as required to make the gift tax exempt. (See Commisioner v. Duberstein -- gift given to thank associate for a sales lead did not arise from detached generosity. See Stanton v. United States -- gift given in appreciation of services rendered may or may not be a gift for tax purposes. See also Bogardus v. Commissioner -- gifts inspired by past service can be tax exempt.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f27d97c7be11d0fbb46d6ba00904ca8",
"text": "From PayPal's website: PayPal offers discounted transaction rates for 501(c)(3) charities for most products, and consistently low rates for all other nonprofits. No extra fees for setup, statements, withdrawals or cancellation. 2.2% + $0.30 per transaction and no monthly fee for charities. There is a reduced rate if the donations total more than $100,000 (which they would for Wikipedia), but PayPal doesn't publish those rates. You have to call and ask about them. One forum I read indicates the rate drops to 1.9% + $0.30 per transaction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "577e71f18a181d82dd8514aef826d53e",
"text": "\"When you say \"\"donate\"\", it usually assumes charitable donation with, in this context, tax benefit. That is not what happens in your scenario. Giving someone money with the requirement of that someone to spend that money at your shop is not donation. It is a grant. You can do that, but you won't be able to deduct this as charitable donation, but the money paid to you back would be taxable income to you. I respectfully disagree with Joe that its a wash. It is not. You give them money that you cannot deduct as an expense (as it is not business expense) or donation (as strings are attached). But you do give them the money, it is no longer yours. When they use the money to pay you back - that same money becomes your taxable income. End result: you provide service, and you're the one paying (taxes) for it. Why would you do that?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad93777ab6cb86f0887b67a59c64d148",
"text": "No matter how the money was received/inherited by the parent, the receiver of the gift (in this case the child) will not owe any taxes. If it is below the annual gift exclusion the parent will not owe any taxes or need to fill out any forms. If it is above the annual exclusion then it will depend on how the money was transfer to the child/grand children. One check to the family would not be a good way for the parent to distribute the funds. A check to each person in the family unit (child, spouse, grand child) will allow a large amount to be transferred each year. Because the OP doesn't have a clear understanding of the source of the funds, and any taxes that might or might not have been paid at that time, and the parent isn't willing to discuss this information with the OP; the source of the funds is irrelevant to the answer. do I have to pay additional tax on the amount I receive from her? No.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74e6723b2a4656386b468664716c80ac",
"text": "\"There is such a thing as Deposit Only. This will allow the individual's account to function only for collection of monetary deposits. NO ONE will be able to withdraw...only deposit. The account holder may still physically withdraw at their banking institution. Think of it as taking your account from a \"\"public\"\" profile to a \"\"private\"\" profile. Doing this is beneficial for ppl who may have been scammed into a program or product where there account is bieng fraudulently overdrafted, or simply to protect your funds from bieng drafted without your approval or despite your requests for ceasing the drafts. When making your account a deposit only account it's a good idea to open a NEW account at a Different banking institution, because some banks will still allow an account that is \"\"attached\"\" to the deposit only account to be drafted from it. WIth the new account you can utilize that one for paying day to day bills and just transfer funds from the deposit only account to the new account. A deposit only account is also a good way to build up a nice nest egg for yourself or even a young adult! source- Financial Adivsor 4years-\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "011d6c67626098c40d257416c279a93a",
"text": "Yes, Paypal has such a button you can use, but to be clear, the money you receive is taxable income. Your website is providing 'value' to the readers, and while they may feel they are making a gift to you, it's earned income as far as the IRS is concerned. (This assumes you are in the US, you may wish to add a tag to indicate your country)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0dfb4e03ffc8767514659978e2eed191",
"text": "The best way is to ask the charity and the custodian of the retirement account. Both will want to make sure it is done correctly. The charity will want to be able to not have the account go through the probate process. Probate can delay to transfer of money for months or longer. Items in the will could be contested.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "159ebc98bb6fd24aa4857ed919b18228",
"text": "Do I report it as income? Is it subject to just the same amount of taxes (~30%) as regular income? Are there any restrictions on how it can be used? It is income. You can deduct the costs of maintaining the web page and producing the software from it (have an accountant do that for you, there are strict rules on how to do that, and you can only deduct up to the income if its a hobby and not a for-profit business), but otherwise it's earned income like any other self employment income. It is reported on your schedule C or on line 21 of your 1040 (miscellaneous income), and you're also liable for self-employment taxes on this income. There are no restrictions, it's your money. Technically, who is the donation even being made to? Me, just because I own the webpage? Yes. This is for the United States, but is there any difference if the donations come from overseas? No, unless you paid foreign taxes on the money (in which case you should fill form 1116 and ask for credit). If you create an official 501(c) organization to which the donations are given, instead of you getting it directly, the tax treatment will be different. But of course, you have to have a real charitable organization for that. To avoid confusion - I'm not a licensed tax professional and this is not a tax advice. If in doubt - talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your State.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0383a3d4efc2433af856ac82cdaa3e04",
"text": "\"Do you guys know any options that are accessible to any global citizen? Prepaid and stored value cards are anonymous. For an arbitrary reason, the really anonymous ones only allow you to load $500 but there is no regulation that dictates this amount. In the USA, these cards are exempt from being declared at border crossings. Not because they look like credit cards, but because they are exempt by the US Treasury and Customs. The cons is that there are generally fees to use them. US DOJ has done research showing that some groups take advantage of the exemption moving upwards of $50,000 a day between borders, but Congress is fine with this exemption and the burden is always on the government to determine \"\"illicit origin\"\". Stigmatizing how money is moved is only a 30 year old phenomenon, but many free nations do not really have capital controls, they only care that you pay taxes and that the integrity of their stock markets are upheld. Aside from that there are no qualms about anonymity, except from your neighbors but they dont matter for a global citizen. In theory, the UK should have more flexibility in anonymity options, such as stored value cards with higher limits.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea300057d65e1606fdea10a2662839c8",
"text": "\"I have 2 PayPal accounts for this purpose (with different email addresses). The first account is tied to my real email address, and has my real name, phone and home address associated with it. This account is also connected to my bank account and credit cards. For riskier transactions where I don't need physical delivery (or will accept delivery to my local post-office in cases where I don't trust the seller with my personal details) I use my secondary account, which has a secondary email address of mine, and a fake name and with a fake address, it is not connected to any external accounts. To send or receive money \"\"anonymously\"\" I first send money from my real account to my fake account (inter-account transfers are free with PayPal), and then send the money to the seller from the fake account. This is in violation of PayPal's terms of service, but I've been using this system for the past 5+ years without any issues.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ea5eaff70dfacae1fcb7152ff7cd61d",
"text": "You are correct that it is relatively easy for someone to create fake checks and steal money. They even made a movie about it, and not much has changed since that movie takes place. However, most checking accounts do indeed have $0 liability for this type of check fraud, referred to as check forgery. If someone does cash a check against your account that you did not write, you will eventually get your money back. Essentially, the thief stole from the bank (or the merchant that accepted the check), not from you. In the U.S., check forgery is generally covered by state law. According to a Q&A on the CFPB website, if you report to the bank that a check that cleared your account was forged in some way, and you do this within a reporting window defined by state law, the bank is supposed to return your money.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4c31b5e9a3620549bfcafd9cdf3f8709
|
Should I lease, buy new, or buy used?
|
[
{
"docid": "0b6cb4f01e80e8edc7cf6f1eaab104c7",
"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.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38ec38eaad11c8b8a112cf547e69262e",
"text": "I think you're dancing with the line here, this question is hard to back up without opinions and could really be three different questions. I'm going to push aside the part about quality and reliability, that could be an emotional subject. So from a price standpoint, there's virtually no disagrement that it makes financial sense to buy a used car instead of a new car. The majority of new cars lose the majority of their resale value within the first year or two. If you purchase said car after someone else has used it for the first two years, you just avoided all of that depreciation yourself, and you're still going to be purchasing a perfectly reliable car as long as you are diligent in the buying process.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "099fad01cac64030afa4cf10f74270db",
"text": "Rule of thumb is always BUY, NEVER lease, unless you plan to use it for a business where you can expense the lease payments. Leasing is the biggest scam. Lease is just a fancy word for renting and the dealerships PRAY that people like us lease. As for new or old, new cars have better warranty but you may get a great deal on a 1-3 year old used car.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "79b11649d690b24c7378ff5f0ec8ef65",
"text": "There are some who argue that you should lease an electric car. These factors are in addition to all the normal pros and cons of leasing vs. buying. The technology is still new and is advancing rapidly. In 2-3 years, the newer model may have significantly improved features, range, and efficiency, as well as lower prices. If you are the type of person to upgrade regularly to the latest and greatest, leasing can make it a smoother transition. It is hard to predict the depreciation of the vehicles. This is both because of the above factors, but also because these kinds of cars are newer and so the statistical models used to predict their future values are less refined. The models for predicting gas car prices have been honed for decades. EV Manufacturers have in the past made some mistakes in their residual value estimations. When you lease a car, you get essentially an option to buy the car at the future predicted residual value. If, at the end of the lease, the market value of the car is higher than the residual value, you can purchase the car at the predetermined price, making yourself some extra money. If the value is lower than the residual, you can return the car or renegotiate. I know a relatively large number of electric vehicle owners. Most or all of the ones who got the vehicle new leased it. The rest bought used vehicles coming off lease, which can also be a good deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "819a29260e55e72603e797d859ed1996",
"text": "If you are talking straight dollars then leasing is always a losing proposition when compared with purchasing. The financial workings of leasing are so confusing that people don’t realize that leasing invariably costs more than an equivalent loan. And even if they did, the extra cost is difficult to calculate. Still, many people can’t afford the higher payments of a typical loan, at least not without putting a substantial amount down. If payments are an issue, consider buying a lower-cost vehicle or a reliable used car. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/12/buying-vs-leasing-basics/index.htm If you are talking about convenience, lifestyle, ability to purchase a car you could not pay for outright, then you will have to evaluate that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d1f550144d06e304037346ce25ed698",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f7b37b3ab5986dbffeac01e38736a33",
"text": "Don't buy the new car. Buy a $15k car with $5k down and a 3 year loan and save up the rest for your car. A $500/mo car payment is nuts unless you're making alot of money. I've been there, and it was probably the dumbest decision that I have ever made. When you buy a house, you end up with all sorts of unexpected expenses. When you buy a house AND are stuck in a $500/mo payment, that means that those unexpected expenses end up on a credit card.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b4edaa73af0efe82cbb95c36722f852",
"text": "I would like to add that from my own research, a pro to leasing over buying a new vehicle would be that with the lease the entire 7,500 federal incentive is applied directly to the lease, or so they say. If you buy a new car you get a 7,500 federal tax incentive also but if you dont have 7,500 bucks in taxes this wont be as much value. It doesn't sense to me to buy used since you dont get the tax incentive and also if you're in california the 2,500 rebate only applies to buying new or leasing 30 month or longer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2877ea212c9e3863024c98fb6b9f6fa0",
"text": "In a perfect world scenario you would get a car 2-5 years old that has very little mileage. One of the long standing archaic rules of the car world is that age trumps mileage. This was a good rule when any idiot could roll back an odometer. Chances are now that if you rolled your odometer back the car was serviced somewhere, had inspection or whatever and it is on a report. If seller was found to do this they could face jail time and obviously now their car is almost worthless. Why do I mention this? Because you can take a look at 2011 cars. Those with 20K miles go for just a little more than those with 100K miles. As an owner you will start incurring heavy maintenance costs around 100K on most newer cars. By buying cars with lower mileage, keeping them for a year or two, and reselling them before they get up in miles, you can stay in that magic area where you can drive a pretty good car for $200-300 a month. Note that this takes work on both the buying and selling side and you often need cash to get these cars (dealers are good about siphoning really good used cars to employees/friends). This is a great strategy for keeping costs down and car value up but obviously a lot of people try to do this and it takes work and you have to be willing to settle sometimes on a car that is fine, but not exactly what you want. As for leasing this really gets into three main components: If you are going to do EVERYTHING at a dealership and you want something new or newish you might as well lease. At least then you can shop around for apples to apples. The problem with buying a new/used car from the dealers in perpetuity isn't the buying process. It is the fact that they will screw you on the trade-in. A car that books for 20K may trade-in for 17K. Even if the dealer says they are giving you 20K, then they make you pay list price for the car. I have many many times negotiated a price of a car and then wife brought in our car separately and I can count on ZERO fingers how many times that the dealership honored both sides of the negotiations. Not only did they not honor them but most refused to talk with us after they found out. With a lease you don't have to worry about losing this money in the negotiations. You might pay a little extra (or not since you can shop around) but after the lease you wash your hands of the car. The one caveat to this is the high-end market. When you are talking your Acura, Mercedes, Lexus... It is probably better to buy and trade in every couple years. You lose too much equity by leasing, where it won't cover the trade-in gap and cost of your money being elsewhere. I have a friend that does this and gets a slightly better car every 2-3 years with same monthly payment. Another factor to consider is the price of a car. If your car will be worth over $15K at time of sale you are going to have a hard time selling it by owner. When amounts get this high people often need financing. Yes they can get personal financing but most people are too lazy to do this. So the number of used car buyers on let's say craigslist are way way fewer as you start getting over $10-12K and I have found $15K to be kind of that magic amount. The pro-buy-used side is easy. Aim for those cars around $12-18K that are out there (and many still under warranty). These owners will have issues finding cash buyers. They will drop prices somewhere between book price and dealer trade-in. In lucky cases where they need cash maybe below dealer trade-in. And remember these sellers aren't dealing with 100s let alone 10 buyers. You drive the car for 3-4 years. Maybe it is $7-10K. But now you will get much much closer to book price because there will be far more buyers in this range.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6dc205d75952b5f81215d237971e9943",
"text": "\"This question has been asked and answered before. Financially, owning a car will be more economical than leasing one in most cases. The reason for this is that leasing arrangements are designed to make a profit for the leasing company over and above the value of the car. A leasing company that does not profit off their customers will not be in business for long. This is a zero-sum game and the leasing customer is the loser. The lion's share of the customer losses are in maintenance and in the event of an accident or other damage. In both cases, leasing arrangements are designed to make a large profit for the owner. The average customer assumes they will never get into an accident and they underestimate the losses they will take on the maintenance. For example, if both oxygen sensors need to be replaced and it would have cost you $800 to replace them yourself, but the leasing company charges you $1200, then BOOM! you just lost $400. If the car is totaled, the customer will lose many thousands of dollars. Leasing contracts are designed to make money for the owner, not the customer. Another way leasing agents make money is on \"\"required maintenance\"\". Most leasing contracts require the leasor to perform \"\"required\"\" maintenance, oil changes, tire rotations, etc. Also, with newer cars manufacturers recalls are common. Those are required as well. Nearly nobody does this maintenance correctly. This gives the agent the excuse to charge the customer thousands of dollars when the vehicle is returned. Bills of $4000 to $6000 on a 3 year lease for failure to perform required maintenance are common. Its items like this that allow the leasing agent to get a profit on what looks like a \"\"good deal\"\" when the customer walked in the door 3 years previously. The advantage of leasing is that it costs less up front and it is more convenient to switch to a different car because you don't have to sell the car.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "896fc19c6cb27eb1df5da3d3ffa040c5",
"text": "\"You seem to be on the right track. I feel, though, that it's worth addressing your maintenance budget. Even if both cars described in your question are from the same model year, one has been in service 2x more; one car has been on the road, in weather, twice as much as the other. I'm not sure what's being represented in the $6k of maintenance, but a whole host of systems can require maintenance or replacement at 200k+ miles. A/C compressor, all sorts of rubber parts (seals, hoses, belts, bushings), computer systems, stereo, window regulators, the list goes on. I don't know at what point the battery on a hybrid needs to be replaced, or what that replacement entails, but likely the battery or the hybrid recharge system will require something after 200k miles of service. I would learn more about what actual maintenance a high mileage prius can experience. To answer your question though, at this level of \"\"used\"\" I don't think the dealership adds anything to the equation. When you're buying certified pre-owned, the dealership/manufacturer relationship and warranty can be meaningful. When you're buying a 100k+ miles car from a random small used car lot it might as well be a stranger on craigslist...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e9b3afd041177df172055cd40cbd57b",
"text": "Alternative: buy a recent-model used car in good condition. Or buy an older car in good condition. Let someone else pay the heavy depreciation that happens the moment you drive a new car off the dealer's lot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad1ae30cbee62489664b6f08356add4e",
"text": "I must say, I can't completely agree with the tone of most of these answers. I think there may be a good reason to buy a new car, or a luxurious used car. For years I drove old, second hand cars that were really cheap. and unreliable. I can't count the number of times I was left stranded because my car didn't start, or the alternator burned out. I could have bought more recent models, but I was trying to save money. But in 2010 I found a very low mileage 2008 Smart Car for small money. It was a good deal at the time. It was almost new, having very low mileage, and about 60% of the price of a new, less well appointed Smart. I found out that I really like driving cars that won't break down and leave me stranded in sleet or ice storms. When my wife's Mazda hatchback finally rusted to the point that it wouldn't pass the safety inspection and couldn't be repaired, we bought a new 2013 Toyota Rav4. We are really happy with it. It's probably not a luxury car to you, but having reliable heat and air conditioning seems like luxury to us, and we are happy with our decision. I get the Smart serviced at the Mercedes shop. They have very nice coffee and pastries, and very fast free wifi.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0023829af08e1f223028c03a4ed6db45",
"text": "You are really showing some wisdom here, and congratulations on finishing college. Its a lot about likelihoods. If you buy a new car, there is something like a 99.5% chance you will get a car that will not need repairs. If you buy a car for $1200 there is probably a 20% chance that the car will only need minimal repairs. So the answer is there is no real guarantee that spending any amount of money you will end up with a car with no repairs. You also can't assume that with buying a car it will immediately need repairs. Its possible, that you could spend 1200 on a car and it will need an oil change. In three months it might need brakes and in 6 months tires. If that is the case, you could save up the money for repairs. Have you looked for a car? It will take some work, but you might be able to find something in good condition for your budget. If you shop for a loan, go with a good credit union or local bank. Mostly you are looking for a low rate. However, I would advise against it. You worked so hard on getting out of school without debt, why start now? Be weird and buy a car for cash. Heck someone may be able to loan you a car for a short time while you save some money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f64b356af646c6d4ba154440a0d05462",
"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.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13c784beb80c23267dd7392e8d5b5027",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d83da8b4a1ccb7bde4d33e13cb0fd76",
"text": "I agree with Speedbird389 - I leased an economy car 10 years ago, paid the residual at the end of the lease because I knew the car would last a long time, but that cost me $5000 more than if I had bought it in the first place...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01922e347ccbfd39856506f44be23d16",
"text": "With a tax-sheltered account like an IRA, timing is irrelevant with respect to taxes. So enjoy your vacation. When you get back, don't invest in one lump sum -- break up your purchases over a period of weeks if possible. If you are investing in ETFs for your index funds, many brokers have no transaction fee ETF options now.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fc13a6f297c142622fc8640871d47309
|
Are there online brokers in the UK which don't require margin account?
|
[
{
"docid": "47f681c53204da52d55b8b93905710db",
"text": "I don't know what you are on about, as most online brokers should offer standard brokerage without margin. As trading with magin is considered more risky by most (especially if you don't know what you are doing), so one would have to fill out additional application forms and possibly undergo some training before getting a margin account open. A quick search on the net provided some examples, here is one - IG, who provide 3 type of accounts - Spread Betting and CFDs (both leveraged) and Stockbroking (which is non-leveraged).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "879829269fafc9539d2c2b2cd59c4337",
"text": "Most UK stock brokers don't require or allow margin trading. A quick web search for 'UK share dealing comparison' shows entries from money.co.uk and moneysupermarket.com who both provide lists of different brokers, e.g. Barclays, Hargraves Lansdown, IG Share Dealing, The Share Centre, TD Direct, Interactive Investor, YouInvest, etc. Some of the UK banks also provide a share dealing service, from quickly looking at their websites, Barclays, HSBC and Halifax all appear to provide share dealing services.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7902d34995e04afaddc5d3d0c652861",
"text": "You can open an account with HSBC and use InvestDirect - their online share trading service - to trade LSE-traded shares. https://investments.hsbc.co.uk/product/9/sharedealing",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa1fd4c1ea9ab614af95103a1847a75c",
"text": "Disclosure: I am working for an aggregation startup business called Brokerchooser, that is matching the needs of clients to the right online broker. FxPro and similar brokers are rather CFD/FX brokers. If you want to trade stocks you have to find a broker who is registered member of an exchange like LSE. Long list: http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/traders-and-brokers/membership/member-firm-directory/member-firm-directory-search.html From the brokers we have tested at Brokerchooser.com I would suggest:",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f8b2de9570f33646c62ec89ff9eaf61f",
"text": "To start trading at a minimum you need 3 things; Bank Account: This again is not must, but most preferred to transact. Quite a few broker would insist on this. Demat Account: This is must as all shares on NSE are held electronically. The custodians are CSDL or NSDL both Government entities. These don't offer services directly to customer, but via other financial institutions like Banks and Large Brokers. Broker Account: This is required to buy or sell securities. If you are only buying in IPO, this is not required as one can directly participate in IPO and Broker is not involved. However if you want to buy and sell on NSE you would need a broker account. Quite a few financial institutes offer all 3 services or 2 services [Demat/Broker]. The fee structure and online service etc are differentiators. You can take a look at options and decide the best one to use.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c7c14786c176cbd17c34e31ecd9fd51",
"text": "Yes, it's completely normal to buy (and sell) puts and other options without holding the underlying. However, every (US) brokerage I know of only permits this within a margin account. I don't know why...probably a legal reason. You don't actually have to use the margin in a margin account. If you want to trade options, though, you will need a margin account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a338ebdb92ecbd338fe1fd5cc1f2582",
"text": "Generally not, however some brokers may allow it. My previous CFD Broker - CMC Markets, used to allow you to adjust the leverage from the maximum allowed for that stock (say 5%) to 100% of your own money before you place a trade. So obviously if you set it at 100% you pay no interest on holding open long positions overnight. If you can't find a broker that allows this (as I don't think there would be too many around), you can always trade within your account size. For example, if you have an account size of $20,000 then you only take out trades that have a face value up to the $20,000. When you become more experienced and confident you can increase this to 2 or 3 time your account size. Maybe, if you are just starting out, you should first open a virtual account to test your strategies out and get used to using leverage. You should put together a trading plan with position sizing and risk management before starting real trading, and you can test these in your virtual trading before putting real money on the table. Also, if you want to avoid leverage when first starting out, you could always start trading the underlying without any leverage, but you should still have a trading plan in place first.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3b29e8075a13386c894ae62e8f3d167",
"text": "According to this page on their website (http://www.kotaksecurities.com/internationaleq/homepage.htm), Kotak Securities is one big-name Indian broker that offers an international equities account to its Indian customers. Presumably, they should be able to answer all your questions. Since this is a competitive market, one can assume that others like ICICI Direct must also be doing so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1581182a845bc22f273501fd9e8568c0",
"text": "API wise there's just one at the retail level: Interactive Brokers (India). Brokerage is high though - 3.5 bps for F&O and 5 bps for cash. I've used Sharekhan (good, can get to 2 bps brokerage, trading client software, no API). Also used multiple other brokerages, and am advising a new one, Zerodha http://www.zerodha.com. API wise the brokers don't provide it easily to retail, though I've worked with direct access APIs at an institutional level.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9175d6a35bb2a1f359699e4473e2b56",
"text": "I don't want to get involved in trading chasing immediate profit That is the best part. There is an answer in the other question, where a guy only invested in small amounts and had a big sum by the time he retired. There is good logic in the answer. If you put in lump sum in a single stroke you will get at a single price. But if you distribute it over a time, you will get opportunities to buy at favorable prices, because that is an inherent behavior of stocks. They inherently go up and down, don't remain stable. Stock markets are for everybody rich or poor as long as you have money, doesn't matter in millions or hundreds, to invest and you select stocks with proper research and with a long term view. Investment should always start in small amounts before you graduate to investing in bigger amounts. Gives you ample time to learn. Where do I go to do this ? To a bank ? To the company, most probably a brokerage firm. Any place to your liking. Check how much they charge for brokerage, annual charges and what all services they provide. Compare them online on what services you require, not what they provide ? Ask friends and colleagues and get their opinions. It is better to get firsthand knowledge about the products. Can the company I'm investing to be abroad? At the moment stay away from it, unless you are sure about it because you are starting. Can try buying ADRs, like in US. This is an option in UK. But they come with inherent risk. How much do you know about the country where the company does its business ? Will I be subject to some fees I must care about after I buy a stock? Yes, capital gains tax will be levied and stamp duties and all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1a109c26a029ec8504ceeeeb3d37240",
"text": "As other people have said they should register with a broker in the country they reside in that can deal in US stocks, then fill out a W8-BEN form. I have personally done this as I am from the Uk, it's not a very complicated process. I would assume that most US brokers don't allow foreign customers due to the person having to pay tax where they reside and the US brokers don't want to have to keep approximately 200 different tax codes in track.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccda9ff7d29469ea162262ae51d604a9",
"text": "A CFD broker will let you open a trade on margin as long as your account balance is more than the margin required on all your open trades. If the required margin increases within a certain percentage of your account balance, you will get a margin call. If you then don't deposit more funds or close losing trades out, the broker will close all your trades. Note: Your account balance is the remaining funds you have left to open new trades with. I always use stop loss orders with all my open trades, and because of this my broker reduces the amount of margin required on each trade. This allows me to have more open trades at the one time without increasing my funds. Effects of a Losing Trade on Margin Say I have an account balance of $2,000 and open a long trade in a share CFD of 1,000 CFDs with a share price of $10 and margin of 10%. The face value of the shares would be $10,000, but my initial margin would be $1,000 (10% of $10,000). If I don't place a stop loss and the price falls to $9, I would have lost $1,000 and my remaining margin would now be $900 (10% of $9,000). So I would have $100 balance remaining in my account. I would probably receive a margin call to deposit more funds in or close out my trade. If I don't respond the broker will close out my position before my balance gets to $0. If instead I placed a stop loss at say $9.50, my initial margin might be reduced to $500. As the price drops to $9.60 I would have lost $400 and my remaining margin would now only be $100, with my account balance at $1,500. When the price drops to $9.50 I will get stopped out, my trade will be closed and I would have lost $500, with my account balance still at $1,500. Effects of a Winning Trade on Margin Say I have the same account balance as before and open the same trade but this time the price moves up. If I don't place a stop loss and the price goes up to $11, I would have made a $1,000 profit and my remaining margin will now be $1,100 (10% of $11,000). So my account balance would now be $2,000 + $1,000 - $1,100 = $1,900. If I had placed a stop loss at say $9.50 again and the price moves up to $10.50, I would have made a profit of $500 and my margin would now be $1,000. My account balance would be $2,000 + $500 - $1,000 = $1,500. However, if after the price went up to $10.50 I also moved my stop loss up to $10, then I would have $500 profit and only $500 margin. So my balance in this case would be $2,000 + $500 - $500 = $2,000. So by using stop losses as part of your risk management you can reduce the margin used from your balance which will allow you to open more trades without any extra funds deposited into your account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae3d00b16e6b5fe651edd058e2a69145",
"text": "\"If you don't have a margin account, then you will not have margin calls. You need a margin account if you wish to \"\"buy on margin\"\", to sell stocks \"\"short\"\", or to sell options, or maybe some other esoteric things I have not thought of. If you don't do those things, then you do not need a margin account and will not get margin calls. In your example, it doesn't sound like margin has been used, If you deposit $20 and used it to buy $20 of stock and it then falls to $5, \"\"they\"\" did not lose the money, you did. But if no margin was used, then no margin call would result.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "638947ae1029dd877c240c92506276e6",
"text": "Are there banks where you can open a bank account without being a citizen of that country without having to visit the bank in person? I've done it the other way around, opened a bank account in the UK so I have a way to store GBP. Given that Britain is still in the EU you can basically open an account anywhere. German online banks for instance allow you to administrate anything online, should there be cards issued you would need an address in the country. And for opening an account a passport is sufficient, you can identify yourself in a video chat. Now what's the downside? French banks' online services are in French, German banks' services are in German. If that doesn't put you off, I would name such banks in the comments if asked. Are there any online services for investing money that aren't tied to any particular country? Can you clarify that? You should at least be able to buy into any European or American stock through your broker. That should give you an ease of mind being FCA-regulated. However, those are usually GDRs (global depository receipts) and denominated in GBp (pence) so you'd be visually exposed to currency rates, by which I mean that if the stock goes up 1% but the GBP goes up 1% in the same period then your GDR would show a 0% profit on that day; also, and more annoyingly, dividends are distributed in the foreign currency, then exchanged by the issuer of the GDR on that day and booked into your account, so if you want to be in full control of the cashflows you should get a trading account denominated in the currency (and maybe situated in the country) you're planning to invest in. If you're really serious about it, some brokers/banks offer multi-currency trading accounts (again I will name them if asked) where you can trade a wide range of instruments natively (i.e. on the primary exchanges) and you get to manage everything in one interface. Those accounts typically include access to the foreign exchange markets so you can move cash between your accounts freely (well for a surcharge). Also, typically each subaccount is issued its own IBAN.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "980cecc6af873f36e39625d078eb2647",
"text": "You can't sell options if you don't have margin account (except covered call). You can't trade futures if you don't have margin account. Everything is immediate when you have margin account. (Including stocks) Margin account is not subject to freeriding rules, but is subject to Pattern Day Trader rules.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2722f69315341259b6dfc8053db89d61",
"text": "Normal high street accounts certainly are available to non-residents. I have several, and I haven't been resident in the UK for fourteen years. However you do need to open them before you leave. They need identification. Once you have one open, the same bank should be able to open other accounts by mail. The disadvantage of course is that you will pay tax on your earnings, and while you can claim it back that's an unnecessary piece of work if you don't have other UK earnings. I would take the risk of an offshore account, assuming it's with a big reputable bank - the kind that are going to be bailed out if there is another collapse. An alternative might be a fixed term deposit. You lock up your money for three years, and you get it back plus a single interest payment at the end of three years. You would pay nothing in tax while you were gone, but the whole interest amount would be taxable when you got back.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "42f4705784c34d846e33a6b4573f63af",
"text": "While a margin account is not required to trade options, a margin account is necessary to take delivery of an exercised put. The puts can be bought in a cash account so long as the cash necessary to fund the trade is available. If you do choose to exercise which almost never has a positive expected value relative to selling except after the final trading time before expiration, taxes notwithstanding, then your shares will be put to your counterparty. Since options almost always trade in round lots, 100 shares will have to fund the put exercise, or a margin account must satisfy the difference. For your situation, trading out of both positions would be probably be best.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1fb94e8d47ea5630d5154ec36535c97f",
"text": "\"The margin money you put up to fund a short position ($6000 in the example given) is simply a \"\"good faith\"\" deposit that is required by the broker in order to show that you are acting in good faith and fully intend to meet any potential losses that may occur. This margin is normally called initial margin. It is not an accounting item, meaning it is not debited from you cash account. Rather, the broker simply segregates these funds so that you may not use them to fund other trading. When you settle your position these funds are released from segregation. In addition, there is a second type of margin, called variation margin, which must be maintained while holding a short position. The variation margin is simply the running profit or loss being incurred on the short position. In you example, if you sold 200 shares at $20 and the price went to $21, then your variation margin would be a debit of $200, while if the price went to $19, the variation margin would be a credit of $200. The variation margin will be netted with the initial margin to give the total margin requirement ($6000 in this example). Margin requirements are computed at the close of business on each trading day. If you are showing a loss of $200 on the variation margin, then you will be required to put up an additional $200 of margin money in order to maintain the $6000 margin requirement - ($6000 - $200 = $5800, so you must add $200 to maintain $6000). If you are showing a profit of $200, then $200 will be released from segregation - ($6000 + $200 = $6200, so $200 will be release from segregation leaving $6000 as required). When you settle your short position by buying back the shares, the margin monies will be release from segregation and the ledger postings to you cash account will be made according to whether you have made a profit or a loss. So if you made a loss of $200 on the trade, then your account will be debited for $200 plus any applicable commissions. If you made a profit of $200 on the trade then your account will be credited with $200 and debited with any applicable commissions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5734b807aee32ecde45ad6c7b1473de",
"text": "You're confusing open positions and account balance. Your position in GBP is 1000, that's what you've bought. You then used some of it to buy something else, but to the broker you still have an open position of 1000 GBP. They will only close it when you give them the 1000GBP back. What you do with it until then is none of their business. Your account balance (available funds) in GBP is 10.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
87d95502b4a55d97b77c58a55384f46c
|
Is there such a thing as a deposit-only bank account?
|
[
{
"docid": "28e1f72ba698af26332cbfc0cb7960dc",
"text": "Do you write checks? You are giving your bank account and routing number to anybody you have ever given a check to. Your employer is paying taxes on your behalf, so they need your social security number so they can pay your social security taxes. Account and routing numbers are how deposits are made. If you are concerned, create a free checking account, collect the direct deposit and each payday go to the bank and withdraw your money to put it where you like. Nothing is deposit only because you will want your money back. Finally, you would be shocked at how little it takes to make a draft on your account in the US. Certainly not your SSN, Address, or even your name.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c96289c6f10cf5dd3412d213afde0f90",
"text": "Usually the most significant risk scenarios here are: Third parties can abuse your routing/account numbers to initiate debits, but this is a type of fraud that is easily traced. It can happen, but it is more likely that it would be a scenario where you were specifically targeted vs. the victim of some random fraud. Defending against someone who is specifically going after you is very difficult, especially if you don't know about it. Your SSN isnt used for the bank transfer, you are providing it so that the entity making the payments can report on payments to you for tax purposes. If you are truly worried about this type of scenario, I suggest setting up a dedicated savings account for the purpose of receiving these payments and then sweeping (either manually or automatically) the funds into another account. Most stock brokers will allow you to automate this, and most banks will let you do this manually.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e66a88b7cf69b7bdd8106cc680cc8d92",
"text": "\"I would suggest opening a bank account that you use to accept deposits only, and then get a system set up where it automatically transfers the money over to your main account. If not instantly it could transfer the money hourly or daily. Of course you would have to pay a premium for this \"\"peace of mind\"\" ;)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74e6723b2a4656386b468664716c80ac",
"text": "\"There is such a thing as Deposit Only. This will allow the individual's account to function only for collection of monetary deposits. NO ONE will be able to withdraw...only deposit. The account holder may still physically withdraw at their banking institution. Think of it as taking your account from a \"\"public\"\" profile to a \"\"private\"\" profile. Doing this is beneficial for ppl who may have been scammed into a program or product where there account is bieng fraudulently overdrafted, or simply to protect your funds from bieng drafted without your approval or despite your requests for ceasing the drafts. When making your account a deposit only account it's a good idea to open a NEW account at a Different banking institution, because some banks will still allow an account that is \"\"attached\"\" to the deposit only account to be drafted from it. WIth the new account you can utilize that one for paying day to day bills and just transfer funds from the deposit only account to the new account. A deposit only account is also a good way to build up a nice nest egg for yourself or even a young adult! source- Financial Adivsor 4years-\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d07c9ed262166e73524913c4e1f6dd60",
"text": "Legally, no one else can withdraw from your account. If you suspect the direct-deposit websites are making withdrawals, you can monitor your account balance and dispute any transactions that were not made by you. But realistically, any company that did that would soon be out of business and in so much legal trouble that it wouldn't be worth the money they could get from you.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "aaa8aad4c12291860d68cfacd8f7b6ed",
"text": "I found out there is something called CDARS that allows a person to open a multi-million dollar certificate of deposit account with a single financial institution, who provides FDIC coverage for the entire account. This financial institution spreads the person's money across multiple banks, so that each bank holds less than $250K and can provide the standard FDIC coverage. The account holder doesn't have to worry about any of those details as the main financial institution handles everything. From the account holder's perspective, he/she just has a single account with the main financial institution.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c834716aad22d334e869df10ff610d73",
"text": "Without access to the ATM/debit card and with almost nothing in savings, you will probably have to visit a branch to make a cash deposit. If it is too far to drive you might be able to turn the cash into a money order and mail it to the bank, but I would check with the bank to see if that would work. Of course mail will take a day or two.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd33cf6470421860ee098c213b08e658",
"text": "\"I opened several free checking accounts at a local credit union. One is a \"\"Deposit\"\" account where all of my new money goes. I get paid every two weeks. Every other Sunday we have our \"\"Money Day\"\" where we allocate the money from our Deposit account into our other checking accounts. I have one designated as a Bills account where all of my bills get paid automatically via bill pay or auto-pay. I created a spreadsheet that calculates how much to save each Money Day for all of my upcoming bills. This makes it so the amount I save for my bills is essentially equal. Then I allocate the rest of my deposit money into my other checking accounts. I have a Grocery, Household, and Main checking accounts but you could use any combination that you want. When we're at the store we check our balances (how much we have left to spend) on our mobile app. We can't overspend this way. The key is to make sure you're using your PIN when you use your debit card. This way it shows up in real-time with your credit union and you've got an accurate balance. This has worked really well to coordinate spending between me and my wife. It sounds like it's a lot of work but it's actually really automated. The best part is that I don't have to do any accounting which means my budget doesn't fail if I'm not entering my transactions or categorizing them. I'm happy to share my spreadsheet if you'd like.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b0575f84d48dc745cabb99f48049fcd",
"text": "No, in your situation it is not possible. Mostly, only three types of accounts are available to individuals: So, a complete foreigner can open account in India, only if he is working in India, a type of Savings account, and that account too will be linked to his resident status. If he leaves work, he needs to close this account. Edit: There are business accounts, and current accounts, but those are available only to businesses. Further read at SBI gives a good snapshot",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "591374af295eea181078c11fff644f7f",
"text": "How often do you need to actually go to a bank? atm's, debit and credit cards work where ever. you can even deposit checks by taking a picture of them. dealing with cash would be more troublesome though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "057b35fdb4e173c7a329dcd6da86e19a",
"text": "\"The account you are looking for is called a \"\"Positive Pay\"\" account. It generally is only for business accounts, you provide a list of check numbers and amounts, and they are cross-referenced for clearing. It normally has a hefty monthly fee due to the extra labor involved.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b722f7ab18aa74ea0ca2f4cbd589dfb",
"text": "Of course its possible. Under what terms and with what fees depends on your bank/country regulations, but generally speaking - loaning is the major source of income for banks, especially short-term account overdrafts (which is essentially a loan, usually at a high rate). In the US you can (now, since the new regulations kicked in) instruct the bank not to pay checks/decline debit card purchases if you don't have sufficient funds on the account. Otherwise you can instruct them to pay (at their discretion) to avoid bouncing checks, and accept NSF fees (usually pretty high). Some banks provide overdraft lines of credit (then you won't have NSF fees, and will just pay interest when tapping into that line), others provide option to automatically withdraw the missing amount from a linked account (checking or credit card).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4caf6fa7e8a372ad3dc873529deed51",
"text": "Many banks will allow you to open multiple accounts. Create a secondary checking account that has no automatic withdrawals and doesn't allow overdraft. This is the account you'll use for you discretionary spending. Get an account with a debit card and always use it as a debit card (never as a credit card, even if it allows that). Your employer may allow you to split your direct deposit so that a certain amount of money goes into this account each month. When it gets to $0, you have to stop spending. It will automatically refill when you get your paycheck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c41887f452951ca0fff3e00ea632073a",
"text": "The security concept of minimising attack surface could be stretched to apply here, especially if closing the account would mean the end of your relationship with that bank. Essentially more routes into your finances or personal information means more opportunities for fraud, more accounts to keep an eye on, more logins to remember/store, and even more paperwork/idle cards to check (for unexpected activity and T&C changes), store and eventually shred. However I had a couple of online-only savings accounts with zero balance for a few years, at a bank where I have other accounts, and I didn;t worry in the slightest. (You can open the accounts online but have to phone to close them and sitting on hold is too much of a chore for me. Eventually they realised their mistake, brought in a minimum balance requirement, and after giving notice closed accounts with less that that in them)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d9b8106c6faa5826c974441dda0bf78",
"text": "Almost any financial institution has the technical ability to do this (simply called sweeps, auto sweeps, or deposit sweeps); the issue you face is finding an institution that is willing to do it for you. I think you will have the most luck at your primary financial institution where you currently keep the majority of your banking relationship. You will have better luck at small-town banks and credit unions. The mega banks will likely not waver from their established policies. Deposit sweeps are common for business accounts. They are usually tied to a savings account, which is usually held within the same institution, however this is not a requirement. The sweep can send money to any US bank if you can provide the routing number and account number. The sweep will establish a peg balance, or floor balance, on the checking account. At the end of the day, any amount above the peg is swept into the savings account automatically. I doubt you will find what you’re asking for within an online banking system. You will likely have to go into a branch and speak with a personal banker. Explain to them you want to establish a sweep on your checking account and want to send the funds to another financial institution. You will have better luck asking for a peg of $100, or some other small amount. They may not take your request seriously if you want to completely empty the checking account to zero.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25865b998a68af259bbb602ce40e0cda",
"text": "I know that many HSBC ATMs at branches in the US and Canada offer this service (they actually scan and shred checks as you deposit them). Perhaps they do same in Germany... but not all ATMs offer this feature.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "592ad3963c42c459197267cc2ced76b4",
"text": "I keep several savings accounts. I use an online-only bank that makes it very easy to open a new account in about 2 minutes. I keep the following accounts: Emergency Fund with 2 months of expenses. I pretend this money doesn't even exist. But if something happened that I needed money right away, I can get it. 6 6-month term CDs, with one maturing every month, each with 1 month's worth of expenses. This way, every month, I'll have a CD that matures with the money I would need that month if I lose my job or some other emergency that prevents me from working. You won't make as much interest on the 6-month term, but you'll have cash every month if you need it. Goal-specific accounts: I keep an account that I make a 'car payment' into every month so I'll have a down-payment saved when I'm ready to buy a car, and I'm used to making a payment, so it's not an additional expense if I need a loan. I also keep a vacation account so when it's time to take the family to Disneyland, I know how much I can budget for the trip. General savings: The 'everything else' account. When I just NEED to buy a new LCD TV on Black Friday, that's where I go without touching my emergency funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c47466f7880e9e6b6d3a19c680ce234d",
"text": "Bank and most Credit Union deposit accounts (including CDs) are guaranteed by the Federal government by the FDIC and NCUA, respectively. Some state-chartered credit unions use private insurance, you'll want to be careful about storing lots of money in those institutions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c55c405c834c45e2dcf101bef19613ad",
"text": "The answer to this question can be found in the related question Is there any online personal finance software without online banking?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7cf03316171ccd1ef7f305ef2953a99",
"text": "Sure; you can deposit cash. A few notes apply: Does the source of cash need to be declared ? If you deposit more than $10,000 in cash or other negotiable instruments, you'll be asked to complete a form called a Currency Transaction Report (here's the US Government's guidance for consumers about this form). There's some very important information in that guidance document about structuring, which is a fairly serious crime that you can commit if you break up your deposits to avoid reporting. Don't do this. The linked document gives examples. Also don't refuse to make your deposit and walk away when presented with a CTR form. In addition, you are also required to report to Customs and Border Protection when you bring more than $10,000 in or out of the country. If you are caught not doing so, the money may be seized and you could be prosecuted criminally. Many countries have similar requirements, often with different dollar amounts, so it's important to make sure you comply with their laws as well. The information from this reporting goes to the government and is used to enforce finance and tax laws, but there's nothing wrong or illegal about depositing cash as long as you don't evade the reporting requirements. You will not need to declare precisely where the cash comes from, but they will want the information required on the forms. Is it taxable ? Simply depositing cash into your bank account is not taxable. Receiving some forms of income, whether as cash or a bank deposit, is taxable. If you seem to have a large amount of unexplained cash income, it is possible an IRS audit will want an explanation from you as to where it comes from and why it isn't taxable. In short, if the income was taxable, you should have paid taxes on it whether or not you deposit it in a bank account. What is the limit of the deposit ? There is no government limit. An individual bank may have their own limit and/or may charge a fee for larger deposits. You could always call the bank and ask.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f9e0e2f8071c6682dceccbe94ebac7bc
|
Do you know of any online monetary systems?
|
[
{
"docid": "16eec6bc9a13b3023ebff90f47c4410f",
"text": "I recently came across bitcoin, it is what I was really looking for at the time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "890e8e0a93a34ffc61874715ecaac7a2",
"text": "\"You say you want a more \"\"stable\"\" system. Recall from your introductory economics courses that money has three roles: a medium of exchange (here is $, give me goods), a unit of account (you owe me $; the business made $ last year), and a store of value (I have saved $ for the future!). I assume that you are mostly concerned with the store-of-value role being eroded due to inflation. But first consider that most people still want regular currency, so as a medium of exchange or accounting unit anything would face an uphill battle. If you discard that role for your currency, and only want to store value with it, you could just buy equities and commodities and baskets of currencies and debt in a brokerage account (possibly using mutual funds) to store your value. Trillions of dollars' worth of business takes place this way every year already. Virtual currency was a bit of a dot-com bubble thing. The systems which didn't go completely bust and are still around have been beset by money-laundering, and otherwise remain largely an ignored niche. An online fiat currency has the same basic problem that another currency has. You need to trust the central bank not to create more money and cause inflation (or even just abscond with the funds... or go bankrupt / get sued). Perhaps the Federal Reserve may be jerking us around on that front right now.... they're still a lot more believable than a small private institution. Some banks might possibly be trustworthy enough to launch a currency, but it's hard to see why they'd bother (it can't be a big profit center, because people aren't willing to pay too much to just use money.) And an online currency that's backed by commodities (e.g. gold) is going to be subject to potentially violent swings in the prices of commodities. Imagine getting a loan out for your house, denominated in terms of e-gold, and then the price of gold triples. Ouch?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "929c9780f0983ec66c646c287e974ea4",
"text": "\"Congratulations! You see the problem. You can't get away from unstable currencies. The other problem is that the US will shut down anything that appears to be providing a replacement for the US Dollar. Once a token or medallion or gift certificate or whatever starts being used outside the confines of one business or one network of businesses, it will be shut down, quickly. It happened with Las Vegas gambling tokens. Another more recent attempt was with the Liberty Dollar, gold and silver coins and certificates that not only had precious metal backing, but whose proponents encouraged taking them to retailers and paying with them as if they were US Dollars. There were other problems with this idea, but it was the competitive stature of the Liberty dollar that got the headquarters raided and the main site shut down. Basically, all signs point toward dealing with currencies and their state of being systematically eroded over time. If you do find one that appears to exist, be wary, because the rules can change at any time, and the \"\"money\"\" will be nowhere near as liquid as a proper currency.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ee003abb9d3d266789513d9d7673856",
"text": "\"Edit: I discovered Bitcoin a few months after I posted this answer. I would strongly recommend anyone interested in this question to review it, particularly the myths page that dispels much of the FUD. Original answer: Although it is not online, as a concept the Totnes Pound may be of interest to you. I live quite close to this village (in the UK) and the system it promotes does work well. According to the Transition Town Totnes website this means that it is \"\"a community in a process of imagining and creating a future that addresses the twin challenges of diminishing oil and gas supplies and climate change , and creates the kind of community that we would all want to be part of.\"\" If you are looking for a starting place to introduce a new type of currency, perhaps in response to over-dependence on oil and global trade, then reading about the Transition Towns initiative could provide you with the answers you're looking for.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e120a8aa8686f6e32f4e42440d7ee222",
"text": "I'm the equivalent of the FED at ROBLOX. I run a virtual economy there worth millions of dollars. Even though we are in the business of printing our own money, we've seen much more stability in our currency than in the USD. It actually appreciates over time. I don't think it would make a good investment though, nor would any of the online virtual currencies that I am aware of.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6057489b63d4a6078034e2f58b3fe5f7",
"text": "I'm not sure, but I think the monetary system of Second Life or World of Warcraft would correspond to what you are looking for. I don't think they are independent of the dollar though, since acquiring liquidity in those games can be done through exchange for real dollars. But there can be more closed systems, maybe Sim type games where this is not the case. I hope this helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81d0c81787160b143b2e02fe98f99bfd",
"text": "This site lets people deposit gold into an account. Once you have an account setup you can pay others in gold online. I haven't used it or know of anyone who has so I cannot provide any feedback to how well it works.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6ffed1ba7c7a5456be4234ae36bda59c",
"text": "Online banks are the future. As long as you don't need a clerk to talk to (and why would you need?) there's nothing you can't do with an online bank that you can with a brick and mortar robbers. I use E*Trade trading account as a checking account (it allows writing paper checks, debit card transactions, ACH in/out, free ATM, etc). If you don't need paper checks that often you can use ING or something similar. You can always go to a local credit union, but those will wave the fee in exchange for direct deposit or high balance, and that you can also get from the large banks as well, so no much difference there. Oh where where did Washington Mutual go....",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65c0e3b68efbc4fd3788f304e00d70b7",
"text": "\"I'm currently using You Need A Budget for this. It lets you track spending my category and \"\"save\"\" money in particular accounts from month to month. They also have some strong opinions about how one should manage one's cashflow, so check it out to see if it'll work for you. It's neither web-based nor free, but the licensing terms are very reasonable.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2762d545460a22c939b7c8db3bd238a",
"text": "\"Uh, have you tried google docs? Start off simple. Other than that, for the moment I use GNUCash. Some day I might try to write my own, but for now it works well enough. I have a number of scheduled transactions in GNUCash, and it records them days in advance. You talk about \"\"I should have how much money\"\", but GNUCash offers a slightly better format: Future Minimum Balance. If you want to know whether you can spend money in an account without triggering a chain reaction, that's the number you want. Being web-based so that it can be accessed from any OS. GNUCash is cross platform, with Windows, OSX and Linux clients. It also supports mysql/postgres database backends, so while it's not \"\"Web based\"\", you can keep your data \"\"in the cloud\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f192e3451471bd51285576936d970749",
"text": "If I understand correctly, you're actually asking why there isn't a society whose members generally accept/use any currency for transactions, and just like, Google the exchange rate or something. The answer is because it's exceptionally inconvenient. Can you imagine having a wallet with 200 pouches for all the different currencies? Why would you want to deal with exchange rates all the time? What if the value of a currency changes? (A single currency at least has the illusion of being stable). Et cetera.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57d81d7a88f068400691d7daa7e77615",
"text": "I think it's interesting to look at bitcoin not as a get-rich quick scheme, but rather a tool to study socio-economics through looking how areas in developing countries view this type of model (and the entire world at large of course). The entire crypto-coin scene has a variety of different algorithms which replicate different monetary policies to promote the most value and high functioning societies. *For example: dogecoin was meant as a quick laugh but has now developed into an inflation based coin to encourage high velocity through tipping. This micropayment model and friendly community hope to gain adoption through spreading it far and wide*. Bitcoin looks at the properties that made gold a useful state-less trade asset and tried to adapt that to the web. It solved traditional problems which made this impossible before without a central party and thus now experiments and studies can be done. Who knows what happens. Gavin, the chief engineer of the bitcoin core development group says, > I still say that it's an experiment, and the whole thing could implode. Coming from the guy who is literally making the edits to the code, I think it's safe to take off the wary of it being used to scam people and instead look at it from a more academic light to see what could be gleaned from bitcoin to improve current institutions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fefb2bebc863d73f23a0dfeed3af1802",
"text": "Question: So basically the money created in this globalized digital world where capital is free to roam, it is referring to digital money and not actual physical cash. So the goldbugs that talk about america becoming weimar republic is delusional, since there isn't enough physical cash in relations to how big the economy is. And it is actually the debt lending that acts as a derivative of cash money that goes around posing as the money supply or the blood supply of an economy, and that feels like inflation, but when the debt is defaulted on or destroyed, underwritten or even paid back closing the circuit then it's deflationary? But does defaulting on ones debt create inflation since that money is still in the system and not being paid off? You know, when debts are paid off they are taken out of the system.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e24bf7a39a85a27540fd6df3267e7eb0",
"text": "\"Excellent question. I'm not aware of one. I was going to say \"\"go visit some personal finance blogs\"\" but then I remembered that I write on one, and that I often get a commission if I talk about online accounts, so unless something is really bad I'm not going to post on it because I want to make money, not chase it away. This isn't to say that I'm biased by commissions, but among a bunch of online banks paying pretty much the same (crappy) interest rate and giving pretty much the same (often not crappy) service, I'm going to give air time to the ones that pay the best commissions. That, and some of the affiliate programs would kick me out if I trashed them on my blog. This also would taint any site, blog or not, that does not explicitly say that they do not have affiliate relationships with the banks they review. I suppose if you read enough blogs you can figure out the bad ones by their absence, but that takes a lot of time. Seems like you'd do all right by doing a \"\"--bank name-- sucks\"\" Google search to dig up the dirt. That, or call up / e-mail / post on their forum any questions you have about their services before sending them your money. If they're up front, they'll answer you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd78bc9c9eaffdab15fa29d6837f52a5",
"text": "I can personally recommend MoneyWell. I've been using it for about a month now, and version 1.5 that was just released is a great upgrade from the previous version. The developer was very responsive during the open beta period, and from what I understand an iPhone version is in the works. (and no, I don't work for the publisher!) That aside, I've used a few other packages. I tried out iBank, which was fairly nice, but the account downloading functionality left a lot to be desired. I come from a MS Money background, and I am used to a seamless, reliable download scheme, and iBank's was (unfortunately) neither. Otherwise the interface was very nice. I had settled on MoneyDance before I found MoneyWell, and it's a pretty nice package. Unfortunately it's a Java application and doesn't adhere to most OSX interface practices. While the account downloading is substantially better than iBank's, the ugly interface made moving away from it fairly easy once I found something that had feature parity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38cd1a59d0f8f14eff54b8eda1bcd1c2",
"text": "\"Thinkorswim's ThinkDesktop platform allows you to replay a previous market day if you wish. You can also use paper money in stocks, options, futures, futures options, forex, etc there. I really can't think of any other platform that allows you to dabble around in so many products fictionally. And honestly, if all that \"\"make[s] the learning experience a bit more complicated\"\" and demotivates you, well thats probably a good thing for your sake.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0221b08de55ce6d99cfc7df8255d9b26",
"text": "Hey thanks for your response. The commodity is actually electricity, so definitely not able to store. Would you mind giving me a short summary of your thought process or an example of how you compare liquid markets vs illiquid ones when looking at more traditional commodities? If that is a bit much to ask, as I am sure it could get quite involved do you have any reading recommendations? This little project has sparked an interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aaa1d8c94a118a1ba028060fb12e85c4",
"text": "\"1. As I said, the above is not actually anything like a genuine history of how money emerged, it's an explain-it-to-a-five-year-old parable to answer \"\"where does the money go in an economic contraction?\"\" 2. It's also not defense/endorsement/apology for any particular set of policies or historical theory of money. It's a picture-book describing the workings of an internal combustion engine using cartoon characters, not a treatise on the social and environmental implications of American car-culture. That said, in the parable, the reasons why the simplified caricatures in the town chose to accept the fiat currency are pretty straightforward, and are actually explained: - They were previously using a system of a whole bunch of separate, privately-issued currencies, each with complex and hard-to-evaluate credit risks (Bob's potato certificate versus Jane's Potato certificate versus your apple-certificate versus my deer certificate). This was causing problems and confusion about how much any given certificate was actually worth. - The system proposed was proposed in a way that was *at least* as credible as the best existing system. - Last but not least, they accepted the new currency for *exactly the same reason* that you accept dollar, euros, or whatever: because everyone else does. There was no law preventing any of them from still trading apple IOUs (in fact, we still traded them, later in the example, except denominated in loddars). I could have asked you for the last note to denominated in apples, but that would probably have been harder to trade than the currency that everyone else is using. I said I wouldn't get into the gold-standard debate, and I won't, and here's why: the debate hinges entirely and solely on whether you believe that a \"\"good\"\" fiat currency is possible and realistically sustainable. If you do, then fiat currency makes a lot more sense in every respect. If you don't, then fiat currency is always just a catastrophe waiting to happen. My parable shows the mechanics of how money works. It doesn't say whether the system is good or bad, or whether they should have accepted the fiat system proposed, or held out for a better one, or rejected it altogether. You can argue that internal combustion engines are bad, or that much better alternatives are available, or that nobody should use them, but that doesn't make a description of they work incorrect.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fcdba0856699d55e25ac1188f0d2b4a",
"text": "Bitcoin could work fairly well. Each site can just give you a wallet to dump money into. Can also do micro-payments where you could pay per-article. With a shared private key on a wallet you keep topped up, they could remove the money as you browse. I can imagine businesses that sell you hard-drive space based on the amount you use rather than a cap, calculate the cost of transmitting each packet of data. You can have one program to manage all the wallets for all your sites. But it would need more penetration before that happens.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f83fd4e12068a3dd80172e8afb3afef",
"text": "In addition to TransferWise that @miernik answered with and that I successfully used, I found CurrencyFair which looks to be along similar lines and also supports US$.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a7daaffd734a8e08623aa63eb141ba9",
"text": "I know you've already lost interest, but i just wanted to respond to this: >money is a store of value No, it is not. Money is a very poor store of value. Money is intended as a means to transfer value from one to another. >You appear to be afraid of what would happen if people were allowed to voluntarily choose what money to use, without government interference. I repeatedly encouraged you to use alternative currencies, i don't know where you get this from.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "970074e19cac1c9a7b1f4c54d07b115c",
"text": "You know what? Pay cash, but ask for a discount. And something fairly hefty. Don't be afraid to bargain. The discount will be worth more than the interest you'd get on the same amount of money. And if the salesman doesn't give you a decent discount, ask to speak to the manager. And if that doesn't work, try another store. Good luck with it!",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b18dec5a57fd4db4c31e17c72987d492
|
Is buying and selling Bitcoin (and other cryptocurrency) legal for a student on F-1 Visa doing OPT in USA?
|
[
{
"docid": "68d069f48a9bebbba5227acc3570bd26",
"text": "Given your clarification that you re only intending to use cryptocurrency as a capital asset & a long term investment vehicle, and not as a business day trading or trading for others, I would say this definitely is NOT illegal. The tax man says cryptocurrency is property. The IRS made this clear in Notice 2014-21. As long as you report it every time you do transfer it and an income loss/gain is triggered, I see nothing wrong here.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "302477bcb2eda09a78915b86bcdbb8b0",
"text": "Could you not just say that you had bought it when it was pennies on the dollar and made the millions that way? There isn't much of a transaction record, is there? I also just realized that I don't understand how taxes work in that situation. If you have a different currency from the U.S. Dollar, and it increases in value greatly, do you have to pay tax on that increased value relative to the U.S. dollar? They don't when it's minimal increases.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8443d335e20f00c96cb1f90cc4204670",
"text": "You can use Skrill or any other service like paypal or SWIFT wire. There is no legal restriction to bring money into India. You need to pay taxes depending on how you earned the income, of course the assumption is you earned the money in a legal way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ebe64ae34acfabbb767ba96a5b00dc0",
"text": "If the vendor accepts cryptocurrencies, this may be your only option. It's not clear if exporting cryptocurrency violates Ethiopian law, but at least cryptocurrencies have not yet been banned. If you can find someone who can trade you cryptocurrency, you can send it anywhere. Because cryptocurrencies are still extremely price volatile, I recommend you use Ripple, the fastest I can find. It can 100% confirm transactions on average within 10 seconds. This will keep your exposure to price volatility at a minimum if you send the cryptocurrency as soon as you buy it. If you choose this route, please take precausions. Your government may retroactively ban it and pursue you. Considering the Ethiopian government's history, this is not unlikely, and banning cryptocurrencies outright is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a8733d681a4084e4ea7750776f7b865",
"text": "you dont need any permits or be inside the US to trade the exact same securities on US exchanges. you can literally move your bitcoin from a chinese exchange to us exchange in seconds. i don't see how you can possibly run into legal issues if anyone from outside the country can trade bitcoins on an exchange inside the country without any permit. a lot of these exchanges dont ask for ID or social security number anyways. none of it is government regulated. also trading anything is never a passive income. theres no such thing as an easy or obvious investment. there are always risks- and the actual risk is often deceivingly low",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b82e1c887e57becc9926c67a2e731720",
"text": "And directly from IRS notice 2014-21 FAQ: Q-1: How is virtual currency treated for federal tax purposes? A-1: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property. General tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency. Q-6: Does a taxpayer have gain or loss upon an exchange of virtual currency for other property? A-6: Yes. If the fair market value of property received in exchange for virtual currency exceeds the taxpayer’s adjusted basis of the virtual currency, the taxpayer has taxable gain. The taxpayer has a loss if the fair market value of the property received is less than the adjusted basis of the virtual currency.… Q-8: Does a taxpayer who “mines” virtual currency (for example, uses computer resources to validate Bitcoin transactions and maintain the public Bitcoin transaction ledger) realize gross income upon receipt of the virtual currency resulting from those activities? A-8: Yes, when a taxpayer successfully “mines” virtual currency, the fair market value of the virtual currency as of the date of receipt is includible in gross income. See Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income, for more information on taxable income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d68b02956c1463e5ab11e1d4619687b",
"text": "Any thoughts? I would love to hear your feedback. I have been making more on my cryptocurrency investments than I have in trading options. I am falling more and more in love with the cryptocurrency market. There's is nothing like it out there. I tell people, it's like investing in the internet 17 years ago!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a0c34a974fc83ec220c2e820d5825cc",
"text": "What kind of retirement money? 401k? Withdraw it, take the tax hit, buy Bitcoin. Done. I know one person that has sold their nice, paid off car back to the dealer, used the cash to buy bitcoin, and then taken out a loan on a used beater for 5 years. they still have a car to get around in and a positive indication that bitcoin will value more than the interest they are paying on the loan. IMO, that's much safer than putting sheltered money into it. although, it would be hard to get evidence of capital gains on any bitcoin profits 5 years from now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f3aa8fd0a6ba5aa0a4e2c3c5d10e7c2",
"text": "Any profits you realize are considered a long term capital gain by the IRS since you have held the asset for longer than a year. The IRS guidance on virtual currency considers bitcoins to be a form of personal property. Gains from selling bitcoins are considered a capital gain. See the IRS guidance on reporting capital gains (Schedule D).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a2a4ad5fa2be3994552ddc2dd2da1e6",
"text": "\"Well I disagree with the economists who claim Bitcoin can't (or wouldn't) be a currency. As far as I'm concerned, Bitcoin is the best-established digital \"\"unit of account\"\", and in the event of a Dollar/Euro crisis you are likely to see some entrepreneurs figure out ways to speed its adoption. I don't own any Bitcoin now, and I wouldn't put more than 15% of my total portfolio in it, simply because it's not possible to predict if something like that would catch on. But I own a ton of silver (about 20% of which is physical and the other 80% is via Sprott's ETF). I also don't own physical gold, but I own a lot of Swiss Francs, which in my view are a good proxy for gold and a safe haven given the fact Switzerland owns so much gold-per-capita. You get the benefits of gold AND a captive, skilled tax-livestock. Soros indicated recently he thinks the Euro won't last much longer than a few months. I'm always amazed by how the elite can push things off, though. So I hold about 50% of my savings as cash USD. In the event of market turmoil (you'll know it when you see it, like 2008) you can use this to scoop up some cheap stocks and gold/silver coins. Don't beat yourself up over missing opportunities, though. The main thing is just to steer clear of government bonds and the stock market. If you do that, you're going to come out in the top 20% over the next few years.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "544eb1bcffeaaacdcebfcc13687c3d13",
"text": "I used to trade on Nasdaq using a US broker from the UK, you need a way to convert your money into US $s and have the cost of international money transfers. I don’t know if there are any laws in Turkey that will stop you using a US broker. You are also on your own if anything goes wrong, as the Turkish police will not be interested, and the US police will be very hard to deal with from Turkey. This all depends on Turkey not unplugging the internet on the day you wish to trade on!!! (I used tdameritrade, but it was a VERY long timer ago, as UK brokers are now as cheap, you should also consider UK based brokers as they will also let you trade outside of the USA.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd6817e4cdc5230ba683aa08909bea15",
"text": "I would certainly hope to make the transfer by wire - the prospect of popping cross the border with several million dollars in the trunk seems... ill fated. I suppose I'm asking what sort of taxes, duties, fees, limits, &c. would apply Taxes - None. It is your money, and you can transfer it as you wish. You pay taxes on the income, not on the fact of having money. Reporting - yes, there's going to be reporting. You'll report the origin of the money, and whether all the applicable taxes have been paid. This is for the government to avoid money laundering. But you're going to pay all the taxes, so for transfer - you'll just need to report (and maybe, for such an amount, actually show the tax returns to the bank). Fees - shop around. Fees differ, like any other product/service costs on the marketplace.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8cfc4bcf3a436ab0da9f2e1c49bf3f7",
"text": "It's safe in the sense that there is no counter party risk involved when holding bitcoins but it is still too early to call it a safe haven. However it could become very useful if strict capital controls are enforced around Europe.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d50c7fdfce08325fca77e8f189c16e91",
"text": "It's important to note that the US is also the country that taxes its expats when they live abroad, and forces foreign banks to disclose assets of US citizens. Americans are literally the property of their government. America is a tax farm and its citizens can't leave the farm. Wherever you go, you are owned. And that now appears to be true of your Bitcoin as well. Even if you spend 50 years outside the USA, your masters want a piece of what you earn. Land of the Free.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af3575f1faff6c617daffd493faa8815",
"text": "Lets look at possible use cases: If you ever converted your cryptocurrency to cash on a foreign exchange, then **YES** you had to report. That means if you ever daytraded and the US dollar (or other fiat) amount was $10,000 or greater when you went out of crypto, then you need to report. Because the regulations stipulate you need to report over $10,000 at any point in the year. If you DID NOT convert your cryptocurrency to cash, and only had them on an exchange's servers, perhaps traded for other cryptocurrency pairs, then NO this did not fall under the regulations. Example, In 2013 I wanted to cash out of a cryptocurrency that didn't have a USD market in the United States, but I didn't want to go to cash on a foreign exchange specifically for this reason (amongst others). So I sold my Litecoin on BTC-E (Slovakia) for Bitcoin, and then I sold the Bitcoin on Coinbase (USA). (even though BTC-E had a Litecoin/USD market, and then I could day trade the swings easily to make more capital gains, but I wanted cash in my bank account AND didn't want the reporting overhead). Read the regulations yourself. Financial instruments that are reportable: Cash (fiat), securities, futures and options. Also, http://www.bna.com/irs-no-bitcoin-n17179891056/ whether it is just in the blockchain or on a server, IRS and FINCEN said bitcoin is not reportable on FBAR. When they update their guidance, it'll be in the news. The director of FinCEN is very active in cryptocurrency developments and guidance. Bitcoin has been around for six years, it isn't that esoteric and the government isn't that confused on what it is (IRS and FinCEN's hands are tied by Congress in how to more realistically categorize cryptocurrency) Although at this point in time, there are several very liquid exchanges within the United States, such as the one NYSE/ICE hosts (Coinbase).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82a1de33a2e64a523ba56e8e1b2a00b7",
"text": "It is absolutely legal. While studying on a F-1 you would typically be considered a non-resident alien for tax purposes. You can trade stocks, just like any other foreigner having an account with a US- or non-US based brokerage firm. Make sure to account for profit made on dividends/capital gain when doing your US taxes. A software package provided by your university for doing taxes might not be adequate for this.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
183c2430735b24c2a3decd1f92c0d3c3
|
Why does HMRC still require “payment on account” after I have moved to PAYE?
|
[
{
"docid": "ca75b97e085b17ef6c1513cfadd48375",
"text": "The Government self-assessment website states you can ask HMRC to reduce your payments on account if your business profits or other income goes down, and you know your tax bill is going to be lower than last year. There are two ways to do this:",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "be55d01ea3210d4e85ba15cac77c8570",
"text": "However, if you are employed by a company that exists in a tax haven and your services are provided to an employer by that tax haven company, it is the tax haven company that gets paid, not you. Under various schemes that company need not pay you at all. For example it may make you a loan which is not taxed (ie you don't pay tax on a loan, just as you don't pay tax on the money lent you by a mortgage company). You are bound by the terms of the loan agreement to repay that loan at a rate that the company finds acceptable. Indeed the company may find eventually that it is simply convenient to write off the loan as unrecoverable. if the owners/officers of he company write off your loans, how much tax will you have paid on the money you have had as loans? The taxman can of course state that this was simply set up to avoid tax (which is illegal) so you should have a balancing scheme to show that that the loans were taken to supplement income,just as one might take a bank loan / mortgage, not replace it entirely as a tax scam. Hiring tax counsel to provide this adequate proof to HMRC has a price. Frequently this kind of loophole exists because the number of people using it were sufficiently low not to warrant policing ( if the policing costs more than the tax recovered, then it is more efficient to ignore it) or because at some stage the scheme has been perfectly legal (as in the old offshore'education' trust recommended by the government a few decades ago). When Gordon Brown set out a 75% tax rate (for his possibly ideological reasons rather than financially based ones)for those who had these accounts , he encountered opposition from MPs who were going to be caught up paying high tax bills for what was effctively retrospective taxation, so there was a built in 'loophole' to allow the funds to be returned without undue penalty. If you think that is morally wrong, consider what the response would be if a future Chancellor was to declare all IAs the work of the devil and claim that retrospective tax would need to be paid on all ISA transactions over the last few decades.eg: tot up all the dividends and capital gains made on an ISA in any year and pay 40% tax on all of them, even if that took the ISA into negative territory because the value today was low/ underperfoming. Yet this has been sggested as a way of filling in the hole in the budget on the grounds that anyone with an ISA can be represented as 'rich' to a selected party of voters.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32a6b9eaa31b2a8e86c71e2ed7133cc1",
"text": "I think there are actually two separate questions here. Will Provider A allow me to transfer only part of an ISA product to Provider B while keeping the other part in Provider A. Only Provider A can answer this. Will HMRC rules allow me to keep making payments to the part that remained in Provider A. I don't have a definitive source for this, but in my experience where the ISA rules have been unclear about particular edge cases and I have asked HMRC similar questions directly, their answer has always been that they will look at the situation in the round at the end of the tax year (they get summaries from the providers) and as long as you haven't attempted to double-benefit or otherwise get around the limits, they won't have an issue with it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1b56254525ee1a4d3bd61ecf5a539da",
"text": "Before answering specific question, you are liable to pay tax as per your bracket on the income generated. I work with my partner and currently we transfer all earning on my personal bank account. Can this create any issue for me? If you are paying your partner from your account, you would need to maintain proper paperwork to show the portion of money transferred is not income to you. Alternatively create a join Current Account. Move funds there and then move it to your respective accounts. Which sort off account should be talk and by whose name? Can be any account [Savings/Current]. If you are doing more withdrawls open Current else open Savings. It does not matter on whos name the account is. Paperwork to show income matters from tax point of view. What should we take care while transfering money from freelance site to bank? Nothing specific Is there any other alternative to bank? There is paypal etc. However ultimately it flows into a Bank Account. What are other things to be kept in mind? Keep proper record of actual income of each of you, along with expenses. There are certain expenses you can claim from income, for example laptop, internet, mobile phone etc. Consult a CA he will be able to guide and it does not cost much.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac80072286cd31d25fe9a0ed9e3045ee",
"text": "When you do your tax return, your total income from the year from all sources is added up. So you will need to include your employment income as well as your contractor income. Any tax taken off at source through PAYE will then be deducted from how there is to pay. So whether you pay the tax or your employer pays it, it should end up the same, although the timing will differ. There will be differences in National Insurance treatment, and you don't necessarily have a free option to choose which happens - the nature of your relationship may mean you have to be classed as either employed or self-employed under HMRC rules.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "305d0bb481877f331240bc5ec2e0572e",
"text": "I love the flat rate VAT scheme. It's where you pay a percentage based on your industry. An example might be Computer repair services, where you'll pay 10.5% of your total revenue to the HMRC. But you'll be invoicing for VAT at 20% still. Would definitely recommend registering for it since you're expecting to cross the threshold anyway. And like DumbCoder said, you also get a first year discount of 1%, so in the example above, you'd end up paying 9.5% VAT on your turnover. I personally found it a pain to invoice without VAT (my clients expected it), so registering made sense regardless of the fact I was over threshold. The tricky bit is keeping under the £150k turnover so you stay eligible for the flat rate. It does get more complex otherwise.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3eb2be021982362d70ed7a5b1a30dcf6",
"text": "By earning money, I assume you are being paid a salary [and not allowance] in UK. For the Financial Year 2013-2014: You are still a tax resident in India. India taxes Global income. Hence your salary from 4th Feb to 31st March, needs to be declared as Income. The tax will be at your total tax brackets. India does have a Double Tax Avoidance Treaty [DTAA] with UK, so you can deduct any taxes you paid on this income and pay balance in India. Please note that it is not relevant whether you transfer money to India or keep in UK, it does not change the taxability. For the financial Year 2014-2015: Depending on the exact date, you may or may not be a NRI [away for more than 182 days] for tax purposes. If you are an NRI there no tax, else as above para.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8f019a27ed05f78e83063182b5f864b",
"text": "In Addition to @JoeTaxpayer's answer, in the UK credit cards offer additional protection than if you were to pay by debit card. This includes (but is not limited to) getting your money back if the company you've bought something from goes bust before your order is complete.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b37851cc5fb0bc5aee4673672fc4735",
"text": "\"To add in a brief expansion to Portman's complete answer. The payment can also be thought of as compensation for your \"\"switching cost\"\". Obviously it is inconvenient to transfer your account from one bank to another (changing static payments, stationery, that sort of thing). The cash is offered as payment towards that inconvenience. Given the profits that banks make you can think of the $100 in much the same way as a store offering you a 5% discount on your next shopping trip.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24dc4877cb805249a4eae606cff85213",
"text": "\"Yes. You do have to pay taxes in the UK as well but it depends on how much you have already been taxed in the US. http://taxaid.org.uk/situations/migrant-workernew-to-the-uk/income-from-abroad-arising-basis-vs-remittance-basis Say, you have to pay 20% tax in the UK for your earnings here. You ARE required to pay the same percentage on your foreign income as well. Now, if your \"\"home\"\" country already taxed you at 10% (for the sake of example), then you only need to pay the \"\"remaining\"\" 10% in the UK. However, the tax law in the UK does allow you to choose between \"\"arising\"\" basis and \"\"remittance\"\" basis on your income from the country you are domiciled in. What I have explained above is based on when income \"\"arises.\"\" But the laws are complicated, and you are almost always better off by paying it on \"\"arising\"\" basis.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d9bce594dab33b0ff1365b4775ec48f",
"text": "Regardless of UK Money Laundering Laws - All companies have a responsibility under the Data Protection Act to ensure that all data kept is necessary and accurate - and so they can actually ask you to send up-to-date information* in any time period that they deem reasonable to ensure they are compliant with the act. That being said, most payment systems these days are automated and use algorithms to try and find suspicious activity. Using multiple accounts will definitely be a red flag here, unfortunately, the advice to use your previous account will just be seen as yet another account switch by these algorithms and will probably look even more suspicious. The main thing to remember is that ultimately these acts and regulations are there to protect you and your investment, so unless you have any suspicious that you're being asked for documents by a company or individual that you don't trust I would simply send them on and let them do their job. As a side note - make sure you send anything of that nature in a recorded delivery so that you know exactly who handled it and when! * So long as the information is necessary.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bae6e8d76b98b2ba96a5520be36c2c8f",
"text": "I believe moving reimbursement has to be counted as income no matter when you get it. I'd just put it under miscellaneous income with an explanation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f705f1eb2aeeb97dadbb0ee795a4f29",
"text": "No, as a director normally you can't. As a director of a Limited company, all those payments should be accounted for as directors' remuneration and have been subject to PAYE and NIC, even if you are self-employed. Currently there is no legislation which prevents a director from receiving self-employment income from a company in which he is a director, however the default position of HMRC's is that all the payments derived from the directorship are subject to PAYE. In other words, it's possible only invoice from an unconnected business or in a consultancy role that's not directly related to the trade of business. But it really depends on the circumstances and the contracts in place. Sources: Monsoon at AAT forum, David Griffiths at UKBF, Paula Sparrow and Abutalib at AW More sources: If a person does other work that’s not related to being a director, they may have an employment contract and get employment rights. Source: Employment status as director at Gov.uk In principle, it is possible for an employee or office holder to tender for work with their employer outside their normal duties, in circumstances where that individual will not be providing service as an employee or office holder but as a self-employed contractor. Where there is any doubt about whether service is provided constitutes employment or self-employment, see the Employment Status Manual (ESM). Source: Section 62 ITEPA 2003 at HMRC",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aaaeb8c5539b9bdb86df3c8a98a12cf9",
"text": "As you're working, you and your spouse were probably born after 1935, so I'll assume that Marriage Allowance is relevant to you rather than Married Couple's Allowance. The allowance applies if your husband or wife earns less than the personal allowance in salary (£10,600/year), and less than £5,000/year in savings interest. For example it's likely this will apply if he or she's not working. Also, you need to be only a basic rate taxpayer, earning less than £42,385/year. In that case they can register online to transfer £1,060 of their personal allowance to you, which will reduce your tax bill by £212/year if you yourself earn more than £1,060 above the personal allowance. This will usually work by HMRC issuing a new tax code to your employer who will then automatically withhold less of your salary. You can't get your employer to do this directly, you have to go via HMRC. The allowance change will be effective as if from the start of the curren tax year in April 2015, so you will probably end up getting the proportion of the £212 that you could have had up till now (from April to August) back all at once in your next pay cheque, or possibly spread out over the rest of the tax year. Apart from that you'll get it spread out evenly over the year - i.e. about £17/month.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f4811e9f57f13e77060fd89a6104181",
"text": "This link might help determining if American Express is willing to offer a card in the UK. I did it the other way around when moving from the UK to the US and getting a US card was pretty painless; I also didn't have to close the UK card, although I'm probably going to do that fairly soon. You will need a UK bank account so your employer can pay you; If it is a big enough employer their HR department might have deals with a local bank; a smaller employer might simply be able to refer you to their bank to help you open an account there. My first bank account in the UK after moving over there from Germany was with HSBC (then Midland Bank) - HSBC seems to be pretty open towards customers moving to the UK. Plus, they're pretty much everywhere. If you're planning to come back to the US and especially if you have any US-based ongoing expenses, I'd keep at least one bank account in the US open (but keep an eye on it).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07387f98d8f5d6003a51cc409fc5a910",
"text": "You have to check your contract to be sure what is it you're paying for. Typically, you get some of the following features which can be unavailable to you in banks which don't charge a monthly fee: Arguably, these expenses could be paid by the interest rates your money earn to the bank. Notice how banks which don't charge a fee usually require you to have a minimum amount of cash in your account or a minimum monthly cash flow. When you pay for your bank's services in cash, there's no such restrictions. I'm not sure if typical banks in the UK would take away your credit card if you lose your job and don't qualify for that kind of card any more, but I do know banks who would. The choice is yours, and while it's indeed sad that you don't have this kind of choice in Canada, it's also not like you're paying solely for the privilege of letting them invest your money behind your back.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fec591b3b1a5709c27e09a61e916a890
|
High dividend stocks
|
[
{
"docid": "951b9b0fce84b385eb005e407056b51a",
"text": "Like almost all investing question: it depends! Boring companies generally appreciate slowly and as you note, pay dividends. More speculative investing can get you some capital gains, but also are more likely to tank and have you lose your original investment. The longer your time horizon, and the more risk you are willing to take, then it is reasonable to tilt towards, but not exclusively invest in, more speculative stocks. A shorter horizon, or if you have trouble sleeping at night if you lose money, or are looking for an income stream, would then tend towards the boring side. Good Luck",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ce312654651c17ef797718657bfc4f8",
"text": "\"Future tax increases on dividends are likely. The Wall Street Journal says. \"\"The millions of Americans who receive dividend income ... need to begin adjusting their investment strategy accordingly.\"\" (ref) \"\"Last week the Senate Budget Committee passed a fiscal 2011 budget resolution that includes an increase in the top tax rate on dividends to 39.6% from the current 15%—a 164% increase.\"\" ... \"\"You can expect fewer businesses either to offer or increase dividend payouts.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34dd146d5dc37e1b2ec68b29106277b3",
"text": "You might want to look up Dividend Yield Trap. Many stocks with high dividend yields got that way not because they decided to increase their dividend, but because their prices have dropped. Usually the company is not in good shape and will reduce their dividend, and you're stuck with a low-yield stock which has also decreased in price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "472d859ac9e683dca392918550d040e1",
"text": "I had read a book about finance, and it had mentioned that you can gain big profits from investing in the best companies in the most boring markets, like the funeral business for example. These markets are slow growing, but the companies pay a good dividend. Many books recommend investing in dividends because of the compound growth and stable income. Remember that at the end of the day, you should put the same amount of research into buying a stock as you would buying the entire company. With that being said, you may find a great company that may or may not offer dividends, but it should not be of great significance since you feel you are buying into a great company at a fair price. Though dividend growth is a great tool to use to see if a company is doing well.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "743d2e65a512c9a50e965e0a1b4a80f0",
"text": "\"Dividends telegraph that management has a longer term focus than just the end of quarter share price. There is a committment to at least maintain (if not periodically increase) the dividend payout year over year. Management understands that cutting or pausing dividends will cause dividend investors in market to dump shares driving down the stock price. Dividends can have preferential tax treatment in some jurisdictions, either for an individual compared to capital gains or compared to the corporation paying taxes themselves. For example, REITs (real estate investment trusts) are a type of corporation that in order to not pay corporate income tax are required to pay out 95% of income as dividends each year. These are not the only type, MLP (master limited partnerships) and other \"\"Partnership\"\" structures will always have high dividend rates by design. Dividends provide cash flow and trade market volatility for actual cash. Not every investor needs cash flow, but for certain investors, it reduces the risks of a liquidity crisis, such as in retirement. The alternative for an investor who seeks to use the sale of shares would be to maintain a sufficient cash reserve for typical market recessions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b1f115f7e7215d23a3d4e254c803a6e",
"text": "\"The short answer is that it depends on the industry. In other words, margin alone - even in comparison to peers - will not be a sufficient index to track company success. I'll mention Apple quickly as a special case that has managed to charge a premium margin for a mass-market product. Few companies can achieve this. As with all investment analysis, you need to have a very clear understanding of the industry (i.e. what is \"\"normal\"\" for debt/equity/gearing/margin/cash-on-hand) as well as of the barriers-to-entry which competitors face. A higher-than-normal margin may swiftly be undermined by competitors (Apple aside). Any company offering perpetual above-the-odds returns may just be a Ponzi scheme (Bernie Maddof, etc.). More important than high-margins or high-profits over some short-term track is consistency of approach, an ability to whether adverse cyclical events, and deep investment in continuity (i.e. the entire company doesn't come to a grinding halt when a crucial staff-member retires).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c504887992c7acc59ad707ecd200e98",
"text": "I use the following method. For each stock I hold long term, I have an individual table which records dates, purchases, sales, returns of cash, dividends, and way at the bottom, current value of the holding. Since I am not taking the income, and reinvesting across the portfolio, and XIRR won't take that into account, I build an additional column where I 'gross up' the future value up to today() of that dividend by the portfolio average yield at the date the dividend is received. The grossing up formula is divi*(1+portfolio average return%)^((today-dividend date-suitable delay to reinvest)/365.25) This is equivalent to a complex XMIRR computation but much simpler, and produces very accurate views of return. The 'weighted combined' XIRR calculated across all holdings then agrees very nearly with the overall portfolio XIRR. I have done this for very along time. TR1933 Yes, 1933 is my year of birth and still re investing divis!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1ea51f3ed86b6d3207389c9309adb06",
"text": "Your cons say it all. I would not be buying stocks based soley on a high dividend yield. In fact companies with very high dividend yields tend to do poorer than companies investing at least part of their earnings back into the company. Make sure at least that the company's earnings is more than the dividend yield being offered.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "709d76dc519d425b8b5da7e48547fd43",
"text": "\"Dividend yields can also reflect important information about the company's status. For example, a company that has never lowered or stopped paying dividends is a \"\"strong\"\" company because it has the cash/earnings power to maintain its dividend regardless of the market. Ideally, a company should pay dividends for at least 10 years for an investor to consider the company as a \"\"consistent payer.\"\" Furthermore, when a company pays dividend, it generally means that it has more cash than it can profitably reinvest in the business, so companies that pay dividends tend to be older but more stable. An important exception is REIT's and their ilk - to avoid taxation, these types of funds must distribute 90% of their earnings to their shareholders, so they pay very high dividends. Just look at stocks like NLY or CMO to get an idea. The issue here, however, is two fold: So a high dividend can be great [if it has been paid consistently] or risky [if the company is new or has a short payment history], and dividends can also tell us about what the company's status is. Lastly, taxation on dividend income is higher than taxation on capital gains, but by reinvesting dividends you can avoid this tax and lower your potential capital gain amount, thus limiting taxes. http://www.tweedy.com/resources/library_docs/papers/highdiv_research.pdf is an excellent paper on dividend yields and investing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28fd1acdbc2eb2164ba1402e0d88a13a",
"text": "There are dividend newsletters that aggregate dividend information for interested investors. Other than specialized publications, the best sources for info are, in my opinion:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1af8f838d7041ba6c1066ea564d306ff",
"text": "\"In the case of mutual funds, Net Asset Value (NAV) is the price used to buy and sell shares. NAV is just the value of the underlying assets (which are in turn valued by their underlying holdings and future earnings). So if a fund hands out a billion dollars, it stands to reason their NAV*shares (market cap?) is a billion dollars less. Shareholder's net worth is equal in either scenario, but after the dividend is paid they are more liquid. For people who need investment income to live on, dividends are a cheap way to hold stocks and get regular payments, versus having to sell part of your portfolio every month. But for people who want to hold their investment in the market for a long long time, dividends only increase the rate at which you have to buy. For mutual funds this isn't a problem: you buy the funds and tell them to reinvest for free. So because of that, it's a prohibited practice to \"\"sell\"\" dividends to clients.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee000eda9fda8d9a922a0c33865f3118",
"text": "There can be the question of what objective do you have for buying the stock. If you want an income stream, then high yield stocks may be a way to get dividends without having additional transactions to sell shares while others may want capital appreciation and are willing to go without dividends to get this. You do realize that both Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are companies that the total stock value is over $100 billion yes? Thus, neither is what I'd see as a growth stock as these are giant companies that would require rather large sales to drive earnings growth though it may be interesting to see what kind of growth is expected for these companies. In looking at current dividends, one is paying 3% and the other 5% so I'm not sure either would be what I'd see as high yield. REITs would be more likely to have high dividends given their structure if you want something to research a bit more.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c4b1904fafa3ab88a40e26f539a6fc4",
"text": "\"Yes, they are, and you've experienced why. Generally speaking, stocks that pay dividends will be better investments than stocks that don't. Here's why: 1) They're actually making money. They can finagle balance sheets and news releases, but cash is cash, it tells no lies. They can't fake it. 2) There's less good they can do with that money than they say. When a business you own is making money, they can do two things with it: reinvest it into the company, or hand it over to you. All companies must reinvest to some degree, but only a few companies worth owning can find profitable ways of reinvesting all of it. Having to hand you, the owner, some of the earnings helps keep that money from leaking away on such \"\"necessities\"\" like corporate jets, expensive printer paper, or ill-conceived corporate buyouts. 3) It helps you not freak out. Markets go up, and markets go down. If you own a good company that's giving you a nice check every three months, it's a lot easier to not panic sell in a downturn. After all, they're handing you a nice check every three months, and checks are cash, and cash tells no lies. You know they're still a good company, and you can ride it out. 4) It helps others not freak out. See #3. That applies to everyone. That, in turn means market downturns weigh less heavily on companies paying solid dividends than on those that do not. 5) It gives you some of the reward of investing in good companies, without having to sell those companies. If you've got a piece of a good, solid, profitable, growing company, why on earth would you want to sell it? But you'd like to see some rewards from making that wise investment, wouldn't you? 6) Dividends can grow. Solid, growing companies produce more and more earnings. Which means they can hand you more and more cash via the dividend. Which means that if, say, they reliably raise dividends 10%/year, that measly 3% dividend turns into a 6% dividend seven years later (on your initial investment). At year 14, it's 12%. Year 21, 24%. See where this is going? Companies like that do exist, google \"\"Dividend Aristocrats\"\". 7) Dividends make growth less important. If you owned a company that paid you a 10% dividend every year, but never grew an inch, would you care? How about 5%, and it grows only slowly? You invest in companies, not dividends. You invest in companies to make money. Dividends are a useful tool when you invest -- to gauge company value, to smooth your ride, and to give you some of the profit of the business you own. They are, however, only part of the total return from investing -- as you found out.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d24cb9f4769b32ce990e3c75882230d5",
"text": "The highest growth for an investment has historically been in stocks. Investing in mature companies that offer dividends is great for you since it is compound growth. Many oil and gas companies provide dividends.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7073c8abdac940794381ca8c2ea69bbd",
"text": "You are comparing apples and oranges: the charts show the capital appreciation excluding dividends. If you include dividends and calculate a total return over that period you see VSMAX up 132% vs. FSEVX up 129%, i.e. quite close. That residual difference is possibly due to a performance difference between the two benchmarks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1e0b52faea7370ea2b0a4b35a7a7269",
"text": "Investopedia has a good definition. Stock dividends are similar to cash dividends; however, instead of cash, a company pays out stock. Stock splits occur when a company perceives that its stock price may be too high. Stock splits are usually done to increase the liquidity of the stock (more shares outstanding) and to make it more affordable for investors to buy regular lots (a regular lot = 100 shares).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e144e276962b576070defb6e72a120e",
"text": "If you don't have a good knowledge of finance, maybe you should not put too much money in individual stocks. But if you really want to invest, you can just compare the rate of return of the most known stocks available to you (like the one from the S&P for the US). The rate of return is very simple to compute, it's 100*dividend/share price. For example a company with a current share price of 50.12 USD that delivered a dividend of 1.26 USD last year would have a rate of return of 100 * 1.26/50.12= 2.51% Now if you only invest in the most known stocks, since they are already covered by nearly all financial institutions and analysts: If you are looking for lower risk dividend companies, take a sample of companies and invest those with the lowest rates of return (but avoid extreme values). Of course since the stock prices are changing all the time, you have to compare them with a price taken at the same time (like the closing price of a specific day) and for the dividend, they can be on several basis (yearly, quartely, etc..) so you have to be sure to take the same basis. You can also find the P/E ratio which is the opposite indicator (= share price/dividend) so an higher P/E ratio means a lower risk. Most of the time you can find the P/E ratio or the rate of return already computed on specialized website or brokers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21b0a09f26272db9528e08a4a7e3437a",
"text": "\"This has been answered countless times before: One example you may want to look at is DGRO. It is an iShares ETF that many discount brokers trade for free. This ETF: offers \"\"exposure to U.S. stocks focused on dividend growth\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "012503b8167ce91b6e004e7ff6370191",
"text": "IBM is famous for spending lots of money on stock buyback to keep the stock price higher. The technique works, and investors in growth stocks generally prefer a high market prices to a taxable dividend payment. Dividends are ways to return shareholder value when a company generates a lot of cash, but doesn't have alot of growth. Electric and gas companies are a classic example of high-dividend companies.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
81006808cac45a2116851796cdef44ee
|
What happens to bank account of non-resident alien who falls out of status?
|
[
{
"docid": "fe5cc026007dcec1e20591574cf671a4",
"text": "Nothing happens. A bank is a business; your relationship with the bank doesn't change because your visa or immigration status changes. Money held in the account is still held in the account. Interest paid on the account is still taxable. And so on. If the account is inactive long enough, abandoned account rules may apply, but that still has nothing to do with your status.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b61a88cbf1aeceb13ce3eab226c8f96f",
"text": "Is there any chance of losing money in the account Assuming you are a Singapore citizen. The money is your's to claim. Note the account may go dormant [if you do not transact for a period] as per Bank's norms and they may charge a fees for such accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "194a463e003ad34bcefb85ba8217cd32",
"text": "While Rocky's answer is correct in the big picture there is another factor here to keep in mind: The disruption while you're waiting to resolve it. If a fraudster gets your card and drains your account you'll get your money back--but there will be a period while they are investigating that it won't be available. For this reason I avoid debit card transactions and only use credit cards. If the fraudster gets your credit card you might lose access while they investigate but you don't lose access to your bank account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65d0e65fc15b89d957ea8f4aacf84849",
"text": "Brokerages are supposed to keep your money separate from theirs. So, even if they fail as a company, your money and investments are still there, and can be transferred to another brokerage. It doesn't matter if it's an IRA or taxable account. Of course, as is the case with MF Global, if illegally take their client's money (i.e., steal), it may be a different story. In such cases, SIPC covers up to $500K, of which $250K can be cash, as JoeTaxpayer said. You may be interested in the following news item from the SEC. It's about some proposed changes, but to frame the proposal they lay out the way it is now: http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-128.htm The most relevant quote: The Customer Protection Rule (Rule 15c3-3). This SEC rule requires a broker-dealer to segregate customer securities and cash from the firm’s proprietary business activities. If the broker-dealer fails, these customer assets should be readily available to be returned to customers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bc0ca2a3f1be2d286c1a259a8c7fbdc",
"text": "In the Anti-Money Laundering World ( AML) , structuring consists of the division ( breaking up) of cash transactions, deposits and withdrawals, with the intent to avoid the Currency Transaction Reporting ( CTR) filings. In your case the issue is not structuring but the fact that you have another person ( unknown to the bank) depositing cash , event if it is above the CTR threshold, for you to withdraw later . The entire scenario raises a lot of questions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd457dc2775f548272da666b546bbfaf",
"text": "Unless you started a bank or other kind of a financial institution (brokerage, merchant processor, etc etc), the page you linked to is irrelevant. That said, there's enough in the US tax code for you to reconsider your decision of not living in the US, or at least of being a shareholder of a foreign company. Your compliance costs are going to go through the roof. If you haven't broken any US tax laws yet (which is very unlikely), you may renounce your citizenship and save yourself a lot of money and trouble. But in the more likely case of you already being a criminal with regards the US tax law, you should probably get a proper tax advice from a US-licensed CPA/EA who's also proficient in the Japanese-American tax treaty and expats' compliance issues resolution.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f08d986de2aaa15c7f2b328d67a897e",
"text": "The main concern I'd have is that something will happen to the account while it's unattended. While you may not have any money in it to risk, you could have a fraudulent check written against it that causes you to incur NSF fees. Your bank also might change its no-fee policy (I assume these are no-fee accounts, or there's an obvious drawback). If it does, it's possible you might not notice, and again then the fee might be assessed, overdrawing you and causing additional NSF fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bb072e755ce59b9c53a54cf0cfeffd8",
"text": "\"Transferring the money or keeping it in US does has no effect on taxes. Your residency status has. Assuming you are Resident Alien in US for tax purpose and have paid the taxes to IRS and you are \"\"Non-Resident\"\" Indian for tax purposes in India as you are more than 182 outside India. How would it effect my Tax in US and India If you are \"\"Non-Resident\"\" in India for tax purposes, there is no tax liability of this in India. I have transferred an amount of approx 15-20k$ to Indian Account (not NRE) By RBI regulation, if you are \"\"Non-Resident\"\" then you should get your savings account converted to \"\"NRO\"\". You may not may not choose to open an NRE account. To keep the paper work clear it helps that you open an NRE account in India. Any investment needed ? Where do i need to declare if any ? These are not relevant. Note any income generated in India, i.e. interest in Savings account / FDs / Rent etc; taxes need to be paid in India and declared in US and taxes paid in US as well. There is some relief under DTAA. There are quite a few question on this site that will help you clarify what needs to be done.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b99725932ea29bc40671448a4319ab71",
"text": "IANAL, I am married to someone in your situation. As a US citizen age 26 who has not had any contact with the IRS, you should most definitely be worried... As a US citizen, you are (and always have been) required to file a US tax return and pay any tax on all income, no matter where earned, and no matter where you reside. There are often (but not always) agreements between governments to reduce double taxation. The US rule as to whether a particular type of income is taxable will prevail. As a US citizen with financial accounts (chequing, saving, investment, etc.) above a minimum balance, abroad, you are required to report information, including the amounts in the account, to the US government annually (Look up FBAR). Failure to file these forms carries harsh penalties. A recent law (FATCA) requires foreign financial institutions to report information on their US citizen clients to the US, irrespective of any local banking privacy laws. It's possible that your application triggered these reporting requirements. You will not be allowed to renounce your US citizenship until you have paid all past US taxes and penalties. Good new: you are eligible in ten years or so to run for President. Don't believe any of this, or that nothing has been missed; you must consult with a local tax expert specializing in US/UK tax laws.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "592c4f7af5ca9919a189b5bcb67d9cdf",
"text": "If you are a citizen of India and working in Germany, then you are most likely an NRI (NonResident Indian). If so, you are not entitled to hold an ordinary Indian bank account, and all such existing accounts must be converted to NRO (NonResident Ordinary) accounts. If your Indian bank knows about NRO accounts, then it will be eager to assist you in the process of converting your existing accounts to NRO accounts most likely it also offers a money remittance scheme (names like Remit2India or Money2India) which will take Euros from your EU bank account and deposit INR into your NRO account. Or, you can create an NRE (NonResident External) account to receive remittances from outside India. The difference is that interest earned in an NRO account is taxable income to you in India (and subject to TDS, tax deduction at source) while interest earned in an NRE account is not taxable in India. The remittance process takes a while to set up, but once in place, most remittances take 5 to 6 business days to complete.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8364441010f6737d8fc4c32e0f598d57",
"text": "The United States taxes nonresident aliens on two types of income: First, a nonresident alien who is engaged in a trade or business in the United States is taxed on income that is effectively connected with that trade or business. Second, certain types of U.S.-source payments are subject to income tax withholding. The determination of when a nonresident alien is engaged in a U.S. trade or business is highly fact-specific and complex. However, keeping assets in a U.S. bank account should not be treated as a U.S. trade or business. A nonresident alien's interest income is generally subject to U.S. federal income tax withholding at a rate of 30 percent under Section 1441 of the tax code. Interest on bank deposits, however, benefit from an exception under Section 1441(c)(10), so long as that interest is not effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business. Even though no tax needs to be withheld on interest on a bank deposit, the bank should still report that interest each year to the IRS on Form 1042-S. The IRS can then send that information to the tax authority in Brazil. Please keep in mind that state and local tax rules are all different, and whether interest on the bank deposits is subject to state or local tax will depend on which state the bank is in. Also, the United States does tax nonresident aliens on wages paid from a U.S. company, if those wages are treated as U.S.-source income. Generally, wages are U.S.-source income if the employee provides services while physically present in the United States. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but they depend on the amount of wages and other factors that are specific to the employee's situation. This is an area where you should really consult with a U.S. tax advisor before the employment starts. Maybe your company will pay for it?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55e1c42d3362ce650c8aaf0c4e60e668",
"text": "\"The IRS gets notified when you: (Note this is not a comprehensive list) As littadv mentioned, banks are required to send a CTR for any transactions over $10,000. They also are obligated to file a SAR (Suspicious Activity Report) for transactions deemed \"\"suspicious\"\" by bank policy. These filings are primarily for law enforcement purposes. The IRS may or may not have access to this information. The IRS isn't all-seeing or all-knowing. But -- In the event of an audit, checks do provide a paper trail documenting the origins of your deposits. So if you fail to report income from an \"\"off the books\"\" job, or do not fully report self-employment income, deposit records could be used against you. You are particularly vulnerable to this if you are in a profession where \"\"off the books\"\" transactions are routine -- plumbers, auto repair, vending machines, etc. At the end of the day, give Caesar his due, and you'll have alot less to worry about.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9021ee044ffe953dad127d98ff65fa9e",
"text": "\"I don't think it would be counted as income, and if it's a short-term loan it doesn't really matter as the notional interest on the loan would be negligible. But you can avoid any possible complications by just having two accounts in the name of the person trying to get the account benefits, particularly if you're willing to just provide the \"\"seed\"\" money to get the loop started.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb125c96f620e4c9f504cb2ff32448c2",
"text": "\"Be mindful of your reporting requirements. Besides checking the box on Schedule B of your 1040 that you have a foreign bank account, you also need to file a TD F 90-22.1 FBAR report for any year that the total of all foreign bank accounts reaches a value of $10,000 at any time during the year. This is filed separately from your 1040 by June 30 of the following year. Penalties for violating this reporting requirement are draconian, in some cases exceeding the amount of money in the foreign bank account. This penalty has been levied on people who have been reporting and paying tax on the interest on their foreign bank accounts, and merely neglected this separate report filing. Article on the \"\"shoot the jaywalker\"\" punitive enforcement policy. http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/006866.php Mariette IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law. EDITED TO ADD\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "787ae81a2e565ab1184f5ab004479841",
"text": "\"I assume you are filing US taxes because you are a US citizen, resident alien, or other \"\"US person\"\". If you have a total of $10,000 or more in assets in non-US accounts, you are required to file FinCEN Form 114, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, also known as FBAR, to report those accounts. See Comparison of Form 8938 and FBAR Requirements. Note this refers to the total balance in the account (combined with any other accounts you may have); the amount you transferred this year is not relevant. Also note that the FBAR is filed separately from your income tax return (it does not go to the IRS), though if you have over $50,000 in offshore assets you may also have to file IRS Form 8938. Simply reporting those accounts does not necessarily mean you will owe extra taxes. Most US taxes are based on income, not assets. According to the page linked, the maximum penalty for a \"\"willful\"\" failure to report such accounts is a fine of $100,000 or 50% of the assets in question, whichever is greater, in addition to possible criminal sanctions. There may be other US filing requirements that I don't know about, so you may want to consult a tax professional. I do not know anything about your filing requirements under Indian law.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79f294f36463e93c64fe0b40f68bb3de",
"text": "\"If it is planned, then one can get a Bankers Check payable overseas; if destination is known. 1.) What will happen to the money? It will eventually go to Government as escheating. Unlcaimed.org can help you trace the funds and recover it. 2.) Will the banks close the accounts? 3.) After how much time will the banks close the accounts? Eventually Yes. If there is no activity [Note the definition of activity is different, A credit interest is not considered as activity, a authentic phone call / correspondence to change the address or any servicing request is considered activity] for a period of One year, the account is classified as \"\"Dormant\"\". Depending on state, after a period of 3-5 years, it would be inactive and the funds escheated. i.e. handed over to Government. 4.) Is there anything else to do? Any ideas? Before leaving? Try keeping it active by using internet banking or credit / debit cards linked to the account. These will be valid activities. 5.) Is there any way to send a relative to the US with any kind of paper of power, to unfreeze the accounts? 6.) The banks say they would need a power of attorney, but does that person actually need to be an attorney in the US, or can it simply be a relative WITH a paper (a paper that says power of attorney) or what is a power of attorney exactly, is it an actual attorney person, or just a paper? 7.) Is there any other way to unfreeze the accounts? Although I can confirm first hand; I think there would be an exception process if a person cannot travel to the Bank. It could even be that a person is in some remote state, not well etc and can't travel in person. I think if you are out of country, you could walk-in to an US embassy and provide / sign relevant documents there and get it attested. Although for different purpose, I know a Power of Attorney being created in other country and stamped / verified by US embassy and sent it over to US. This was almost a decade back. Not sure about it currently.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
01bebc0abfa30c0610d18e764eaefd87
|
Is there any truth to the saying '99% of the world's millionaires have become rich by doing real estate'?
|
[
{
"docid": "8dbf1e3859ea0f37d09621daca437b12",
"text": "\"I can name far more non-real estate millionaires than those who are. That statistic isn't only not valid, it's not even close. Update: The correct quote is \"\"90% of all Millionaires become so through owning Real Estate\"\" and it's attributed to Andrew Carnegie. Given that he was born in 1835, I can imagine that his statement was true at he time, but not today.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8b8662496d3ff734aa0b957108abe71",
"text": "\"This quote has it almost backwards. Thomas J. Stanley's recent book (he's one of the duo who researched and wrote about The Millionaire Next Door) claims that the top occupation of millionaires is \"\"business owner / self-employed\"\" (28%). \"\"Real estate investor\"\" is lumped in with \"\"other\"\" (9%), and if the ordering is correct in the list, it's no more than 2% of the total. (source)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d72d8ae713e16d5c9e86727c71e0c4b1",
"text": "78.84% of statistics are made up on the spot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b06fcb490c0ad1c25fd7df94477fd28",
"text": "Most millionaires became millionaires by being very frugal and living well below their means, all the time.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e0d5da798f1bcf302989d8b0d01cc12e",
"text": "\"Private equity firms have a unique structure: The general partners (GP's) of the firm create funds and manage the investments of those funds. Limited partners (LP's) contribute the capital to the funds, pay fees to the GP's, and then make money when the funds' assets grow. I believe the article is saying that ultra high net worth individuals participate in the real estate market by hiring someone to act as a general partner and manage the real estate assets. They and their friends contribute the cash and get shares in the resulting fund. Usually this GP/LP structure is used when the funds purchase or invest in private companies, which is why it is referred to as \"\"private equity structure,\"\" but the same structure can be used to purchase and manage pools of real estate or any other investment asset.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74a8f28c7eb659da142b94cda4f6a897",
"text": "Isn't that a deduction mostly used by the top 1%? There seem to be mostly 2 types of people, those who own many homes, And those that rent them... I always thought the mortgage interest deduction was used substantially more by the wealthy than the middle class... (Luxury homes also offer higher deductions right?)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8031cefc62322a4ac0c426c8089c9342",
"text": "If you could find a breakdown, I suspect that it would show not just that they are self employed but own their own company. There are many people that are self employed, many of them make a good living at it, but are not millionaires. My neighbour the plumber is a perfect example of this sort of self-employed and comfortable but not rich person. The key to wealth growth is to own (a significant part of) a company. It one way to leverage a smaller amount of money to something much larger. Plough your profits back in to the company to grow it, pay yourself reasonably for some time as the company grows. After it is some size, you can afford to pay yourself more of the profits, if not sell it as a going concern to someone else. One last thought - I am assuming that your book is claiming that they made their money through self-employment, instead of choosing to become self employed after striking rich somewhere. If I were to win the lottery, I might then become a self-employed something, but in that case it was not my self-employment that got me there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1649617dc85a5c9b69fe9840f4e87f17",
"text": "\"The crazy thing about this is that $30 million in annual salary and compensation really isn't the end of the story for rich guys. I worked for a REIT a few years back and the guy that founded that REIT made a few million in salary a year. I thought the number seemed a bit low for his lifestyle. He had many properties in the US for his own personal use (around 6-8 BIG homes). He also had a garage that was insane. He had over 25 very expensive cars. My co-workers would say \"\"Nick is airing out his garage\"\" when he drove one to work every day for a month without driving the same vehicle twice in one month. It turns out he owned 30 million shares of stock that paid him $1.00 per share per year. So while his annual compensation was \"\"only\"\" a few million per year, his dividend income was many, many, times that. Think about that next time you see a CEO's annual income and you think that it really isn't as much as you expect.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29a6d40bb337ba3ee5de2c2edec0be53",
"text": "Not really. I benefit from the very rich and so do you. 2/3 of the 1% are self-made or semi-self made billionaires, and we all benefit from the technologies, businesses, and organisations etc. they have created and continue to create. They are some of the most productive people on earth. Secondly, by investing their assets - they enable other's to get investments for their businesses to grow, because they are willing to take risks, most of us can't or won't. You can rob them once for a small time gain, many countries have attempted this, and then found out with the smartest people disincentivized to work, the country grinds to a halt, and slips towards poverty.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24b82d946ddcb53abe69edbe767f483b",
"text": "\"> Asset prices are high and not matched by real world performance. See, I know a lot of people are saying this, but I'm not entirely sure this is true. Even if some tech stocks are \"\"artificially\"\" boosting the market to crazy levels, can you say it's not warranted? The potential for many are far beyond what we see today. I don't see the current tech stock boom being unable to fulfill like the 1990s boom, and subsequent bust. The infrastructure and logistics weren't there in 1999. They are now. Beyond tech, businesses are doing pretty well. Up and down, earnings reports are looking good. Stocks are high, but still somewhat based on real numbers. Same could be said for real estate. The demand is real, the prices are high, but it's based on demand. The danger is what we're missing, just like in 2008. Chances are, there is a fiction out there. Maybe the fiction is in these tech stocks. Maybe it is on mortgages again. I'm not seeing it. There were people prior to 2008 sounding alarm bells about the real estate market. I haven't seen the equivalent today. In fact, I've seen more people trying to figure out how the heck the next correction will come, and nobody really can answer it. At this rate, there might not be a \"\"built in\"\" cause, and might come externally like Trump going nuts and launching nukes, or another terrorist attack.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e237eca5c9c774578b10e20a3e6b594c",
"text": "The decline in what kind of house you get for $600k is why a lot of people making $100k don't feel rich. I'm amazed at how many houses in my area go for that much, especially when you consider that only 5% of families have the income to consider that affordable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4422108668aabeccfe4f5110d9c5ce8f",
"text": "\"I think you came up with a worthy Masters/PhD research project, it is a great question. This is in Australia so it is difficult for me to have complete perspective. However, I can speak about the US of A. To your first point relatively few people inherit their wealth. According to a brief web search about 38% of billionaires, and 20% of millionaires inherited their wealth. The rest are self-made. Again, in the US, income mobility is very common. Some act like high level earners are just born that way, but studies have shown that a great deal of income mobility exists. I personally know people that have grown up without indoor plumbing, and extremely poor but now earn in the top 5% of wage earners. Quid's points are valid. For example a Starbucks, new I-Phone, and a brake job on your car are somewhat catastrophic if your income is 50K/year, hurts if your income is 100K, and an inconvenience if you make 250K/year. These situations are normal and happen regularly. The first person may have to take a pay day loan to pay for these items, the second credit card interest, the third probably has the money in the bank. All of this exaggerates the effect of an \"\"emergency\"\" on one's net worth. To me there is also a chicken-and-egg effect in wealth building and income. How does one build wealth? By investing wisely, planning ahead, budgeting, delaying gratification, finding opportunities, etc... Now if you take those same skills to your workplace isn't it likely you will receive more responsibility, promotions and raises? I believe so. And this too exaggerates the effect on one's net worth. If investing helps you to earn more, then you will have more to invest. To me one of the untold stories of this graph is not just investing, but first building a stable financial base. Having a sufficient emergency fund, having enough and the right kind of insurance, keeping loans to a minimum. Without doing those things first investments might need to be withdrawn, often at an inopportune time, for emergency purposes. Thanks for asking this!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e59d3ee39f5427e4e9cec68ac43462da",
"text": "I don’t understand why people think its okay to write these kinds of articles that mislead the public. First of all, wage mobility in the US is always fluctuating. People move in and out of the 1% all within a lifetime. Secondly, go to Bls.gov there are statistics showing that MOST of the 1% are actually self-made first generation millionaires. Though coming from a wealthy family helps set up the child to a better future it isn’t typically because of inherited money, but is because of the fact that richer parents better educate their kids in FINANCIAL LITERACY. Just remember its easier to spend the wealth empire that your parents built than it is to actually maintain it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4e6968d25044482947fb299c8d5000f",
"text": "\"The first red flag of your \"\"facts\"\": One of the article's sources is an Atlantic article with the title, \"\"Entrepreneurship: The Ultimate White Privilege?\"\". The article rants on and on about politically correct SJW nonsense. Red flag 2: The Andrew J. Oswald \"\"What Makes an Entrepreneur?\"\" study that is cited to prove access to capital is a helping factor (Your daddy money argument) is from 1998. A hell of a lot has changed since then. Forbes reported a 32% jump (up to 70%) of self-made millionaires from 1982 to 2012. Red flag 3: The article was trash, mainly used as a tool to attack \"\"white privileged males\"\". The article only said, \"\"Hey, look a study!\"\" and didn't mention any data. The only actual mention of data in the article is \"\"more than 80% of funding for new businesses comes from personal savings and friends and family.\"\" Well, yeah. That's where most businesses look for their first small investment. Actual facts: [60% of billionaires are self-made](https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/269593) [70%+ percent of millionaires are self-made](http://www.thomasjstanley.com/2014/05/america-where-millionaires-are-self-made/) Btw, thanks for the laugh. Didn't know anyone took Qz serious!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "913d6e60dc683f93657a78cf4adb14a9",
"text": "Can't pretend to be an expert in construction or real estate but I'm pretty sure that you can approach the people you know and pay them on a per job basis. I'm pretty sure finding other workers on a per job basis will be easy. I wouldn't say its common but its not uncommon either.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "221da09473d75488fbfed0cc19d08d56",
"text": "\"I'm sorry, but if one of your goals is to \"\"get the small house together at the manor\"\", you're already a huge success by almost the entire world's standards. I don't care if [this](https://gregzavitz.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/1103-linden.jpg) is the \"\"manor\"\" and [this](https://www.theposhshedcompany.co.uk/uploads/products/listings/De_Lange_210317_2_-_Copy.jpg) is the \"\"small house\"\", you're still beating out A LOT of people on the ladder of success.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94e274d66650337c888a371d404e2d7b",
"text": "People just love becoming more well-off than they currently are, and one of the ways they do it is with leverage. Leverage requires credit. That desire is not exclusive to people who are not already well-off. For a well-off person who wants to become more well-off by expanding their real estate ventures, paying cash for property is a terrible way to go about it. The same goes for other types of business or market investment. Credit benefits the well-off even more greatly than it benefits the poor or the middle-class.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3feabf3c5377f19e11874057aade2f8",
"text": "\"This article is also light on sources. It overstates inherited wealth. People who work with rich people know the saying \"\"shirtsleeve to shirtsleeve in three generations\"\". There is a proclivity of rich descendants to squander their fortune, which totally negates a majority of this article. In sum, this article and news source insists on itself\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4634d7a68d41488344228497ee382d2",
"text": "Look, the richest guy I know personally is the first college grad in his family, and he is the first generation of natural-born citizens in his family. He worked (and lucked) his way from almost nothing to rich as fuck, but the fact that I happen to know him personally doesn't nullify his status as a statistical outlier.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
73eb82d7d36e2d96360e7feff20449a7
|
In what state should I register my web-based LLC?
|
[
{
"docid": "40d1d12be6d8959552901e3a29b6f550",
"text": "Is it really necessary? If $800 / year registration fee is too much to you, an LLC is apparently not something you need right now. Many people conduct web-based business online on personal terms. My suggestion is that you focus on your business first and try to grow it as much as you can before you get down to a company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44e68267e1b78af841ef0c4868dbc674",
"text": "Register in Nevada. It's a no brainer. I understand that it's not a great deal of money, but if you can save several hundred dollars per year, why not? It's the same amount (actually probably less) of paperwork to register in Nevada.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7365f13e36108edea9afa96a081ba31",
"text": "I would prefer to see you register in your home state, and then focus on making money, rather than spending time looking to game the system to save a few bucks. People worry way too much about these trivial fees when they should be focused on making their business successful. Get registered, get insurance, and then pour it on and start making money. Make $650 your target for a week's income - you can do it! Next year's goal should be spending $50 a month on a payroll service because you're SO BUSY you can't take the extra time to pay your own social security taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05575c7ecd138f1d959b8ffd50b5d3d2",
"text": "I have researched this question extensively in previous years as we have notoriously high taxes in California, while neighboring a state that has zero corporate income tax and personal income tax. Many have attempted pull a fast one on the California taxation authorities, the Franchise Tax Board, by incorporating in Nevada or attempting to declare full-year residence in the Silver State. This is basically just asking for an audit, however. California religiously examines taxpayers with any evidence of having presence in California. If they deem you to be a resident in California, and they likely will based on the fact that you live in California (physical presence), you will be subject to taxation on your worldwide income. You could incorporate in Nevada or Bangladesh, and California will still levy its taxation on any business income (Single Member LLCs are disregarded as separate corporate entities, but still taxed at ordinary income rates on the personal income tax basis). To make things worse, if California examines your Single Member LLC and finds that it is doing business in California, based on the fact that its sole owner is based in California all year long, you could feasibly end up with additional penalties for having neglected to file your LLC in California (California LLCs are considered domestic, and only file in California unless they wish to do business in other states; Nevada LLCs are considered foreign to California, requiring the owner to file a domestic LLC organization in Nevada and then a foreign LLC organization in California, which still gets hit with the minimum $800 franchise fee because it is a foreign LLC doing business in California). Evading any filing responsibility in California is not advisable. FTB consistently researches LLCs, S-Corporations and the like to determine whether they've been organized out-of-state but still principally operated in California, thus having a tax nexus with California and the subsequent requirement to be filed in California and taxed by California. No one likes paying taxes, and no one wants to get hit with franchise fees, especially when one is starting a new venture and that minimum $800 assessment seems excessive (in other words, you could have a company that earns nothing, zero, zip, nada, and still has to pay the $800 minimum fee), but the consequences of shirking tax laws and filing requirements will make the franchise fee seem trivial in comparison. If you're committed to living in California and desire to organize an LLC or S-Corp, you must file with the state of California, either as a domestic corporation/LLC or foreign corporation/LLC doing business in California. The only alternatives are being a sole proprietor (unincorporated), or leaving the state of California altogether. Not what you wanted to hear I'm sure, but that's the law.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "362888dad7a489b2fecb115aab213605",
"text": "In this case not only that you must register in California (either as domestic, or as foreign if you decided to form elsewhere), you'll also be on the hook for back-taxes if you didn't do it from the start. FTB is notorious for going after out-of-state LLCs that Californians open in other States trying to avoid the $800 fee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d07379d9352e2084e5156e5ebf7d3235",
"text": "In GA, LLC fees are $50 a year. Incorporating is a one time $100 fee. This information is current as of September 2013.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b11c1807668b0b0b3630b0e41f2d1cd6",
"text": "You won't be able to avoid the $800 fee. CA FTB has a very specific example, which is identical to your situation (except that they use NV instead of AZ), to show that the LLC has liability in California. State of formation is of no matter, you'll just be liable for fees in that state in addition to the CA fees. This is in fact a very common situation (that's why they have this as an example to begin with). See CA FTB 568 booklet. The example is on page 14. I suggest forming the LLC in AZ/CA and registering it as a foreign entity in the other state (AZ if formed in CA, the better option IMHO, or CA if formed in AZ). You'll have tax liability in both the states, AZ taxes can be credited towards the CA taxes. Instead of forming LLC, you can cover your potential liability with sufficient insurance coverage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49af7aa1976b53feba7306586aa787c1",
"text": "You may be able to, depending on what state you're in, but it is going to be 10x more complicated than just forming a new LLC. I don't see an advantage to this approach - if you're imagining it will be cheaper, you are imagining wrong.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28d9aa347dd6586e63001086f0a889da",
"text": "California is very aggressive when it comes to determining residency. While you have a legitimate defense, I suggest talking with a California-licensed CPA or EA practicing in California, which are experienced in dealing with the FTB residency audits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bca4fd8eebb48bd815866fbf47824e7e",
"text": "Forms for the Colorado LLCs are online. You can find the link to the dissolution form here, and instructions here. IRS instructions are here. That's what they want: To close your business account, send us a letter that includes the complete legal name of the entity, the EIN, the business address and the reason you wish to close your account. If you have a copy of the EIN Assignment Notice that was issued when your EIN was assigned, include that when you write to us at: Internal Revenue Service Cincinnati, Ohio 45999 Everything is pretty straight forward. Note that you might be required to file a initial/final tax return if you had any transactions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "014eed84264edbbd345b926d91b2fd96",
"text": "Delaware LLC requires that each business entity have and hold an enterprise Registered in the State of Delaware who can be both a character resident or enterprise entity this is legal to do business in the Wilmington, Delaware. the Delaware LLC has offered the same asset protections and tax advantages that a corporation offers. Often the LLC is the simpler, more flexible choice for small businesses. This small amount of required information not only makes it easy to start an LLC in Delaware, but it also helps to keep your identity and personal information secure.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20ddde4441bb0e5a4d7ee4f81e44300d",
"text": "According to the Illinois Department of Revenue, you don't have to file any taxes that are specific to a LLC, only your personal taxes. LLC on Federal level is disregarded, instead you submit all your business income/expenses on Schedule C. On the state level - it seems to be the same (only individual tax return). Consult your state certified tax specialist. That is not the case in other states, for example in California LLC has to file its own tax return and pay its own taxes, in additional to the individual taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c4e68fdc0aab40d75d449b9f4deae58",
"text": "Thanks for your input. > Are you talking about domicile? Nope, **domestication**. See #2 [here]. I've seen that term on a few places on the web. I am a single-member LLC. I think I'll probably get a biz attorney. Do you think it matters whether the attorney is within the state I currently reside as opposed to the one I'm moving to?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e725b58b1b28fc1dfc5ca7b43ed7c8f",
"text": "\"Did it show just your address, or was your name on it as well? You didn't share how long you've lived at the address either, so it makes me wonder whether a former tenant is the one who filed that paperwork. It's also possible that someone used your address when making a filing. Whether that was deliberate or accidental is hard to discern, as is their intent if it was intentional. It could be accidental -- someone picked \"\"CA\"\" for California when they meant to pick \"\"CO\"\" for Colorado or \"\"CT\"\" for Connecticut...These things do happen. It can't make you feel any better about the situation though. You should be able to go online to the California Secretary of State's website (here) and look up everything filed by the LLC with the state. That will show who the founders were and everything else that is a matter of public record on the LLC. At the very least, you can obtain the registered agent's name and address for the LLC, which you can then use to contact them and ask why your address is listed as the LLC's business address. Once you have that info, you can then contact the Secretary of State and tell them it isn't you so they can do whatever is necessary to correct this. This doesn't sound like a difficult matter to clear up, but it's important to do your homework first and gather as much information as you can before you call the state. Answering \"\"I don't know\"\" won't get you very far with them compared to having the best answers you can about where the mistake started. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "077e69dfbbb8d8112c446114db179a4c",
"text": "As a nonresident sole proprietor or partnership You are not a sole proprietor or a member of a legal partnership. You are an employee for a corporation. Does the nature of your work require you to be present in New York regularly? If you are in New York for personal reasons, you are simply telecommuting. You must pay taxes personally for your W-2 income, but your business entity never moved from Wyoming. If this were not true, companies would have to pay corporate income tax to every state in which they have a telecommuter. For example, I live in Florida but telecommute to a company in Michigan. Does my employer pay Florida business tax? Of course not. Your business would only owe New York if the nature of the business requires a consistent and regular business presence in New York, such as maintaining an office for a portion of every year so clients could see you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc59501a4df5c48c7597422b6908fbad",
"text": "I suspect you will need to consult with a tax professional on this one. In New York you would need to continue to file returns even if you did no business there until the partnership is dissolved. But I have no idea if Cali has anything rules like that. I would suspect since the partnership is on going the answer is no. Even though you plan no further business in Cali the potential exists that you could return there(even if only in theory).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bb6a1a14e9041f629aaad59a6f59497",
"text": "\"SOS stands for Secretary of State. The California Department of State handles the business entities registration, and the website is here. See \"\"Forms\"\" in the navigation menu on the left. Specifically, you'll be looking for LLC-5.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eccc86c65137baf66ef701e51c2ed47f",
"text": "You put your Michigan address. The incorporation address is of no concern for the IRS, they couldn't care less where you're incorporated - it has no effect on your tax liability. The address is used when audited, and the IRS expects you to give the address where the records are (i.e.: where the business, aka you, is physically located).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1248d34c35232a822321595a0794fa0",
"text": "This is an older question but I thought I'd give the correct response for anyone else that might look. Yes there definitely could be issues. You can form in friendly states such as Delaware and Nevada without having a physical location in the state but you can't run a business from another state without having to 'qualify' to do business in that State. To give a bit more clarification. Lets say you open a Delaware LLC. But you answer the phone when it rings on your New York phone and money comes into your New York bank account and your suppliers and vendors all use your New York address to send invoices and correspondence. Well you can pretty much count that you fall into the definition of doing business in New York and expected to pay New York taxes and qualify to do business in the state. The solution would be to set up your business to truly 'operate' from the state you would rather be in.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ddc4567aaa01aa91837cb7c8690619ea",
"text": "\"If you intend to do business \"\"outside the country\"\", why establish an LLC \"\"here\"\" at all? You should establish a business in your home country if you desire business organization for sequestering liabilities or something. With or without a business organization, you will presumably be taxed for domestic income \"\"there\"\", wherever that is.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70edc1fac438a42eff7c8d79af5963bf",
"text": "As far as the spam mail goes, I own a rental (in Connecticut) and live in Massachusetts, I get very little mail related to this property. I view this as a non-compelling reason. Your other reasons pick up quick in value. The protection from the rest of your assets is helpful, and the one con for most is the inability to get a loan with such a structure, but in your case, a cash purchase is mentioned. I don't know what the fees are to start an LLC, but overall, I believe the pros outweigh the cons. Yes, your Pro 4 looks good, an ongoing business with a track record will help the next purchase.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
eee4b912e677f16de963453c4926ba99
|
why do I need an emergency fund if I already have investments?
|
[
{
"docid": "66a7fd9c6e89a27c21e0f26e9c8e3d06",
"text": "\"Emergency funds have a very specific and obvious benefit; you'll have money sitting around in case you need it. A lot of people think a big car repair or some unexpected home repair is an emergency, and that's fine. Emergency also expands up to \"\"I lost my job four months ago and we're a year in to a recession, the stock market is down 30% and I need to pay my rent or mortgage.\"\" Sure, you could just sell some of your stocks that have lost 30% and pay your rent. I know nobody likes to think about it, but the stock market can go down. I know nobody likes to think about it, but the economy can slink in to a recession. In fact, here's a small list of recent U.S. recessions: No competent investment adviser would advise that your emergency funds should be subject to market volatility because that completely defeats the purpose of an emergency fund. It's possible that this manager wants you to indicate a separate emergency fund to allocate a portion of your account to a low volatility US Treasury fund or something of the like, this would be materially different than investing in a broad market/large cap fund like VOO or VTI. The effects of inflation are not so bad that you should put your emergency money in the market. Who cares what inflation was if you have to sell an asset at a loss to pay rent? One last point. Index fund ETFs are not \"\"safe.\"\" Investing in diversified funds is safER than buying individual company stocks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e42eb3ea9a05e96191e2a1ab5b50adcb",
"text": "My take on this is that this reduces your liquidity risk. Stocks, bonds and many other investment vehicles on secondary markets you may think of are highly liquid but they still require that markets are open and then an additional 3-5 business days to settle the transaction and for funds to make their way to your bank account. If you require funds immediately because of an emergency, this 3-5 business days (which gets longer as week-ends and holidays are in the way) can cause a lot of discomfort which may be worth a small loss in potential ROI. Think of your car breaking down or a water pipe exploding in your home and having to wait for the stock sale to process before you can make the payment. Admittedly, you have other options such as margin loans and credit cards that can help absorb the shock in such cases but they may not be sufficient or cause you to pay interest or fees if left unpaid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61c009824d600a359938973082715984",
"text": "\"There are a few major risks to doing something like that. First, you should never invest money you can't afford to lose. An emergency fund is money you can't afford to lose - by definition, you may need to have quick access to that money. If you determine that you need, for example, $3000 in emergency savings, that means that you need to have at least $3000 at all times - if you lose $500, then you now only have $2500 in emergency savings. Imagine what could've happened if you had invested your emergency savings during the 2008 crash, for example; you could easily have been in a position where you lost both your job and a good portion of your emergency savings at the same time, which is a terrible position to be in. If the car breaks down, you can't really say \"\"now's a bad time, wait until the stock market bounces back.\"\" Second, with brokerage accounts, there may be a delay before you can actually access the money or transfer it to an account that you can actually withdraw cash from or write checks against (but some of this depends on the exact arrangement you have with your bank). This can be a problem if you're in a situation where you need immediate access to the money - if your furnace breaks in the middle of winter, you probably don't want to wait a few days for the sale and transfer to go through before you can have it fixed. Third, you can be forced to sell the investments at an unfavorable price because you're not sure when you're going to need it. You'd also likely incur trading fees and/or early withdrawal penalties when you tried to withdraw the money. Think about it this way: if you buy a bond that matures in 5 years, you're effectively betting that you won't have an emergency for the next 5 years. If you do, you'll have to either sell the bond or, if you're allowed to get the money back early, you'll likely forfeit a good amount of the interest you earned in the process (which kind of kills the point of buying the bond in the first place). Edit: As @Barmar pointed out in the comments, you may also have to pay taxes on the profits if you sell at a favorable price. In the U.S. at least, capital gains on stuff held for less than a year is taxed at your ordinary income tax rate and stuff held longer than a year is taxed at the long-term capital gains tax rate. So, if you hold the investment for less than a year, you're opening yourself up to the risks of short-term stock fluctuations as well as potential tax penalties, so if you put your emergency fund in stocks you're essentially betting that you won't have an emergency that year (which by definition you can't know). The purpose of an emergency fund is just that - to be an emergency fund. Its purpose isn't really to make money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bf43f2321a84a27029a6e197426ed56",
"text": "You're absolutely correct. If you have maxed out your retirement investment vehicles and have some additional investments in a regular taxable account, you can certainly use that as an emergency source of funds without much downside. (You can borrow from many retirement account but there are downsides.) Sure, you risk selling at a loss when/if you need the money, but I'd rather take the risk and take advantage of the investment growth that I would miss if I kept my emergency fund in cash or money market. And you can choose how much risk you're willing to take on when you invest the money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f694ed0f5dd14110332cd21255788977",
"text": "From a budgeting perspective, the emergency fund is a category in which you've budgeted funds for the unexpected. These are things that weren't able to be predicted and budgeted for in advance, or things that exceeded the expected costs. For example you might budget $150 per month for car maintenance, and typically spend some of it while the rest builds up over time for unexpected repairs, so you have a few hundred available for that. But this month your transmission died and you have a $3,000 bill. You'll then fund most of this out of your emergency fund. This doesn't cover where to store that money though, which leads me to my next point. Emergencies are emergencies because they come without warning, without you having a chance to plan. Thefore the primary things you want in an emergency fund account are stability and quick access. You can structure investments to be whatever you think of as safe or stable but you don't want to be thinking about whether it's a good time to sell when you need the money right now. But the bigger problem is access. When you need the funds on a weekend, holiday, anytime outside of market hours, you're not going to be able to just sell some stocks and go to an ATM. This is the reason why it's recommended to have these funds in a checking or savings account usually. The reason I mentioned the budgeting side first is because I wanted to point out that if you're budgeting well, most of the unexpected expenses you have should have been expected in a sense; you can still plan for something without knowing when or if it will happen. So in the example of a car repair, ideally you're already budgeting for possible repairs, if you own a home you're budgeting for things that would go wrong, budgeting for speeding tickets, for surprise out of pocket medical costs, etc. These then become part of your normal budget: they aren't part of the emergency fund anymore. The bright side about budgeting for something unexpected is that you know what that money is for, and do you likely also know how quickly you'll need it. For example you know if you have unexpected medical costs that happen very quickly, you're not likely you need a bag of cash on a moment's notice. So those last two points lead to the fact that your actual emergency fund, the dollars that are for things you simply could not foresee, will be relatively small. A few thousand dollars or so in most cases. If you've got things structured like this, you'll be happy to have a few grand available at a moment's notice. The bulk of the money you would use for other surprise expenses (or things like 6 months of living expenses) is represented in other specific categories and you already know the timeframe in which you need it (probably enough time that it could be invested, risk to taste). In short: by expecting the unexpected, you can sidestep this issue and not worry so much about missed returns on the emergency fund.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c33bf1dbc4fda12b28dadf262162d4b",
"text": "\"Given that the 6 answers all advocate similar information, let me offer you the alternate scenario - You earn $60K and have an employer offering a 50% match on all deposits. All deposits. (Note, I recently read a Q&A here describing such an offer. If I see it again, I'll link). Let the thought of the above settle in. You think about the fact that $42K isn't a bad salary, and decide to deposit 30%, to gain the full match on your $18K deposit. Now, you budget to live your life, pay your bills, etc, but it's tight. When you accumulate $2000, and a strong want comes up (a toy, a trip, anything, no judgement) you have a tough decision. You think to yourself, \"\"after the match, I am literally saving 45% of my income. I'm on a pace to have the ability to retire in 20 years. Why do I need to save even more?\"\" Your budget has enough discretionary spending that if you have a $2000 'emergency', you charge it and pay it off over the next 6-8 months. Much larger, and you know that your super-funded 401(k) has the ability to tap a loan. Your choice to turn away from the common wisdom has the recommended $20K (about 6 months of your spending) sitting in your 401(k), pretax deposited as $26K, and matched to nearly $40K, growing long term. Note: This is a devil's advocate answer. Had I been the first to answer, it would reflect the above. In my own experience, when I got married, we built up the proper emergency fund. As interest rates fell, we looked at our mortgage balance, and agreed that paying down the loan would enable us to refinance and save enough in mortgage interest that the net effect was as if we were getting 8% on the money. At the same time as we got that new mortgage, the bank offered a HELOC, which I never needed to use. Did we somehow create high risk? Perhaps. Given that my wife and I were both still working, and had similar incomes, it seemed reasonable.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2862e6c7df5b16e84cf1d1eb56291d89",
"text": "I treat the concept of emergency funds as a series of financial buffers. One layer is that I have various credit cards with a small positive balance, that I can max out in an emergency should I go broke and not be in employment (those have saved me once or twice) My final level of emergency funds, is kept at home in the form of cash, I've never needed it, but it protects against getting locked out of the financial system (I lose my debit cards, banking system freezes all withdrawals, zombie invasion). It also doubles as my destitution fund, as if all else fails I still have raw cash to buy food and thus I won't starve (at least for a few months).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0756241e8bf8cc0afd2d37e379c09505",
"text": "Let me first start by defining an emergency fund. This is money which is: Because emergency's usually need to be deal with ASAP, boiler breaks, gears box in a car. Generally you need these to be solved as soon as possible, because ou depend on these things working and you can't budget for this type of expenditure using just your monthly salary. This is a personal opinion but I prefer investment types that don't have another fee on access. I really don't like having another fee on top on money that I need right now. Investment Options: Market based investments should be seen as long term investments, therefore they do not really satisfy requirement one, they can also have broker fees, therefore you might pay a small extra charge for taking money out, and so do not satisfy requirement two. Investment Options for Emergency Funds You want to get the best return on your money even if it's your emergency fund. So use regular saving accounts, but from you emergency fund or use tax effective savings accounts, like a cash ISA if based in the UK. Don't think of an emergency money as just sitting there, you have options just makes sure the options fit the requirements. UPDATE Given feedback I appreciate there are levels of emergency fund, the above details things which might be about 1-2 month salary in cost, car repairs, leaks, boiler repairs. Now I have another fund which is in P2P funds which is higher risk than a deposit account but then gives me a better return and is less subject to market fluctuations and it would be the place I go to for loss of job level emergencies say 6 months of salary, this takes a bit longer to access but given I have the above emergency fund I have given myself time to get the money from the P2P account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82a400b4e1f10bedb37481dda36b702a",
"text": "It all depends on the liquidity of your investments some examples: You can mitigate only the risk that you can control. It is always good to have:",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5d7f244020437e6a98abac60a57ca848",
"text": "While it’s your personal choice on HOW you save for later its essential that you save. My sister works in a bank and recommended me not to put any money into retirement plans since the tax-advances seem fine but have to paid back when you take the money out of the accounts (in Switzerland, don't know about the united states). Many reasons exist that you suddenly need the money: Buying a house, needing a new car, health issues or just leaving the country forever (and the government trying to make it as hard as possible for you to get your money back). I recommend putting it on a savings account on a different bank that you normally use, without any cards and so on. In short: It can be dangerous to have money locked away – especially if you could easily have it at your hands and you know you're able to manage it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55bcedf9148ed62eafa72d0c3547db05",
"text": "\"The mix how how you present this feels contradictory. You would pull a 'major' portion from the emergency fund (EF), but at the same time, you'll replace it in a month. The first bit scares me, this is not the purpose of that fund, and the issue is the aspect of money that's psychological. Money is a habit, if you justify this use of the EF now, it gets progressively easier for this purchase or that, and the fund loses its intended purpose. If the second half is accurate, that your income would replace that money in a month, i'd say the fund wasn't fully funded to its proper level, 6-9 months of all expenses to get you though issues as bad as a job loss. The great thing I see in your question is what's missing. You're not looking to buy a car with a loan. That puts you in a good situation, and should push those answering to cut you some slack on the one month \"\"bridge loan\"\" from your own savings. Edit - OP add 2 key points, His EF is 3 years expenses (wow, kudos to him!), but he's living like a student (i.e. with parents, which keeps his costs low). If this latter observation seems judgmental, I'll re-edit. The finances of everyone would be far better off if we adopted multigenerational living. The young could save as Fahad is doing, and when parents retire, they can know they are cared for. In the US, I'd say \"\"when you move out, your expenses will go up drastically,\"\" but in this case, that may not happen, or not soon. This is my observation the world is a big place and our answers need to fit the OP's situation, not assume our own standards apply to all. Buy the better car. You saved. You earned it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36e643c89da53b0e2d4622950dd89045",
"text": "I would disagree with your analysis. To me there are two purposes for a money market (MM): Your emergency fund should be from 3 to 6 months of expenses. Think of it of an insurance policy against Murphy. You may want to have some money designated for big expenses, or even sinking funds. For example, I keep some money in a MM for a car as both the wife, daughter, and I driver older vehicles. I may need to replace them. If you were planning on making a larger purchase car, house, boat, engagement ring I would put the money in a MM fund so you are not subject to the whims of the market. After that you are free to invest all your money. Its likely that you should have some money outside of tax advantaged funds so if you want to start a business you will not have to do high cost withdrawals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "289135f42bf8602686098991399ef023",
"text": "When it comes down to it, long-term investments pay better than short-term ones. If nothing else, there's less administration and less financial risk for the provider. That's why 2, 3 or 5 year savings accounts pay better than instant access ones. Higher-risk investments pay more interest (or dividends) than low-risk ones. They have to, or nobody would invest in them. So by locking yourself out of any long term and/or risky investments, you're stuck with a choice of low-interest short term ones. There are plenty of investment funds that you can sell at short notice if you want to. But they are volatile, and if you cash out at the wrong time, you can get back less than you invested. The way you lower risk is either to invest in a fund that covers a broad range of investments, or invest in several different funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b9a659ee68b3baea3494b9c715fafe6",
"text": "\"For me, the emergency fund is meant to cover unexpected, but necessary expenses that I didn't budget for. The emergency fund allows me to pay for these things without going into debt. Let's say that my car breaks down, and I don't have any money in my budget for fixing it. I really need to get my car fixed, so I spend the money from my emergency fund. However, cars break down periodically. If I was doing a better job with my budget, I would allocate some money each month into a \"\"car repair/maintenance\"\" category. (In fact, I actually do this.) With my budgeting software, I can look at how much I've spent on car repairs over the last year, and budget a monthly amount for car repair expenses. Even if I do this, I might end up short if I am unlucky. Emergency fund to the rescue! If I'm budgeting correctly, I don't pay any regular bills out of this fund, as those are expected expenses. Car insurance, life insurance, and property tax are all bills that come on a regular basis, and I set aside money for each of these each month so that when the bill comes, I have the money ready to go. The recommended size of an emergency fund is usually listed as \"\"3 to 6 months of expenses.\"\" However, that is just a rough guideline. As you get better with your budget, you might find that you have a lower probability of needing it, and you can let your emergency fund fall to the lower end of the guideline range. The size of my own emergency fund is on the lower end of this scale. And if I have a true crisis (i.e. extended unemployment, severe family medical event), I can \"\"rob\"\" one of my other savings funds, such as my car replacement fund, vacation fund, etc. Don't be afraid to spend your emergency fund money if you need it. If you have an unexpected, necessary expense that you have not budgeted for, use the emergency fund money. However, your goal should be to get to the point where you never have to use it, because you have adequately accounted for all of the expenses that you can reasonably expect to have in the future.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b06e7307088dc7210864a5d44d88371",
"text": "I am understanding the OP to mean that this is for an emergency fund savings account meant to cover 3 to 6 months of living expenses, not a 3-6 month investment horizon. Assuming this is the case, I would recommend keeping these funds in a Money Market account and not in an investment-grade bond fund for three reasons:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a688bd683b9434c0fed89aadcbbb9cb3",
"text": "\"The purpose of the emergency fund is to enable you to pay for unplanned necessary expenses without going into debt. You know that cars don't last forever and eventually need to be replaced. Ideally, you would have a \"\"car replacement fund\"\" which you contribute to a little every month. (Essentially, it is a car payment to yourself.) Then when it comes time to get a replacement car, you have money set aside for this purpose and know exactly how much you can spend. However, in your case it seems that you don't have enough money in your car replacement fund for the car that you want. There are a few different causes that might have led to this situation: Due to unforeseen circumstances, you need a replacement car before you thought you would need it. You find that your planning was not quite right, and you weren't saving as much as you need. You are trying to buy a more expensive car than you need. If a replacement car is a necessity, two of these are emergencies, one is not. If you don't have enough cash set aside for a car, it is certainly better to spend your emergency fund and pay cash than to borrow money to buy the car. Only you can decide if the car you are looking at is appropriate for you, or if you should be looking at a less expensive car. After you purchase the car, build your emergency fund back up first, then start saving for your next car.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4cea859a9848373c95e16a60f3aeadd",
"text": "Why can't you have both? If you do have both credit and an emergency fund, and an emergency occurs, you can draw from the line of credit first. Having debt + cash is a much more stable situation than having neither, because then you have the option to use the cash to pay off the debt, or use the cash to pay other expenses. If you just have cash, when you spend it it's gone and there's no guarantee anyone is going to lend you any money at that point.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f6ece7c89aeb6cab3a15d9aec09963b",
"text": "Before starting with investing, you should make sure you are saving enough. Living in a welfare country (France) does not exempt you from potentially needing to save large amounts of money. You state that you do not need much of an emergency day fund, but this is not true. Being dismissed unjustly from your job is not the only way to become unemployed and not all roads lead to unemployment pay. Being fired for cause or leaving your job voluntarily are two work related causes that will leave you without an income source. Unexpected major expenses are another reason you might need to dip into your emergency fund. If your emergency fund is in order, the next thing to investigate is your pension and saving for retirement. In a country with a strong pension system, you need to check how comfortable you are with its sustainability (Greece anyone?) and also whether it will adequately meet your needs. If not, there are no 401ks or IRAs in France, but there is a relatively new personal supplementary pension plan (PERP) that you might investigate contributing to. If you're comfortable with your emergency fund and your retirement savings, then preparing for buying a house is likely your next savings goal. A quick search shows that to get a mortgage to buy a house in France, banks will commonly require a downpayment of 20% plus various closing costs. See for example here. This is 40,000+ euro for a 200k euro house, which will take you several years at the rate of 500 euro / month. France has special plans (Plan d’Epargne Logement) with tax-exempt interest for saving up for a house that you might want to investigate. In your other question, you also ask about buying a cheap car. As you get older and possibly start a family, having a car will likely become more of a necessity. This is another goal you can save for rather than having to take a loan out when you buy one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "151ec6d3e24b890cc9732e88649dfd6e",
"text": "\"What you're describing makes sense. I'd probably call the non-liquid portion something besides my \"\"emergency fund\"\", but that's semantics mostly. If you have 3 months of \"\"very liquid\"\" cash in this emergency fund and you're comfortable that this amount is good for your situation, then I don't see why you can't have additional savings in more or less liquid vehicles. Whatever you set up, you'll want to think about how to tap it when you need it. You might have a CD ladder with one maturing every three months. That would give you access to these funds after your liquid funds dry up. (Or for a small/short term emergency, you'll be able to replenish the liquid fund with the next-maturing CD.) Or set up a T Bill ladder with the same structure. This might provide you with a tax advantage.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e32fa977d20156bc3c089162770bd973",
"text": "\"It's a spin on the phrase \"\"making your money work for you\"\". before sending your money off to do the heavy lifting, you'll want to have an emergency savings account of about six months of living expenses stored in cash. Basically, he is saying before you start to invest make sure you have sufficient emergency savings.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e8d85d78ecbeb8f53dec0110eed30fe",
"text": "There's something very important no one else has mentioned... times when the stock market falls dramatically are often the times when you're most likely to lose your job, and when it's hardest to get loans. So if you ever do need your emergency fund, it will more than likely be related to a dip in the stock market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1344b296a3240da9185bf0b8287c5358",
"text": "The biggest problem is what happens when you make a withdrawal if an emergency occurs. If the money was a contribution from a past year, you will not be able to put those funds back into the fund until a later date. Assume the following scenario: The limits regarding maximum annual contribution and windows when you can contribute make this an inefficient way to operate the emergency fund/retirement fund. Retirement and emergency funds are both important. Don't co-mingle them, it leads to double counting the money when you guesstimate where you are regarding your financial goals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0364ea9ed924d97f3b4e2d2d2f20006",
"text": "This is a somewhat subjective question, but if you are following a particular personal finance methodology, just do whatever they recommend. For example, I believe that Dave Ramsey's program calls for the emergency fund to be in a different account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8965f489cca99abdd4001c2050f1b79a",
"text": "I know this is heresy but if you have funds for significantly more than 6 months of expenses (let's say 12 months), how risky would it be to put it all into stock index funds? Quite risky as if you do need to dip into it, how fast could you get the cash? Also, do you realize the tax implications when you do sell the shares should you have an emergency? In the worst-case scenario, let's say you have a financial emergency at the same time the stock market crashes and loses half its value. You could still liquidate the rest and have sufficient funds for 6 months. Am I underestimating the risks of this strategy? That's not worst case scenario though. Worst case scenario would be another 9/11 where the markets are closed for nearly a week and you need the money but can't get the funds converted to cash in the bank that you can use. This is in addition to the potential wait for a settlement in the case of using ETFs if you choose to go that way. In the case of money market funds, CDs and other near cash equivalents these can be accessed relatively easily which is part of the point. A staggered approach where some cash is kept in house, some in accounts that can easily accessed and some in other investments may make sense though the breakdown would differ depending on how much risk people are willing to take. If it truly is an emergency fund then the odds of needing it should be very slim, so why live with near zero return on that money? Something to consider is what is called an emergency here? For some people a sudden $1,000 bill to fix their car that just broke down is an emergency. For others, there could be emergency trips to visit family that may have gotten into accidents or gotten a diagnosis that they may pass away soon. Consider what do you want to call an emergency here as chances are you may not be considering all that people would think is an emergency. There is the question of what other sources of money do you have to cover should issues arise.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
bc1acbd66dfa87efa6530533ac457965
|
Should I pay off a 0% car loan?
|
[
{
"docid": "c187c9eb1865e397ec3c9a3faf4956e7",
"text": "Between now and October, your $3,000 will earn $30 in your savings account. If you are late on a payment for your 0% loan, your interest rate will skyrocket. In my opinion, the risk is just not worth the tiny gain you are trying to achieve in the savings account. If it was me, I would pay off the loan today. A few more thoughts: There is a reason that businesses offer 0% consumer loans. They are designed to trick you into thinking that you are getting a better deal than you are. Businesses don't lose money on these loans. The price of the loan is built into the cost of the purchase, whether you are buying expensive furniture, or a car. Typically with a car, you forfeit a rebate by taking the 0% loan, essentially paying all the interest up-front. Now that you have the loan, you might be ahead a few dollars by waiting to pay it off, but only because you've already paid the interest. Don't make the mistake of thinking that you can come out ahead by buying things at 0%. It's really not free money. In the comments, @JoeTaxpayer mentioned that fear of mistakes can lead to missed rewards. I understand that; however, these 0% loans are full of small print designed to trip you up. A single mistake can negate years and years of these small gains. You don't want to be penny wise and pound foolish.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfced950704f4900a5c9c7de9bbf87f5",
"text": "I struggle with 0% interest things in my personal life. A responsible me that thinks logically says continue to pay it on time and take advantage of the benefit of the interest free loan you got. It will keep your funds liquid in the case of an emergency, build your credit and teach you self control. Paying it off now has little to no benefit. It does however tie up $3,000 worth of capital you could be using for building interest or leveraging against other purchases.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e13b75dc06a5eede38b2cc9dc8ea597",
"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.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edbaae5bb9235c484810f90b9920dd85",
"text": "Pay it off. If you do so, you have the liberty to drop or reduce a portion of your collision auto insurance coverage (keeping uninsured motorist). This could potentially save you a lot more than 20 bucks over the next six months.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46e0fd4a0513b1e04e20f5ec1819ed82",
"text": "Sometimes I think it helps to think of the scenario in reverse. If you had a completely paid off car, would you take out a title loan (even at 0%) for a few months to put the cash in a low-interest savings account? For me, I think the risk of losing the car due to non-payment outweighs the tens of dollars I might earn.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb78ebdc1c683e52ccf7d5d5fa7a46ca",
"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.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a24ff2baa6ba010eb8313a0fdd120f9",
"text": "The precise answer depends on the terms and conditions of the loan, and whether you can reasonably expect to meet them. For example, if you keep the loan, make no payments, there is a good chance that - eventually - you will trigger a clause in the contract, and suddenly be charged fees or a significant interest rate. If you don't need to pay anything for a time, odds are you will forget to monitor the loan (after all it is not costing you anything) and suddenly get hit with an unexpected expense. Most loan contracts are structured - by professionals - to benefit the loan provider. The purpose of a loan provider is to make a profit. They do that by encouraging you to pay more - up front, over the longer term, or both. Personally, I would never take out a zero-interest loan. It is specifically designed to appear like a gift from the loan provider, while actually (and almost covertly) costing more at some point. If I was in your position (i.e. if I had taken out such a loan) I'd pay off the loan as fast as possible. If you have more than one loan, however, prioritise by working out which actually costs you more over time. And pay the worst ones first. You'll have to look closely at the terms and conditions - possibly with the help of a professional - to work out which is actually work.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0a0b558d1730cc0be2b281a12672cb0",
"text": "Don't pay off the 0% loan. First, set up an automatic monthly payment to ensure you never miss the payment (which could lower your credit score). If you are in Canada, depending on your situation: If you are employed and make more than $50k/year:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff342f85b4a36275b6e87fb4bcd0db82",
"text": "Mostly to play devil's advocate, I will recommend something different than everybody else. If you can pay off the entire $3,000 balance and are torn between saving that money somewhere that will earn a return and paying it off now to be debt-free, why not a little of both? What if you pay half now and then save the other half and make a big payment at the end. Essentially that becomes two $1,500 payments: one now, one right before the 0% due date. To me, the half up-front significantly reduces the risk, but leaves some cash available to grow.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "240a38f10d26caaa7f75a553d7af061f",
"text": "Ultimately the question is more about your personality and level of discipline than about money. The rational thing to do is hang on to your cash, invest it somewhere else, and pay off the 0% loan as late as possible without incurring penalties or interest. Logically it's a no-brainer. Problem is, we're humans, so there's a risk you'll slip up somewhere along the way and not pay off the loan in time. How much do you trust yourself?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3308e4c8f1bb1711105dc3cb749bb0b",
"text": "Here's my take: 1) Having a car loan and paying it on time helps build credit. Not as much as having credit cards (and keeping them paid or carrying balance just enough to be reported and then paying it), but it counts. 2) Can't you set in your bank, not the lender, something to pay the car automagically for you? Then you will be paying it on time without having to think on it. 3) As others said, do read the fine print.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "313795aa3cd7009475a761556439cee3",
"text": "My theory, if you must be in debit, own it at the least expense possible. The interest you will pay by the end, combined with the future value of money. Example: The Future value of $3000 at an effective interest rate of 5% after 3 years =$3472.88 Present value of $3000 at 5% over 3 years =$2591.51 you will need more money in the future to pay for the same item",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3b18376c746ec672517b49eeb64ac570",
"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.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a0c90388fb6d27537a840d0a9086ab9",
"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).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0a4fecc1d2b6deb96228758069984a9",
"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).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96fe0df00f3d0f26a6004e7788cd1852",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d4e2921fe70ac4e499dd5d0c24be24c",
"text": "A Lease is an entirely different way of getting a car. In two situations it makes sense, in all other scenarios it generally doesn't make sense to lease. In the case of always wanting a new car every 2 or 3 years it can make sense to lease. Of course if you drive more the allowed miles you will pay extra at the end of the lease. If you can take the monthly lease as a business expense leasing makes sense. Otherwise you want to pay cash, or get financing. Does zero percent make sense? Sometimes. The only way to make sense of the numbers is to start with your bank, have them approve of the loan first. Then armed with the maximum loan amount they will give you and the rate and the length of the loan, then visit the dealer. You have to run the numbers for your situation. It depends on your income, your other expenses, your credit score, your bank, what deal the dealership is running, how much you have for a down payment. Here is an example. For a recent loan situation I saw: 36 months, 1.49% rate, 20K loan, total interest paid: ~$466. Armed with that information can the person get a better deal at the dealership? There was only one way to find out. In that case the credit union was better. The rebate was larger than the interest paid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f434ca749d0d39db78849b606b457e7",
"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).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf47890f17a70e7c12db0bdeeb0ffff5",
"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.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5fd677f5148dd5e154d02cf4ee19ad1",
"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!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "996646b3a3c87bc269fd93c685c9e848",
"text": "You can earn significantly more than 0.99% in the stock market. I'd pay the $450/month and invest the rest in a (relatively conservative) stock market fund, making monthly withdrawals for the car note.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb37162da4e4d82aed3bff267be34461",
"text": "If (and only if) there is a zero interest installment plan available, technically the only uncontrollable risk is that there will likely be a hard inquiry on your credit report which may or may not also have a corresponding debt obligation attached to it. (Personally, I recently signed up for one such plan with Google and I had a hard inquiry but no debt added to my report). The other risks are that 1) your monthly payment goes up, so if you are living on a tight budget the added payment might make it harder to meet your next bill, and 2) you could miss a payment which generally triggers interest to accrue retroactively at a high rate, and in some cases could be grounds for immediate repayment. The pro / reward of these plans is that you have to spend less of your capital upfront, which you may be able to use for other purposes (presumably with a higher net present value than purchasing the item you're considering outright). A larger example would be purchasing a new car. You want to buy a $50k car and you have the cash on hand to pay in full, but you are being offered 0% interest for 36 months. You may be more inclined to take a loan at 0% with 0 down payment and invest your money in another vehicle (no pun intended) that offers you a decent rate of return and you will come out ahead in the end. Of course, this example works in a perfect world where you can get such an offer, there are no extra fees available, you aren't worrying about your debt-to-income ratio in preparation for a big purchase like a house, there isn't a higher insurance premium to consider, etc. In short, 0% financing, be it for a phone or a car, can be a nice perk for the informed consumer who is not using the financing as a way to purchase outside their financial means, but it is offered by companies as a way to make people buy things they normally would not and, hopefully, capitalize on people missing payments in order to reap the sweet 20%+ interest rates generally seen with these offers. In your specific situation with the phone, you should consider if you get a discount on your monthly plan for purchasing outright, or if you can get the phone subsidized if you sign a contract (and you know you like your provider enough to stay for its duration). If the monthly plan rate stays the same and you're looking at either $500 now or $500 over 24 months and you don't mind a hard inquiry, there's not much of compelling reason to pass on the financing and hold on to your $500.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c90f2d1813c8419a415b3cfaf3100007",
"text": "If you are very sure, say 90%, that you'll pay the zero percent card off before paying interest, that would be my choice. Less certainty than that, I think the 6.8% over a longer term is less of a cash flow issue, and you can still pay it in full upon getting the job bonus.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0579f10d1ce90a4cde198f805773cf5a",
"text": "First of all, congratulations on paying off $40k in debt in one year. Mathematically, you'd be better off making the standard car loan payments and putting your extra money toward the student loan. However, there are a few other things that you might want to consider. Over the last year, you've knocked out a whole bunch of different debts. Feels pretty good, doesn't it? At your current rate, you could knock out your new car loan in 6 months. Then you'd only have one debt left. If it sounds to you like it would be nice to only have one debt left, then it might be worth the mathematical disadvantage you would get by paying off the car early instead of putting the money toward the last student loan. The car loan is 0%, but if you are late on a single payment, they will take that opportunity to raise your interest rate to something probably higher than the interest rate of your student loan. For this reason, you may decide it is not worth the hassle, and you'd rather just eliminate the car loan as quickly as possible. Either choice is fine, in my opinion, as long as you have a purpose behind the choice and you are committed to eliminating both debts as quickly as possible. As an aside, it is important to remember that even a 0% loan is not really free money, and needs to be paid back. You know this, of course, but sometimes you see a 0% loan advertized and it feels like free money. It's not. You have probably already paid for the loan by forfeiting a rebate. So although, at this point having already taken this loan and paying for it, you will come out ahead by dragging out your car loan for the full term, in the future do not think that you can make money by buying something at 0% interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c5a9302dc720a0ce0b07887b5d7b754",
"text": "\"Making extra principal payments will reduce the term of your loan. I wouldn't sign up for a biweekly schedule, just do it yourself so you have more flexibility. A simple spreadsheet will allow you to play \"\"What if?\"\" and make it clear that extra principal payments are most effective early in the term of the loan. My wife and I paid off our home in less than 10 years with this approach. Some will say that the opportunity costs of not using that money for something else outweighs the gains. I would say that not having a mortgage has a positive impact on your cash flow and your assets (you own the home), which combine to create more opportunity, not less. That being said, It should be obvious that paying off higher interest debt first is the priority, (Paying off a zero percent interest car loan early is just foolish)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "442f6360ae50ff4b798ebf87fc1120c4",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05f65e79d17fa5283838c5212626126e",
"text": "so this is a loan for a house? a loan on a house? a new mortgage? you shouldn't just get a loan for the hell of it any time. interests rates are low because the yields on US treasuries have been pushed closer to zero, and thats pretty much that. the risk is on the bank that approves the loan, and not you. (your ability to repay should be truthful, but your payments are smaller because the interest is so low)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0dcd3353333d8d32a4ad4d9423167e8c
|
How can I legally and efficiently help my girlfriend build equity by helping with a mortgage?
|
[
{
"docid": "ff94a74f6bff825a00d09b2a42624887",
"text": "\"Have her chip in for the regular expenses, utilities, food, etc., and a bit for \"\"rent.\"\" Then tell her to be sure to deposit to her retirement account, preferably a matched 401(k). It's admirable to want her to build 'equity' but it's pretty convoluted. You can't actually give her ownership, and in the event you break up (I know you won't, but this is to help other readers) you'll have to pay her back a lump sum when she moves out. That might not be so easy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5379e3edcfed336432b98afdd0b7da9e",
"text": "Equity means having ownership, and I think that's a REALLY bad idea in the scenario that you described. If you stay together, there's really no upside to either of you in this scheme. If you break-up then you'll have a terrible mess, especially if the break-up goes badly. If she's really building equity, you're going to be faced with several hard questions: If this went bad at the end, it might be worse than a divorce in some sense since at least in the divorce you have established law to sort out the issues. You'll be on your own here without a formal contract. (Marriage being a special case of a contract for our purposes here.) If she wants to share costs (which seems perfectly fair) then agree to rent and a split on utilities. If you really insist on going down the path that you described, I think that you'll need some sort of contract, which probably involves a lawyer. Anything short of that could not be considered having equity at all and will be completely unenforceable in the event of a bad break-up. (There is some notion of a verbal contract, but that's very hard to prove and subject to misunderstanding and misremembering.) Aside from all of these potential problems in event of a break-up, you would probably also be violating the terms of your mortgage, if you have one. From the bank's perspective, you are selling the property that is the collateral for that loan, which you're almost surely not allowed to do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51798e3f0e96fef8b3bc3866488c1144",
"text": "There is no simple, legally reasonable, way for her to build equity by helping out with your mortgage, without her having a claim to your mortgage. The only 'equitable' thing she can do is rent from you. If you want her to be building equity, have her start and fund a brokerage account for herself. If you have an affinity for real estate, have her buy REITs in said investment account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be602c0697c53175e949a5b962a5ab3c",
"text": "I agree with everyone who has simply told you 'Dont' and 'You can't' and add a few more considerations that you don't want to deal with: What you want to do is admirable but very complicated from a financial and legal perspective. If this is really a route that you want to go down you should give up on the 'simple' and consider hiring a lawyer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4e4d18eeb2f79ae8f96b4938e906628",
"text": "\"all the other answers are spot on, but look at it this way. really all you mean when you say \"\"building equity\"\" is \"\"accumulating wealth\"\". if that is the goal, then having her invest the money in a brokerage (e.g. ira) account makes a lot more sense. if you can't afford the apartment without her, then you can't afford to pay out her portion of the equity in the future. which means she is not building equity, you are just borrowing money from her. the safest and simplest thing for you to do is to agree on a number that does not include \"\"equity\"\". to be really safe, you might want to both sign something in writing that says she will never have an equity stake unless you agree to it in writing. it doesn't have to be anything fancy. in fact, the shorter the better. i am thinking about 3 sentences should do the trick. if you feel you absolutely have to borrow money from her on a monthly basis to afford your mortgage, then i recommend you make it an unsecured loan. just be sure to specify the interest rate (even if it is zero), and the repayment terms (and ideally, late payment penalties). again, nothing fancy, 10 sentences maybe. e.g. \"\"john doe will borrow x$ per month, until jane doe vacates the apartment. after such time, john doe will begin repaying the loan at y$ per month....\"\" that said, borrowing money from friends and family almost never turns out well. at the very least, you need to save up a few months of rent so that if you do break up, you have time to find another roommate. disclaimer: i do not have any state-issued professional licenses.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4eda79a77fa08f774a90853443ff469",
"text": "I'm glad that you feel like being fair and equitable to your party. Other answerers are, of course, correct that being fair and equitable to your girlfriend is not in your best interests but that's not what you're trying to do here and I commend you for it. There is nothing that stops you drawing up a simple legal contract giving your girlfriend a share of the value of your house in return for her payments. Just get it signed and witnessed and checked over by a legal representative. You can include reasonable terms for the money to be paid back if you separate - perhaps when you sell the property or within two years of the breakup - that don't put you in immediate danger of losing the property. Just make clear that this contract is between you and her for a sum of money linked to the value of your house; it does not establish any legal claim on your house itself. A reasonable level for her to claim the property would be one half of the change in equity between when you start joint paying and when you separate - should that happen.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81f590f40c63e880cc0a0a87772b4f4f",
"text": "Have her pay something like a friendly monthly rent. This should be less than half of the monthly mortgage cost, since you are assuming the risk (and benefits) of a mortgage and closer to the rent of similar places near you. For when you get married and she is to have half the apartment, have a pre-agreed way to calculate a lump-sum that she needs to provide to match your own contributions up to that time, as if you two had equal contributions from the beginning. The financially precise way to do it would be to have her pay more than the mere sum of the amount (since she will be providing the amount at a later time than you), but I would be generous and skip this in your place if the difference is not too big. If you break up, she will have payed what would be a fair amount of rent, as if you two were renting, so, in this sense, it is fair that she would not have a claim on the apartment. In case that you two would like that she keeps the apartment, you can just sell it to her, having her pay this same amount as above and assume responsibility for the rest of the mortgage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2cd417b896d953ed5d5f667607a01b85",
"text": "There is no issue - and no question - if you get married. The question is only relevant in the event that you go separate ways. Should that happen, you imply that you would want to refund whatever amount your girlfriend has paid toward the mortgage. The solution, then, would seem to be to exempt her from any payments, as you will either give that money back to her (if you break up) or make her a co-owner of the condo (if you get married). If you actually need her contributions to the monthly nut, you could give her a written agreement whereby you would refund her money (plus interest) at her discretion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "372267139d6ce347aa752922aff648ff",
"text": "\"A 30-yr mortgage IS a committment. So, you are willing to commit to a place, but not your long-term girlfriend??? Either you don't do this \"\"cheap\"\" scheme idea, or you set up as a business arrangement, or you get married. This is quite a laissez-faire statement you make... \"\"Maybe we will eventually get married, maybe we will eventually break up, who knows.\"\" Anything or anyone that is a \"\"who knows\"\" is not what you make a 30-yr committment on. I mean, unless you just want to risk throwing your money away. Now, man up, hire the lawyer to do official paperwork or else get a legal certificate of civil union or marriage or whatever you want to call it. If you try to do your cockamamie scheme \"\"on the cheap\"\" now, it will most surely cost you dearly in the future! Mixing money (particulary huge sums of 200,000 $!) when there is no legal obligation like marriage or a business contract, is a fool's errand! Now, grow up and do it the right way if you want to help her - and yourself too.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2c46a382eef8995be98cb6552d1f628",
"text": "\"I just wanted to give you a different perspective, as I own a house (purchased with a mortgage), with my girlfriend. I think it can be done safely and fairly, but you do need to involve legal help to do it right. There really is nothing to be terrified about, the extra cost to set this up was almost irrelevant in the bigger picture of legal costs around purchasing and the documents describing the ownership scheme are quite straightforward. Maybe it's a UK thing, but it seems rather commonplace here. We've chosen to hold this as \"\"tenants in common\"\" and use a trust deed for this when we purchased. We had a solicitor write the trust deed and it clearly states what percentage of the house is owned by either party and exactly what the steps would be taken, should we decide to end the trust (e.g. in case of a split-up). This includes things like the right to buy out the other person before selling on the market etc. We also had to make wills separately to indicate what should happen with our percentage of the property in case one of us died as with this type of ownership it doesn't automatically go to the other person. Finally we're both on the mortgage, which I guess is the main difference versus your situation. But again, you could get legal advice as to how this should best be handled.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00d99bd22e5e93a23cfeb738acd9c16b",
"text": "\"This is fine, just have a plan before you go into it. Look up a co-ownership agreement contract off LegalZoom, they are like $15, or get a lawyer if you want. Decide if you want to be \"\"Joint tenants\"\" or \"\"Tenants in common\"\". You probably want to be joint tenants so that if one of you dies the property goes to the other person. Go through the agreement, make any changes you want, and then both sign it. These documents outline what happens if someone dies, or if you break up, or if you are allowed to sell your ownership, and anything else. Keep a record of who has paid what % of equity towards the house. Also look into tax laws, if the mortgage or house is only truly in 1 person's name they may get a tax break that the other person will not get. The co-ownership agreement is essentially the same agreement that happens when you're married, the only difference is that it happens automatically and implicitly when you're married. It's interesting that some people are saying this is a horrible idea when it's practically the same as the agreement you'd have if you were married. Whether you're single or married, if you own a house with another person and you break up, it's going to be a bit complicated. Get a contract in place beforehand so that things go as smoothly as possible. If you are both rational adults you shouldn't have any problems.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70e7de6bd3063c7c56bf7375bc8dee46",
"text": "I'm looking for something simple, legal, reasonably formal, easy to setup and tax efficient. You just described marriage. Get married.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "dc758a7a45f6084cb7df180f7abe3a47",
"text": "In addition to finding another woman investor, you have an equitable option that is not unreasonable: ask your partner to buy out 3% worth of shares from you (which then gives her 54%, allowing you to then sell 5% to an investor and have it not dilute her below 51%: .54 * .95 = .513). That keeps you whole but also keeps your woman-owned-business status.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae78b765445388e78ff43a789df3076b",
"text": "\"Disclaimer: I am a law student, not a lawyer, and don't claim to have a legal opinion one way or another. My answer is intended to provide a few potentially relevant examples from case law in order to make the point that you should be cautious (and seek proper advice if you think that caution is warranted). Nor am I claiming that the facts in these cases are the same as yours; merely that they highlight the flexible approach that the courts take in such cases, and the fact that this area of law is complicated. I don't think it is sensible to just assume that there is no way that your girlfriend could acquire property rights as a rent paying tenant if arranged on an informal basis with no evidence of the intention of the arrangement. One of the answers mentions a bill which is intended to give non-married partners more rights than they have presently. But the existence of that bill doesn't prove the absence of any existing law, it merely suggests a possible legal position that might exist in the future. A worst-case assumption should also be made here, since you're considering the possibility of what can go wrong. So let's say for the sake of the argument that you have a horrible break up and your girlfriend is willing to be dishonest about what the intentions were regarding the flat (e.g. will claim that she understood the arrangement to be that she would acquire ownership rights in exchange for paying two thirds of the monthly mortgage repayment). Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638 - Defendant had property in the name of himself and his brother. Claimant paid nothing towards the purchase price or towards mortgage payments, but paid various outgoings and expenses. The court found a constructive trust in favor of the claimant, who received a 50% beneficial interest in the property. Abbot v Abbot [2007] UKPC 53, [2008] 1 FLR 1451 - Defendant's mother gifted land to a couple with the intention that it be used as a matrimonial home. However it was only put into the defendant's name. The mortgage was paid from a joint account. The claimant was awarded a 50% share. Thompson v Hurst [2012] EWCA Civ 1752, [2014] 1 FLR 238 - Defendant was a council tenant. Later, she formed a relationship with the claimant. They subsequently decided to buy the house from the council, but it was done in the defendant's name. The defendant had paid all the rent while a tenant, and all the mortgage payments while an owner, as well as all utility bills. The claimant sometimes contributed towards the council tax and varying amounts towards general household expenses (housekeeping, children, etc.). During some periods he paid nothing at all, and at other times he did work around the house. Claimant awarded 10% ownership. Aspden v Elvy [2012] EWHC 1387 (Ch), [2012] 2 FCR 435 - The defendant purchased a property in her sole name 10 years after the couple had separated. The claimant helped her convert the property into a house. He did much of the manual work himself, lent his machinery, and contributed financially to the costs. He was awarded a 25% share. Leeds Building Society v York [2015] EWCA Civ 72, [2015] HLR 26 (p 532) - Miss York and Mr York had a dysfunctional and abusive relationship and lived together from 1976 until his death in 2009. In 1983 Mr York bought a house with a mortgage. He paid the monthly mortgage repayments and other outgoings. At varous times Miss York contributed her earnings towards household expenses, but the judge held that this did \"\"not amount to much\"\" over the 33 year period, albeit it had helped Mr York being able to afford the purchase in the first place. She also cooked all the family meals and cared for the daughter. She was awarded a 25% share. Conclusion: Don't make assumptions, consider posting a question on https://law.stackexchange.com/ , consider legal advice, and consider having a formal contract in place which states the exact intentions of the parties. It is a general principle of these kinds of cases that the parties need to have intended for the person lacking legal title to acquire a beneficial interest, and proof to the contrary should make such a claim likely to fail. Alternatively, decide that the risk is low and that it's not worth worrying about. But make a considered decision either way.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8d5c327ce6e719e6a82fda9724475de",
"text": "While I agree with the existing bulk of comments and answers that you can't tell the lender the $7k is a gift, I do think you might have luck finding a mortgage broker who can help you get a loan as a group. (You might consider as an LLC or other form of corporation if no one will take you otherwise.) That is, each of you will be an owner of the house and appear on the mortgage. IIRC, as long as the downpayment only comes from the collective group, and the income-to-debt ratio of the group as a whole is acceptable, and the strongest credit rating of the group is good, you should be able to find a loan. (You may need a formal ownership agreement to get this accepted by the lender.) That said, I don't know if your income will trump your brother's situation (presumably high debt ratio or lower than 100% multiplier on his income dues to its source), but it will certainly help. As to how to structure the deal for fairness, I think whatever the two of you agree to and put down in writing is fine. If you each think you're helping the other, than a 50/50 split on profits at the sale of the property seems reasonable to me. I'd recommend that you actually include in your write up a defined maximum period for ownership (e.g. 5yr, or 10yr, etc,) and explain how things will be resolved if one side doesn't want to sell at that point but the other side does. Just remember that whatever percentages you agree to as ownership won't effect the lender's view of payment requirements. The lender will consider each member of the group fully and independently responsible for the loan. That is, if something happens to your brother, or he just flakes out on you, you will be on the hook for 100% of the loan. And vice-versa. Your write up ought to document what happens if one of you flakes out on paying agreed upon amounts, but still expects there ownership share at the time of sale. That said, if you're trying to be mathematically fair about apportioning ownership, you could do something like the below to try and factor in the various issues into the money flow: The above has the benefit that you can start with a different ownership split (34/66, 25/75, etc.) if one of you wants to own more of the property.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c17aff7f263c74b9a7f8eb3c8981ca68",
"text": "Owing money to family members can create serious problems. Taking out a purchase-money mortgage to pay your sister for her share is the best way to avoid future friction and, possibly, outright alienation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d3f4dddca6531cf3532df3734a0165b",
"text": "I guess most banks will not have an issue with that arrangement. The bank take collateral in the house for the amount your girlfriend needs to borrow, from her part of the house. Most likely the bank will accept the house' value as what you pay for it, assuming you pay fair market value - otherwise they will contact a valuation company to put a value of your new house. If they feel that her share of the house (50%) can cover her loan, they will definitely agree with the deal. You being a foreigner will, probably, have little to say in the matter, as long as you do not need to borrow money for your share of the house.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88b36b264f597acad982578c3083fc01",
"text": "\"This is more of a long comment but may answer user's situation too. I have dealt with joint mortgages before in 3 states in the US. Basically in all three states if one party wants to sell, the home goes up for sale. This can be voluntary or it can go up via auction (not a great choice). In 2 of the 3 states the first person to respond to the court about the property, the other party pays all legal fees. Yes you read this right. In one case I had an ex who was on my mortgage, she had no money invested in the house ($0 down and still in college with no job). [If she wasn't on the mortgage I wouldn't have gotten loan - old days of dumb rules] When we split her lawyer was using the house as a way to extort other money from me. Knowing the state's laws I already filed a petition for the property but put it on hold with the clerk. Meaning that no one else could file but if someone tried mine would no longer be on hold. My ex literally spent thousands of dollars on this attorney and they wanted to sell the house and get half the money from the house. So sale price minus loan amount divided between us. This is the law in almost every state if there is no formal contract. I was laughing because she wanted what would be maybe 50-75K for paying no rent, no money down, and me paying for her college. Finally I broke her attorney down (I didn't lawyer up but had many friends who were lawyers advising). After I told her lawyer she wasn't getting anything - might have said it in not a nice way - her lawyer gave me her break down. To paraphrase she said, \"\"We are going to file now. My assistant is in the court clerk's office. You can tell the court whatever you want. Maybe they will give you a greater percentage since you put the money down and paid for everything but you are taking that chance. But you will pay for your lawyer and you will need one. And you will pay for me the entire time. And this will be a lengthy process. You would be better served to pay my client half now.\"\" Her office was about 2 blocks from court. I laughed at her and simply told her to have her assistant do whatever she wanted. I then left to go to clerk's office to take the hold off. She had beat me to the office (I moved my car out of her garage). By the time I got there she was outside yelling at her assistant, throwing a hissy fit, and papers were flying everywhere. We \"\"settled\"\" the next day. She got nothing other than the things she had already stolen from me. If I wouldn't have known about this loophole my ex would have gotten or cost me through attorney's fees around 40-50K for basically hiring a lawyer. My ex didn't really have any money so I am pretty sure lawyer was getting a percent. Moral of the story: In any contract like this you always want to be the one bringing in the least amount of money. There are no laws that I know of in any country where the person with the least amount on a contract will come out worse (%-wise). Like I said in the US the best case scenario that I know of for joint property is that the court pays out the stakeholder all of their contributions then it splits things 50/50. This is given no formal contract that the court upholds. Don't even get me started with hiring attorneys because I have seen the courts throw out so many property contracts it isn't even funny. One piece of advice on a contract if you do one. Make it open and about percentages. Party A contributes 50K, Party B 10K, Party A will pay this % of mortgage and maintenance and will get this % when home is sold. I have found the more specific things are the more loopholes for getting out of them. There are goofy ass laws everywhere that make no sense. Why would the person first filing get their lawyers paid for??? The court systems in almost all countries can have their comical corners. You will never be able to write a contract that covers everything. If the shower handle breaks, who pays for it? There is just too many one-off things with a house. You are in essence getting in a relationship with this person. I hear others say it is a business transaction. NO. You are living with this person. There is no way to make it purely business. For you to be happy with this outcome both of you must remain somewhat friends and at the very least civil with each other. To add on to the previous point, the biggest risk is this other person's character and state of mind. They are putting in the most money so you don't exactly have a huge money risk. You do have a time and a time-cost risk. Your time or the money you do have in this may be tied up in trying to get your money out or house sold. A jerk could basically say that you get nothing, and make you traverse the court system for a couple years to get a few thousand back. And that isn't the worst case scenario. Always know your worst case scenario. Yours is this dude is in love with you. When he figures out 2-3 years later after making you feel uncomfortable the entire time that you are not in love with him, he starts going nuts. So he systematically destroys your house. Your house worth plummets, you want out, you can't sell the house for price of loan, lenders foreclose or look to sue you, you pay \"\"double rent\"\" because you can't live with the guy, and you have to push a scooter to get to work. That is just the worst case scenario. Would I do this if I were 25 and had no family? Yea, why not if I trusted the other person and was friends with them? If it were just a co-worker? That is really iffy with me. Edit: Author said he will not be living with the person. So wording can be changed to say \"\"potentially\"\" in front of living with him in my examples.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd89b818d5702284369797b5fbfb8462",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "024f190b764183dc722c34c4360e0f90",
"text": "The mortgage and title of the house would be under both your names equally. When I applied for a mortgage with my girlfriend, I was the primary applicant because of my credit score and she was the secondary because of her income (she makes more). When all was said and done, it was explained to us that the mortgage was ours equally and so was the house, and that I didn't hold more ownership than her over either. We were approved quickly and hassle free. This is our first house too. This is in Florida.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1931fcfb31aace0fe69344184134370",
"text": "\"Simply paying him back the 50K to reduce \"\"his equity\"\" back to 30% doesn't necessarily mean that he still doesn't have a higher liq pref upon a liquidation event. You don't need the legal language to know...I deal with term sheets all the time, I don't deal in the legal language, we cut the deal with the term sheet and leave the legal language to the lawyers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "beab52bb4c7e60ec7d8ba5666b415278",
"text": "Now I have been trying to figure out how to split the money that we both earn. From what I can see there are several concepts but none of them really seems ideal to me. There is nothing fair or unfair in such arrangements. It is what you both agree. You can try and make this as scientific as possible. But then there is no golden rule. For example, your girlfriend makes 2200 now and due to child, she is making 1100. The child is both of your responsibility; so you need to compensate half of her salary loss. 550 and she takes the other half. If you hire a nanny to look after you kinds, it would say cost you 500. But your girlfriend is doing that job, so she should get additional 500 from common pot. Plus due to loss of few years in looking after the children, she has a lost opportunity in career growth. i.e. she may indefinitely make less money than she can... So one gets into all kinds of theories and analysis and any arrangements will have some or the other gaps. So my suggestion, don't get too scientific about it. Just talk it out as to what you both feel how this should be and arrive it. It is something every individual has to agree. It also make sense to have the large assets [or assets that matter], like house, car etc in clear title and who gets what in case you decide to separate. Other should be incidental.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "add0339c544855d4a40c557705a5dc6b",
"text": "Ultimately the bank will have first call on the house and you will be the only one on the hook directly to the bank if you don't make the mortgage payments. There's nothing you can do to avoid that if you can't get a joint mortgage. What you could do is make a side agreement that your girlfriend would be entitled to half the equity in the house, and would be required to make half the payments (via you). You could perhaps also add that she would be part responsible for helping you clear any arrears. But in the end it'd just be a deal between you and her. She wouldn't have any direct rights over the house and she wouldn't be at risk of the bank pursuing her if you don't pay the mortgage. You'd probably also need legal advice to make it watertight, but you could also not worry about that too much and just write it all down as formally as possible. It really depends if you're just trying to improve your feelings about the process or whether you really want something that you could both rely on in the event of a later split. I don't think getting married would make any make any real difference day-to-day. In law, with rare exceptions, the finances of spouses are independent from each other. However in the longer term, being married would mean your now-wife would have a stronger legal claim on half the equity in the house in the event of you splitting up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72eed75865cf38a35de154505afa0fe3",
"text": "Assuming United States; answer may be different elsewhere. The best instructions I have seen for this were on the webpage of one of the law firms making an organized business out of intra-family loans, but any lawyer who can deal with normal bank loans should be able to help you set this up and get it filed with the appropriate authorities to make it a legally binding mortgage. Shouldn't cost you much in legal time to do it. You will have to charge interest; your lawyer can tell you what the minimum and maximimum interest rates would be where you are. Your interest income will be taxable. The borrower may or may not be able to deduct the interest paid from their taxes. Of course if the borrower has any sense they'll want to get their own lawyer to review the terms of the agreement, and to tell them whether they can deduct it from taxes or not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0654e7730a0c6596f36a97d8f2e0cc7",
"text": "You actually have a few options. First, you can do a share split and then sell an equal number of shares from both you and your wife to maintain parity. Second, you can have the company issue additional shares/convert shares and then have the company sell the appropriate percentage to the third party while the rest is distributed to you and your wife. Third, you can have the company issue a separate class of stock. For example there are companies that have voting stock and non-voting stock. Depending on your goal, you could just issue non-voting stock and sell that. Best bet is to contact a lawyer who specializes in this type of work and have them recommend a course of action. One caveat that has not been mentioned is that what/how you do this will also depend on the type of corporation that you have created.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cec66d2b008f06da053a3a1edde35544",
"text": "\"It's all about access to capital: You can borrow against 401ks up to an extent. You can borrow against CDs outside of tax sheltered retirement plans. You can't borrow against an IRA, although there is a situation with a very small time frame that would still be state sanctioned with no tax penalties. I wouldn't recommend it. Annuities come with penalties. I've looked at many possibilities of accessing retirement capital without penalty, and 401k's offer that ability, but its also good to just have savings accounts and investments that are not tax-deferred. Borrowing against 401k pros: http://www.ehow.com/how_2075551_borrow-money-from-401k.html cons: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/retirement/06/eightreasons401k.asp#axzz29TtJPoXO Outside of your general expenses and play money, money you put toward - say... - a house should be non-tax deferred. Because if you like borrowing, you can always borrow against the house, or any property. The root of the problem is liquidity and access to capital, understanding those fundamental concepts will answer most questions. \"\"Am I liquid? Yes/No\"\" \"\"Can I be liquid without losing money? Yes/No\"\" As usual, more is more, adjust your priorities accordingly.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cdf6041105d52253b016ef3ffd8a099a",
"text": "what reason would I have in buying an ETF? Apart from the efforts, the real reason is the ticket size. One can't buy shares in fraction. To truly reflect the index in equal weight, the amount to invest will be in multiples of millions [depending on the Index and the stock composition] This related question should help you understand why it is difficult even for large fund house to exactly mimic the index. Why do passive ETFs require so much trading (and incur costs)?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
79543b112f41ef73f36586637f586163
|
Including the region where you live in your investment portfolio?
|
[
{
"docid": "95738b7725dea352d912355a70fde454",
"text": "Diversification is a risk-mitigation strategy. When you invest in equities, you generally get a higher rate of return than a fixed income investment. But you have risks... a single company's market value can decline for all sorts of reasons, including factors outside of the control of management. Diversification lets you spread risk and concentrate on sectors that you feel offer the best value. Investing outside of your currency zone allows you to diversify more, but also introduces currency risks, which require a whole other level of understanding. Today, investing in emerging markets is very popular for US investors because these economies are booming and US monetary policy has been weakening the dollar for some time. A major bank failure in China or a flip to a strong dollar policy could literally implode those investments overnight. At the end of the day, invest in what you understand. Know the factors that can lower your investment value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a487098eb5d373fc761b2f723dfdff16",
"text": "The problem is aggregating information from so many sources, countries, and economies. You are probably more aware of local laws, local tax changes, local economic performance, etc, so it makes sense that you'd be more in tune with your own country. If your intent is to be fully diversified, then buy a total world fund. A lot of hedge funds do what you are suggesting, but I think it requires either some serious math or some serious research. Note: I'm invested in emerging markets (EEM) for exactly the reason you suggest... diversification.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be18dd25573348ca2dd5f1fd1b884d88",
"text": "Diversification is just one aspect in an investment portfolio. The other aspects in Investment are Risk Taking Ability, Liquidity, Local Regulations, Tax benefits, Ease & Convenience, Cost of carrying out transactions etc. Investing in other regions is prone FX risk and other risks depending on the region of investment. For example investing in Emerging markets there is a risk of Local Regulations being changed, additional tax being levied, or Political instability and host of such risks. Investing in local markets give you better understanding of such changes and the risk associated is less plus the Ease of carrying out transactions is great, less expensive compared to cost of transactions in other markets. Diversification in Investment should also be looked upon how much you invest in; Equities Debt Bullion Real Estate Once you have a sizeable amount of investment in Equities or Debt, it would then make more sense to diversify this portion more to include funds from other regions. Unless you are an Running your own business, it makes sense to invest in your line of business if that is performing well. The reason being that the benefit / returns from the equities is much greater than the salary rise / bonus. For example I am in Information Technology and yet invest in all leading IT companies because the returns from companies in these segments have been good.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "bde532eae5c6c8cbb1770a4bfd7c4d55",
"text": "\"For what it's worth, the distribution I'm currently using is roughly ... with about 2/3 of the money sitting in my 401(k). I should note that this is actually considered a moderately aggressive position. I need to phone my advisor (NOT a broker, so they aren't biased toward things which are more profitable for them) and check whether I've gotten close enough to retirement that I should readjust those numbers. Could I do better? Maybe, at higher risk and higher fees that would be likely to eat most of the improved returns. Or by spending far more time micromanaging my money than I have any interest in. I've validated this distribution using the various stochastic models and it seems to work well enough that I'm generally content with it. (As I noted in a comment elsewhere, many of us will want to get up into this range before we retire -- I figure that if I hit $1.8M I can probably sustain my lifestyle solely on the income, despite expected inflation, and thus be safely covered for life -- so this isn't all that huge a chunk of cash by today's standards. Cue Daffy Duck: \"\"I'm rich! I'm wealthy! I'm comfortably well off!\"\" -- $2M, these days, is \"\"comfortably well off.\"\")\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "880c472155f647b17b728aa8863c09a8",
"text": "Personally, I do asset allocation separately for personal investing and for retirement investing, as I the two have vastly different purposes and I have vastly different goals for each. YMMV depending on how you view your non-retirement investments, and how close you are to retirement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "647740b4ae71f5a6f13b36593cb3f041",
"text": "The default of the country will affect the country obligations and what's tied to it. If you have treasury bonds, for example - they'll get hit. If you have cash currency - it will get hit. If you're invested in the stock market, however, it may plunge, but will recover, and in the long run you won't get hit. If you're invested in foreign countries (through foreign currency or foreign stocks that you hold), then the default of your local government may have less affect there, if at all. What you should not, in my humble opinion, be doing is digging holes in the ground or probably not exchange all your cash for gold (although it is considered a safe anchor in case of monetary crisis, so may be worth considering some diversifying your portfolio with some gold). Splitting between banks might not make any difference at all because the value won't change, unless you think that one of the banks will fail (then just close the account there). The bottom line is that the key is diversifying, and you don't have to be a seasoned investor for that. I'm sure there are mutual funds in Greece, just pick several different funds (from several different companies) that provide diversified investment, and put your money there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b6cde81fdb549260eac7262ff180761",
"text": "The idea of an index is that it is representative of the market (or a specific market segment) as a whole, so it will move as the market does. Thus, past performance is not really relevant, unless you want to bank on relative differences between different countries' economies. But that's not the point. By far the most important aspect when choosing index funds is the ongoing cost, usually expressed as Total Expense Ratio (TER), which tells you how much of your investment will be eaten up by trading fees and to pay the funds' operating costs (and profits). This is where index funds beat traditional actively managed funds - it should be below 0.5% The next question is how buying and selling the funds works and what costs it incurs. Do you have to open a dedicated account or can you use a brokerage account at your bank? Is there an account management fee? Do you have to buy the funds at a markup (can you get a discount on it)? Are there flat trading fees? Is there a minimum investment? What lot sizes are possible? Can you set up a monthly payment plan? Can you automatically reinvest dividends/coupons? Then of course you have to decide which index, i.e. which market you want to buy into. My answer in the other question apparently didn't make it clear, but I was talking only about stock indices. You should generally stick to broad, established indices like the MSCI World, S&P 500, Euro Stoxx, or in Australia the All Ordinaries. Among those, it makes some sense to just choose your home country's main index, because that eliminates currency risk and is also often cheaper. Alternatively, you might want to use the opportunity to diversify internationally so that if your country's economy tanks, you won't lose your job and see your investment take a dive. Finally, you should of course choose a well-established, reputable issuer. But this isn't really a business for startups (neither shady nor disruptively consumer-friendly) anyway.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d917fd88122a0370b8a89e8598d25e42",
"text": "Let's simplify things by assuming you only own 2 stocks. By owning VOO and VTI, you're overweight on large- and mid-cap stocks relative to the market composition. Likewise, by owning VTI and VT, you're overweight on U.S. stocks; conversely, by owning VXUS and VT, you're overweight on non-U.S. stocks. These are all perfectly fine positions to take if that's what you intend and have justification for. For example, if you're in the U.S., it may be a good idea to hold more U.S. stocks than VT because of currency risk. But 4 equity index ETFs is probably overcomplicating things. It is perfectly fine to hold only VTI and VXUS because these funds comprise thousands of stocks and thus give you sufficient diversification. I would recommend holding those 2 ETFs based on a domestic/international allocation that makes sense to you (Vanguard recommends 40% of your stock allocation to be international), and if for some reason you want to be overweight in large- and mid-cap companies, throw in VOO. You can use Morningstar X-Ray to look at your proposed portfolio and find your optimal mix of geographic and stock style allocation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "135a2e56bf522c48f2db3566edca2a69",
"text": "A foreign stock mutual fund definitely belongs in stocks. It's composed of stocks. Your self occupied house is definitely real estate. You don have to keep in mind,however that selling it would create costs such as rent. I wouldn't leave it out, if doing that would cause you to buy more real estate. This would cause you to be overweighted in the real estate area. I would tend to think if a CD as cash. While it could be considered a bond, as you said the principal doesn't go down. The REIT is the toughest one. I would really like to see a graph showing how correlated it is to the real estate market. That would determine where I would put it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "503261d5bff005c524a8682b785a5b54",
"text": "International equity are considered shares of companies, which are headquartered outside the United States, for instance Research in Motion (Canada), BMW (Germany), UBS (Switzerland). Some investors argue that adding international equities to a portfolio can reduce its risk due to regional diversification.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bb6f2fa37a7dadb2eecc6d87c3f65f2",
"text": "\"In theory, the idea is that diversified assets will perform differently in different circumstances, spreading your risk around. Whether that still functions in practice is a decent question, as the \"\"truth\"\" of most probability based arguments for diversification rely on the different assets being at least somewhat uncorrelated. This article suggests that might not be true. Specifically: The correlations we note among industry sectors are profoundly and dysfunctionally high. and Gold and silver traders have gotten too used to the negative correlation trade with stocks. This is, in fact, an unusual relationship for precious metals tostocks. The correlation should actually be zero.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b814e2e4f943f77864610939f302e619",
"text": "\"I find it interesting that you didn't include something like [Total Bond Market](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBMFX), or [Intermediate-Term Treasuries](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBIIX), in your graphic. If someone were to have just invested in the DJI or SP500, then they would have ignored the tenants of the Modern Portfolio Theory and not diversified adequately. I wouldn't have been able to stomach a portfolio of 100% stocks, commodities, or metals. My vote goes for: 1.) picking an asset allocation that reflects your tolerance for risk (a good starting point is \"\"age in bonds,\"\" i.e. if you're 30, then hold 30% in bonds); 2.) save as if you're not expecting annualized returns of %10 (for example) and save more; 3.) don't try to pick the next winner, instead broadly invest in the market and hold it. Maybe gold and silver are bubbles soon to burst -- I for one don't know. I don't give the \"\"notion in the investment community\"\" much weight -- as it always is, someday someone will be right, I just don't know who that someone is.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f53751a09601e4815ee181201e20979",
"text": "\"Over on Quantitative Finance Stack Exchange, I asked and answered a more technical and broader version of this question, Should the average investor hold commodities as part of a broadly diversified portfolio? In short, I believe the answer to your question is that gold is neither an investment nor a hedge against inflation. Although many studies claim that commodities (such as gold) do offer some diversification benefit, the most credible academic study I have seen to date, Should Investors Include Commodities in Their Portfolios After All? New Evidence, shows that a mean-variance investor would not want to allocate any of their portfolio to commodities (this would include gold, presumably). Nevertheless, many asset managers, such as PIMCO, offer funds that are marketed as \"\"real return\"\" or \"\"inflation-managed\"\" and include commodities (including gold) in their portfolios. PIMCO has also commissioned some research, Strategic Asset Allocation and Commodities, claiming that holding some commodities offers both diversification and inflation hedging benefits.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "efd0097229164057ef16b3e11f442cf7",
"text": "The closest I can think of from the back of my head is http://finviz.com/map.ashx, which display a nice map and allows for different intervals. It has different scopes (S&P500, ETFs, World), but does not allow for specific date ranges, though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d9f05f39288a85e40d0d2571f7e15c5",
"text": "\"You are in your mid 30's and have 250,000 to put aside for investments- that is a fantastic position to be in. First, let's evaluate all the options you listed. Option 1 I could buy two studio apartments in the center of a European capital city and rent out one apartment on short-term rental and live in the other. Occasionally I could Airbnb the apartment I live in to allow me to travel more (one of my life goals). To say \"\"European capital city\"\" is such a massive generalization, I would disregard this point based on that alone. Athens is a European capital city and so is Berlin but they have very different economies at this point. Let's put that aside for now. You have to beware of the following costs when using property as an investment (this list is non-exhaustive): The positive: you have someone paying the mortgage or allowing you to recoup what you paid for the apartment. But can you guarantee an ROI of 10-15% ? Far from it. If investing in real estate yielded guaranteed results, everyone would do it. This is where we go back to my initial point about \"\"European capital city\"\" being a massive generalization. Option 2 Take a loan at very low interest rate (probably 2-2.5% fixed for 15 years) and buy something a little nicer and bigger. This would be incase I decide to have a family in say, 5 years time. I would need to service the loan at up to EUR 800 / USD 1100 per month. If your life plan is taking you down the path of having a family and needed the larger space for your family, then you need the space to live in and you shouldn't be looking at it as an investment that will give you at least 10% returns. Buying property you intend to live in is as much a life choice as it is an investment. You will treat the property much different from the way something you rent out gets treated. It means you'll be in a better position when you decide to sell but don't go in to this because you think a return is guaranteed. Do it if you think it is what you need to achieve your life goals. Option 3 Buy bonds and shares. But I haven't the faintest idea about how to do that and/or manage a portfolio. If I was to go down that route how do I proceed with some confidence I won't lose all the money? Let's say you are 35 years old. The general rule is that 100 minus your age is what you should put in to equities and the rest in something more conservative. Consider this: This strategy is long term and the finer details are beyond the scope of an answer like this. You have quite some money to invest so you would get preferential treatment at many financial institutions. I want to address your point of having a goal of 10-15% return. Since you mentioned Europe, take a look at this chart for FTSE 100 (one of the more prominent indexes in Europe). You can do the math- the return is no where close to your goals. My objective in mentioning this: your goals might warrant going to much riskier markets (emerging markets). Again, it is beyond the scope of this answer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bb3abcd14a58afbb8f891284510f413",
"text": "We face the same issue here in Switzerland. My background: Institutional investment management, currency risk management. My thoughs are: Home Bias is the core concept of your quesiton. You will find many research papers on this topic. The main problems with a high home bias is that the investment universe in your small local investment market is usually geared toward your coutries large corporations. Lack of diversification: In your case: the ASX top 4 are all financials, actually banks, making up almost 25% of the index. I would expect the bond market to be similarly concentrated but I dont know. In a portfolio context, this is certainly a negative. Liquidity: A smaller economy obviously has less large corporations when compared globally (check wikipedia / List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization) thereby offering lower liquidity and a smaller investment universe. Currency Risk: I like your point on not taking a stance on FX. This simplifies the task to find a hedge ratio that minimises portfolio volatility when investing internationally and dealing with currencies. For equities, you would usually find that a hedge ratio anywhere from 0-30% is effective and for bonds one that ranges from 80-100%. The reason is that in an equity portfolio, currency risk contributes less to overall volatility than in a bond portfolio. Therefore you will need to hedge less to achieve the lowest possible risk. Interestingly, from a global perspective, we find, that the AUD is a special case whereby, if you hedge the AUD you actually increase total portfolio risk. Maybe it has to do with the AUD being used in carry trades a lot, but that is a wild guess. Hedged share classes: You could buy the currency hedged shared classes of investment funds to invest globally without taking currency risks. Be careful to read exactly what and how the share class implements its currency hedging though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b7fd84cef86ec642912dd0ad4a815e3",
"text": "\"Most (if not all states) in the US are only interested in source income. If you worked in that state they want to tax it. Many states have reciprocity agreements with neighboring states to exempt income earned when a person works in lets say Virginia, but lives in a state that touches Virginia. Most states don't consider interest and dividends for individuals as source income. They don't care where the bank or mutual fund branch is located, or headquartered.If it is interest from a business they will allocate it to the state where the business is located. If you may ask you to allocate the funds between two states if you move during the year, but most people will just divide the interest and dividends based on the number of days in each state unless there is a way to directly allocate the funds to a particular state. Consider this: Where is the money when it is in a bank with multiple branches? The money is only electronic, and your actual \"\"$'s\"\" may be in a federal reserve branch. Pension funds are invested in projects all over the US.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62c2505b9c73061efe7702f188ad3fbd",
"text": "It's important to realize that any portfolio, if sufficiently diversified should track overall GDP growth, and anything growing via a percentage per annum is going to double eventually. (A good corner-of-napkin estimate is 70/the percentage = years to double). Just looking at your numbers, if you initially put in the full $7000, an increase to $17000 after 10 years represents a return of ~9.3% per annum (to check my math $7000*1.09279^10 ≈ $17000). Since you've been putting in the $7000 over 10 years the return is going to be a bit more than that, but it's not possible to calculate based on the information given. A return of 9.3% is not bad (some rules of thumb: inflation is about 2-4% so if you are making less than that you're losing money, and 6-10% per annum is generally what you should expect if your portfolio is tracking the market)... I wouldn't consider that rate of return to be particularly amazing, but it's not bad either, as you've done better than you would have if you had invested in an ETF tracking the market. The stock market being what it is, you can't rule out the possibility that you got lucky with your stock picks. If your portfolio was low-risk, a return of 9%ish could be considered amazing, but given that it's about 5-6 different stocks what I'd consider amazing would be a return of 15%+ (to give you something to shoot for!) Either way, for your amount of savings you're probably better off going with a mutual fund or an ETF. The return might be slightly lower, but the risk profile is also lower than you picking your stocks, since the fund/ETF will be more diversified. (and it's less work!)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8f7b078113cc1569bf1920568a137d14
|
Interest on security deposits paid to landlords, in Michigan?
|
[
{
"docid": "818145ff77d44ceac220a0c1f13d4f20",
"text": "NO. The legislation requires the landlord to deposit it in a bank. Check out pages 7-10 of the linked document. There is no mention of interest. The second clause, I believe, is probably for large landlords who hold hundreds of thousands of dollars of security. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/tenantlandlord.pdf Q4 Once collected, what must the landlord do with the security deposit? The landlord must either: a) Deposit the money with a regulated financial institution (e.g., bank), OR b) Deposit a cash bond or surety bond, to secure the entire deposit, with the Secretary of State. ( Note: If the landlord does this, he or she may use the money at any time, for any purpose.) The bond ensures that there is money available to repay the tenant’s security deposit",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cfd81576bb7bf35d9fa0c764680262f3",
"text": "\"No. The full text of the Landlord-Tenant Act (specifically, section 554.614 of Act 348 of the year 1972) makes no mention of this. Searching the law for \"\"interest\"\" doesn't yield anything of interest (pardon the pun). Specifically, section 554.604 of the same law states that: (1) The security deposit shall be deposited in a regulated financial institution. A landlord may use the moneys so deposited for any purposes he desires if he deposits with the secretary of state a cash bond or surety bond written by a surety company licensed to do business in this state and acceptable to the attorney general to secure the entire deposits up to $50,000.00 and 25% of any amount exceeding $50,000.00. The attorney general may find a bond unacceptable based only upon reasonable criteria relating to the sufficiency of the bond, and shall notify the landlord in writing of his reasons for the unacceptability of the bond. (2) The bond shall be for the benefit of persons making security deposits with the landlord. A person for whose benefit the bond is written or his legal representative may bring an action in the district, common pleas or municipal court where the landlord resides or does business for collection on the bond. While it does sound like the landlord is required to deposit the money in a bank or other secured form, e.g. the Secretary of State, he/she isn't required to place it in an account that will earn interest.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "789692ce410ddf6b795a1358e414f744",
"text": "You don't pay any interest until a few weeks after you receive your statement, when the payment is due. Simply set up a direct debit with Halifax for the statement balance and they will take the correct amount (whatever you spent that month) from your bank account on the payment due date. Problem solved!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef3aeab66bcdc9f0fea169a0f2397abc",
"text": "This happens to my dad all the time. He requires a deposit up front, but sometimes he'll let people slide without a deposit, or they refuse to pay the balance or something. After he has called and harrassed them about it, he boxes up the files of people that don't pay and hands it off to a lawyer. He has a deal worked out where he provides the lawyer with all the paperwork and the lawyer gets to keep 20% of whatever he can collect. The rest is just written off. The key thing is determining how much time and money you want to sink trying to get that money back. You don't know the likelihood of actually collecting that money, and every hour you spend on it is an hour you could spend generating more business",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b79473bb909aae086d116bb059928e44",
"text": "To be absolutely sure you should call the agent and check That said I have been renting accommodation through both agencies and directly through landlords for seven years (I live in London) and this is quite a common situation. It normally means that the deposit is being securely held by a third party so that it cannot be taken or depleted without the agreement of both parties. The deposit protection scheme ( https://www.depositprotection.com/ ) is one way that deposits are securely held in this manner. As a third party they will have different account details. It may be the case that the agency is protecting the deposit and you are paying rent to the landlord directly. This means that your deposit goes to the agency's account and the rent goes to the landlord's account. Obviously your landlord and agency have different accounts. A little colour to brighten your day: I am currently paying my rent to the agency who also took the deposit but, because of the way they handle deposits versus rent, the deposit was sent to a different account held by the same agent. In my previous flat I paid the deposit to an agency and the rent directly to the landlord. This resulted in an issue one time where I got the two accounts confused and paid rent to the agency who, after giving me a small slap on the wrist, transferred it to my landlord. In the flat before that I paid rent and the deposit to my landlords' holding company. That is one of the few times that I paid rent and the deposit into the same account. Again check with the agent that one of these situations is the case but this is absolutely normal when renting through an agency.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b7f66d0deb3fe87aea9a853975b835d",
"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",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fab868581152d6464183e52963bacff7",
"text": "\"To the best of my knowledge, in California there's no such thing as registering a place as a business. There's zoning (residential/commercial/mixed/etc), and there's \"\"a business registered at a place\"\". But there's no \"\"place registered as a business\"\". So you better clarify what it is that you think your landlord did. It may be that the place is used for short term rentals, in which case the landlord may have to have registered a business of short term rentals there, depending on the local municipal or county rules. Specifically regarding the deposit, however, there's a very clear treatment in the California law. The landlord must provide itemized receipt for the amounts out of the deposit that were used, and the prices should be reasonable and based on the actual charges by the actual vendors. If you didn't get such a receipt, or the amounts are bogus and unsubstantiated - you have protection under the CA law.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "849865233681cf162c72b2fb2ed4fc5a",
"text": "\"Do you now own your new home, or are you renting? This is a classic case of a mortgage ready to blow up. These 7/1 interest only would have a low rate, say 3%. So on $200K, the payment is $500/mo, but no principal paydown. Even if the rate were still 3% (it won't be) the 23 yr amortization means a payment of $1004 after the 7 years end. At 4%, it's $1109. 5%, $1221. I would take this all into account as you decide what to do. If you now own a new house, you should consider the morally questionable walk-away. I believe you were sold an unethical product. mb wrote \"\"shoot up considerably.\"\" This is still an understatement. A product whose payment is certain to double in a fixed time is 'bad.' 'Bad' in the biblical sense. You have no obligation to keep any deal with the devil, which is exactly what you have. There are some banks offering FHA products that might help you. I just received an offer from the bank holding a mortgage on my rental property. It's 4.5% for a refinance up to 125% of current value. There's a cost of $1800, but I owe so little, and am paying it off faster than the time left, I'm not bothering. You may benefit from such a program, but I'd still question if you can make a go of a house that even 2% underwater. Do some math, and see if you started now with a 30 year loan how the numbers work out. (Forgive my soapbox stance on this. There are those who criticize the strategic defaulters. I think you fall into a group of innocent victims who were sold a product that was nothing less than a financial time bomb. I am very curious to know the original \"\"interest only\"\" rate, and the index/margin for the rate upon adjustment. If you include the original balance, I can tell you the exact payments based on the new rates pretty easily.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e807c92da46aa5593ceb19e23329ecb6",
"text": "Michigan's 529 plan offers a wide variety of investment options, ranging from a very conservative guaranteed investment option (currently earning 1.75% interest) to a variety of index-based funds, most of which are considered aggressive. You said that you are unhappy with the 5% you have earned the past year, and that you thought you should be able to get 8% elsewhere. But according to your comment, you have 30% of your money earning a fixed 1.75% rate, and another 40% of your money invested in one of the moderate balanced options (which includes both stocks and bonds). You've only got 30% invested in the more aggressive investments that you seem to be looking for. If you want to be invested more agressively (which is reasonable, since your daughter won't need this money for many years), you can select more aggressive investments inside the 529. Michigan's 529 offers you the ability to deduct up to $10,000 (if you are married filing jointly) of contributions off your Michigan state income tax each year. In addition, the earnings inside the 529 are federally tax-free if the money is spent on college education.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31720da99062e7b85434b76a2d139dc8",
"text": "\"I have never seen anything that suggest it's illegal to charge \"\"fair\"\" interests on loans, personally or commercially. Even CRA has long allowed the use of properly written \"\"promissory notes\"\" as the proof for personal loans between individuals, as long as the rates are consistent with their current \"\"subscribed rate\"\" (think bank's prime rate, if you don't want to having to look it up on CRA site). Loan Shark is someone or some entity that charges significantly higher interests than the rates posted by FI's. We are talking about 30+% versus the bank's 10%. Yes, we can argue the FI's are acting like Loan Shark when it comes to credit card interest rates, but that's another discussion.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64b5152109801f6c7a91e2afffa778a4",
"text": "\"Loans do not carry an \"\"interest balance\"\". You can not pay off \"\"all the interest\"\". The only way to reduce the interest to zero is to pay off the loan. Otherwise, the interest due each month is some percentage of the outstanding principal. Think of it from the bank's perspective: they've invested some amount of money in you, and they expect a return on that investment in the form of interest. If you somehow paid in 16 years all the interest the bank expected to receive in 30 years, you've been scammed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "716556dc8e2ec8e89a0b9229f91bd0c6",
"text": "You're asking all the right questions, and if I worked for my landlord's company I might have an answer! I imagine they're capitalizing on people's laziness. I live in the Bay Area where some people probably don't mind paying $35 to not have to walk 100 feet to the office and drop off a check.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83b726abb06b3facfd6be7b430d842bc",
"text": "Good! The article says it was some kind of collateral protection insurance that customers were signed up for despite it being unrequired for the loan. The accusations is that WF racketeered about 800,000 loans by bundling in this bunk insurance cost as part of the loan structure. I'm glad you're not caught up in it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2b8f0ca38cc525fda0918c857ec66d7",
"text": "Yes it most cases it is legal. Plus depending on how you look at it, the last payment of 1000 can be principal paid and interest was paid in initial installments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "531c24fc4799a873aaae9d2509686043",
"text": "What are you using the analysis for? If your analyzing your interest rate risk then you want to determine decay rates for your non-maturity deposits. Assuming your bank uses ALM software to produce your Earnings-at-Risk (EAR) and Economic Value of Equity (EVE) metrics, the decay rate assumptions make a big difference in those numbers. Most ALM models have default assumptions that may not be correct for your institution, and as a result are giving you EAR and EVE numbers that are not at all accurate. Basically you want to have some analysis that proves how you are bucketing your NMDs (3,6,9, 12, 24 months?). Are your deposits sticky or are they affected by small changes in interest rates? You can look at historical numbers to determine how your deposits behave, but be sure to go back more than 3-4 years as deposit behavior has been pretty abnormal since 2008 with rates near zero. Similarly, you may want to try and identify 'surge' deposits that came into your bank due to the low rate environment and as soon as rates rise they will move into higher earning assets (stocks, bond, money markets).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc86e5c2e5f05a875a6661be66ed5bcb",
"text": "Sometimes invested capital is expected to earn interest, I've seen this be a stipulation in LLC operating agreements and Corporate bylaws. I thought this arrangement looks a little less than fair. BTW I'm a college freshman, though I do the finances for my parents' regulatory compliance and governance consulting company. Anyhow, that's just my two cents.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07853fa175f861e90859a420391f7217",
"text": "\"You get paid interest on deposits because banks only keep a fraction of the deposits on-hand. The rest is put to other uses, such as loaning money to others. If you deposit money and yield 1% interest, the bank is able to fund an auto loan, at 5%. By saving, you are actually making more capital available in the marketplace. \"\"Fixed\"\" or \"\"durable\"\" assets like gold, real property, or durable goods are different -- their value is based on attributes such as demand (gold, oil) or location (real property). If you bought an apartment in Manhattan in 1975, it appreciated greatly in value over the course of 30 years... but it did so because demand for apartments in New York City grew, while the supply of apartments grew more slowly. The government prints money for two core reasons: Think of it this way: Money is valuable because it is money.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7f918f31fd3334723fc414c4b2631f2e
|
Bank of the Sierra: Are they legit? How can the checking interest APY be so high?
|
[
{
"docid": "50f5a406ae63d09915ea626bbcf6eaac",
"text": "The FDIC is pretty confident about them being legit. http://www2.fdic.gov/idasp/main_bankfind.asp (type in Bank Of The Sierra in the name field and search on that) You got to realize how much money they will make if you use them per the agreement. Every credit card / debit transaction gets them some cash. Businesses get between 1 and 5% of each transaction even on debit cards. Then there is a flat fee the merchant pays for accepting the credit card between .25 and .50 per transaction. Even at 12 transactions a month, the bank is looking at making around $6/month. Probably more because who uses a debit card just 12 times a month. It would be convenient for most people to juse use it all the time. Does 4.09% APY beat $6/month? You would have to keep a balance of $2000 plus to cost more than you earn. And if you keep more than $2k in the account, they have other ways to make money off of you. I would also assume they make money on the bill pay and direct deposit side of things, but I can't speak for certain about that. Bottom line is this seems like a good deal to attract customers, they would rather make a bit less profit then BofA to grow their business. They are betting their offer restrictions will change your habits and make you more profitable to them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9bc8164220c18ba77ee593c6382400f",
"text": "\"I believe MrChrister's answer is correct: Since they're FDIC insured, they are \"\"legit.\"\" Second, on the seemingly too-good-to-be-true rate: They're basically making up the difference on other fees (not necessarily paid by you) in order to offer you the higher-than-market rate. I'd like to point out two things not mentioned about the current rate offer, though: The high 4.09% APY advertised is only on balances up to $25,000; anything over that threshold is at a lower 1.01% APY. The offer also states in the footnotes: \"\"Rates may change after the account is opened.\"\" You might want to see if they have a good history of paying higher than average interest rates. You wouldn't want to switch only to find out the promotional rate was a teaser that soon gets reduced.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "31fc9c275253a8a25056530c6bdd76d5",
"text": "I read an article where this website did an interview with them and concluded its very sketchy and possibly illegal. They refused to give out their FDIC number and they got the high interest rate by selling personal customer information to third parties",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63149c46d2348ca9f7ea75989331bfee",
"text": "From what I Understand, people put up with BofA because it's convenient in that there are branches everywhere in the country. Not sure if it's worth it, but if you're a normal banking customer, your won't face any of those fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb4162c5533d3365d1aae1ce002dad60",
"text": "Check your calculation of A**. I was able to duplicate their calculations using excel. Make you sure have accounted for all the terms, it can be easy to be one off. They are making a guess at the interest rate which will be wrong, then they are adjusting it to see how wrong it is, then making another adjustment. They will repeat until they see no movement in the guesses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0529995b24384305ac69fd7a28a6cf01",
"text": "I had a modest car loan with Chase. I always felt like they were trying to fuck me over. They charged for electronic payments, would mail the payment coupon (the bill) less than two weeks before it was due each month, the payment schedule seemed to wander, etc. I was constantly stressing that I was going to miss a payment and incur a large late fee. This was on just a small car loan. I've heard they've gotten better (electric payments don't cost extra anymore) but it definitely made me feel very adversarial with banks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c7a46fe492c59213577f579bccc7310",
"text": "Yes it should be a ACH or other electronic transfer. However, it not unusual to have checks sent for large amounts in corporate banking. Large companies don't give large checks to tellers, they have it sent to a lockbox. However, lockboxes are suited for payment of invoices and I never heard of a billion dollar invoice. edit: Also, I believe that some of the bailouts were done in checks, but honestly I'm not 100% on that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32d1ce2d6b5eb89c3d4d17ff96505c4a",
"text": "\"Let me guess, it's a fairly large amount of money, a few thousand at least. This is a scam. This is a variation on the many fake check scams out there. You deposit the check and you think it \"\"cleared\"\" your bank, but it didn't clear. A clever fake check can take a couple weeks to bounce and the bank will demand the money back. Any money you wire back to the fraudster in the meantime will be lost forever.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3440392865922705522359d6a305d0c9",
"text": "I concur with the answers above - the difference is about the risk. But in this particular case I find the interest level implausible. 11% interest on deposits in USD seems very speculative and unsustainable. You can't guarantee such return on investment unless you engage in drug trade or some other illegal activity. Or it is a Ponzi scheme. So I would suspect that the bank is having liquidity problems. Which bank is it, by the way? We had a similar case in Bulgaria with one bank offering abnormal interest on deposits in EUR and USD. It went bust - the small depositors were rescued by the local version of FDIC but the large ones were destroyed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20f44923b11f478b4343fc8dcecd6bdd",
"text": "Go to your local credit union and open an account there! Why do people put up with banks? Big banks are for business not for regular folks, they will nickel and dime you all the time, and that's the honest ones, the scum like WF will just trash you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da7ca13310fe4d4a7607b6123f0a1b8a",
"text": "I would suggest a high interest checking account if you qualify, or if you don't, an Investor's Deposit Account (IDA).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37c92235ba646978f24e7933ffa9da44",
"text": "No, we did not apply for the loan. So, this is why we thought it was a bit strange a company just sending you a real check for $30K. It does not say anywhere in big red letters that it is a loan. Probably something in very small letters on a back of a paper. This is really horrible. Especially,if your customers do pay you by check and small business relies on online statement to determine who paid what. I can easily imagine a small outfit that just takes all the checks to the bank, cash them, and then use online statement to update their books. I do not see how it is helpful to businesses to receive pre-approved credit that is so poorly marked. Especially in the age of electronic transfers!!! I am trying to understand why I feel so offended by this, and I guess it all comes down to disgust: I refuse to believe that any serious company would use these sort of tactics and instead of us spending more time developing a better product, we have to put more time and effort into ensuring we do not fall victim to this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6062d1d56fd7a847048feadf670efed",
"text": "I think part of the reason people overdraft is because the online banking app/website doesn't show a true indication of your account balance. I've had mine (at Bank of America) adjust to $30 less than it told me I had when I checked due to processing payments being altered.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a861a9efd39b0ae336560628fd4300fa",
"text": "Mango is legit, there are some other forums out there with some reviews and discussion about whether or not it's worth the effort of setting it up and following the rules to realize the maximum benefit. The main downside is that Mango is fee-heavy: ATM fees, monthly fees, etc. One person did a calculation that if you follow all the rules and minimize fees, your maximum benefit above what you can get at other online banks with enticing rewards or interest rates is about $250/yr. Is $250 worth the hassle of following the Mango rules? You'll have to decide.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2bb927370e4c9c826f2438fd12069a89",
"text": "\"This is another version of an old scam -- \"\"let me have a check deposited in your account because I can't open one for some reason, and I'll share some of the money with you.\"\" Here the scammer is promising to \"\"start a business\"\" with you as a way to gain your confidence and trust. The first danger sign is that you only know this person from online. They are not someone you are friends with in the \"\"real\"\" world. They could be anybody. They used the name of a big company as a way to make what they're doing sound legitimate, but it's all a fraud. They could be depositing a faked Exxon check into your account, which could land YOU in huge trouble. Here's the thing -- The only way Exxon (or any other company) can deposit money in a bank under someone's name is if that person provides the account and routing numbers to an account that already exists. No company can just create an account in another person's name. That's Hollywood movie stuff, but it's not how banking works. To open an account, the bank would need identification on the account holder, so your \"\"friend\"\" already has an account if Exxon has allegedly deposited money. Further, Exxon isn't going to take back money that has already been deposited. In fact, they can't take it back. If the account is in his name, they can't do anything to the account or with the account. This is a situation you should run away from and never look back. Nothing about this story sounds right or legitimate, but this is one of the oldest scams out there since the beginning of the Internet. You would be well advised to stay VERY far away from your supposed friend, because they're anything but your friend. You are being SCAMMED. Don't be a victim. Stop communicating with this person immediately, and DON'T give them any personal information of any kind. They're crooks! I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1ad7031369090557f0e17e239c0db35",
"text": "And this is why we calculate actual yield and not just coupons. Nobody pays par for high yield notes. If the company performs well, the price of your note goes up and you can realize a gain when is called or your sell it. High yield works exactly like equity, and in a lot of cases it's better because it spits out cash in the meantime. I'm not even allowed to call the interest I get on my HY notes as interest. All realized gain.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bdfc3e853580c00d5da19e51a2631af0",
"text": "\"Based on what you asked and your various comments on other answers, this is the first time that you will be making an offer to buy a house, and it seems that the seller is not using a real-estate agent to sell the house, that is, it is what is called a FSBO (for sale by owner) property (and you can learn a lot of about the seller's perspective by visiting fsbo.com). On the other hand, you are a FTB (first-time buyer) and I strongly recommend that you find out about the purchase process by Googling for \"\"first-time home buyer\"\" and reading some of the articles there. But most important, I urge you DO NOT make a written offer to purchase the property until you understand a lot more than you currently do, and a lot more than all the answers here are telling you about making an offer to buy this property. Even when you feel absolutely confident that you understand everything, hire a real-estate lawyer or a real-estate agent to write the actual offer itself (the agent might well use a standard purchase offer form that his company uses, or the State mandates, and just fill in the blanks). Yes, you will need to pay a fee to these people but it is very important for your own protection, and so don't just wing it when making an offer to purchase. As to how much you should offer, it depends on how much you can afford to pay. I will ignore the possibility that you are rich enough that you can pay cash for the purchase and assume that you will, like most people, be needing to get a mortgage loan to buy the house. Most banks prefer not to lend more than 80% of the appraised value of the house, with the balance of the purchase price coming from your personal funds. They will in some cases, loan more than 80% but will usually charge higher interest rate on the loan, require you to pay mortgage insurance, etc. Now, the appraised value is not determined until the bank sends its own appraiser to look at the property, and this does not happen until your bid has been accepted by the seller. What if your bid (say $500K) is much larger than the appraised value $400K on which the bank is willing to lend you only $320K ? Well, you can still proceed with the deal if you have $180K available to make the pay the rest. Or, you can let the deal fall apart if you have made a properly written offer that contains the usual contingency clause that you will be applying for a mortgage of $400K at rate not to exceed x% and that if you can't get a mortgage commitment within y days, the deal is off. Absent such a clause, you will lose the earnest money that you put into escrow for failure to follow through with the contract to purchase for $500K. Making an offer in the same ballpark as the market value lessens the chances of having the deal fall through. Note also that even if the appraised value is $500K, the bank might refuse to lend you $400K if your loan application and credit report suggest that you will have difficulty making the payments on a $400K mortgage. It is a good idea to get a pre-approval from a lender saying that based on the financial information that you have provided, you will likely be approved for a mortgage of $Z (that is, the bank thinks that you can afford the payments on a mortgage of as much as $Z). That way, you have some feel for how much house you can afford, and that should affect what kinds of property you should be bidding on.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a2ebc7c88f67f889869cfcdf532d9f4e
|
What are the risks of Dividend-yielding stocks?
|
[
{
"docid": "d2644f6e1393dd5456a5622d75f2ca7f",
"text": "Yep, there just is no free lunch. So called high dividend stocks are usually from companies that have stable cash flows but relatively little or moderate growth potential. Utility companies come to mind, let's take telecommunications as an example. Such stocks, usually, indeed are considered more conservative. In a bull market, they won't make high jumps, and in a bear market they shouldn't experience deep falls. I mean, just because the stock market fell by 10%, you're not going to stop using your phone. The stock might suffer a bit but the divided is still yielding you the same. However, fundamental data can have a significant impact. Let's say a recession hits the country of the telco. People might not get the newest iPhone and lock in to an expensive contract anymore, they might use cheaper forms of communication, they might stop paying bills, go bankrupt etc. This will have a severe impact on the company's cash flow and thus hit the stock in a double whammy: One, the dividend is gone. Two, the price will fall even further. There are basically two scenarios after that. Either the recession is temporary and your stock became a regular growth stock that at some point might bounce back and re-establish at the previous levels. Or the economy has contracted permanently but regained stability in which case you will again have a stock with a high dividend yield but based on a lower price. In conclusion: High dividend stocks make sense in a portfolio. But never consider their income to be safe. Reduce your risk by diversifying.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e3c8d461b7b18ae5317d268334ae9b0",
"text": "Dividend Stocks like any stock carry risk and go both up and down. It is important to choose a stock based on the company's potential and performance. And, if they pay a dividend it does help. -RobF",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4930ad8b4477424986d9bb08fd76f2b",
"text": "The risk in a divident paying stock can come from 2 sources. The business of the company, or the valuation of the stock at the time you buy. The business of the company relates to how they are running things, the risks they are taking with the company, innovations in their pipeline, and their competitive landscape. You can find all sorts of examples of companies that paid nice dividends but didn't end so well... Eastman Kodak, Enron, Lehman brothers, all used to pay very nice dividends at some point... On the other hand you have the valuation. The company is running great, but the market has unrealistic expectations about it. Think Amazon and Yahoo back in 2001... the price was way too high for the company's worth. As the price of a stock goes up, the return that you get from its future cash flows (dividends) goes down (and viceversa). If you want to go deep into the subject, check out this course from Chicago U they spend a lot of time talking about dividends, future returns from stocks and the risk rewards of finding stocks by methods such as these.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee5ebb3166c476aae0783c775c317dc4",
"text": "Having a good dividend yield doesn't guarantee that a stock is safe. In the future, the company may run into financial trouble, stop paying dividends, or even go bankrupt. For this reason, you should never buy a stock just because it has a high dividend yield. You also need some criteria to determine whether that stock is safe to buy. Personally, I consider a stock is reasonably safe if it meets the following criteria:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5a3d6571cd81096cd5d15ac5f33b0bb",
"text": "\"No stock is risk-free. Some of the biggest companies in the country, that seemed incredibly stable and secure, have suffered severe downturns or gone out of business. Twenty or thirty years ago Kodak ruled the camera film market. But they didn't react quickly enough when digital cameras came along and today they're a shadow of their former self. Forty years ago IBM owned like 90% of the computer market -- many people used \"\"IBM\"\" as another word for computer. Sears used to dominate the retail department store market. Etc.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "299853db8bcf407fd6521d9673dc0cde",
"text": "One strategy to consider is a well-diversified index fund of equities. These have historically averaged 7-8% real growth. So withdrawing 3% or 4% yearly under that growth should allow you to withdraw 30+ years with little risk of drawing down all your capital. As a bonus you're savings target would come down from $10 million to $2.5 million to a little under $3.5 million.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0ccdc6551bab3d553a85e58f297e935e",
"text": "A share is more than something that yields dividends, it is part ownership of the company and all of its assets. If the company were to be liquidated immediately the shareholders would get (a proportion of) the net value (assets - liabilities) of the company because they own it. If a firm is doing well then its assets are increasing (i.e. more cash assets from profits) therefore the value of the underlying company has risen and the intrinsic value of the shares has also increased. The price will not reflect the current value of the firms assets and liabilities because it will also include the net present value of expected future flows. Working out the expected future flows is a science on par with palmistry and reading chicken entrails so don't expect to work out why a company is trading at a price so much higher than current assets - liabilities (or so much lower in companies that are expected to fail). This speculation is in addition to price speculation that you mention in the question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c372d42ad4cbdb97645e1f11384d9124",
"text": "\"Some investors worry about interest rate risk because they Additional reason is margin trading which is borrowing money to invest in capital markets. Since margin trading includes minimum margin requirements and maintenance margin to protect lender \"\"such as a broker\"\" , a decrease in the value of bonds might trigger a threat of a margin call There are other reasons why investors care about interest rate risk such as spread trade investors who benefit from difference in short term/ long term interest rates. Such investors borrow short term loans -which enables them to pay low interest- and lend long term loans - which enables them to gain high interest-. Any disturbance between the interest rate spread between short term and long term bonds might affect investor's profit and might even lead to losses. In summary , it all depends on you investment objective and financial condition. You should consult with your financial adviser to help plan for your financial goals.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dda0fb223ab5a85f71808cc1cc96cd93",
"text": "\"Good observation. In fact, the S&P index itself is guilty of not including dividends. So when you look at the index alone, the delta between any two points in time diverges, and the 20 return observed if one fails to include dividends is meaningless, in my my humble opinion. Yahoo finance will let you look at a stock ticker and offer you an \"\"adjusted close\"\" to include the dividend effect.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b68a08ae762146bd2022814306162a4a",
"text": "\"Random question: are there any companies with \"\"physical,\"\" \"\"real,\"\" or \"\"in-kind\"\" dividends? For clarification, suppose a winery offers a security with a dividend of X bottles of wine deliverable annually for every Y amount of shares owned. Does such a company or practice exist?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25642445db62867fabedea609cea9f71",
"text": "Long-term bonds -- any bonds, really -- can be risky for two main reasons: return on principal, or return of principal. The former is a problem if interest rates are low (which they are now in the US) because existing bonds will fall in price if interest rates rise. The second is a problem if the lender defaults: IOU nothing. No investment is riskless. Short-term bonds command a lower interest rate than long-term bonds (usually) because of their quicker maturity, but short-term bonds carry risk just like long-term bonds (though the interest rate risk is lower, sometimes quite a bit lower, than for long-term bonds).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b67e4d82a9e0277becf00e9f95279d94",
"text": "\"You may be thinking about this the wrong way. The yield (Return) on your investment is effectively the market price paid to the investor for the amount of risk assumed for participating. Looking at the last few years, many including myself would have given their left arm for a so-called \"\"meager return\"\" instead of the devastation visited on our portfolios. In essence, higher return almost always (arguably always) comes at the cost of increased risk. You just have to decide your risk profile and investment goals. For example, which of the following scenarios would you prefer? Investment Option A Treasuries, CD's Worst Case: 1% gain Best Case 5% gain Investment option B Equities/Commodities Worst Case: 25% loss Best Case: 40% gain\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "661faa4d48f96d63ec1a4467fefc9842",
"text": "The catch is that you're doing a form of leveraged investing. In other words, you're gambling on the stock market using money that you've borrowed. While it's not as dangerous as say, getting money from a loan shark to play blackjack in Vegas, there is always the chance that markets can collapse and your investment's value will drop rapidly. The amount of risk really depends on what specific investments you choose and how diversified they are - if you buy only Canadian stocks then you're at risk of losing a lot if something happened to our economy. But if your Canadian equities only amount to 3.6% of your total (which is Canada's share of the world market), and you're holding stocks in many different countries then the diversification will reduce your overall risk. The reason I mention that is because many people using the Smith Maneuver are only buying Canadian high-yield dividend stocks, so that they can use the dividends to accelerate the Smith Maneuver process (use the dividends to pay down the mortgage, then borrow more and invest it). They prefer Canadian equities because of preferential tax treatment of the dividend income (in non-registered accounts). But if something happened to those Canadian companies, they stand to lose much of the investment value and suddenly they have the extra debt (the amount borrowed from a HELOC, or from a re-advanceable mortgage) without enough value in the investments to offset it. This could mean that they will not be able to pay off the mortgage by the time they retire!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "caaa941e38ec9ee827a9992f82a54e8c",
"text": "\"Usually there are annual or semi-annual reports for a mutual fund that may give an idea for when a fund will have \"\"distributions\"\" which can cause the NAV to fall as this is when the fund passes the taxable liabilities to shareholders in the form of a dividend. Alternatively, the prospectus of the fund may also have the data on the recent distribution history that is likely what you want. If you don't understand why a fund would have a distribution, I highly suggest researching the legal structure of an open-end mutual fund where there more than a few rules about how taxes are handled for this case.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2cfa0834b636fde849cb2ec3218d1032",
"text": "To add to this, that risk is really only a problem if you don't have the cash flow to service the debt. If the surplus dips but your ultimately profitable on whatever trade you made, you're okay. If you default, you're not okay. Volitility relative to loan term effectively.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e699a0816100fcf20f7554246ab75094",
"text": "Dividends are actually a very stable portion of equity returns, the Great recession and Great Depression notwithstanding: However, dividends, with lower variance have lower returns. Most of the return is due to the more variant price: So while dividends fell by 25% during the worst drop since the Great Depression, prices fell almost by 2/3. If one can accumulate enough wealth to live only off of dividend income, the price risk becomes much more manageable. This is the ideal circumstance for retirement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a13a5183fa18ad97d0487ffeb6827fd9",
"text": "\"is it worth it? You state the average yield on a stock as 2-3%, but seem to have come up with this by looking at the yield of an S&P500 index. Not every stock in that index is paying a dividend and many of them that are paying have such a low yield that a dividend investor would not even consider them. Unless you plan to buy the index itself, you are distorting the possible income by averaging in all these \"\"duds\"\". You are also assuming your income is directly proportional to the amount of yield you could buy right now. But that's a false measure because you are talking about building up your investment by contributing $2k-$3k/month. No matter what asset you choose to invest in, it's going to take some time to build up to asset(s) producing $20k/year income at that rate. Investments today will have time in market to grow in multiple ways. Given you have some time, immediate yield is not what you should be measuring dividends, or other investments, on in my opinion. Income investors usually focus on YOC (Yield On Cost), a measure of income to be received this year based on the purchase price of the asset producing that income. If you do go with dividend investing AND your investments grow the dividends themselves on a regular basis, it's not unheard of for YOC to be north of 6% in 10 years. The same can be true of rental property given that rents can rise. Achieving that with dividends has alot to do with picking the right companies, but you've said you are not opposed to working hard to invest correctly, so I assume researching and teaching yourself how to lower the risk of picking the wrong companies isn't something you'd be opposed to. I know more about dividend growth investing than I do property investing, so I can only provide an example of a dividend growth entry strategy: Many dividend growth investors have goals of not entering a new position unless the current yield is over 3%, and only then when the company has a long, consistent, track record of growing EPS and dividends at a good rate, a low debt/cashflow ratio to reduce risk of dividend cuts, and a good moat to preserve competitiveness of the company relative to its peers. (Amongst many other possible measures.) They then buy only on dips, or downtrends, where the price causes a higher yield and lower than normal P/E at the same time that they have faith that they've valued the company correctly for a 3+ year, or longer, hold time. There are those who self-report that they've managed to build up a $20k+ dividend payment portfolio in less than 10 years. Check out Dividend Growth Investor's blog for an example. There's a whole world of Dividend Growth Investing strategies and writings out there and the commenters on his blog will lead to links for many of them. I want to point out that income is not just for those who are old. Some people planned, and have achieved, the ability to retire young purely because they've built up an income portfolio that covers their expenses. Assuming you want that, the question is whether stock assets that pay dividends is the type of investment process that resonates with you, or if something else fits you better. I believe the OP says they'd prefer long hold times, with few activities once the investment decisions are made, and isn't dissuaded by significant work to identify his investments. Both real estate and stocks fit the latter, but the subtypes of dividend growth stocks and hands-off property investing (which I assume means paying for a property manager) are a better fit for the former. In my opinion, the biggest additional factor differentiating these two is liquidity concerns. Post-tax stock accounts are going to be much easier to turn into emergency cash than a real estate portfolio. Whether that's an important factor depends on personal situation though.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92f0b60388d535a8b24ec5ee5eac7417",
"text": "\"Take a look at FolioFN - they let you buy small numbers of shares and fractional shares too. There is an annual fee on the order of US$100/year. You can trade with no fees at two \"\"windows\"\" per day, or at any time for a $15 fee. You are better off leaving the stock in broker's name, especially if you live overseas. Otherwise you will receive your dividends in the form of cheques that might be expensive to try to cash. There is also usually a fee charged by the broker to obtain share certificates instead of shares in your account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5800f63f0c10a1e5baba7f2a38d43ef",
"text": "From the hover text of the said screen; Latest dividend/dividend yield Latest dividend is dividend per share paid to shareholders in the most recent quarter. Dividend yield is the value of the latest dividend, multiplied by the number of times dividends are typically paid per year, divided by the stock price. So for Ambev looks like the dividend is inconsistantly paid and not paid every quarter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b31af198fa10e9b9452c1f78618b999",
"text": "I think it may be best to take everything you're asking line-by-line. Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. This is not true. Companies can go out of business, or take a major hit and never recover. Take Volkswagen for example, in 2015 due to a scandal they were involved in, their stocks went downhill. Now their stocks are starting to rise again. The investors goal is not to wait as long as necessary to make a profit on every stock purchase, but to make the largest profit possible in the shortest time possible. Sometimes this means selling a stock before it recovers (if it ever does). I think the problem with most buyers is that they desire the most gain they can possibly have. However, that is very risky. This can be true. Every investor needs to gauge the risk they're willing to take and high-gain investments are riskier. Therefore, it's better to be winning [small/medium] amounts of money (~)100% of the time than [any] amount of money <~25%. Safer investments do tend to yield more consistent returns, but this doesn't mean that every investor should aim for low-yield investments. Again, this is driven by the investor's risk tolerance. To conclude, profitable companies' stock tends to increase over time and less aggressive investments are safer, but it is possible to lose from any stock investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ee8d4a941cc76b83c804066b7e40877",
"text": "Your friend is investing time & money in a business that does not list an address or phone number on its website, not even in its 'press kit'. Even when they make a press release about moving into a new building, it does not list the address or even the street! C'mon, this is obviously a scam. No real business acts like this.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c9ae46583b6f06250f6f0d6a871516cc
|
Where to deduct gambling losses?
|
[
{
"docid": "2d258d9865dc769c64e985ecef06366c",
"text": "1: Gambling losses not in excess of gambling winnings can be deducted on Schedule A, line 28. See Pub 17 (p 201). Line 28 catches lots of deductions, and gambling losses are one of them. See Schedule A instructions. 2: If the Mississippi state tax withheld was an income tax (which I assume it was), then it goes on Schedule A, line 5a. In the unlikely event it was not a state or local tax on income, but some sort of excise on gambling, then it may be deductible on line 8 as another deductible tax. It probably is not a personal property tax, which is generally levied against the value of things like cars and other movable property but not on receipts of cash; line 7 probably is not appropriate. The most likely result, without researching Mississippi SALT, is that it was an income tax. See Sched A Instructions for more on the differences between the types of taxes paid. Just to be clear, these statements hold if you are not engaging in poker as a profession. If you are engaging in poker as a business, which can be difficult to establish in the IRS' eyes, then you would use Schedule C and also report business and travel expenses. But the IRS is aware that people want to reduce their gambling income by the cost of hotels and flights to casinos, so it's a relatively high hurdle to be considered a professional poker player.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8357a729b20014c82aa2ce046b89fe1c",
"text": "\"Gambling is perhaps not well defined, but it certainly doesn't include things like reality show winnings. However, it is possible he could deduct something for this. If the reality show qualifies as a \"\"hobby\"\", and his expenses exceed the 2% of AGI requirement, it's possible he could deduct those airplane tickets and such. That deduction is explained in Publication 529.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "375248b0d64bb79e972672666d40d13f",
"text": "I do a lot of sports betting and I’m heavily limited on some sites where I have had good winning streaks. Some of them are as low as $5 per game. So yeah, the house definitely tilts the table if it benefits them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0831ba49c07783c11cda19799c2448d6",
"text": "If I sell it for $50 can I write off the $50 loss. Only if you can establish that it is a normal part of your business and that you did not get $50 worth of use out of it. That's the technical, legal argument. As a practical matter, it's unlikely that they'll ding you for selling something after using it, as they won't know. If they did catch you, you would be in trouble. You can't deduct loss due to personal use. The larger problem is that if you sell one TV for a $50 loss, they aren't going to believe that you are in the business of selling TVs. If you sell a larger amount for a loss, then they still are unlikely to believe that you are in business. If you sell a large amount for an overall gain, they are unlikely to notice that you took a loss on one TV. They could only notice that if they were already auditing you, as that wouldn't be visible in your tax forms.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32eeaa85f8cf441c5a65496f8d88bf0d",
"text": "On line 21 of Schedule D, you write the smaller of So, in your case, since your Line 16 shows a loss of more than $3000 on Line 21, you write 3000 on Line 21 (the parentheses indicating that is it a negative number are already included on the form). Also, you write (3000) on Form 1040 Line 13. The rest of the loss is a carryover to next year (be sure to fill out the Capital Loss Carryover Worksheet where the carryover to next year is computed). Summary: you cannot write 0 on Line 21 of Schedule D and carry over the entire loss to next year. You must deduct $3000 this year and carry over the rest of the loss to next year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a24e8c7fb56eacce57030b2d4d34c3c",
"text": "For stocks, bonds, ETF funds and so on - Taxed only on realised gain and losses are deductible from the gain and not from company's income. Corporate tax is calculated only after all expenses have been deducted. Not the other way around. Real estate expenses can be deducted because of repairs and maintenance. In general all expenses related to the operation of the business can be deducted. But you cannot use expenses as willy nilly, as you assume. You cannot deduct your subscription to Playboy as an expense. Doing it is illegal and if caught, the tours to church will increase exponentially. VAT is only paid if you claim VAT on your invoices. Your situation seems quite complicated. I would suggest, get an accountant pronto. There are nuances in your situation, which an accountant only can understand and help.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ec4040c3ac8334ab36c650435360cd4",
"text": "\"As Dilip said, if you want actual concrete, based in tax law, answers, please add the country (and if applicable, state) where you pay income tax. Also, knowing what tax bracket you're in would help as well, although I certainly understand if you're not comfortable sharing that. So, assuming the US... If you're in the 10% or 15% tax bracket, then you're already not paying any federal tax on the $3k long term gain, so purposely taking losses is pointless, and given that there's probably a cost to taking the loss (commission, SEC fee), you'd be losing money by doing so. Also, you won't be able to buy back the loser for 31 days without having the loss postponed due to the wash sale that would result. State tax is another matter, but (going by the table in this article), even using the highest low end tax rate (Tennessee at 6%), the $50 loss would only save you $3, which is probably less than the commission to sell the loser, so again you'd be losing money. And if you're in a state with no state income tax, then the loss wouldn't save you anything on taxes at the state level, but of course you'll still be paying to be able to take the loss. On the high end, you'd be saving 20% federal tax and 13.3% state tax (using the highest high end tax state, California, and ignoring (because I don't know :-) ) whether they tax long-term capital gains at the same rate as regular income or not), you'd be saving $50 * (20% + 13.3%) = $50 * 33.3% = $16.65. So for taxes, you're looking at saving between nothing and $16.65. And then you have to subtract from that the cost to achieve the loss, so even on the high end (which means (assuming a single filer)) you're making >$1 million), you're only saving about $10, and you're probably actually losing money. So I personally don't think taking a $50 loss to try to decrease taxes makes sense. However, if you really meant $500 or $5000, then it might (although if you're in the 10-15% brackets in a no income tax state, even then it wouldn't). So the answer to your final question is, \"\"It depends.\"\" The only way to say for sure is, based on the country and state you're in, calculate what it will save you (if anything). As a general rule, you want to avoid letting the tax tail wag the dog. That is, your financial goal should be to end up with the most money, not to pay the least taxes. So while looking at the tax consequences of a transaction is a good idea, don't look at just the tax consequences, look at the consequences for your overall net worth.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29079941bcf673433726120d468485ea",
"text": "If you have multiple accounts, you have to empty them all before you can deduct any losses. Your loss is not a capital loss, its a deduction. It is calculated based on the total amount you have withdrawn from all your Roth IRA's, minus the total basis. It will be subject to the 2% AGI treshhold (i.e.: if your AGI is > 100K, none of it is deductible, and you have to itemize to get it). Bottom line - think twice. Summarizing the discussion in comments: If you have a very low AGI, I would guess that your tax liability is pretty low as well. Even if you deduct the whole $2K, and all of it is above the other deductions you have (which in turn is above the standard deduction of almost $6K), you save say $300 if you're in 15% tax bracket. That's the most savings you have. However I'm assuming something here: I'm assuming that you're itemizing your deductions already and they're above the standard deduction. This is very unlikely, with such a low income. You don't have state taxes to deduct, you probably don't spend a lot to deduct sales taxes, and I would argue that with the low AGI you probably don't own property, and if you do - you don't have a mortgage with a significant interest on it. You can be in 15% bracket with AGI between (roughly) $8K and $35K, i.e.: you cannot deduct between $160 and $750 of the $2K, so it's already less than the maximum $300. If your AGI is $8K, the deduction doesn't matter, EIC might cover all of your taxes anyway. If your AGI is $30K, you can deduct only $1400, so if you're in the 15% bracket - you saved $210. That, again, assuming it's above your other deductions, which in turn are already above the standard deduction. Highly unlikely. As I said in the comments - I do not think you can realistically save on taxes because of this loss in such a manner.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a936d2048a9a5aaf00b15383d3040ce9",
"text": "If you have made $33k from winning trades and lost $30k from loosing trades your net gain for the year would be $3k, so obviously you would pay taxes only on the net $3k gains.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ce9fb573885d1dbdbeb929146e33977",
"text": "The principle here seems to be that just betting itself is not taxable. From BIM22015 The basic position is that betting and gambling, as such, do not constitute trading However, An organised activity to make profits out of the gambling public will normally amount to trading. The idea seems to be that being a bookmaker is taxable, but just making bets is not. BIM22017 going into it a bit more: The fact that a taxpayer has a system by which they place their bets, or that they are sufficiently successful to earn a living by gambling does not make their activities a trade. BIM22018 goes into detail on the other side, talking those who are taxable: An organised activity to make profits out of the gambling public will normally amount to trading. An example of this is the bookmaker. ... The key feature is that the taxpayer is likely to be involved in the organisation of the activity. They are not mere punters. They are carrying on an activity where the odds are in their favour. The links prove further information, but the theme seems to be that acting as a bookmaker would be trading income, which is taxable, but acting like a punter, even one with a system, would not be. It's not clear from your description which applies. You may need further advice on the tax treatment that is appropriate. Also follow each of the links for further information. BIM22015 provides links to the most relevant information. Note, it isn't true that all income is taxable, regardless of source. BIM15035 talks about this. It specifies that for something to be taxable income, it must come from a taxable source. If, for example, a taxpayer is a trader that does not mean that any non-capital receipt he or she gets is chargeable as trading income. It must also be a receipt forming part of the profits of the trade, which is the taxable ‘source’",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c1674dbe0971d64da0bdbd3313c7196",
"text": "\"There are (at least) two problems with the argument suggested in the OP. First, the ability to cover the cost, doesn't mean willingness, ease, or no major side effects of doing so. Second is the mitigation of \"\"upside risk\"\". It might be true that the most usual loss is small and manageable, but 10% of incidents could be considerably larger and 1% may be very much larger - without limit. Your own attitude to risk and loss will determine how much these are seen as unlikely+ignore, or worst case situation+avoid.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cf3a0af9562c14c623d6225f986f0ce",
"text": "\"The key point to answer the question is to consider risk aversion. Assume I suggest a game to you: Throw a coin and if you win, you get $5, if you lose nothing happens. Will you play the game? Of course, you will - you have nothing to lose! What if I suggest this: If you win, you get $10,000,005 and if you lose you must pay $10,000,000 (I also accept cars, houses, spouses, and kidneys as payment). While the expected value of the second game is the same as for the first, if you lose the second game you are more or less doomed to spend the rest of your life in poverty or not even have a rest of your life. Therefore, you will not wish to play the second game. Well, maybe you do - but probably only if you are very, very rich and can easily afford a loss (even if you had $11,000,000 you won't be as happy with a possible raise to $21,000,005 as you'd be unhappy with dropping to a mere $1,000,000, so you'd still not like to play). Some model this by taking logarithms: If your capital grows from $500 to $1000 or from $1000 to $2000, in both cases it doubles, hence is considered the same \"\"personal gain\"\", effectively. And, voíla, the logartithm of your capital grows by the same amount in both cases. This refelcts that a rich man will not be as happy about finding a $10 note as a poor man will be about finding a nickel. The effect of an insurance is that you replace an uncertain event of great damage with a certain event of little damage. Of course, the insurance company plays the same game, with roles swapped - so why do they play? One point is that they play the game very often, which tends to nivel the risks - unless you do something stupid and insure all inhabitants of San Francisco (and nobody else) against eqarthquakes. But also they have enough capital that they can afford to lose the game. In a fair situation, i.e. when the insurance costs just as much as damage cost multiplied with probability of damage, a rational you would eagerly buy the insurance because of risk aversion. Therefore, the insurance will in effect be able to charge more than the statistically fair price and many will still (gnawingly) buy it, and that's how they make a living. The decision how much more one is willing to accept as insurance cost is also a matter of whether you can afford a loss of the insured item easily, with regrets, barely, or not all.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d52ea9db44206476ac686502ec2c2d92",
"text": "\"You have a sequence of questions here, so a sequence of answers: If you stopped at the point where you had multiple wins with a net profit of $72, then you would pay regular income tax on that $72. It's a short term capital gain, which does not get special tax treatment, and the fact that you made it on multiple transactions does not matter. When you enter your next transaction that takes the hypothetical loss the question gets more complicated. In either case, you are paying a percentage on net gains. If you took a two year view in the second case and you don't have anything to offset your loss in the second year, then I guess you could say that you paid more tax than you won in the total sequence of trades over the two years. Although you picked a sequence of trades where it does not appear to play, if you're going to pursue this type of strategy then you are likely at some point to run into a case where the \"\"wash sale\"\" rules apply, so you should be aware of that. You can find information on this elsewhere on this site and also, for example, here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02 Basically these rules require you to defer recording a loss under some circumstances where you have rapid wins and losses on \"\"substantially identical\"\" securities. EDIT A slight correction, you can take part of your losses in the second year even if you have no off-setting gain. From the IRS: If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the amount of the excess loss that you can claim on line 13 of Form 1040 to lower your income is the lesser of $3,000, ($1,500 if you are married filing separately)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a29dbbeb49cb9c330c97d64a0048a349",
"text": "Quick, move to the state where the ticket was bought. Set up a resident and then claim the prize. Then, move back home, if you want. IMO But both states will still try to make a claim for the tax money, if you give them a reason to try. They have nothing else to do, but look for revenue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cc96b5757877b174dc8f1fee4ca1ab6",
"text": "I did not file taxes on last season winnings as I’ve received conflicting advise (particularly regarding self-employment taxes). I have all my documentation to support my winnings should I file as a professional gambler. Oh dear. Get a GOOD tax adviser (licensed as EA, CPA or Attorney in Nevada) who's specializing in providing services to people like you and have it resolved ASAP. You're in major non-compliance. If you earned by gambling more than you earned by working in years, and you haven't reported that on your taxes - you may very well find yourself in jail. As to your original question - why on earth would you have a corporation for gambling? Or LLC... Why? What's the liability that you want to shield yourself of? It's your money that you're risking, and the risk is that you lose it, how is LLC or Corp going to help you in any way? Gambling winnings are reported as miscellaneous income (whether you're professional or just got lucky once with a slot machine - no matter), and if you're a pro (and it sounds like that since you're doing it systematically and in order to make profits), then yes, you pay SE taxes on it. Whoever told you anything else told you to break the law. Which you did, unfortunately.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e2b7face83c9f057e8fb4d0310c93a3",
"text": "\"To answer your question point by point - I'd focus on the last point. The back of my business card - Let's focus on Single. The standard deduction and exemption add to over $10K. I look at this as \"\"I can have $250K in my IRA, and my $10K (4%) annual withdrawal will be tax free. It takes another $36,900 to fill the 10 and 15% brackets. $922K saved pretax to have that withdrawn each year, or $1.17M total. That said, I think that depositing to Roth in any year that one is in the 15% bracket or lower can make sense. I also like the Roth Roulette concept, if only for the fact that I am Google's first search result for that phrase. Roth Roulette is systematically converting and recharacterizing each year the portion of the converted assets that have fallen or not risen as far in relative terms. A quick example. You own 3 volatile stocks, and convert them to 3 Roth accounts. A year later, they are (a) down 20%, (b) up 10%, (c) up 50%. You recharacterize the first two, but keep the 3rd in the Roth. You have a tax bill on say $10K, but have $15K in that Roth.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4ff3d800c7514df78fef62e54143e374
|
Is there any way to buy a new car directly from Toyota without going through a dealership?
|
[
{
"docid": "55ecbdac9f18f81e364770a802b869ce",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cb7522d6ca3e9bda5671deadac30edc",
"text": "I feel your pain. It probably depends on your state, but two things we've tried with some benefit:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d233f6bf99fad1cc8751ba1049fd362",
"text": "You could consider buying a fairly recent used car from CarMax. They have fixed pricing, and you'd save a good amount of money on the car (since cars lose tons of value in their first year or so).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10b547be9d05268240b4754171364205",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "742133d583b237c209e3e151a9afde1f",
"text": "\"If there's one reasonably close to you, you could go to a no-haggle dealership. Instead of making you haggle the price downward, they just give a theoretically fixed price that's roughly what the average customer could negotiate down to at a conventional dealer. Then just do your best broken record impression if they still try to sell you dubious addons: \"\"No. No. No. No. No...\"\" The last time I bought a new car (06), a no haggle dealer offered the second best deal I got out of 4 dealerships visited. The one I ended up buying with made an exceptional offer on my trade (comparable to 3rd party sale bluebook value). - My guess is they had a potential customer looking for something like my old car and were hoping to resell it directly instead of flipping it via auction.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "546e467b6c8c0761735740fb3cae79cf",
"text": "sadly, it is illegal in most states to buy a car directly from the manufacturer. as such, most manufacturers do not offer the option even where it is legal. if you really do know exactly what you want (model, color, options, etc.) i recommend you write down your requirements and send it to every dealer in town (via email or fax). include instructions that if they want your business, they are to reply via email (or fax) with a price within 7 days. at least one dealer will reply, and you can deal with whoever has the best price. notes:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3afa01632d0806e42be788925051b20c",
"text": "You can buy a new Toyota from a non-dealer, but not from Toyota directly as they have no retail distribution capability. There is no need to buy directly from Toyota if you want to get a new car without going through a dealer. In many cases people buy new cars but have to sell them immediately for one reason or another.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a4035dd53cf08a9a1e6622434653193",
"text": "As someone who was just recently a salesman at Honda, I'd recommend buying a Honda instead :). If you really prefer your Toyota, I always found quote-aggregation services (Truecar, I'm blanking on others) very competitive in their pricing. Alternatively, you could email several dealerships requesting a final sale price inclusive of taxes and tags with the make, model, and accessories you'd wish to purchase, and buy the vehicle from them if your local dealership won't match that price. Please keep in mind this is only persuasive to your local dealership if said competitors are in the same market area (nobody will care if you have a quote from out-of-state). As many other commenters noted, you should arrange your own financing. A staple of the sales process is switching a customer to in-house financing, but this occurs when the dealership offers you better terms than you are getting on your own. So allow them the chance to earn the financing, but don't feel obligated to take it if it doesn't make sense fiscally.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e0ebf802f468d7208c1171a500b2fb2",
"text": "As others have addressed the legality in their answers, I want to address the idea of the dealership being 'a middleman'. A dealership serves more of a purpose than just 'middlemanning' a car to a consumer. Actually, they consume a great deal of risk. Let's remember that a dealership is really an extension of the OEM, albeit independently owned and operated, the dealership must still answer to the brand they represent, if people have a bad experience with a dealership, a customer might go to another of the same brand, but more often than not they will go to the competition out of spite. Therefore, it's in the dealership's best interest to represent the brand as best as possible, but unfortunately that doesn't always happen. While the internet has made a certain part of a salesman's role null and void, and since this is a finance (read money) Q/A site let's take a moment to consider the risk assume and therefore the value added by a dealership: Test Drive. A car is a huge purchase, and while it's okay to buy a pair of shoes online without trying them on, a car is a bit different of course, we want to make sure it 'fits' before we shell out several thousand dollars. Yes, you (meaning consumers) can look at car pictures and specs online, but if you want to see how that vehicle handles on your town's roads, if it fits in your garage and/or driveway, then you need to take it for a test drive. It's not feasible for OEMs to have millions of people showing up to car plants for a test drive, right? Scalability aside, some business that is handled in automotive plants are confidential and not for the general public to know about. A dealership provides an opportunity for those who live locally to see and experience the car without flying or driving wherever the car was assembled. They provide this at a risk, banking on the fact that a good experience with the vehicle will lead to a sale. Service. A car is a machine, and no machine is perfect, neither will it last forever without proper service. A dealership provides a place for people to bring their vehicles when they need to be serviced. Let's set aside the fact that the service prices are higher than we'd like, because the fact remains most of it is skilled (and warrantied) labor that the majority of people don't want to do themselves. Trade Ins. It is not in an OEMs best interest to accept a vehicle just to sell you another vehicle, especially if that vehicle is from another brand. Dealership's assume this risk, and often offer incentives to do so, hoping it will lead to a sale. That trade in was an asset to you, but is a liability to them, because they now have to liquidate that trade in, just so that you can purchase a car. Sure, you could sell your car yourself, and now you would assume that risk: What if your car is not in perfect shape, or has a lot of miles for it's age? Would it do well in the used car market? What if it takes too long to sell and you miss that Memorial Day car sale at the dealer? This might be okay for some, but generally speaking most people would rather avoid the risk and trade it in at the dealer toward the purchase of a new car rather than the headache of selling it themselves. I'm sure there are more, but those are the one's that immediately sprung to mind. Just like Starbucks, there are terrible dealerships out there and there are great ones, and very few of us venture to farms and jungles just for fresh coffee beans :-)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e",
"text": "",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37049d5b4651ff2d2b07af518e8d9f81",
"text": "You already got good answers on why you can't buy a Toyota from the factory, but my answer is regarding to the implied second part of your question: how to avoid haggling. I found a good way to avoid the haggling at a car dealership can be simply to not haggle. Go in with a different attitude. The main reason car dealers list inflated prices and then haggle is that they expect the customers to haggle. It is fundamentally based on distrust on both sides. Treat the sales person as your advisor, your business partner, as somebody you trust as an expert in his field, and you'll be surprised how the experience changes. Of course, make sure that the trust is justified. Sales reps have a fine line to walk. Of course they like to sell a car for more money, but they also do not want a reputation of overcharging customers. They'd rather you recommend them to your friends and post good reviews on Yelp. In the end, all reputable dealers effectively have a fixed-price policy, or close to it, even those who don't advertise it, and even for used cars. Haggling just prolongs the process to get there. And sales reps are people. Often people who hate the haggling part of their job as much as you do. I was in the market for a new (used) car a few months ago. In the end, it was between two cars (one of them a Toyota), both from the brand-name dealer's respective used car lots. In both cases, I went in knowing in advance what the car's fair market value was and what I was willing to pay (as well as details about the car, mileage, condition etc. - thanks to the Internet). Both cars were marked significantly higher. As soon as the sales rep realized that I wasn't even trying to haggle - the price dropped to the fair value. I didn't even have to ask for it. The rep even offered some extras thrown into the deal, things I hadn't even asked for (things like towing my old car to the junk yard).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4ad89634ccd5f55d903dad9e63ee78e",
"text": "Yes, nothing is impossible! :) You can buy it directly from the factory of manufacturer, but then you will have to pay for sea shipping of this car. E.g. you can buy it directly from Japanese Toyota but then you will have to pay to sea cargo ship to deliver your car in container from Japan. Since this car is already your property, before importing to US, I doubt that you would need to pay any custom fees. In the end, the total payment might be a lot cheaper that you can buy there, but you need to be prepared to all this hassle",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1998aad62501d90096f94e435b798ef6",
"text": "The advice given at this site is to get approved for a loan from your bank or credit union before visiting the dealer. That way you have one data point in hand. You know that your bank will loan w dollars at x rate for y months with a monthly payment of Z. You know what level you have to negotiate to in order to get a better deal from the dealer. The dealership you have visited has said Excludes tax, tag, registration and dealer fees. Must finance through Southeast Toyota Finance with approved credit. The first part is true. Most ads you will see exclude tax, tag, registration. Those amounts are set by the state or local government, and will be added by all dealers after the final price has been negotiated. They will be exactly the same if you make a deal with the dealer across the street. The phrase Must finance through company x is done because they want to make sure the interest and fees for the deal stay in the family. My fear is that the loan will also not be a great deal. They may have a higher rate, or longer term, or hit you with many fee and penalties if you want to pay it off early. Many dealers want to nudge you into financing with them, but the unwillingness to negotiate on price may mean that there is a short term pressure on the dealership to do more deals through Toyota finance. Of course the risk for them is that potential buyers just take their business a few miles down the road to somebody else. If they won't budge from the cash price, you probably want to pick another dealer. If the spread between the two was smaller, it is possible that the loan from your bank at the cash price might still save more money compared to the dealer loan at their quoted price. We can't tell exactly because we don't know the interest rates of the two offers. A couple of notes regarding other dealers. If you are willing to drive a little farther when buying the vehicle, you can still go to the closer dealer for warranty work. If you don't need a new car, you can sometimes find a deal on a car that is only a year or two old at a dealership that sells other types of cars. They got the used car as a trade-in.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7577a8c25ed9cc6e1deef21bd12ed1a",
"text": "One point I don't see above: Consumer's Union (the nonprofit which publishes Consumer Reports) has a service where, for a small fee, they'll send you information about how much the car and each option cost the dealer, how much the dealer is getting back in incentive money from the manufacturer, and some advice about which features are worthwhile, which aren't, and which you should purchase somewhere other than the dealer. Armed with that info, you can discuss the price on an equal footing, negotiating the dealer's necessary profit rather than hiding it behind bogus pricing schemes. Last time I bought a new car, I got this data, walked into the dealer with it visible on my clipboard, offered them $500 over their cost, and basically had the purchase nailed down immediately. It helped that I as willing to accept last year's model and a non-preferred color; that helped him clear inventory and encouraged him to accept the offer. ($500 for 10 minutes' work selling to me, or more after an hour of playing games with someone else plus waiting for that person to walk in the door -- a good salesman will recognize that I'm offering them a good deal. These days I might need to adjust that fair-profit number up a bit; this was about 20 years ago on an $8000 car... but I'm sure CU's paperwork suggests a current starting number.) It isn't quite shelf pricing. But at least it means any haggling is based on near-equal knowledge, so it's much closer to being a fair game.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c03c89b9c8a7b1f7dc27747751e1c316",
"text": "\"This is completely disgusting, utterly unethical, deeply objectionable, and yes, it is almost certainly illegal. The Federal Trade Commission has indeed filed suit, halted ads, etc in a number of cases - but these likely only represent a tiny percentage of all cases. This doesn't make what the car dealer's do ok, but don't expect the SWAT team to bust some heads any time soon - which is kind of sad, but let's deal with the details. Let's see what the Federal Trade Commission has to say in their article, Are Car Ads Taking You for a Ride? Deceptive Car Ads Here are some claims that may be deceptive — and why: Vehicles are available at a specific low price or for a specific discount What may be missing: The low price is after a downpayment, often thousands of dollars, plus other fees, like taxes, licensing and document fees, on approved credit. Other pitches: The discount is only for a pricey, fully-loaded model; or the reduced price or discount offered might depend on qualifications like the buyer being a recent college graduate or having an account at a particular bank. “Only $99/Month” What may be missing: The advertised payments are temporary “teaser” payments. Payments for the rest of the loan term are much higher. A variation on this pitch: You will owe a balloon payment — usually thousands of dollars — at the end of the term. So both of these are what the FTC explicitly says are deceptive practices. Has the FTC taken action in cases similar to this? Yes, they have: “If auto dealers make advertising claims in headlines, they can’t take them away in fine print,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “These actions show there is a financial cost for violating FTC orders.” In the case referenced above, the owners of a 20+ dealership chain was hit with about $250,000 in fines. If you think that's a tiny portion of the unethical gains they made from those ads in the time they were running, I'd say you were absolutely correct and that's little more than a \"\"cost of doing business\"\" for unscrupulous companies. But that's the state of the US nation at this time, and so we are left with \"\"caveat emptor\"\" as a guiding principle. What can you do about it? Competitors are technically allowed to file suit for deceptive business practices, so if you know any honest dealers in the area you can tip them off about it (try saying that out loud with a serious face). But even better, you can contact the FTC and file a formal complaint online. I wouldn't expect the world to change for your complaint, but even if it just generates a letter it may be enough to let a company know someone is watching - and if they are a big business, they might actually get into a little bit of trouble.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee60151939fc8a15f134d44755e021c1",
"text": "$27,000 for a car?! Please, don't do that to yourself! That sounds like a new-car price. If it is, you can kiss $4k-$5k of that price goodbye the moment you drive it off the lot. You'll pay the worst part of the depreciation on that vehicle. You can get a 4-5 year old Corolla (or similar import) for less than half that price, and if you take care of it, you can get easily another 100k miles out of it. Check out Dave Ramsey's video. (It's funny that the car payment he chooses as his example is the same one as yours: $475! ;) ) I don't buy his take on the 12% return on the stock market (which is fantasy in my book) but buying cars outright instead of borrowing or (gasp) leasing, and working your way up the food chain a bit with the bells/whistles/newness of your cars, is the way to go.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af8b96a7087be6ba42486f0208c688a7",
"text": "I have had it two way now: I got pre-approval from my credit union which just so happened to be one of the bigger vehicle lenders in the metro area. What I found out was that the dealership (which was one of the bigger ones in the metro area) had a computer system that looked up my deal with the credit union. Basically, I signed some contracts and the CU and the dealership did whatever paperwork they needed to without me. I bought a used car and drove it off of the lot that night, and I didn't ever go back (for anything financial) Both my wife and her sister received blank checks that were valid up to a certain amount. In the case of my sister in law, she signed the check, the dealership called to confirm funds and she drove off. In the case of my wife, she ended up negotiating a better deal with dealer finance, but I was assured she only had to sign the check, get it verified and drive the car home.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "277d4423be680399e5c346d4177ce244",
"text": "In the UK at least, dealers definitely want you to take finance. They get benefits from the bank (which are not insubstantial) for doing this; these benefits translate directly to increased commission and internal rewards for the individual salesman. It's conceivable that the salesman will be less inclined to put himself out for you in any way by sweetening your deal as much as you'd like, if he's not going to get incentives out of it. Indeed, since he's taking a hit on his commission from you paying in cash, it's in his best interests to perhaps be firmer with you during price negotiation. So, will the salesman be frustrated with you if you choose to pay in cash? Yes, absolutely, though this may manifest in different ways. In some cases the dealer will offer to pay off the finance for you allowing you to pay directly in cash while the dealer still gets the bank referral reward, so that everyone wins. This is a behind-the-scenes secret in the industry which is not made public for obvious reasons (it's arguably verging on fraud). If the salesman likes you and trusts you then you may be able to get such an arrangement. If this does not seem likely to occur, I would not go out of my way to disclose that I am planning to pay with cash. That being said, you'll usually be asked very early on whether you are seeking to pay cash or credit (the salesman wants to know for the reasons outlined above) and there is little use lying about it when you're shortly going to have to come clean anyway.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "438bad75d87d85c9b5fcb2144e7da298",
"text": "Ideally you would negotiate a car price without ever mentioning: And other factors that affect the price. You and the dealer would then negotiate a true price for the car, followed by the application of rebates, followed by negotiating for the loan if there is to be one. In practice this rarely happens. The sales rep asks point blank what rebates you qualify for (by asking get-to-know-you questions like where you work or if you served in the armed forces - you may not realize that these are do-you-qualify-for-a-rebate questions) before you've even chosen a model. They take that into account right from the beginning, along with whether they'll make a profit lending you money, or have to spend something to subsidize your zero percent loan. However unlike your veteran's status, your loan intentions are changeable. So when you get to the end you can ask if the price could be improved by paying cash. Or you could try putting the negotiated price on a credit card, and when they don't like that, ask for a further discount to stop you from using the credit card and paying cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fea3ea7f147f19c235bfbfaee7241797",
"text": "They'll refund your money (though maybe with a small service charge). I'm sure they regularly deal with new car sales gone wrong.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac5e3eceb0f3f7efed7542521895e212",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16696d4e713c86fc723d4c7c989523ee",
"text": "I have in the last few years purchased several used cars from dealers. They have handled it two different ways. They accepted a small check ~$1,000 now, and then gave me three business days to bring the rest as a cashiers check. They also insisted that I submit a application for credit, in case I needed a loan. They accepted a personal check on the spot. Ask them before you drive to the dealer. Of course they would love you to get a loan from them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec6e5622ee2d1e17cd611a3b30c31072",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b605715d4578ff53e0f1b6bc6e390df0",
"text": "The car deal makes money 3 ways. If you pay in one lump payment. If the payment is greater than what they paid for the car, plus their expenses, they make a profit. They loan you the money. You make payments over months or years, if the total amount you pay is greater than what they paid for the car, plus their expenses, plus their finance expenses they make money. Of course the money takes years to come in, or they sell your loan to another business to get the money faster but in a smaller amount. You trade in a car and they sell it at a profit. Of course that new transaction could be a lump sum or a loan on the used car... They or course make money if you bring the car back for maintenance, or you buy lots of expensive dealer options. Some dealers wave two deals in front of you: get a 0% interest loan. These tend to be shorter 12 months vs 36,48,60 or even 72 months. The shorter length makes it harder for many to afford. If you can't swing the 12 large payments they offer you at x% loan for y years that keeps the payments in your budget. pay cash and get a rebate. If you take the rebate you can't get the 0% loan. If you take the 0% loan you can't get the rebate. The price you negotiate minus the rebate is enough to make a profit. The key is not letting them know which offer you are interested in. Don't even mention a trade in until the price of the new car has been finalized. Otherwise they will adjust the price, rebate, interest rate, length of loan, and trade-in value to maximize their profit. The suggestion of running the numbers through a spreadsheet is a good one. If you get a loan for 2% from your bank/credit union for 3 years and the rebate from the dealer, it will cost less in total than the 0% loan from the dealer. The key is to get the loan approved by the bank/credit union before meeting with the dealer. The money from the bank looks like cash to the dealer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d548dfab650da351f25dd51212badb2e",
"text": "Sounds like 'up-selling'. You can harden yourself into being a 'tough sell' but it takes time and a lot of shopping. The quickest way to put up a defense is to never ever make a purchase over $100 without 'sleeping on it'. Just walk away, tell them you'll think it over, and go do some more research. Don't go back into a dealership or store that has hit you with guilt or pressure or a crazy price or whatever. Find a no-haggle or no-frills source, or even a source to buy a used version of the item you want.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5948efbabe7fdd53df8937b6699b9306",
"text": "Many reasons So in general you are paying more for peace of mind when you buy a new car. You expect everything to be working and if not you can take it back to the dealer to have them fix it for free.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e82d50ce566fea13d4c4b7bd3bb77f65",
"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.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0eb792a018c26758bbce3ddb6a813268
|
Should a high-school student invest their (relative meager) savings?
|
[
{
"docid": "e67ccb30c3a5db2fe0d4415199808c70",
"text": "You should invest in that with the best possible outcome. Right now that is in yourself. Your greatest wealth building tool, at this point, is your future income. As such anything you can do to increase your earnings potential. For some that might mean getting an engineering degree, for others it might mean starting a small business. For some it is both obtaining a college degree and learning about business. A secondary thing to learn about would be personal finance. I would hold off on stocks, at this time, until you get your first real job and you have an emergency fund in place. Penny stocks are worthless, forget about them. Bonds have their place, but not at this point in your life. Saving up for college and obtaining a quality education, debt free, should be your top priority. Saving up for emergencies is a secondary priority, but only after you have more than enough money to fund your college education. You can start thinking about retirement, but you need a career to help fund your savings plan. Put that off until you have such a career. Investing in stocks, at this juncture, is a bit foolish. Start a career first. Any job you take now should be seen as a step towards a larger goal and should not define who you are.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10ac79d2ac6be5c20574e7d20547be22",
"text": "\"You have a few correlated questions here: Yes you can. There are only a few investment strategies that require a minimum contribution and those aren't ones that would get a blanket recommendation anyway. Investing in bonds or stocks is perfectly possible with limited funds. You're never too young to start. The power of interest means that the more time you give your money to grow, the larger your eventual gains will be (provided your investment is beating inflation). If your financial situation allows it, it makes sense to invest money you don't need immediately, which brings us to: This is the one you have to look at most. You're young but have a nice chunk of cash in a savings account. That money won't grow much and you could be losing purchasing power to inflation but on the other hand that money also isn't at risk. While there are dozens of investment options1 the two main ones to look at are: bonds: these are fixed income, which means they're fairly safe, but the downside is that you need to lock up your money for a long time to get a better interest rate than a savings account index funds that track the market: these are basically another form of stock where each share represents fractions of shares of other companies that are tracked on an index such as the S&P 500 or Nasdaq. These are much riskier and more volatile, which is why you should look at this as a long-term investment as well because given enough time these are expected to trend upwards. Look into index funds further to understand why. But this isn't so much about what you should invest in, but more about the fact that an investment, almost by definition, means putting money away for a long period of time. So the real question remains: how much can you afford to put away? For that you need to look at your individual situation and your plans for the future. Do you need that money to pay for expenses in the coming years? Do you want to save it up for college? Do you want to invest and leave it untouched to inspire you to keep saving? Do you want to save for retirement? (I'm not sure if you can start saving via IRAs and the like at your age but it's worth looking into.) Or do you want to spend it on a dream holiday or a car? There are arguments to be made for every one of those. Most people will tell you to keep such a \"\"low\"\" sum in a savings account as an emergency fund but that also depends on whether you have a safety net (i.e. parents) and how reliable they are. Most people will also tell you that your long-term money should be in the stock market in the form of a balanced portfolio of index funds. But I won't tell you what to do since you need to look at your own options and decide for yourself what makes sense for you. You're off to a great start if you're thinking about this at your age and I'd encourage you to take that interest further and look into educating yourself on the investments options and funds that are available to you and decide on a financial plan. Involving your parents in that is sensible, not in the least because your post-high school plans will be the most important variable in said plan. To recap my first point and answer your main question, if you've decided that you want to invest and you've established a specific budget, the size of that investment budget should not factor into what you invest it in. 1 - For the record: penny stocks are not an investment. They're an expensive form of gambling.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5b0314fd8c99ab3e4976299d6c2bbf8",
"text": "At your age (heck, at MY age :-)) I would not think about doing any of those types of investments (not savings) on your own, unless you are really interested in the investment process for its own sake, and are willing to devote a lot of time to investigating companies in order to try to pick good investments. Instead, find a good mutual fund from say Vanguard or TRP, put your money in there, and relax. Depending on your short-term goals (e.g. will you expect to need the money for college?) you could pick either an index fund, or a low-risk, mostly bond fund.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ce8759db51b2ce834797cbbd3ed6464",
"text": "\"IMHO It is definitively not too early to start learning and thinking about personal finances and also about investing. If you like to try stock market games, make sure to use one that includes a realistic fee structure simulation as well - otherwise there'll be a very unpleasant awakening when switching to reality... I'd like to stress the need for low fees with the brokerage account! Sit down and calculate how much fees different brokers take for a \"\"portfolio\"\" of say, 1 ETF, 1 bond, 1 share of about $500 or $1000 each (e.g. order fee, annual fee, fee for paying out interest/dividend). In my experience, it is good if you can manage to make the first small investing steps before starting your career. Real jobs tend to need lots of time (particularly at the beginning), so time to learn investing is extremely scarce right at the time when you for the first time in your life earn money that could/should be invested. I'm talking of very slowly starting with a single purchase of say an ETF, a single bond next time you have saved up a suitable amount of toy money, then maybe a single share (and essentially not doing anything with them in order to avoid further fees). While such a \"\"portfolio\"\" is terrible with respect to diversification and relative fees*, this gives you the possibility to learn the procedures, to see how the fees cut in, what to do wrt taxes etc. This is why I speak about toy money and why I consider this money an investment in education. * An order fee of, say, $10 on a $500 position are terrible 4% (2 x $10) for buying + selling - depending on your local taxes, that would be several years of dividend yield for say some arbitrary Dow Jones ETF. Nevertheless, purchase + sale together are less than 3 cinema tickets.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a849a576e82b7dbc8249212d2e914783",
"text": "The advice to invest in yourself is good advice. But the stock market can be very rewarding over the long pull. You have about 45 years to retirement now and that is plenty long enough that each dollar put into the market now will be many dollars then. A simple way to do this might be to open a brokerage account at a reputable broker and put a grand into a very broad based all market ETF and then doing nothing with it. The price of the ETF will go up and down with the usual market gyrations, but over the decades it will grow nicely. Make sure the ETF has low fees so that you aren't being overcharged. It's good that you are thinking about investing at a young age. A rational and consistent investment strategy will lead to wealth over the long pull.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6fe8c780df7d4e66657c512be61c241",
"text": "\"Is investing a good idea with a low amount of money? Yes. I'll take the angle that you CAN invest in penny stocks. There's nothing wrong with that. The (oversimplified) suggestion I would make is to answer the question about your risk aversion. This is the four quadrant (e.g., http://njaes.rutgers.edu:8080/money/riskquiz/) you are introduced to when you first sit down to open your brokerage (stocks) or employer retirement account (401K). Along with a release of liability in the language of \"\"past performance is not an indicator...\"\" (which you will not truly understand until you experience a market crash). The reason I say this is because if you are 100% risk averse, then it is clear which vehicles you want to have in your tool belt; t-bills, CDs, money market, and plain vanilla savings. Absolutely nothing wrong with this. Don't let anyone make you feel otherwise with remarks like \"\"your money is not working for you sitting there\"\". It's extremely important to be absolutely honest with yourself in doing this assessment, too. For example, I thought I was a risk taker except when the market tumbled, I reacted exactly how a knee-jerk investor would. Also, I feel it's not easy to know just how honest you are with yourself as we are humans, and not impartial machines. So the recommendation I would give is to make a strong correlation to casino gambling. In other words, conventional advice is to only take \"\"play money\"\" to the casino. This because you assume you WILL lose it. Then you can enjoy yourself at the casino knowing this is capital that you are okay throwing in the trash. I would strongly caution you to only ever invest capital in the stock market that you characterize as play money. I'm convinced financial advisors, fund managers, friends will disagree. Still, I feel this is the only way you will be completely okay when the market fluctuates -- you won't lose sleep. IF you choose this approach, then you can start investing any time. That five drachma you were going to throw away on lottery tickets? transfer it into your Roth IRA. That twenty yen that you were going to ante in your weekly poker night? transfer it into your index fund. You already got past the investors remorse of (losing) that money. IF you truly accept that amount as play money, then you CAN put it into penny stocks. I'll get lots of criticism here. However, I maintain that once you are truly okay with throwing that cash away (like you would drop it into a slot machine), then it's the same whether you lose it one way or in another investment vehicle.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee2c4b844bf6867deea08781a2c05ee9",
"text": "\"Between 1 and 2 G is actually pretty decent for a High School Student. Your best bet in my opinion is to wait the next (small) stock market crash, and then invest in an index fund. A fund that tracks the SP500 or the Russel 2000 would be a good choice. By stock market crash, I'm talking about a 20% to 30% drop from the highest point. The stock market is at an all time high, but nobody knows if it's going to keep going. I would avoid penny stocks, at least until you can read their annual report and understand most of what they're claiming, especially the cash flow statement. From the few that I've looked at, penny stock companies just keep issuing stock to raise money for their money loosing operations. I'd also avoid individual stocks for now. You can setup a practice account somewhere online, and try trading. Your classmates probably brag about how much they've made, but they won't tell you how much they lost. You are not misusing your money by \"\"not doing anything with it\"\". Your classmates are gambling with it, they might as well go to a casino. Echoing what others have said, investing in yourself is your best option at this point. Try to get into the best school that you can. Anything that gives you an edge over other people in terms of experience or education is good. So try to get some leadership and team experience. , and some online classes in a field that interests you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae3b22deddd32ca9a39f5a7c766f219e",
"text": "\"If you're not rich, investing money will produce very small return, and is a waste of your resources. If you want to save until you die, then go for it (that's what investment companies want you to do). I suggest invest your money in building a network of friends who will be future asset for you. A group of friends helping each other have a much higher prospect of success. It has been proven that approximately 70% of jobs have been obtained through networking. Either through family, or friends, this is the vast majority. I will reiterate, invest on friends and family, not on strangers who want to tie down your money so they can have fun for the moment, while you wait to have fun when you're almost dead. Added source for those who are questioning the most well known fact within organizations, I'm baffled by the level of ignorance. Linkedin Recruitment Blog ...companies want to hire from within first; only when there are no appropriate internal candidates will they rely on referrals from employees (who get a bonus for a successful hire) and people who will approach them through informational meetings. The latter category of jobseekers (you) have the benefit of getting known before the job is \"\"officially posted.\"\" For those who believe loaning money to friends and family is a way of losing money -> this is a risk well worth taking -> and the risk is much lower than loaning your money to strangers -> and the reward is much higher than loaning your money to strangers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62769608f166b86eac37da984ac5e9f8",
"text": "\"Nobody has mentioned your \"\"risk tolerance\"\" and \"\"investment horizon\"\" for this money. Any answer should take into account whether you can afford to lose it all, and how soon you'll need your investment to be both liquid and above water. You can't make any investment decision at all and might as well leave it in a deposit-insured, zero-return account until you inderstand those two terms and have answers for your own situation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91e8bcfb1597f1dd879bb0546c4bce4e",
"text": "If you have no immediate need for the money you can apply the Rule of 72 to that money. Ask your parent's financial advisor to invest the money. Based on the rate of return your money will double like clockwork. At 8% interest your money will double every 9 years. 45 years from now that initial investment will have doubled 5 times. That adds up pretty fast. Time is your best friend when investing at your age. Odds are you'll want to be saving for a college education though. Graduating debt free is by far the best plan.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3fd2c4aac08a0eb253bbb662aec2ca98",
"text": "\"It's a good question, but it turns into a general 'how to invest' question. You see, the cliche of \"\"invest the difference\"\" simply point to the ripoff the other two answers discuss. And it doesn't specify how to invest, only that this money should be put to work as long term investments. The best answer is to find the asset allocation appropriate for your age and risk profile. It can be as simple as a low cost S&P ETF, or as complex at a dozen assets that include Stocks, both Domestic and Foreign, REITs, Commodities, etc. It's not as if the saved funds get segregated in a special account just for this purpose, although I suppose one can do this just as others have separate funds for retirement, emergency, vacation, college, etc.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09559e9c00c99af95ddf0e5fa66b37b7",
"text": "Check out Khan Academy if you get a chance - they have a large suite of finance/capital market video clips that cover a lot of the basics of financial theory in short, manageable clips that might be suitable for someone in high school.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8dcbe5ddda15574ace112c0a790e58a5",
"text": "A lot of people on here will likely disagree with me and this opinion. In my opinion the answer lies in your own motives and intentions. If you'd like to be more cognizant of the market, I'd just dive in and buy a few companies you like. Many people will say you shouldn't pick your own stocks, you should buy an index fund, or this ETF or this much bonds, etc. You already have retirement savings, capital allocation is important there. You're talking about an account total around 10% of your annual salary, and assuming you have sufficient liquid emergency funds; there's a lot of non-monetary benefit to being more aware of the economy and the stock market. But if you find the house you're going to buy, you may have to liquidate this account at a time that's not ideal, possibly at a loss. If all you're after is a greater return on your savings than the paltry 0.05% (or whatever) the big deposit banks are paying, then a high yield savings account is the way I'd go, or a CD ladder. Yes, the market generally goes up but it doesn't ALWAYS go up. Get your money somewhere that it's inured and you can be certain how much you'll have tomorrow. Assuming a gain, the gain you'll see will PALE in comparison to the deposits you'll make. Deposits grow accounts. Consider these scenarios if you allocate $1,000 per month to this account. 1) Assuming an investment return of 5% you're talking about $330 return in the first year (not counting commissions or possible losses). 2) Assuming a high yield savings account at 1.25% you're talking about $80 in the first year. Also remember, both of these amounts would be taxable. I'll admit in the event of 5% return you'll have about four times the gain but you're talking about a difference of ~$250 on $12,000. Over three to five years the most significant contributor to the account, by far, will be your deposits. Anyway, as I'm sure you know this is not investment advice and you may lose money etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "444faba77b03fa8fac9028b97e321df5",
"text": ">Also, I don't know if we should actually Invest in the market or just discuss and learn about the finance market in general. Since you're in highschool I would say that discussing and learning about it is more than enough. Some other things you can cover are budgeting, compounding interest, retirement accounts and advantages of them, credit scores, and credit in general. >What are some good ways to attract people to join the club Advertise it and provide informative handouts that explain what will be discussed and taught. Maybe get a math teacher involved to help explain certain things.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43e29fa4421236af230cf2f47a04c70e",
"text": "\"I would like to add my accolades in saving $3000, it is an accomplishment that the majority of US households are unable to achieve. source While it is something, in some ways it is hardly anything. Working part time at a entry level job will earn you almost three times this amount per year, and with the same job you can earn about as much in two weeks as this investment is likely to earn, in the market in one year. All this leads to one thing: At your age you should be looking to increase your income. No matter if it is college or a high paying trade, whatever you can do to increase your life time earning potential would be the best investment for this money. I would advocate a more patient approach. Stick the money in the bank until you complete your education enough for an \"\"adult job\"\". Use it, if needed, for training to get that adult job. Get a car, a place of your own, and a sufficient enough wardrobe. Save an emergency fund. Then invest with impunity. Imagine two versions of yourself. One with basic education, a average to below average salary, that uses this money to invest in the stock market. Eventually that money will be needed and it will probably be pulled out of the market at an in opportune time. It might worth less than the original 3K! Now imagine a second version of yourself that has an above average salary due to some good education or training. Perhaps that 3K was used to help provide that education. However, this second version will probably earn 25,000 to 75,000 per year then the first version. Which one do you want to be? Which one do you think will be wealthier? Better educated people not only earn more, they are out of work less. You may want to look at this chart.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8fa04eaae270a59d75c5b36c12e036b",
"text": "\"Between \"\"fresh out of college\"\" and \"\"I have no debts, and a support system in place which because of which I can take higher risks.\"\" I would put every penny I could afford in the riskiest investment platform I was willing to. Holding onto money in a bank account is likely to cost you %1-%2 a year depending on what interest rates are and what inflation looks like. Money invested in a market could loose it all for you or you could become an overnight millionaire. Loosing it all would suck but you are young you will bounce back. Losing it slowly to inflation is just silly when you are young. If there is something you know you have to do in the next few years start to save for it but otherwise use the fact that you are young and have a safety net to try to make money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d12a01b8f903137662fada452e2939e5",
"text": "\"Congratulations. The first savings goal should be an emergency fund. Think of this not as an investment, but as insurance against life's woes. They happen and having this kind of money earmarked allows one to invest without needing to withdraw at an inopportune time. This should go into a \"\"high interest\"\" savings account or money market account. Figure three to six months of expenses. The next goal should be retirement savings. In the US this is typically done through 401K or if your company does not offer one, either a ROTH IRA or Traditional IRA. The goal should be about 15% of your income. You should favor a 401k match over just about anything else, and then a ROTH over that. The key to transforming from a broke college student into a person with a real job, and disposable income, is a budget. Otherwise you might just end up as a broke person with a real job (not fun). Part of your budget should include savings, spending, and giving. All three areas are the key to building wealth. Once you have all of those taking care of the real fun begins. That is you have an emergency fund, you are putting 15% to retirement, you are spending some on yourself, and giving to a charity of your choice. Then you can dream some with any money left over (after expenses of course). Do you want to retire early? Invest more for retirement. Looking to buy a home or own a bunch of rental property? Start educating yourself and invest for that. Are you passionate about a certain charity? Give more and save some money to take time off in order to volunteer for that charity. All that and more can be yours. Budgeting is a key concept, and the younger you start the easier it gets. While the financiers will disagree with me, you cannot really invest if you are borrowing money. Keep debt to zero or just on a primary residence. I can tell you from personal experience that I did not started building wealth until I made a firm commitment to being out of debt. Buy cars for cash and never pay credit card interest. Pay off student loans as soon as possible. For some reason the idea of giving to charity invokes rancor. A cursory study of millionaires will indicate some surprising facts: most of them are self made, most of them behave differently than pop culture, and among other things most of them are generous givers. Building wealth is about behavior. Giving to charity is part of that behavior. Its my own theory that giving does almost no good for the recipient, but a great amount of good for the giver. This may seem difficult to believe, but I ask that you try it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92fa7df2ead6e76d2d5ca28b6d794a4f",
"text": "Your long-term saving targets will include retirement, kids' college, house, etc. Medium-term might be your college, or a car. Short-term might be a vacation somewhere or a new laptop. In all cases saving, then spending money you do have is better than spending money you don't have. I think that's the first takeaway of this truism. However, I also believe 10% is said as a retirement target. Retirement is very important and this advice is stressed by many financial planners because it's very easy to underestimate how expensive it is. By the same token, it's recommended that you spend 2 months' salary on an engagement ring, and that particular truism can be traced back to a DeBeers ad. I personally don't know whether 10% as a retirement target is sage - it sounds right but I haven't followed it for a variety of reasons. Please corroborate against multiple sources and apply to your own financial person.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c357962a2485aaf01bfc8abffacd7213",
"text": "You have a comparatively small sum to invest, and since you're presumably expecting to go to college.university soon, where you may well need the money, you also have a short timescale for your investment. I don't think anything stock-related would be good for you -- you need a longer timescale for stock market investments, at least five years and preferably ten or more. I don't know the details of Australian savings, but I'd suggest just finding a bank that is giving a good interest rate for a one-year fixed-term savings account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5619d5a098882eefbeacc9fab0a71ce9",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "695649f7c084bc87b29cdbeb1cf3f2f2",
"text": "\"I'd first put it in CDs or other short term account. Get through school first, then see where you land. If you have income that allows you to start a Roth IRA, I'd go for that, but keep it safe in case you actually need it back soon. After school, if you don't land a decent job fast, this money might be needed to live on. How long will it last if you take a few months to find work? If you do find a good job, moving, and setting up an apartment has a cost. Once you're there, I'd refer you to the many \"\"getting started\"\" Q&As on this site.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3968f1cb85779ffc3e09b528b1322831",
"text": "\"Well, I understand this forum is about money but I think you would be far better off if you invest the money in your daughters education or something similar that can bring much more significant future gains. I am a big fan of compound interest and investing in stocks but $700 sitting until she's 21 wont grow into a significant amount. When she's 21, what would you \"\"hope\"\" she'd spend the money on? something valuable like education right? so why don't you take the first step now so she will get a much bigger return than the monitory value. If I were you I'd invest in a home library or something similar.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b756983b590de33a66abf890947706d",
"text": "As a 20 year old who has just started earning enough to save, I suggest showing them the different types of lifestyles they could live in the future if they started saving now versus what their life would be like if they didn't save at all. Try showing them actual dollar values as well so it's not just an arbitrary idea.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5441f74c31fd065e750dc107af1495a4",
"text": "\"This may be a great idea, or a very bad one, or it may simply not be applicable to you, depending on your personal circumstances and interests. The general idea is to avoid passive investments such as stocks and bonds, because they tend to grow by \"\"only\"\" a few percent per year. Instead, invest in things where you will be actively involved in some form. With those, much higher investment returns are common (but also the risk is higher, and you may be tied down and have to limit the traveling you want to do). So here are a few different ways to do that: Get a college degree, but only if you are interested in the field, and it ends up paying you well. If you aren't interested in the field, you won't land the $100k+ jobs later. And if you study early-childhood education, you may love the job, but it won't pay enough to make it a good investment. Of course, it also has to fit with your life plans, but that might be easier than it seems. You want to travel. Have you thought about anthropology, marine biology or archeology? Pick a reputable, hard-to-get-into, academic school rather than a vocation-oriented oe, and make sure that they have at least some research program. That's one way to distinguish between the for-profit schools (who tend to be very expensive and land you in low-paying jobs), and schools that actually lead to a well-paying future. Or if your interest runs more in a different direction: start a business. Your best bet might be to buy a franchise. Many of the fast-food chains, such as McDonalds, will let you buy as long as you have around $300k net worth. Most franchises also require that you are qualified. It may often make sense to buy not just one franchised store, but several in an area. You can increase your income (and your risk) by getting a loan - you can probably buy at least $5 million worth of franchises with your \"\"seed money\"\". BTW, I'm only using McDonalds as an example. Well-known fast food franchises used to be money-making machines, but their popularity may well have peaked. There are franchises in all kinds of industries, though. Some tend to be very short-term (there is a franchise based on selling customer's stuff on ebay), while others can be very long-lived (many real-estate brokerages are actually franchises). Do be careful which ones you buy. Some can be a \"\"license to print money\"\" while others may fail, and there are some fraudsters in the franchising market, out to separate you from your money. Advantage over investing in stocks and bonds: if you choose well, your return on investment can be much higher. That's generally true for any business that you get personally involved in. If you do well, you may well end up retiring a multimillionaire. Drawback: you will be exposed to considerable risk. The investment will be a major chunk of your net worth, and you may have to put all your eggs in none basket. If your business fails, you may lose everything. A third option (but only if you have a real interest in it!): get a commercial driver's license and buy an 18-wheeler truck. I hear that owner-operators can easily make well over $100k, and that's with having to pay off a bank loan. But if you don't love trucker culture, it is likely not worth doing. Overall, you probably get the idea: the principle is to use your funds as seed money to launch something profitable and secure, as well as enjoyable for you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed0a834861a6e3accdc94feb5d815429",
"text": "If these are children that may be employed, in a few years, it may well be worth walking them through some basics of the deductions around employment, some basic taxes, uses of banks, and give them enough of a basis in how the economy of the world works. For example, if you get a job and get paid $10/hour, that may sound good but how much do various things eat at that so your take-home pay may be much lower? While this does presume that the kids will get jobs somewhere along the way and have to deal with this, it is worth making this part of the education system on some level rather than shocking them otherwise. Rather than focusing on calculations, I'd be more tempted to consider various scenarios like how do you use a bank, what makes insurance worth having(Life, health, car, and any others may be worth teaching on some level), and how does the government and taxes fit into things. While I may be swinging more for the practical, it is worth considering if these kids will be away in college or university in a few years, how will they handle being away from the parents that may supply the money to meet all the financial needs?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3d9a3615e3060a698bbde653c8e74c17
|
Why would my job recruiter want me to form an LLC?
|
[
{
"docid": "6325c6917fcb839f3924dfd764e8cc8a",
"text": "Your recruiter is likely trying to avoid having to pay the employer's side of employment taxes, and may even be trying to avoid having to file a 1099 for you by treating your relationship as a vendor/service provider that he is purchasing services from, which would make your pay just a business expense. It's definitely in his best interest for you to do it this way. Whether it's in your best interest is up to you. You should consult a licensed legal/tax professional to help you determine whether this is a good arrangement for you. (Most of the time, when someone starts playing tax avoidance games, they eventually get stung by it.) The next big question: If you already know this guy is a snake, why are you still working with him? If you don't trust him, why would you take legal/tax advice from him? He might land you a high-paying job. But he also might cause you years of headaches if his tax advice turns out to be flawed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3cd06f09541ff85e29fb9bb2fa1596e7",
"text": "This sounds very like disguised employment. You act like an employee of the company, but your official relationship with them is as a contractor. You gain none of the protection you get from being an employee, and this may make you cheaper, less risky and more desirable for the company who is hiring you. Depending on your country you may also pay corporation tax rather than income tax, which may represent a very significant saving. Also, the company hiring you may not have to pay PAYE, national insurance, stakeholder pension, etc. This arrangement is normal and legal providing you genuinely are acting as a subcontractor. However if you are behaving as an employee (desk at the company, company email, have to work specific hours in a specific location, no ability to subcontract, etc.) you may be classified as a disguised employee. In the UK it used to be common practice for highly paid employees to set up shell companies to avoid tax. This will now get you into hot water. Google IR35 It sounds like your relationship in this case is directly with the recruiter. You will have to consider if the recruiter is acting as your employer, or if you remain a genuinely independent agent. The duration of your contract with the recruiter will have a bearing on this. In the UK there are a whole series of tests for disguised employment. This is a good arrangement provided you go in with your eyes open and an awareness of the legislation. However you should absolutely check the rules that apply in your country before entering into this agreement. You could potentially be stung very badly indeed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d4eb245ae641d59c1a8781dcb1ccca0",
"text": "\"There are a few sites out there that can give you some reasoning behind the request. LegalZoom, for instance. To quote the LZ doc in case the link dies: Employee vs. Independent Contractor If a worker is an employee, the employer is responsible for paying Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare, and possibly other costs like workers' compensation insurance for the employee; at the end of the tax year, the employer is responsible for compiling all necessary payroll reports, including W-2 forms. If a worker is an independent contractor, the employer is not responsible for any of the above taxes or payments, and the only added paperwork is the issuing of a 1099 to the independent contractor at the end of the tax year, if he or she has made more than $600 with the employer. As Kent suggested, you should speak with an attorney (really you need one if setting up an LLC). There are a lot of companies out there these days that try to classify people as contractors rather than full-time employees as it gets them out of paying benefits and dealing with taxes. This is being heavily cracked down on, and several \"\"contractor\"\" employees are winning lawsuits to get full-time status. If you are truly acting as a contractor, then setting up an LLC can help with a few items such as taxes and protection on certain business aspects (see comments below regarding this). It's easy and relatively cheap (cost me about $250 with extra legal advice tacked on). If you are reporting directly to a manager with the company, or really working in any way that isn't consistent with the definition of a contractor, then I'd turn down the offer and ask to be made a FT employee. Additional information: https://www.sba.gov/content/hire-contractor-or-employee\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ced865df0eb2464f46ff31ca887ed471",
"text": "I don't know about the US, but in the UK this is common practice, even required in some situations, and not sketchy at all. It's perfectly legal, saves you tax, and protects you from a legal standpoint. (i.e. what if you break something and your employer wants to sue you?) This is what companies are for, they are legal entities that are separate from an individual. There is no requirement for a company to have more than one employee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fe39059905ec8dc96ad3b388e818b19",
"text": "\"The \"\"independent contractor\"\" vs. \"\"employee\"\" distinction is a red herring to this discussion and not at all important just because someone suggested you use your LLC to do the job. Corp-2-Corp is a very common way to do contracting and having an LLC with business bank accounts provides you with more tax deductions (such as deducting interest on credit lines). Some accounting practices prefer to pay entities by their Tax ID numbers, instead of an individual's social security number. The actual reasoning behind this would be dubious, but the LLC only benefits you and gives you more advantages by having one than not. For example, it is easier for you to hire subcontractors through your LLC to assist with your job, due to the opaqueness of the private entity. Similarly, your LLC can sign Non Disclosure and Intellectual Property agreements, automatically extending the trade secrets to all of its members, as opposed to just you as an individual. By signing whatever agreement with the company that is paying you through your LLC, your LLC will be privy to all of this. Next, assuming you did have subcontractors or other liability inducing assets, the LLC limits the liability you personally have to deal with in a court system, to an extent. But even if you didn't, the facelessness of an LLC can deter potential creditors, for example, your client may just assume you are a cog in a wheel - a random employee of the LLC - as opposed to the sole owner. Having a business account for the LLC keeps all of your expenses in one account statement, making your tax deductions easier. If you had a business credit line, the interest is tax deductible (compared to just having a personal credit card for business purposes). Regarding the time/costs of setting up and managing an LLC, this does vary by jurisdiction. It can negligible, or it can be complex. You also only have to do it once. Hire an attorney to give you a head start on that, if you feel that is necessary. Now back to the \"\"independent contractor\"\" vs. \"\"employee\"\" distinction: It is true that the client will not be paying your social security, but they expect you to charge more hourly than an equivalent actual employee would, solely because you don't get health insurance from them or paid leave or retirement plans or any other perk, and you will receive the entire paycheck without any withheld by the employer. You also get more tax deductions to utilize, although you will now have self employment tax (assuming you are a US citizen), this becomes less and less important the higher over $105,000 you make, as it stops being counted (slightly more complicated than that, but self employment tax is it's own discussion).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f2d89c8eae4640911385df7d8e221b8",
"text": "This is pretty normal. I am in the UK and currently doing the exact same thing. As some answers state there is additional tax law called IR35. But thats all it is, an additional tax law that may be applicable to your situation (it very well may not). It is all perfectly legal and common (all my university friends now do it). You will be the director of a company, and invoice the recruiters company. This has benefits and disadvantages. Personally I love it, but each to their own. Don't do it if you don't want to.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de2a1de2c247e1e573b8f28fcf9f1b28",
"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.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8c53d1b2149e29a06ade529876aca990",
"text": "An LLC is a very flexible company when it comes to taxation. You have three basic tax options: There are other good reasons to create an LLC (mainly to protect your personal assets) so even if you decide that you don't want to deal with the complications of an S-Corp LLC, you should still consider creating a sole proprietorship LLC.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4f7f19177888a1ddbce1e8f98d891ee",
"text": "\"The biggest problem with this that others seem to have missed is that a corporation must have a profit motive. Meaning at some point after a \"\"startup phase\"\" your company needs to turn a profit to not be considered a hobby. Will your employer be paying your corporation for your salary? Is that the company's business endeavor? If you run profits through the company and treat it like a true business, this may be technically possible, but as others have mentioned probably will cost more than any benefits you'd receive. And at every step you'll be throwing tons of audit flags. Rich Dad Poor Dad advocates a light version of this. Essentially running a business like Real Estate through an LLC, and then using that LLC for \"\"business trips\"\" (vacation with some justifiable business motive) or capital purchases (laptop, etc...) and the like, such that you're paying with \"\"Pre-tax\"\" money instead of \"\"Post tax\"\", but again the business needs a revenue source.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aeb855264aec4f98e952b57307284244",
"text": "I'm in connecticut and I have met with RobertHalf and another recruiting firm. They both said they would be in constant contact with me yet I haven't heard from either so far. I have emailed and called and haven't gotten much. I try to apply to at least 4 or 5 new positions a day but never hear anything back. [This](http://www.w3schools.com/sql/default.asp) is what I have been trying to familiarize myself with just to get the gist of SQL.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b80141754cd9c7da3082116071ec001",
"text": "\"S-Corp are taxed very different. Unlike LLC where you just add the profit to your income with S-Corp you have to pay yourself a \"\"reasonable\"\" salary (on w-2) which of course is a lot more paperwork. I think the advantage (but don't hold me accountable for this) is if your S-Corp makes a lot more than a reasonable salary, then the rest of the money can be passed through on your personal return at a lower (corp) rate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "faa4701b0b2b3ae331c0e76afa727a6a",
"text": "\"I work in the legal services industry, selling these products for a competitor of theirs who shall remain nameless. The LLC filing itself in most cases is a simple fill in the blank form. You can likely file yourself either online or through the mail, depending on the state. Only a handful require an original document. You can apply for the EIN for free on the IRS website and usually have it within a few minutes. If you already have someone assisting with your annual LLC taxes you wouldn't need their services for that either. If their compliance kit involves any business licensing research, it may be worthwhile - but you can also order those services a la carte from vendors like LLX and BusinessLicenses.com. What you're really paying for is the registered agent service - the address for public record with the state so they know where to send any service of process - and you're paying for the convenience of a \"\"one stop shop\"\" instead of handling all the legwork yourself.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a5e0d894cd75c85c0f41c7ac82bcbcb",
"text": "\"Get some professional accounting help. You're going to have to pay for everything out of the fee you charge: taxes, retirement, health care, etc. You'll be required to pay quarterly. I don't think you should base your fee on what \"\"this\"\" company will pay as a full-time employee, but what you can expect in your area. They're saving a lot of money not going through an established employment firm and essentially, making you create your own. There are costs to setting up and maintaining a company. They have less risk hiring you because there are no unemployment consequences for letting you go. Once you're hired, they'll probably put you on salary, so you can forget about making more money if you work over 40 hrs. IMHO - there have to be better jobs in your area than this one.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30081f2e3fe18ac9db6deacb9f772b8a",
"text": "\"The primary advantage is protection of your personal assets. If your LLC gets sued, they can't take your house/car/dog/wife. There aren't really any financial incentives to be an LLC; because of the pass-thru taxing structure, you wind up paying the same in taxes either way. \"\"The cost\"\" will depend on where you're located, and usually involves a few factors -- Expect to pay $300-500 to start it, depending on your state and who you register with (technically, you can usually register for free at the secretary of state, but wouldn't you rather pay an expert?), and \"\"State Franchise Tax\"\", which will can be a minimum of up to $1000/year depending on the state, plus even more if your LLC earns more than $xxx,000. EDIT -- As an aside, I'll mention that I'm based in California, and our state franchise tax starts at $800/yr. I'm all-web-based, so I've been investigating incorporating in Nevada or Delaware instead (no franchise tax, lower filing fees), but from what I've found, it's hardly worth the trouble. In addition to having to pay a Registered Agent (someone to act as my permanent mailing address in that state for ~$100/yr), apparently California likes to search for people just like me, and charge them $800 anyway. You can fight that, of course, and claim that your business really is done in Nevada, but do you really want to?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb4538721131cc3f19655a02ffa66286",
"text": "\"If you start an LLC with you as the sole member it will be considered a disregarded entity. This basically means that you have the protection of being a company, but all your revenues will go on your personal tax return and be taxed at whatever rate your personal rate calculates to based on your situation. Now here is the good stuff. If you file Form 2553 you can change your sole member LLC to file as an S Corp. Once you have done this it changes the game on how you can pay out what your company makes. You will need to employ yourself and give a \"\"reasonable\"\" salary. This will be reported to the IRS and you will file your normal tax returns and they will be taxed based on your situation. Now as the sole member you can then pay yourself \"\"distribution to share holders\"\" from your account and this money is not subject to normal fica and social security tax (check with your tax guy) and MAKE SURE to document correctly. The other thing is that on that same form you can elect to have a different fiscal year than the standard calendar IRS tax year. This means that you could then take part of profits in one tax year and part in another so that you don't bump yourself into another tax bracket. Example: You cut a deal and the company makes 100,000 in profit that you want to take as a distribution. If you wrote yourself a check for all of it then it could put you into another tax bracket. If your fiscal year were to end say on sept 30 and you cut the deal before that date then you could write say 50,000 this year and then on jan 1 write the other check.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c34950d70128d7f29add7428d89fdbf",
"text": "If I understand you right, people are giving the LLC money for an ownership share. That is NOT income - it would go under equity on the balance sheet. It is analogous to getting a loan from the bank. It is not income - you get cash (an asset) and have an increase to debt (a liability)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1d749c90d303dc35e09b27a73a39ee8",
"text": "There's no reason to keep the California LLC if you don't intend to do business in California. If you'll have sales in California then you'll need to keep it and file taxes accordingly for those sales. You can just as easily form a new LLC in Washington state and even keep the same name (if it's available in Washington, that is). Keeping the California LLC just creates paperwork for whatever regulatory filings California will require for no purpose at all. As for your question about it looking suspicious that you just set up an LLC and then are shutting it down, nobody's going to care, to be honest. As with your situation, plans change, so it isn't really all that unusual. If you're concerned the government will say something, don't.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d28aa994d28e9404b96d8ac04f34c79",
"text": "LLC doesn't explain the tax structure. LLCs can file as a partnership (1065) Scorp (1120S) or nothing at all, if it's a SMLLC. (Single Member LLC). I really enjoy business, and helping people get started. If you PM me your contact information, id be more than happy to go over any issues you may have, and help you with your current issue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ceefd9186fbe63a649c1b841cd61d71d",
"text": "It makes no difference for tax purposes. If you are 1099, you will pay the same amount of taxes as if you formed a corporation and then paid yourself (essentially you are doing this as a 1099 contractor, just not formally). Legally, I don't know the answer. I would assume you have some legal protections by forming an LLC but practically I think this won't make any difference if you get sued.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0493d4f827147a296d9f105fe8748726",
"text": "They might be concerned with having to charge sales tax in California if they have a single employee in California, creating a nexus situation with CA. If that's the case, or even if there is some other issue, you might be able to switch from being a W2 employee to being a 1099 independent contractor. There's a host of additional issues this could cause, but it alleviate the nexus problem (if THAT is the problem). Here's a terrible solution you can bring up, but shouldn't do under any circumstances: offer to set up a mailing address in an allowed State, and give your company plausible deniability with regards to your legal residence. Obviously, this is a terrible idea, but exploring that option with your employer would help you suss out what the actual objection is. Ultimately, anything said here about the reason is just conjecture. You need to talk to the decision maker(s) about the real reason behind the denial. Then you can talk through solutions. Also - don't forget that you can get another job. If you are serious about a future with your girlfriend, you should put that relationship ahead of your current employment comfort and security. If you are willing to walk away from your position, you are in a much better situation to negotiate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c63354cffacbd0dd596f593b412164d3",
"text": "\"There are very few circumstances where forming an out of state entity is beneficial, but a website is within these circumstances in certain instances. Businesses with no physical operations do not need to care what jurisdiction they are registered in: your home state, a better united state or non-united state. The \"\"limited liability\"\" does it's job. If you are storing inventory or purchasing offices to compliment your online business, you need to register in the state those are located in. An online business is an example of a business with no physical presence. All states want you to register your LLC in the state that you live in, but this is where you need to read that state's laws. What are the consequences of not registering? There might be none, there might be many. In New York, for example, there are no consequences for not registering (and registering in new york - especially the city - is likely the most expensive in the USA). If your LLC needs to represent itself in court, New York provides retroactive foreign registrations and business licenses. So basically, despite saying that you need to pay over $1000 to form your LLC \"\"or else\"\", the reality is that you get the local limited liability protection in courts whenever you actually need it. Check your local state laws, but more times than not it is analogous to asking a barber if you need a haircut, the representative is always going to say \"\"yes, you do\"\" while the law, and associated case law, reveals that you don't. The federal government doesn't care what state your form an LLC or partnership in. Banks don't care what state you form an LLC or partnership in. The United States post office doesn't care. Making an app? The Apple iTunes store doesn't care. So that covers all the applicable authorities you need to consider. Now just go with the cheapest. In the US alone there are 50 states and several territories, all with their own fee structures, so you just have to do your research. Despite conflicting with another answer, Wyoming is still relevant, because it is cheap and has a mature system and laws around business entity formation. http://www.incorp.com has agents in every state, but there are registered agents everywhere, you can even call the Secretary of State in each state for a list of registered agents. Get an employer ID number yourself after the business entity is formed, it takes less than 5 minutes. All of this is also contingent on how your LLC or partnership distributes funds. If your LLC is not acting like a pass through entity to you and your partner,but instead holding its own profits like a corporation, then again none of this matters. You need to form it within the state you live and do foreign registrations in states where it has any physical presence, as it has becomes its own tax person in those states. This is relevant because you said you were trying to do something with a friend.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b642eb854449d0c4e04bb13fc651c04b",
"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.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c6b371ad3b20ba9fe228f79a47b583a2
|
What's the best way to make money from a market correction?
|
[
{
"docid": "5efc6c902e24c8e389569c5dc1e4bf6e",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10fdb001410920a523661929dc3f27ac",
"text": "The best way to make money during a market correction is to be a financial services company handling transactions for people who think they can beat the market, and charging a percentage commission on each transaction, while keeping your own money somewhere nice and safe, stable and low-fee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09e1175420f8c078193d1f53c0e2d9ca",
"text": "\"As ChrisInEdmonton describes, shorting has an asymmetric risk/reward ratio. And put options have a time cost, if you think the market is overvalued and buy lots of puts, but they expire before the market finally corrects, you can lose your entire investment. Betting on market timing of any kind is extremely difficult to do, some would argue it's impossible. \"\"The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent\"\" is a favorite wall street trader saying. Instead of playing a game that's difficult to win, the better option is to play one you can win. That's to learn how to value individual investments well and accumulate cash until you can find investments that are under-valued to invest in. The best way to learn to value investments is to read Graham and Buffett. \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" is a good starting point, and you can read all of Buffett's investor letters for the last 30 years + for free on the Berkshire Hathaway web site. Finally the textbook on valuing stocks and other investments is \"\"Securities Analysis\"\" the 6th edition is only version to get, it was updated with Buffett and other leading value investors oversight. A basic overview of valuing investments is that every investment has an \"\"intrinsic value\"\" consisting of it's future cash flows, discounted for the time it takes to receive them. The skill is being able to estimate how likely those cash flows are to happen. a) Is it a good business? Does it have a moat, i.e. barriers that make it hard for competitors to duplicate it? b) Will management invest or distribute those cash flows wisely? Then your strategy is to not even worry about the market, spend your time looking at individual stocks and investments and wait until some come along that's well undervalued. That may be during a market correction, or it may be tomorrow. And it's not just good enough to intelligently value your investments, you also have to have psychological fortitude to not panic and to think for yourself. Buffett describes it best. Ben Graham, my friend and teacher, long ago described the mental attitude toward market fluctuations that I believe to be most conducive to investment success. He said that you should imagine market quotations as coming from a remarkably accommodating fellow named Mr. Market who is your partner in a private business. Without fail, Mr. Market appears daily and names a price at which he will either buy your interest or sell you his. Even though the business that the two of you own may have economic characteristics that are stable, Mr. Market’s quotations will be anything but. For, sad to say, the poor fellow has incurable emotional problems. At times he feels euphoric and can see only the favorable factors affecting the business. When in that mood, he names a very high buy-sell price because he fears that you will snap up his interest and rob him of imminent gains. At other times he is depressed and can see nothing but trouble ahead for both the business and the world. On these occasions he will name a very low price, since he is terrified that you will unload your interest on him. Mr. Market has another endearing characteristic: He doesn’t mind being ignored. If his quotation is uninteresting to you today, he will be back with a new one tomorrow. Transactions are strictly at your option. Under these conditions, the more manic-depressive his behavior, the better for you. But, like Cinderella at the ball, you must heed one warning or everything will turn into pumpkins and mice: Mr. Market is there to serve you, not to guide you. It is his pocketbook, not his wisdom, that you will find useful. If he shows up some day in a particularly foolish mood, you are free to ignore him or to take advantage of him, but it will be disastrous if you fall under his influence. Indeed, if you aren’t certain that you understand and can value your business far better than Mr. Market, you don’t belong in the game. Lastly learning to value investments isn't just useful in the stock market, they are applicable to investing in any investment such as bonds, real estate, and even buying your home or running a business.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adba6287db65fa68298869931d7b20e9",
"text": "There are several ways to protect against (or even profit from) a market correction. Hedge funds do this by hedging, that is, buying a stock that they think is strong and selling short a paired stock that is weak. If you hold, say, a strong retail company in your portfolio, you might sell short an equal weight of a weak retail company. These are like buying insurance on your portfolio. If you own 300 shares of XYZ, currently trading at $68, you buy puts at a level at a strike price that lets you sleep at night. For example, you might buy 3 XYZ 6-month puts with a strike price of $60. A disadvantage is that the puts are wasting assets, that is, their time premium (which you paid for at the outset) becomes zero at expiration. (This is why it is like insurance. You wouldn't complain that your insurance premium was lost when you purchase insurance on your house and the house doesn't burn down, would you? Of course not. The purpose of the insurance is to protect your investment.) Note that as these puts are married, they only protect your portfolio. Instead of profiting from a correction, you would merely protect your portfolio during a correction. (No small feat!) If your portfolio is similar to the market, you can buy S&P index puts. If your market reflects a lot of technology, you can buy technology sector puts. Say you have a portfolio of $80K that reflects the market. You could buy out-of-the-market puts (again reflecting your tolerance for loss). Any losses in your portfolio after the puts go in-the-money would be (more or less) offset by gains in the puts. An advantage is that the bid/ask spread is smaller for the S&P. You would pay less for the protection. Also, the S&P puts are cash settled (meaning you get money put in your account on the business day after expiration day). A disadvantage is that the puts do not linearly go up as the market drops. (Delta hedging is a big deal in and of itself.) Another disadvantage is that they are wasting assets (see the Married puts section, previous). While the S&P puts can be used to maintain your market portfolio in the midst of a correction, you could purchase more puts than needed. If you had correctly timed the market, then your portfolio with puts would increase. (Your mileage may vary; some have predicted an imminent market crash way too often.) Collars involve selling out-of-the-money calls and using the premiums to buy out-of-the-money puts. There are many varieties of collars, but the most straightforward is to sell 1 call and buy 1 put for every 100 shares. (This can also be done for index puts and calls.) This has the effect of simultaneously: You get your insurance for almost free. But again, it is protecting your portfolio. As the name implies, you make money when the market goes bearish. Bear put spreads involve buying puts at a close strike price and selling an equal number of puts at a lower strike price than the first. You have a defined maximum loss (the premium you paid for the higher put minus the premium you received for the lower put). You have a defined maximum gain (the difference between strikes minus the defined maximum loss). Buy S&P 500 index puts. If you buy deep out-of-the-money puts, it won't cost much, but you have little probability of it paying off. But if they go in-the-money, there could be a sizable payoff. This is similar to putting one chip on red 18 on the roulette wheel. But rather than paying off 35:1, it is a variable payoff. If you're $1 in the money, you just get $100. If you're $12 in the money, you have a $1200 payoff. If you buy at-the-money puts, it will cost a lot, and your probability will be about 1 in 2 that you will pay off. In our roulette analogy, this is like putting 30 chips on the Even bet of the roulette wheel. The variable payoff is as in the previous paragraph. But you're more likely to get a payoff. And you will lose it all of the roulette ball lands on an Odd number, 0, or 00. (That is, the underlying of your put goes up or stays the same.) If your research shows you what good stocks to buy, it may also tell you which stocks are ripe for a fall. You could short-sell these stocks or buy puts on them. Similar to short-selling stocks or buying puts, you could sell short overpriced sectors or buy puts on them. There are ETFs that will allow you benefit from falling prices without needing to have a margin agreement or options agreement in place. Sorry to have a lengthy answer. Many other answers emphasize that one shouldn't try to time the market. But that is not the OP's question. Provided here are both:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ecdaccff108891484c211a4c85f658b2",
"text": "If you are sure you are right, you should sell stock short. Then, after the market drop occurs, close out your position and buy stock, selling it once the stock has risen to the level you expect. Be warned, though. Short selling has a lot of risk. If you are wrong, you could quite easily lose all $80,000 or even substantially more. Consider, for example, this story of a person who had $37,000 and ended up losing all of that and still owing over $100,000. If you mistime your investment, you could quite easily lose your entire investment and end up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adf3784d7c0d24870c3d6ccd2fed1685",
"text": "There are a few ways to make money from a market correction:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ee0e1c4b0d8c09013cfe6e3b2e1a42d",
"text": "\"Do you want to do it pre or post correction? If you're bearish on the market the obvious thing to do is short an index. I would say this is kind of dumb. The main problem is that it may take months or years for the market to crash, and by then it will have gone up so much that even the crash doesn't bring you profit, and you're paying borrowing fees meanwhile as well. You need to watch the portfolio also, when you short sell you'll get a bunch of cash, which you most likely will want to invest, but once you invest it, the market can spike and pummel your short position, resulting in negative remaining cash (since you already spent it). At that point you get a margin call from your broker. If you check your account regularly, not a big deal, but bad things can happen if you treat it as a fire and forget strategy. These days they have inverse funds so you don't have to borrow anything. The fund manager borrows for you. I'd say those are much better. The less cumbersome choice is to simply sell call options on the index or buy puts. These are even cash options, so when you exercise you get/lose money, not shares. You can even arrange them so that your potential loss is capped. (but honestly, same goes for shorts - it's called a stop loss) You could also wait for the correction and buy the dip. Less worrying about shorts and such, but of course the issue is timing the crash. Usually the crashes are very quick, and there are several \"\"pre-crashes\"\" that look like it bottomed out but then it crashes more. So actually very difficult thing to tell. You have to know either exactly when the correction will be, or exactly what the price floor is (and set a limit buy). Hope your crystal ball works! Yet another choice is finding asset classes uncorrelated or even anticorrelated with the broader market. For instance some emerging markets (developing countries), some sectors, individual stocks that are not inflated, bonds, gold and so on can have these characteristics where if S&P goes down they go up. Buying those may be a safer approach since at least you are still holding a fundamentally valuable thing even if your thesis flops, meanwhile shorts and puts and the like are purely speculative.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "733bdfd0269c974184d15a1ad82c5f9a",
"text": "For a non-technical investor (meaning someone who doesn't try to do all the various technical analysis things that theoretically point to specific investments or trends), having a diverse portfolio and rebalancing it periodically will typically be the best solution. For example, I might have a long-term-growth portfolio that is 40% broad stock market fund, 40% (large) industry specific market funds, and 20% bond funds. If the market as a whole tanks, then I might end up in a situation where my funds are invested 30% market 35% industry 35% bonds. Okay, sell those bonds (which are presumably high) and put that into the market (which is presumably low). Now back to 40/40/20. Then when the market goes up we may end up at 50/40/10, say, in which case we sell some of the broad market fund and buy some bond funds, back to 40/40/20. Ultimately ending up always selling high (whatever is currently overperforming the other two) and buying low (whatever is underperforming). Having the industry specific fund(s) means I can balance a bit between different sectors - maybe the healthcare industry takes a beating for a while, so that goes low, and I can sell some of my tech industry fund and buy that. None of this depends on timing anything; you can rebalance maybe twice a year, not worrying about where the market is at that exact time, and definitely not targeting a correction specifically. You just analyze your situation and adjust to make everything back in line with what you want. This isn't guaranteed to succeed (any more than any other strategy is), of course, and has some risk, particularly if you rebalance in the middle of a major correction (so you end up buying something that goes down more). But for long-term investments, it should be fairly sound.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f363ad8d933469cbe549fa2cf644c45d",
"text": "Depends on how long you're willing to invest for. Broadly speaking, the best (by which I mean, more reliably repeatable) way to make money from market corrections is to accept them as a fact of life, and not sell in a panic when they happen, such that the money you already invested can ride back up again. Put another way, just invest your money in one or two broad, low cost index funds with dividends reinvested (maybe spreading your investment over the course of six months or so) and then let time do its work. Have you worked out how much you've missed out on by holding your money as cash all this time (I presume you've been saving up a while) instead of investing it as you went? I suspect that by waiting for your correction, you've already missed out on more than you're going to make from that correction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54b2d8e307104d0ed9651537bd06468e",
"text": "A lot of people here talk about shorting stocks, buying options, and messing around with leveraged ETFs. While these are excellent tools, that offer novel opportunities for the sophisticated investor, Don't mess around with these until you have been in the game for a few years. Even if you can make money consistently right out of the gate, don't do it. Why? Making money isn't your challenge, NOT LOSING money is your challenge. It's hard to measure the scope of the risk you are assuming with these strategies, much less manage it when things head south. So even if you've gotten lucky enough to have figured out how to make money, you surely haven't learned out how to hold on to it. I am certain that every beginner still hasn't figured out how to comprehend risk and manage losing positions. It's one of those things you only figure out after dealing with it. Stocks (with little to no margin) are a great place to learn how to lose because your risk of losing everything is drastically lower than with the aforementioned tools of the sophisticated investor. Despite what others may say you can make out really well just trading stocks. That being said, one of my favorite beginner strategies is buying stocks that dip for reasons that don't fundamentally affect the company's ability to make money in the mid term (2 quarters). Wallstreet loves these plays because it shakes out amateur investors (release bad news, push the stock down shorting it or selling your position, amateurs sell, which you buy at a discount to the 'fair price'.) A good example is Netflix back in 2007. There was a lawsuit because netflix was throttling movie deliveries to high traffic consumers. The stock dropped a good chunk overnight. A more recent example is petrobras after their huge bond sale and subsequent corruption scandal. A lot of people questioned Petrobras' long-term ability to maintain sufficient liquidity to pay back the loans, but the cashflow and long term projections are more than solid. A year later the stock was pushed further down because a lot of amateur Brazilians invest in Petrobras and they sold while the stock was artificially depressed due to a string of corruption scandals and poor, though temporary, economic conditions. One of my favorite plays back in 2008-2011 was First Solar on the run-up to earnings calls. Analysts would always come out of these meetings downgrading the stock and the forums were full of pikers and pumpers claiming heavy put positions. The stock would go down considerably, but would always pop around earnings. I've made huge returns on this move. Those were the good ole days. Start off just googling financial news and blogs and look for lawsuits and/or scandals. Manufacturing defects or recalls. Starting looking for companies that react predictably to certain events. Plot those events on your chart. If you don't know how to back-test events, learn it. Google Finance had a tool for that back in the day that was rudimentary but helpful for those starting out. Eventually though, moreso than learning any particular strategy, you should learn these three skills: 1) Tooling: to gather, manipulate, and visualize data on your own. These days automated trading also seems to be ever more important, even for the small fish. 2) Analytical Thinking learn to spot patterns of the three types: event based (lawsuits, arbitrage, earnings etc), technical (emas, price action, sup/res), or business-oriented (accounting, strategy, marketing). Don't just listen to what someone else says you should do at any particular moment, critical thinking is essential. 3) Emotions and Attitude: learn how to comprehend risk and manage your trigger finger. Your emotions are like a blade that you must sharpen every day if you want to stay in the game. Disclaimer: I stopped using this strategy in 2011, and moved to a pure technical trading regime. I've been out totally out of the game since 2015.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "52783402987434f0dd77f7695b1e7b03",
"text": "\"I strongly suggest you read up the Option Greeks. You can be right about a stocks price movement and still not make money b/c other factors come into play from time or volatility. For a \"\"free\"\" option hedge you can look at collars. Buying puts and selling calls to offset the debit you pay for the transaction. Ex: AAPL is 115, You buy the 110 puts and sell the 120 calls. This gives you a collar around he current price. Your hedged below 110 and can still participate in upside move to 120. Also look into time value. Time decays exponentially in the last 30 days. If you are long this hurts you, if you are short(selling) this is good. Be sure to take this into account. Delta: relation of the option to the underlying stock move on a .01-1 scale, .50 is \"\"normal.\"\" Deep in the money options have higher deltas. It is possible other factors can offset this delta move. This is why people will lose money on earnings plays even though they are right. EX: Say you buy an AAPL call at 120, earnings comes out and the stock goes to 121. Even though you are \"\"in the money\"\" your contract may still have less value than what you paid because of VOLATILITY collapse. The market place knows earnings move a stock and that is factored into the price of the options expected volatility. As mentioned watch out for dividend dates. Always be aware of dividend dates and earnings dates and if your contract is going to cover one of these events. Interest rates have an effect as well but since the Fed has near 0 rates there is little impact at the present. Though this could certainly change if the fed starts raising rates. Research the Black Scholes Pricing model. Whenever you trade always think about what the other guys is thinking. Sometimes we forget their is someone else on the other side of my trade that thinks essentially the exact opposite of me. Its a zero sum game. As far as choosing strikes you can look at calculating the At THe money straddle to see if the options are \"\"cheap\"\" [stock Price * Implied Volatility (for 30, 60, 90 days Depending on your holding period)* Sq root of days to expiration] / 19 (which is sq root of days/yr) Add and subtract this number to the current stock price to give you an approximate 1 standard deviation of expected price movement. Keeping with our example. AAPL at 115, lets say your formula spits out a 6; therefore price range is expected to be 109 to 121 for the time period. Helpful for selling options, I would sell the 122 call or the 108 puts. Hope this helps. Start small and get a feel for things.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ec6f6d74a9946f9c7b7f8f7132d8642",
"text": "I guess I wasn't clear. I want to modestly leverage (3-4x) my portfolio using options. I believe long deep-in-the-money calls would be the best way to do this? (Let me know if not.) It's important to me that the covariance matrix from the equity portfolio scales up but doesn't fundamentally change. (I liken it to systemic change as opposed to idiosyncratic change.) This is what I was thinking: * For the same expiry date, find each positions lowest lambda. * Match all option to the the highest of the lowest lambda. * Adjust number of contracts to compensate for higher leverage. I don't think this will work because if I matched the lowest lambda of options on bond etfs to my equity options they would be out-of-the-money. By the way, thanks for your time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48145a232fa675d357bd2ef09fe54701",
"text": "This was the day traders dilemma. You can, on paper, make money doing such trades. But because you do not hold the security for at least a year, the earnings are subject to short term capital gains tax unless these trades are done inside a sheltered account like a traditional IRA. There are other considerations as well: wash sale rules and number of days to settle. In short, the glory days of rags to riches by day trading are long gone, if they were ever here in the first place. Edit: the site will not allow me to add a comment, so I am putting my response here: Possibly, yes. One big 'gotcha' is that your broker reports the proceeds from your sales, but does not report your outflows from your buys. Then there is the risk you take by the broker refusing to sell the security until the transaction settles. Not to mention wash sale rules. You are trying to win at the 'buy low, sell high' game. But you have a 25% chance, at best, of winning at that game. Can you pick the low? Maybe, but you have a 50% chance of being right. Then you have to pick the high. And again you have a 50% chance of doing that. 50% times 50% is 25%. Warren Buffet did not get rich that way. Buffet buys and holds. Don't be a speculator, be a 'buy and hold' investor. Buy securities, inside a sheltered account like a traditional IRA, that pay dividends then reinvest those dividends into the security you bought. Scottrade has a Flexible Reinvestment Program that lets you do this with no commission fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a02f833c1d38b9690a782247c15885f",
"text": "\"Its bandwidth, so no, it wouldn't clog up the \"\"tubes\"\" like a highway. Everyone who quotes has a fixed amount of bandwidth and an exchange can cut off a firm's connection. The exchanges know who is quoting- you have to buy connections to them to do this stuff. Every exchange I have seen has reporting capability to see who is quoting what, and who is trading what. Whoever is doing this isn't making any money, because they didn't trade anything! Servers and connectivity are expensive, so they are actually losing money. This situation is almost certainly due to either a new algo \"\"soft launching\"\" or being tweaked and having its parameters set too conservatively.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41408550c754bf06e2a72480dd970f12",
"text": "Try https://sparkprofit.com/ You practice with real market prices, and it's free. Plus you can get real money pay outs if you do well. I earned 1 cent! hahaha I gave up trying to make money from it, but you get an idea of doing trades and how impossible it is to predict what the price will be. It has some tutorials and helpful things too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1362de224335f15575dc09b18898a99b",
"text": "\"It's called paper trading because you do it on paper. So just do literally that for a little while. Write things down like \"\"buy 100 XYZ at $49.99 on 9/29.\"\" Then note the price each time you look it up, graph it each day, draw trendlines, calculate your ROI, etc. In pencil or ink, up to you. It'll give you good insights into what all that software is trying to do for you, and when it's trying to fool you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97d606e1bf5eedca0cde9f1fecfc9618",
"text": "\"This is basically martingale, which there is a lot of research on. Basically in bets that have positive expected value such as inflation hedged assets this works better over the long term, than bets that have negative expected value such as table games at casinos. But remember, whatever your analysis is: The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. Things that can disrupt your solvency are things such as options expiration, limitations of a company's ability to stay afloat, limitations in a company's ability to stay listed on an exchange, limitations on your borrowings and interest payments, a finite amount of capital you can ever acquire (which means there is a limited amount of times you can double down). Best to get out of the losers and free up capital for the winners. If your \"\"trade\"\" turned into an \"\"investment\"\", ditch it. Don't get married to positions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31aee2d34d62c45dbe1bd0439bd542b1",
"text": "\"A couple options that I know of: Interactive Brokers offers a \"\"paper trading\"\" mode to its account holders that allows you to start with a pretend stack of money and place simulated trades to test trading ideas. They also provide an API that allows you to interface with their platform programmatically for retrieving quotes, placing orders, and the such. As you noted, however, it's not free; you must hold a funded brokerage account in order to qualify for access to their platform. In order to maintain an account, there are minimums for required equity and monthly activity (measured in dollars that you spend on commissions), so you won't get access to their platform without having a decent amount of skin in the game. IB's native API is Java-based; IbPy is an unofficial wrapper that makes the interface available in Python. I've not used IB at all myself, but I've heard good things about their API and its accessibility via IbPy. Edit: IB now supports Python natively via their published API, so using IbPy is no longer needed, unless you wish to use Python 2.x. The officially supported API is based on Python 3. TD Ameritrade also offers an API that is usable by its brokerage clients. They do not offer any such \"\"paper trading\"\" mode, so you would need to \"\"execute\"\" transactions based on quotes at the corresponding trade times and then keep track of your simulated account history yourself. The API supports quote retrieval, price history, and trade execution, among other functions. TDA might be more attractive than IB if you're looking for a low-cost link into market data, as I believe their minimum-equity levels are lower. To get access, you'll need to sign up for an API developer account, which I believe requires an NDA. I don't believe there is an official Python implementation of the API, but if you're a capable Python writer, you shouldn't have trouble hooking up to the published interfaces. Some caveats: as when doing any strategy backtesting, you'll want to be sure to be pessimistic when doing so, so your optimism doesn't make your trades look more successful than they would be in the real world. At a minimum, you'll want to ensure that your simulations transact at the posted bid/ask prices, not necessarily the last trade's price, as well as any commissions and fees associated with the trade. A more robust scheme would also take into account the depth of the order book (also known as level 2 quotes), which can cause additional slippage in the prices at which you buy/sell your security. An even more robust scheme would take into account the potential latency of trade execution, looking at all prices over some time period that covers the maximum expected latency and simulating the trade at the worst-possible price.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41738846c29b227d7c9af116f730c97e",
"text": "Ok so Arbitrage? I was looking specifically at the people who took this deal to the extreme taking the $5k and using the $10 giftcards to buy prepaid credit cards. Would the better term would be positive-feedback loop, since the only constraint would be time and energy to the people exploit this deal. Is there a financial term that fits this better?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afd55a620b8f7f4be8eb0f72d72178f2",
"text": "\"Being \"\"long\"\" - expecting the price to go up to make a profit - is a two step process: 1) buy 2) sell Being \"\"short\"\" - expecting the price to go down to make a profit - is a 5 step process: 1) borrow someone else's asset 2) sell their asset on the open market to somebody else a third party 3) pocket the proceeds of the sell for your own account 4) buy an identical asset for a cheaper price 5) return this identical asset to the person that let you borrow their asset if this is successful you keep the difference between 3) and 4)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0e1da3c3c3547ae5780093afe39e3fb",
"text": "Without commenting on your view of the TV market: Let's have a look at the main ways to get negative exposure: 1.Short the stocks Pros: Relatively Easy Cons: Interest rate, costs of shorting, linear bet 2.Options a. Write Calls b. Buy puts Pros: Convexity, leveraged, relatively cheap Cons: Zero Sum bet that expires with time, theta 3.Short Stock, Buy Puts, Write Calls Short X Units of each stock, Write calls on them , use call premiums to finance puts. Pros: 3x the power!, high kickout Cons: Unlimited pain",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63a56308a95aeff53e47b12fe249d161",
"text": "\"You may look into covered calls. In short, selling the option instead of buying it ... playing the house. One can do this on the \"\"buying side\"\" too, e.g. let's say you like company XYZ. If you sell the put, and it goes up, you make money. If XYZ goes down by expiration, you still made the money on the put, and now own the stock - the one you like, at a lower price. Now, you can immediately sell calls on XYZ. If it doesn't go up, you make money. If it does goes up, you get called out, and you make even more money (probably selling the call a little above current price, or where it was \"\"put\"\" to you at). The greatest risk is very large declines, and so one needs to do some research on the company to see if they are decent -- e.g. have good earnings, not over-valued P/E, etc. For larger declines, one has to sell the call further out. Note there are now stocks that have weekly options as well as monthly options. You just have to calculate the rate of return you will get, realizing that underneath the first put, you need enough money available should the stock be \"\"put\"\" to you. An additional, associated strategy, is starting by selling the put at a higher than current market limit price. Then, over a couple days, generally lowering the limit, if it isn't reached in the stock's fluctuation. I.e. if the stock drops in the next few days, you might sell the put on a dip. Same deal if the stock finally is \"\"put\"\" to you. Then you can start by selling the call at a higher limit price, gradually bringing it down if you aren't successful -- i.e. the stock doesn't reach it on an upswing. My friend is highly successful with this strategy. Good luck\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67cb69609988f2e18d54cebb5c343b92",
"text": "\"Basically, your question boils down to this: Where and how do I squeeze the stock market so that within time period X, it will make me Y dollars. (Where I'm emotionally attached to the Y figure because I recently lost it, and X is \"\"as soon as possible\"\".) To make money on the stock market (in a quasi-guaranteed way), you have to adjust X and Y so that they are realistic. For instance, let X be twenty-five years, and Y be \"\"7% annual return\"\". Small values of X are risky, unless X is on the order of milliseconds and you have a computer program working for you. To mitigate some of the risk of short term trading, you have to treat trading seriously and study like mad: study the stock market in general, and not only that, but carefully research the companies whose stocks you are buying. Work actively to discover stocks which are under-valued relative to the performance of their corporation, and which might correct upward relative to the performance of similar stocks. Always have an exit strategy for every position and stick to it. Use instruments like \"\"trailing stops\"\": automatic tracking which follows a price in one direction, and then produces an order to close the position when the price reverses by a certain amount.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4c651b113f4bbcad8715b0faeacc2df",
"text": "This is interesting. The application I'm putting together is more along the lines of automating the research process for a financial professional using a personal algorithm of his. The end goal is to provide him an alert to email when a new report is filed and if his criteria are met based on that report and past reports. Thanks anyway.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58627b5021c3e0d0ffacd6ce9140b3d8",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.ips-dc.org/report-corporate-tax-cuts-boost-ceo-pay-not-jobs/) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Job-cutting firms spent tax savings on buybacks, which inflated CEO pay. > The telecommunications giant managed to get away with an effective tax rate of just 8.1 percent over the 2008-2015 period, while cutting more jobs than any other firm in our sample. > Through extensive use of overseas tax havens, General Electric achieved a negative effective tax rate during the 2008-2015 period, meaning the firm got more back from Uncle Sam than it paid into federal coffers. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6x0arp/corporate_tax_cuts_boost_ceo_pay_not_jobs/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~201277 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*: **firm**^#1 **percent**^#2 **CEO**^#3 **tax**^#4 **more**^#5\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c03b5701def5c35b40939e20b51359f7
|
How much (paper) cash should I keep on hand for an emergency?
|
[
{
"docid": "bd29431b9fd6786487aa9b028a61c3fe",
"text": "\"Coming from an area that is hurricane prone, and seeing what happens to local businesses during evacuations/power outages/gas shortages, I think what you already have on hand should be sufficient. And it sounds like that's exactly what you're budgeting for. I'd say 2 weeks worth of fuel and food costs, with the budget for each in line with riding out a natural disaster. True \"\"Preppers\"\" would say keep your money in gold buried in the backyard surrounded by land mines, but that's not perhaps what you're looking for. It is not uncommon for gas stations and grocery stores to revert to cash only sales, especially if they're not big chain operations. If the internet is out, or power is spotty, they may not be able to process CCs. Again, think smaller or more rural businesses. I have seen gas stations switch to cash only during gas shortages as well to help limit how much fuel people were buying. $250 should get you through fine unless you drive a tank and need steak every night. You could probably go with less, but it's entirely dependent on your needs. As Joe rightly stated in his answer, if it's desperate enough times that you can't use a CC or debit card, cash may not even be useful to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "330bf78226ad31ceed4dba2a3dbe9b5e",
"text": "\"It's also worth thinking about minor \"\"emergencies\"\" when the location of your cash may be more important than the amount. I keep a baggie of change and small bills in my glovebox for meters and tolls. I keep a ten dollar bill in my armband when I go out for a jog or bike. Those little stashes have saved me more than once. Zombie apocalypse money? I just have a couple hundred at home.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9a227401a5aa5cbce8e3ddea2a6a61c",
"text": "No cash is necessary for most people. In the modern day in the US there is no need to keep paper currency around for emergencies; any sort of emergency that knocked out all of the ability to use plastic (ATMs, credit cards, etc.) for an extended period of time AND knocked your bank out of service would be of the level that cash might not have any value either. Your $100 of cash for natural disasters is likely more than enough, and even that I wouldn't necessarily consider a vital thing in this day where even a major natural disaster probably isn't going to have too much impact on the financial sector outside of the immediate area (that you should be exiting quickly). Keep however much cash around that you need for day to day cash expenses, and that should be enough. The level of emergency that would suggest cash being needed would probably need more than you'd actually want to keep around, anyway - i.e., a complete collapse of the American or World financial system would imply you need months' worth of cash. That's just not feasible, nor is it practical financially. You should have your emergency fund making at least a bit of interest - 1% or so isn't hard to get right now, and in the near future that may increase substantially if interest rates go up. It also would make you a substantial theft target if it were known you had months' worth of cash around the house (i.e., thousands of dollars). Safes don't necessarily give you sufficient protection unless you've got a very good safe - commercial ones are only as safe as the ability to crack them and/or transport them is. Now, if you find yourself regularly out at 2am and run out of cash, and you live somewhere that ATMs don't exist, and you find yourself needing to pay cab drivers from time to time after a drunk bender... then I'd keep at least one cab's worth of cash at home.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c5f6eaba86351787a2d8128549b67dd8",
"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.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3414a9831fe266b28d86c9ca5e4cadd5",
"text": "I've read the answers and respect the thought behind them. I'd like to focus on (a) the magnitude of the emergency, and (b) the saving rate of the people affected. 3-6 months is interesting. It's enough not just to fix the car, repair the A/C, etc, but more than enough to lose one's job and recover. (Let's avoid the debate of how long it take to find a job, no amount of 'emergency savings' can solve that.) If one is spending below their means, any unexpected expense that can paid off within, say 3 months, doesn't really need to tap emergency funds (EF). And, at some level of income and retirement savings, one can more easily run a much lower EF. My own situation - I had 9mo worth of expenses saved as EF. We were living well beneath our means, and I was looking at the difference between our mortgage (6%+) vs bank interest (near 0%). I used the funds to pay down principal, refinanced to a lower rate, and at the same closing got a HELOC. The psychology of this is tough, it then appears that for simple expenses, I'd be borrowing from my HELOC. On the other hand, the choice was between a known cost, the $5K/year the money was costing by sitting there plus the lower rate by going to a non-jumbo loan at the time, vs the risk of using 3% money from the HELOC. In the end, the HELOC was never tapped for more than a small portion of its line, and I never regretted the decision. Ironically, it's the person who isn't saving much that need the EF most. If you are a saver, you need to judge how long it would take to replace the funds. I offer the above not as a recommendation, but as devil's advocate to the other excellent advice here. All cash flows are a choice, $100 going here, can't go there. I'd slip in a warning that one should capture matching 401(k) contributions, if offered, before funding the EF. And pay down any high interest debt. After that, the decision of how liquid to be is a personal choice, what worked for my wife and me may not be for everyone.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "282c4838e580e0be743822cbeeb88683",
"text": "\"Liquid cash (emergency, rainy day fund) should be safe from a loss in value. Mutual funds don't give you this, especially stock funds. You can find \"\"high yield\"\" savings accounts that are now at around .8% to .9% APY which is much better than .05% and will hopefully go up. Barclays US and American Express are two big banks that normally have the highest rates. Most/all Savings and Money Market accounts should be FDIC insured. Mutual funds are not, though the investment IRA, etc. holding them may be.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f43a0b7b433e2b4d389c13d44e373ed1",
"text": "\"Yes... but it is a matter of balancing risks. It is wiser to keep a small amount of \"\"ready cash\"\" as an emergency/buffer -- and to suffer the gradual loss to inflation... Than it is risk becoming \"\"stuck\"\" in an emergency with zero dollars in any (low or no cost) source of funds -- those kinds of \"\"emergencies\"\" ($500 or $1,000 \"\"unexpected/unbudgeted\"\" expenses) are fairly frequent and virtually inevitable. You lose vastly MORE money when you are forced to borrow those amounts (interest -- even **low-rate** loans -- is virtually always higher than the average inflation rate).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad506b5910152fb05fc69f2320f26b2a",
"text": "\"In your comment, you said: It just seems a little stupid to me to go and put away money for the explicit purpose of emergencies (presumably in a way that's somehow different from how you would normally save money). Seems better to go and treat the money as you would normally, and then pull whatever you need from the money that you had saved. The problem with that logic is that people save money for many different things. You might save for a vacation, or a new refrigerator, or a new car, or a house, or your kids' college education. If you \"\"pull whatever you need\"\" for such expenses, you may find that when a real emergency occurs, you don't have enough money. The things you used it for may have been legitimate, reasonable expenses, but nonetheless you may later wish you had deferred those expenses until after you had built up a cushion. So the idea of an emergency fund is to designate certain money that is not to be used for \"\"whatever you need\"\", but specifically for unforeseen circumstances. Of course there can be debate about what counts as an emergency, but the main point is to distinguish saving for planned future expenses from saving for unplanned future expenses. Note that this doesn't mean the money has to be in a separate account, or saved in any special \"\"way\"\". It just means the money has to be considered by you as an emergency fund. For some people, it may be psychologically useful to put the emergency fund in a separate account that they never withdraw from. But even if you just have all your money in one savings account and you mentally tell yourself, \"\"I don't want to ever let the balance drop below $10,000, just so I have a safety cushion\"\" then you are effectively designating that $10,000 as an emergency fund.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b930307b37db3d52cb9b7bc3ef61bcc",
"text": "If it gets bad enough that banks start failing, you probably will have a hard time accessing overseas accounts. That's real SHTF stuff. If so, lighters and toilet paper are probably the best investment you can make besides canned and dried food. Update: Complete breakdown of society is far more likely than the paranoid fantasy of Trump establishing an authoritarian government. The general population would rise up and you would find the civil unrest portion to be important. As for lighters and toilet paper, think about it for a minute. If you've got a case of food in cans but no way to heat them, would you trade a can for a lighter? Two cans? And toilet paper would be worth its weight in gold after about 2 months. If you really want to be a prepper, seeds, medicine, are all good things, but the really important thing to have is skills. Know how to hunt, clean an animal, tend a garden, clean and dress a wound. Having gold and diamonds would be a decent hedge for a fraction of your investments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71f3d288c088c22004fbb25fa1ba1cb1",
"text": "(in response to last comment to me) Ok. I understand now. Forgive me if I appeared to be splitting hairs. When it comes to understanding, exact wording is important. I keep money at home, enough to not be a frequent ATM user, not enough to imply any distrust of the banking system or preparation for Armageddon. You last comments implies the brochure said 13% keep all their money at home, i.e. have no banking relationship. A recent poll concluded 25% of people had less than $2500 available if they had an issue, such as the need to repair a car, or furnace. From that factoid, it wouldn't surprise me that half of those people have no bank acount at all. Not for lack of trust, but lack of money to deposit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8fabd662cde5b0f83b0bc7e8c8080564",
"text": "\"Aside of \"\"don't lend money to friends\"\" a good idea is to have a written contract that states the sum, the due date, the interest (if any). Having the loan on paper makes it more real and harder to \"\"forget\"\". The third party is not necessary - anyone can have a bank loan for more than $10K by signing a contract with a bank without any third party.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "109518e8738dc5d7fb5e0c72d32a2771",
"text": "If I were you I would just save the money until I had at least 5000 pounds to keep as an emergency fund. There are various kinds of unexpected events and it is smart to have some cash in case a problem comes up. Next time I would recommend buying a car you can afford. Borrowing money to buy nice things is the enemy of wealth accumulation. Also, when you buy a car for cash you will get a much better deal than when you let a dealer put his foot on your neck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bcb299542d5b53e6cf270068befe62c",
"text": "The 'appropriate' amount of cash/bonds to hold will be largely a matter of opinion, but here are the general reasons why having at least some is a good idea: Cash is very liquid, and bonds are often mostly liquid. This means you can access them very quickly, without taking on losses. To get the most liquidity out of your bonds, you can do what is called 'laddering'. This means that you take out different bond amounts with different maturity dates, and periodically renew them on a schedule, so that you always have some bonds maturing, which you can access without paying an interest penalty. You can look this term up online for more details. Cash and bonds are low risk. If you have absolutely no low-risk assets, then in the event of, say, a market crash, you may have no savings to fall back on. By owning some bonds, and some equities, you are able to earn a modest return, without being too risky. However, note that some bonds are just as risky as equities - any bond which pays an abnormally high interest rate does so because the entity backing the repayment (government, company, whomever) is thought to not be guaranteed to be able to do so. The 25% figure given by your author is his opinion on the appropriate mix of cash/bonds to equities, but there are many views on the matter. Consider that any 'rule of thumb' in personal finance should be for general consideration only.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b9a659ee68b3baea3494b9c715fafe6",
"text": "\"For me, the emergency fund is meant to cover unexpected, but necessary expenses that I didn't budget for. The emergency fund allows me to pay for these things without going into debt. Let's say that my car breaks down, and I don't have any money in my budget for fixing it. I really need to get my car fixed, so I spend the money from my emergency fund. However, cars break down periodically. If I was doing a better job with my budget, I would allocate some money each month into a \"\"car repair/maintenance\"\" category. (In fact, I actually do this.) With my budgeting software, I can look at how much I've spent on car repairs over the last year, and budget a monthly amount for car repair expenses. Even if I do this, I might end up short if I am unlucky. Emergency fund to the rescue! If I'm budgeting correctly, I don't pay any regular bills out of this fund, as those are expected expenses. Car insurance, life insurance, and property tax are all bills that come on a regular basis, and I set aside money for each of these each month so that when the bill comes, I have the money ready to go. The recommended size of an emergency fund is usually listed as \"\"3 to 6 months of expenses.\"\" However, that is just a rough guideline. As you get better with your budget, you might find that you have a lower probability of needing it, and you can let your emergency fund fall to the lower end of the guideline range. The size of my own emergency fund is on the lower end of this scale. And if I have a true crisis (i.e. extended unemployment, severe family medical event), I can \"\"rob\"\" one of my other savings funds, such as my car replacement fund, vacation fund, etc. Don't be afraid to spend your emergency fund money if you need it. If you have an unexpected, necessary expense that you have not budgeted for, use the emergency fund money. However, your goal should be to get to the point where you never have to use it, because you have adequately accounted for all of the expenses that you can reasonably expect to have in the future.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8d347f46e81ba0f67ad4363338c0677",
"text": "Here are my conditions for an emergency account: A compromise would be to have 1,000-2,000 in a very liquid account and the rest in something a little less liquid that maybe has a minimum balance (but no transaction requirements). The behavioral risk is when you do have an emergency and you don't want to cash out or go through any hassle to get it out, so you just charge the emergency instead of paying cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de1c3f369648d07b5b08720b0545286d",
"text": "\"The above answers are great. I would only add to the \"\"rainy day\"\" part, that even though the cash provides a good cushion, \"\"a stormy day\"\" could mean even losing those emergency savings to the unignorable randomness that governs the world economy. Though unlikely, what happened to the russian ruble and the latest decision of the swiss cental bank are just two recent reminders that uncertainty must be treated as a constant. I would therefore advise you to invest some of the money in land capable of agriculture. How expensive is land over there in the UK?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0ad9f9eb2ce3f554c89fd6e9644f846",
"text": "\"If you've already got emergency savings sufficient for your needs, I agree that you'd be better served by sending that $500 to your student loan(s). I, personally, house the bulk of my emergency savings in CDs because I'm not planning to touch it and it yields a little better than a vanilla savings account. To address the comment about liquidity. In addition to my emergency savings I keep plain vanilla savings accounts for miscellaenous sudden expenses. To me \"\"emergency\"\" means lost job, not new water pump for my car; I have other budgeted savings for that but would spend it on a credit card and reimburse myself anyway so liquidity there isn't even that important. The 18 month CDs I use are barely less liquid than vanilla savings and the penalty is just a couple months of the accrued interest. When you compare a possible early distribution penalty against the years of increased yield you're likely to come out ahead after years of never touching your emergency savings, unless you're budgeted such that a car insurance deductible is an emergency expense. Emergency funds should be guaranteed and non-volatile. If I lose my job, 90 days of accrued interest isn't a hindrance to breaking open some of my CDs, and the process isn't so daunting that I'd meaningfully harm my finances. Liquidity in 2017 and liquidity in whatever year a text book was initially written are two totally different animals. My \"\"very illiquid\"\" brokerage account funds are only one transaction and 3 settlement days less liquid than my \"\"very liquid\"\" savings account. There's no call the bank, sell the security, wait for it to clear, my brokerage cuts a check, mail the check, cash the check, etc. I can go from Apple stock on Monday to cash in my hand on like Thursday. On the web portal for the bank that holds my CDs I can instantly transfer the funds from a CD to my checking account there net of a negligible penalty for early distribution. To call CDs illiquid in 2017 is silly.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64a7b44f86adca21b42b347c1246262a",
"text": "While there have been plenty of good answers I would like to suggest turning it on it's head--the problem is one of perception. Other than in terms of cash-type emergency funds (my general policy is to have enough cash to get home, however far from there I might be) I consider available credit + assets that can be liquidated reasonably quickly to count as emergency fund money.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
062731520aa117caa0bf0d178fe69d5c
|
Why do people buy stocks that pay no dividend?
|
[
{
"docid": "8522a4026f4105bb39f46152a4d3b71f",
"text": "Instead of giving part of their profits back as dividends, management puts it back into the company so the company can grow and produce higher profits. When these companies do well, there is high demand for them as in the long term higher profits equates to a higher share price. So if a company invests in itself to grow its profits higher and higher, one of the main reasons investors will buy the shares, is in the expectation of future capital gains.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ce1510db724098278202fb69a59c5a2",
"text": "people buy stocks because there is more to Return on Investment than whether dividends are issued or not. Some people want ownership and the ability to influence decisions by using the rights associated with their class of stock. Another reason would be to park capital in a place that would grow faster than the rate of inflation. these are only a few of many reasons why people would buy stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c90632e5a5534cfb491f783708f5b0c9",
"text": "There are many stocks that don't have dividends. Their revenue, growth, and reinvestment help these companies to grow, and my share of such companies represent say, one billionth of a growing company, and therefore worth more over time. Look up the details of Berkshire Hathaway. No dividend, but a value of over $100,000. Not a typo, over one hundred thousand dollars per share.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b20ae0b7a53427e84f1435189b93ec3",
"text": "Nobody is going to buy a stock without returns. However, returns are dividends + capital gains. So long as there is enough of the latter it doesn't matter if there is none of the former. Consider: Berkshire Hathaway--Warren Buffet's company. It has never paid dividends. It just keeps going up because Warren Buffet makes the money grow. I would expect the price to crash if it ever paid dividends--that would be an indication that Warren Buffet couldn't find anything good to do with the money and thus an indication that the growth was going to stop.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "764624b0e84789c70bc3f1b715a280c3",
"text": "Shares in a company represent a portion of a company. If that company takes in money and doesn't pay it out as a dividend (e.g. Apple), the company is still more valuable because it has cold hard cash as an asset. Theoretically, it's all the same whether your share of the money is inside the company or outside the company; the only immediate difference is tax treatment. Of course, for large bank accounts that means that an investment in the company is a mix of investment in the bank account and investment in the business-value of the company, which may stymie investors who aren't particularly interested in buying larve amounts of bank accounts (known for low returns) and would prefer to receive their share of the cash to invest elsewhere (or in the business portion of the company.) Companies like Apple have in fact taken criticism for this. Your company could also use that cash to invest in itself (growing the value of its profits) or buy other companies that are worth money, essentially doing the job for you. Of course, they can do the job well or they can do it poorly... A company could also be acquired by a larger company, or taken private, in exchange for cash or the stock of another company. This is another way that the company's value could be returned to its shareholders.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "392d53e0c27b44b922d2b8d50513eb4d",
"text": "\"You can think of the situation as a kind of Nash equilibrium. If \"\"the market\"\" values stock based on the value of the company, then from an individual point of view it makes sense to value stock the same way. As an illustration, imagine that stock prices were associated with the amount of precipitation at the company's location, rather than the assets of the company. In this imaginary stock market, it would not benefit you to buy and sell stock according to the company's value. Instead, you would profit most from buying and selling according to the weather, like everyone else. (Whether this system — or the current one — would be stable in the long-term is another matter entirely.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bccb2ad622d8dc8ba8b3cb146cbd4d41",
"text": "\"I don't know why there is so much confusion on such a simple concept. The answer is very simple. A stock must eventually pay dividends or the whole stock market is just a cheap ponzi scheme. A company may temporarily decided to reinvest profits into R&D, company expansion, etc. but obviously if they promised to never pay dividends then you can never participate in the profits of the company and there is simply no intrinsic value to the stock. For all of you saying 'Yeah but the stock price will go up!', please people get a life. The only reason the price goes up is in anticipation of dividend yield otherwise WHY would the price go up? \"\"But the company is worth more and the stock is worth more\"\" A stocks value is not set by the company but by people who buy and sell in the open market. To think a stock's price can go up even if the company refuses to pay dividends is analogous to : Person A says \"\"Hey buy these paper clips for $10\"\". But those paper clips aren't worth that. \"\"It doesn't matter because some fool down the line will pay $15\"\". But why would they pay that? \"\"Because some fool after him will pay $20\"\" Ha Ha!\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "012503b8167ce91b6e004e7ff6370191",
"text": "IBM is famous for spending lots of money on stock buyback to keep the stock price higher. The technique works, and investors in growth stocks generally prefer a high market prices to a taxable dividend payment. Dividends are ways to return shareholder value when a company generates a lot of cash, but doesn't have alot of growth. Electric and gas companies are a classic example of high-dividend companies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51a19c3ec2b20ff8db1f6607bf091252",
"text": "I would say that the answer is yes. Investors may move on purchasing a stock as a result of news that a stock is set to pay out their dividend. It would be interesting to analyze the trend based on a company's dividend payouts over 10 or so years to see what/how this impacts the market value of a given company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69923fb1d6e6e062c5b30216a5600c26",
"text": "Even with non-voting shares, you own a portion of the company including all of its assets and its future profits. If the company is sold, goes out of business and liquidates, etc., those with non-voting shares still stand collect their share of the funds generated. There's also the possibility, as one of the comments notes, that a company will pay dividends in the future and distribute its assets to shareholders that way. The example of Google (also mentioned in the comments) is interesting because when they went to voting and non-voting stock, there was some theoretical debate about whether the two types of shares (GOOG and GOOGL) would track each other in value. It turned out that they did not - People did put a premium on voting, so that is worth something. Even without the voting rights, however, Google has massive assets and each share (GOOG and GOOGL) represented ownership of a fraction of those assets and that kept them highly correlated in value. (Google had to pay restitution to some shareholders of the non-voting stock as a result of the deviation in value. I won't get into the details here since it's a bit of tangent, but you could easily find details on the web.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ce1b8ea4794c2ad88e45f2f68c45be1",
"text": "\"Yes, I agree with you. Saying that the value of the stock will grow as the company grows and acquires more assets ... I don't see why. Okay, I'm a nice guy and I want to see other people do well, but what do I care how much money they're making if they're not giving any of it to ME? Frankly I think it's like people who buy commemorative plates or beanie babies or other \"\"collectibles\"\" as an investment. As long as others are also buying them as an investment, and buying and reselling at a profit, the value will continue to go up. But one day people say, Wait, is this little stuffed toy really worth $10,000? and the balloon bursts. Confer Dutch tulips: http://www.damninteresting.com/the-dutch-tulip-bubble-of-1637/ As I see it, what gives a non-dividend-paying stock value is mostly the expectation that at some time in the future it will pay dividends. This is especially true of new start-up companies. As you mentioned, there's also the possibility of a takeover. It wouldn't have to be a hostile takeover, any takeover would do. At that point the buying company either buys the stock or exchanges it for shares of their own. In the first case you now have cash for your investment and in the second case you now have stock in a dividend-paying company -- or in another non-dividend-paying company and you start the cycle over.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18371125025cdff3789257454829bd7f",
"text": "There's not usually a point to issuing new stock as a dividend, because if you issue new stock, it dilutes the existing shareholders by the exact same amount as the dividend: so now they have a few more shares, great, but they're worth the exact same amount. (This assumes that all stockholders are equal. If there are multiple share classes, or people whose rights to a stock are tied to the stock price in some manner - options, warrants, or something - then a properly structured stock dividend could serve to enrich one set of shareholders and other rights-holders at the expense of another. But this is usually illegal.) If this sort of dividends are popular in China, I suspect it is due to some freaky regulatory or tax-related circumstances which are not present in the United States markets. China is kind of notorious for having unusual capital controls, limitations on the exchange of currency, and markets which are not very transparent.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f55bb3f3499c894a67cb3c1ac0d20ce",
"text": "If you assume the market is always 100% rational and accurate and liquid, then it doesn't matter very much if a company pays dividends, other than how dividends are taxed vs. capital gains. (If the market is 100% accurate and liquid, it also doesn't really matter what stock you buy, since they are all fairly priced, other than that you want the stock to match your risk tolerance). However, if you manage to find an undervalued company (which, as an investor, is what you are trying to do), your investment skill won't pay off much until enough other people notice the company's value, which might take a long time, and you might end up wanting to sell before it happens. But if the company pays dividends, you can, slowly, get value from your investment no matter what the market thinks. (Of course, if it's really undervalued then you would often, but not always, want to buy more of it anyway). Also, companies must constantly decide whether to reinvest the money in themselves or pay out dividends to owners. As an owner, there are some cases in which you would prefer the company invest in itself, because you think they can do better with it then you can. However, there is a decided tendency for C level employees to be more optimistic in this regard than their owners (perhaps because even sub-market quality investments expand the empires of the executives, even when they hurt the owners). Paying dividends is thus sometimes a sign that a company no longer has capital requirements intense enough that it makes sense to re-invest all of its profits (though having that much opportunity can be a good thing, sometimes), and/or a sign that it is willing, to some degree, to favor paying its owners over expanding the business. As a current or prospective owner, that can be desirable. It's also worth mentioning that, since stocks paying dividends are likely not in the middle of a fast growth phase and are producing profit in excess of their capital needs, they are likely slower growth and lower risk as a class than companies without dividends. This puts them in a particular place on the risk/reward spectrum, so some investors may prefer dividend paying stocks because they match their risk profile.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "684ffa8fa0acf0bc94ef340c7b1a78f2",
"text": "I would say the most important thing to consider is the quality of the company relative to the price you pay for it. No dividend also means that you will not pay taxes on dividends.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8251000cc2c3e8b95abfb04205e6fcc7",
"text": "\"The answer is Discounted Cash Flows. Companies that don't pay dividends are, ostensibly reinvesting their cash at returns higher than shareholders could obtain elsewhere. They are reinvesting in productive capacity with the aim of using this greater productive capacity to generate even more cash in the future. This isn't just true for companies, but for almost any cash-generating project. With a project you can purchase some type of productive assets, you may perform some kind of transformation on the good (or not), with the intent of selling a product, service, or in fact the productive mechanism you have built, this productive mechanism is typically called a \"\"company\"\". What is the value of such a productive mechanism? Yes, it's capacity to continue producing cash into the future. Under literally any scenario, discounted cash flow is how cash flows at distinct intervals are valued. A company that does not pay dividends now is capable of paying them in the future. Berkshire Hathaway does not pay a dividend currently, but it's cash flows have been reinvested over the years such that it's current cash paying capacity has multiplied many thousands of times over the decades. This is why companies that have never paid dividends trade at higher prices. Microsoft did not pay dividends for many years because the cash was better used developing the company to pay cash flows to investors in later years. A companies value is the sum of it's risk adjusted cash flows in the future, even when it has never paid shareholders a dime. If you had a piece of paper that obligated an entity (such as the government) to absolutely pay you $1,000 20 years from now, this $1,000 cash flows present value could be estimated using Discounted Cash Flow. It might be around $400, for example. But let's say you want to trade this promise to pay before the 20 years is up. Would it be worth anything? Of course it would. It would in fact typically go up in value (barring heavy inflation) until it was worth very close to $1,000 moments before it's value is redeemed. Imagine that this \"\"promise to pay\"\" is much like a non-dividend paying stock. Throughout its life it has never paid anyone anything, but over the years it's value goes up. It is because the discounted cash flow of the $1,000 payout can be estimated at almost anytime prior to it's payout.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a1da1decc09e1158d46e7961ff60b4c",
"text": "For XOM if you were lucky enough to purchase on 20 Jan 16, at 73.18/share and sold on 15 July at 94.95 you would achieve a 29% return in six months. Awesome. You'd also get a dividend payment or two adding another percentage point per to your returns. The one year chart for FB shows it increasing from ~95/share to ~129. Yet no dividend was paid. However, the 35.7% YTD for 2016 should make anyone happy. Both of these require excellent timing, and those kind of returns are unsustainable over the long haul. Many people simply hold stocks. Having the dividend is a nice bonus to some growth. Why to people buy stocks? For profit. Sometimes dividend payers offer the best option, sometimes not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53da041e5b8c1a6f7148e4d5b1358ea5",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0619eb0ed1ee60b67556347fb051ff16",
"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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30efae6efc1fb61ee20dfa28f371a625",
"text": "A stock dividend converts some of the reserves and surplus on the company's balance sheet into paid-up capital and securities premium account without involving any actual cash outflow to the shareholders. While cash dividends are eyed by the investors due to their cash yield, issuance of stock dividends are indicators of growing confidence of the management and the shareholders in the company. The fact that shareholders want to convert free cash sitting on the balance sheet (which can ideally be taken out as dividends) into blocked money in exchange for shares is symbolic to their confidence in the company. This in turn is expected to lead to an increase in market price of the stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c22c52e4aaebff770a0c2e1acd89cf3",
"text": "\"A share of stock is a share of the underlying business. If one believes the underlying business will grow in value, then one would expect the stock price to increase commensurately. Participants in the stock market, in theory, assign value based on some combination of factors like capital assets, cash on hand, revenue, cash flow, profits, dividends paid, and a bunch of other things, including \"\"intangibles\"\" like customer loyalty. A dividend stream may be more important to one investor than another. But, essentially, non-dividend paying companies (and, thus, their shares) are expected by their owners to become more valuable over time, at which point they may be sold for a profit. EDIT TO ADD: Let's take an extremely simple example of company valuation: book value, or the sum of assets (capital, cash, etc) and liabilities (debt, etc). Suppose our company has a book value of $1M today, and has 1 million shares outstanding, and so each share is priced at $1. Now, suppose the company, over the next year, puts another $1M in the bank through its profitable operation. Now, the book value is $2/share. Suppose further that the stock price did not go up, so the market capitalization is still $1M, but the underlying asset is worth $2M. Some extremely rational market participant should then immediately use his $1M to buy up all the shares of the company for $1M and sell the underlying assets for their $2M value, for an instant profit of 100%. But this rarely happens, because the existing shareholders are also rational, can read the balance sheet, and refuse to sell their shares unless they get something a lot closer to $2--likely even more if they expect the company to keep getting bigger. In reality, the valuation of shares is obviously much more complicated, but this is the essence of it. This is how one makes money from growth (as opposed to income) stocks. You are correct that you get no income stream while you hold the asset. But you do get money from selling, eventually.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88bad5cf03d3a2c8d04785fcf5589fec",
"text": "\"One way to value companies is to use a Dividend discount model. In substance, it consists in estimating future dividends and calculating their present value. So it is a methodology which considers that an equity is similar to a bond and estimates its current value based on future cash flows. A company may not be paying dividends now, but because its future earnings prospects are good may pay some in the future. In that case the DDM model will give a non-zero value to that stock. If on the other hand you think a company won't ever make any profits and therefore never pay any dividends, then it's probably worth 0! Take Microsoft as an example - it currently pays ~3% dividend per annum. The stock has been listed since 1986 and yet it did not pay any dividends until 2003. But the stock has been rising regularly since the beginning because people had \"\"priced in\"\" the fact that there was a high chance that the company would become very profitable - which proved true in the long term (+60,000% including dividends since the IPO!).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4930ad8b4477424986d9bb08fd76f2b",
"text": "The risk in a divident paying stock can come from 2 sources. The business of the company, or the valuation of the stock at the time you buy. The business of the company relates to how they are running things, the risks they are taking with the company, innovations in their pipeline, and their competitive landscape. You can find all sorts of examples of companies that paid nice dividends but didn't end so well... Eastman Kodak, Enron, Lehman brothers, all used to pay very nice dividends at some point... On the other hand you have the valuation. The company is running great, but the market has unrealistic expectations about it. Think Amazon and Yahoo back in 2001... the price was way too high for the company's worth. As the price of a stock goes up, the return that you get from its future cash flows (dividends) goes down (and viceversa). If you want to go deep into the subject, check out this course from Chicago U they spend a lot of time talking about dividends, future returns from stocks and the risk rewards of finding stocks by methods such as these.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
de35212d222bbda52102fed318f7bbfb
|
In a competitive market, why is movie theater popcorn expensive?
|
[
{
"docid": "d7bb1920277a6e3077f9af827c5ce15d",
"text": "One explanation is that movie patrons are considering their total willingness to pay for the movie experience so that if the ticket price plus the market price of popcorn is less than their willingness to pay (WTP), the theater has an opportunity to extract more consumer surplus by charging higher than market prices for the popcorn (that is, price discrimination). There is a working paper on the subject by Gill and Hartmann (2008), the abstract of which reads: Prices for goods such as blades for razors, ink for printers and concessions at movies are often set well above cost. Theory has shown that this could yield a profitable price discrimination strategy often termed “metering.” The idea is that a customer’s intensity of demand for aftermarket goods (e.g. the concessions) provides a meter of how much the customer is willing to pay for the primary good (e.g. admission). If this correlation in tastes for the two goods is positive, a high price on the aftermarket good allows firms to extract a greater total price (admissions plus concessions) from higher type customers. This paper develops a simple aggregate model of discrete-continuous demand to motivate how this correlation can be tested using simple regression techniques and readily available firm data. Model simulations illustrate that the regressions can be used to predict whether aftermarket prices should be above, below or equal to their marginal cost. We then apply the approach to box-office and concession data from a chain of Spanish theaters and find that high priced concessions do extract more surplus from customers with a greater willingness to pay for the admission ticket. Locay and Rodriquez (1992) make a similar argument in a JPE article. They essentially argue that purchases of things like movie tickets are made by groups; once individuals are constrained by the group's choice, the firm has additional market power: We present models in which price discrimination in the context of a two-part price can occur in some competitive markets. Purchases take place in groups, which choose which firms to patronize. While firms are perfectly competitive with respect to groups, they have some market power over individual consumers, who are constrained by their groups' choices. We find that firms will charge an entry fee that is below marginal cost, and the second part of the price is marked up above marginal cost. The markup not only is positive but increases with the quality of the product. The quote you are looking for is similar, and again attributes the discrepancy to price discrimination. From the Armchair Economist (p. 159): The purpose of expensive popcorn is not to extract a lot of money from customers. That purpose would be better served by cheap popcorn and expensive movie tickets. Instead, the purpose of expensive popcorn is to extract different sums from different customers. Popcorn lovers, who have more fun at the movies, pay more for their additional pleasure. That is, some people like popcorn more than others. The latter idea is that the movie experience for popcorn lovers is worth more than the sum of its parts: that a movie ticket + popcorn is worth more than either of them separately for some people.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84b575d8fb24b84aca6dfd02fb8cbd46",
"text": "\"A multiplex is a concession stand which happens to show movies in order to lure you into range of the smell of their popcorn. It has nothing to do with movie theater monopolies. As it was explained to me by my manager, back when I worked in a movie theater in a small Midwestern chain, for every movie, the studios take some percentage cut of gross ticket sales, varying from movie to movie. Star Wars: The Phantom Menace in 1999 was the first film for which the studio demanded 90% of gross ticket price — continuing a long-standing trend of raising the take which possibly began with the original first Star Wars movie. The other studios quickly followed suit and raised their take to 90%, especially for the big blockbusters — the textbook term is \"\"oligopoly pricing\"\" — and since then the percentage has inched ever closer to 100%. I forget exactly what it was on the second Matrix movie or Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, both of which premiered while I was at the theater, but the number that sticks in my head is 94%. Obviously the studios can't directly capture any revenue from the sale of popcorn — unlike the movie, it's not their product — so every time they raise their take, the theater compensates for lost revenue by raising the price of popcorn. This trend hasn't reversed with 3D and IMAX and all the new technologies coming down the pike. The only reason they're attractive to the theaters is that the theater can charge $15 a ticket rather than $10. Even on a small percentage share, that's a 50% jump in revenue, and covers the not insignificant cost of the projection equipment. 3D is also currently getting more butts in seats than 2D was, leading to somewhat more concessions sales — going to the movies is an outing and an event again — though that's tapering off as it becomes less and less of a novelty. The ticket prices aren't coming down, though. Moral of the story: like razors or printers, theaters lose a ton of money to show you movies due to studio oligopoly pricing, and make it up on popcorn.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1125a00e20fcce7a54f20f4a30e98c35",
"text": "\"To add to Jason's answer; a further mechanism is that of monopoly rents which you mention in your question. Movie theatres are often in shopping complexes (which themselves may offer a particular cinema exclusivity), or physically remote from each other, making price comparison more difficult. Different companies may not offer the same movies (similar to the way phone companies offer difficult-to-compare contract pricing). Once you've paid for your movie ticket, if you're suddenly thirsty or peckish, the theatre is the only place selling snacks. Many theatres (including film theatres) discourage (or refuse) patrons from consuming products purchased elsewhere on site. A sense of \"\"capture\"\" is reinforced with ticket collection at the entrance or some form of barrier (inside vs outside the cordon). A theatre can thus capture their patrons and then leverage that access in order to discriminate amongst the higher-paying consumers mentioned by Jason.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bac6fb82079eb594958328de09f62c77",
"text": "Movie theater popcorn concessions are not really a competitive market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "615805aad595c950ff380c27d30f25b0",
"text": "\"With all due respect to economics everywhere and the armchair economist. I think they overlook one very basic fact. The alternative to buying popcorn at the cinema is buying it cheaper at the store, or making your own and bringing it to the cinema. Cinemagoing is something you tend to do with a date (and sometimes your friends) and who wants to look cheap to their date (and perhaps their spouse/friends) bringing popcorn to the cinema? This \"\"cheapo-gentlemens\"\" effect together with convenience is probably the reason why popcorn can remain so expensive at cinemas.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f67d16b648ae2dcaddcbc3ecf9201539",
"text": "I think this question has more to do with the business model of cinema. If I remember correctly. Most of the money from ticket sales goes back to the studios. Something like the newer a movie is the greater percentage goes back to the movie studios and the older a movie is the greater percentage of ticket price goes to the cinema. So high priced popcorn and candy is often the only place where the individual theaters make any money. This may not be true for every movie but I believe it was the case for films like James Cameron's Avatar.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa6ea3cedd16816577a2685b74d5c499",
"text": "\"It's called extracting consumer surplus. Basically I have a bunch of movie goers (who have paid a lot for their tickets). Some of them don't like popcorn, and some do. Of the people in the latter group, there are some who are willing to pay a lot for it. That's partly because I have a select group (rich movie goers) and partly because some of these people would be willing to pay more for popcorn with a movie than without. If I were just selling \"\"popcorn,\"\" I'd have to charge a competitive price. But I'm really selling movies, which have more than covered my costs (rent, heat, etc.) So my costs of selling popcorn are less than that of a non-movie popcorn seller, and I don't really \"\"need\"\" to sell it. Ironically, it means that I can \"\"take my chances\"\" and sell a relatively small amount at a high price, thereby maximizing my UNIT profit. I don't mind having people NOT buy popcorn because I've already made my profit from them with the movie. From the point of view of the consumer, most consumers see popcorn as an \"\"afterthought.\"\" They will seldom think, \"\"I can buy popcorn $2.00 cheaper at Theater A than Theater B, and there's a 20 percent chance that I will want to buy popcorn, so Theater A is 40 cents ($2.00*.20) cheaper than Theater B.\"\" Instead, most make the decision to buy the popcorn after they've arrived at Theater B, because it as \"\"impulse item.\"\" And even if they do the \"\"40 cents\"\" calculation, Theater B might be selected because other factors (convenience, location, etc.) outweigh the 40 cent extra cost of popcorn (purchased \"\"sometimes\"\"). Put another way, the cost of popcorn is (usually) heavily discounted because of its \"\"remoteness\"\" to other facets of the decision.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35e20f6d7121dc7b7980251dbd5f8b8b",
"text": "Theaters make pennies off the tickets if any money at all. Their profits come from the concession stand. If a theater priced their popcorn 50 cents less than a nearby competing theater the few if any customers that notice and seek those small savings would be far less than the losses due to charging less. They compete to get you there: providing better sound systems, seating, screens -- even taking a loss on tickets with special deals (like Tuesday bargains). Once inside profit is made by customers willing to pay the concession price premium, and sour patch kids for 15 cents more isn't going to be a deal breaker.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a734a8af4ec3f4733f7c46d5e0dbfd2",
"text": "In my experience, there's usually only one or two theatres within a small city. Maybe a few more in larger cities, but those are also larger areas. So there really isn't much competition. Sure, there are other places to get popcorn, but not movie theatre popcorn. It won't be lathered with 4000 calories worth of tasty butter and salt. Even if you make it at home that can be difficult to accomplish (and then you have to invest the time to make it). Besides, when I go to the movies, I don't go just to see a movie. If I just want to see a movie I can watch it at home. The junk food they sell is part of the experience. Even then, people do smuggle their own food into theatres all the time - but it's hard to smuggle in a bag of popcorn, and again, ordinary popcorn just isn't the same. So, I think the answer boils down to: it's expensive because people are willing to pay for it. And they're willing to pay for it because it's not really available elsewhere at any better price, and it's part of what they come for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2adcc92518c75e466df647a816251f3a",
"text": "I'm kind of shocked that no formal behavioral modeling has been proposed as an explanation yet. One such model would be steep (hyperbolic, quasi-hyperbolic) discounting. Consumers would rather pay for popcorn later than for an expensive movie ticket now. For instance, consumers might when purchasing the ticket see a low value of popcorn and view the ticket price as the whole price because they do not predict purchasing popcorn. Then when entering the theater, the present value of popcorn is very high and they purchase it. There might therefore be a market for a commitment device (such as a popcornless theater) to make the appropriate decision ex-ante. Another commitment device that seems to be practiced is when individuals sneak their own popcorn into the theater. They may not actually want the popcorn, but by bringing their own they ensure they do not purchase the theater's.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3f5abd2acfb1265fc3d3a319711a1c4",
"text": "You're looking at this too rationally. People can not resist eating junk food, especially when they have to sit for 2-3 hours to watch a movie. It's pure biology, not economics. People don't always act according to economic logic.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4358e99254d6af312389bce07cbf9e75",
"text": "I think a labor management issue explains the high cost of popcorn. Some weeks theaters are loaded with patrons and other weeks there are many fewer patrons. If popcorn were priced so that most patrons bought some the theater manager would have to have lots of employees to sell popcorn on the really busy days. The manager would have to cover the cost of wages on the slow days. A simple solution would be to adjust employee hours. To a certain extent I suspect this is done. If you look at the situation from the standpoint of the employee being sent home early or being told not to work tomorrow or, perhaps for the next week because the theater has a bunch of bombs, is not a good situation. A job in popcorn sales is probably not a high paying job so the employees may just quit and they may do this, not by giving notice, but rather by not showing up for a scheduled shift. The result of this is that managers determine the maximum number of employees they can hire if there theater has low drawing movies and they set the price of popcorn so that when the theater is filled this number of employees will not be overwhelmed by patron buying popcorn. At least not to the extent that the start of the movie has to be delayed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "472746e140cc4590c6522725079cff7d",
"text": "John R. Lott, Jr. and Russell D. Roberts argue that popcorn in movie theaters has a price commensurate with its much higher cost. See also Lott's criticism of the Gil and Hartmann paper.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c91f424b67f5a8969c651b558c8d18a",
"text": "The cost of the popcorn is simply the hidden extension of the price the consumer pays for the movie ticket. Similar to the tips in the restaurant. And movie theaters do not compete by lowering the unit price. Instead to maintain the revenue per customer they try to offer more value - bigger screen, better sound, more comfortable seats, etc. That is why the price of the popcorn just like the price of the ticket itself does not go down in the competitive market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f437c961113c02977dce3155993b2a5c",
"text": "In the theater, it's a person who can afford to buy expensive pop corn, cause he can buy the expensive movie ticket too... Also sitting at one place will make him feel hungry and buy something to eat... So maximum chances are that in the theater, that guy is your potential customer... Otherwise if the popcorn seller is somewhere outside the theater, they may charge you less. That's because of a different target audience... They would be targeting anyone who comes near the theater, who would not be willing to pay for expensive snacks or movie tickets... So very few customers around will be actually potential customers... To maximize their profits, they will keep the prices low and supply as much as they can... I know this is going against the normal Price Elasticity of Demand and Supply graph, but if the prices are low there will be high demand, so if the PED is more than 1, the supplier should supply as much as they can, to maximize profits... Its all based on the target audience... That's what I think should be the case of expensive popcorn in movie theaters...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "148b802970bd102897d3ec2d9f9fd92d",
"text": "It's because true competition does not exist in the movie theater business. If you wanted to open up a competing theater whose competitive advantage was cheaper popcorn, you couldn't do it - the studios would never give you rights to screen popular new release movies. I know this because there are indie movie theaters that constantly struggle to acquire screening rights, because the Regals and AMCs of the world work hard to maintain their monopoly by having exclusive licensing deals with studios. Effectively, studios and a couple major theater chains have gotten together and agreed to fix the price of popcorn. So if you want cheaper popcorn, there are theaters where you'll find it - you just won't be watching Hollywood blockbuster new releases while you're eating it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa01bf9e3616fae31adabfd6b920145b",
"text": "\"A better question would be to ask \"\"Why don't movie theaters charge to use the bathroom?\"\", or \"\"Why don't movie theaters charge for parking?\"\". In America, either government regulation or the mall itself forbids charging for parking, or limits the amount that can be charged for parking. This tends to be more true in suburban areas where land is cheap, but less true downtown in cities. The nearest theater to me is in a mall that is also on a metro line. Those who arrive by metro to see the movie are effectively subsidizing those who arrive via automobile and park. I don't know of any place in America that charges to use the bathroom, but the practice is still common in Europe. I saw the second The Matrix film in Brussels, and had to pay to pee. I'm not sure why this isn't the case in the U.S. Maybe there are widespread regulations against this. Or maybe it's a cultural thing, that we would be so offended by this that we would never go back to the theater.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b32243e607432b727df4fd2d87fdc4a2",
"text": "I think because that high price and the fact that you anyway have a limited time to buy it before the movie starts maximizes their revenue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30bdd6c7622b38d322cb6dfd4202f5d4",
"text": "While many answers correctly cite the effect of monopoly power.... there is a cost issue that no one has yet posted. I first recall seeing this cost effect in a managerial econ textbook, perhaps Ivan Png's. The theater must clean up the popcorn mess. The sales of popcorn elsewhere does not usually include the costs of disposal because that cost is not borne by the vendor. In a theater the cost of disposal -- which is a variable cost depending on the amount and type of foodstuff sold -- is borne by the vendor, who must pay employees to clean up between shows and at the end of the night. While most people are responsible with popcorn, there is a long tail of more and more costly messes left by the customer... and if the theater shirks the cost of cleaning the messes then rats with long tails will bite into future customer demand for tickets. Whether this cost effect is as large as the monopoly power effect and the synergy in willingness-to-pay between entertainment and refreshments is not clear. All of these effects may be in operation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a928b3d680b32ac10d860d1f71d28168",
"text": "People have moods, that mean they don't have the same level of demand for luxuries every day. There might be some days when I'm feeling a bit poor, or feel like I need to save money, and the price I'm prepared to pay for a box of popcorn might be 50c. There might be other days, for example, the day after I receive my wages, when I feel rich and I don't care how much I spend on things. On such a day, the price I'm prepared to pay for a box of popcorn might be $10. Now, when a supermarket sells popcorn, they're not really able to price discriminate between these two groups. People come through their doors in all kinds of mood, so the profit-maximising price for popcorn is going to be somewhere in the middle. But the only people who go to a movie theatre are people who are already in the right mood to spend money on needless luxuries. So the very fact of being in a movie theatre means that a popcorn stall, whether affiliated to the theatre or not, is open only to the high-spending end of the market. They have already caught me when I'm in the mood to spend, so their profit-maximising price will be much higher than that of the supermarket.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a386d52e8820cd77a4acb592f43dbff4",
"text": "A subsidy is a payment made by a group (usually the state) to individuals or corporations in order to shift the balance if the rational economic decision for the individual would be detrimental to the group as a whole otherwise. For example, if there are different quality kinds of crops that can be planted, for example a GM maize that brings in high yields but can only be processed to High Fructose Corn Syrup or a naturally bred corn that brings lower yields but tastes well enough for direct consumption, then if demand for both exceeds supply, the economic choice for the individual farmer is to plant the former. If the claims that HFCS contribute to obesity are founded, then it is in the public interest to produce less of it, and more alternative foods. Given that a market rather than a planned economy is desired, this cannot be achieved by decree, but rather money is used as an incentive. In the long term, this investment may very well pay off through reduced health care costs, so it is a rational economic decision from the state's point of view. In a world where all actors make decisions that are fully in their self interest, in principle subsidies would not be needed as consumers would demand healthy rather than cheap foods, and market mechanisms would provide these.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98be0b7da15a614bf57d1e37be2a0bd3",
"text": "Generally I drink the free water that they provide. What I am saying is that if they lowered the price of the food and drinks, they might get more people in the door. When it costs $50+ to go to the movies for a family of three, that family tends to not go out much.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8309ae39d299c5eb07bed04b95508f21",
"text": "At the base of it all is the massive demand side subsidization of the health care industry primarily through Medicaid and Medicare. It's econ 101 that massive demand side subsidization drives prices up, but nobody wants to emphasize this point because too many pockets are being filled by the subsidization.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7faca27d33ae3ecfe15a85dd4e6d74b",
"text": "\"McDonalds has some more expensive items, but their \"\"Dollar Menu\"\" is ridiculously popular and supposedly a huge draw. They've been trying to get rid of it for years because it's really hard to get anything decent for $1, but it's just too popular to cut. (According to the random articles I've read about it.) Other places don't really have anything like it. At McDonalds you can get two $1.xx cheeseburgers and fill up pretty good for the cost of going to a vending machine. While I very rarely go to any of these places, I do not agree that food is bad. Tastes are subjective and what you get used to eating tastes good to you. I remember that I used to absolutely love Taco Bell. Then - after a few years of not going there - I went there and found everything to be absolutely disgusting. But for a time, I thought it was the best stuff out there and there are a lot of people who like so called \"\"fast food\"\". I do think the overarching point is true; customer tastes are fluid. In the past 10-ish years, we've come to see a lot of \"\"gourmet\"\" burger places spreading like wildfire, for example. But as long as fast food is cheap, they will continue to fill the market for cheap food.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "306972ad346f16ce6a4b32a1864311fb",
"text": "> It costs as much to project for one guy as for a packed house. I don't have specific knowledge about movie licensing, but I'd be VERY surprised if the number of tickets to a given showing didn't factor into the actual price paid to the rights holder. I mean, we live in a world where ASCAP charges bars for jukebox plays based on an estimate of how many people in the bar could hear the song.....",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c95a3f96955c131806f5b56e19a89780",
"text": "That is true. Since commodities are basically a futures contract, their actual price is not reflected in grocery stores. It is more of a supply and demand issue with your grocer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "646958d497c01038e06c9619f0169def",
"text": "In some country's even retail competitors set up a cartel like scheme and they pressure the fuck out of farmer and producers to drop prices, and obey to their promotion's. It's like they give them the volume to expand, and now that you are in a whole other level of production cut down prices or you'll be left with perishable goods with a limited shelf life, and no one to buy them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9e20507bb9e2bcaf472d84fa53290d5",
"text": "It's not actually fighting the paradox of choice, it's lowering the costs of supply chain management. A regular supermarket, for example, has to source 50 different varieties of hot sauce from different manufacturers. Trader Joe's has a couple of varieties of their own sauce, and it's delivered in the same truck that delivers 99% of their food. People overlook this fact a lot - Trader Joes is a business that is vertically integrated, unlike any other supermarket.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a683aa7dc1eeb98a212a8cfccf42858b",
"text": "It's the combination of lower earning power and new technologies/trends. Like you said, why spend $100 on a sit down meal for two and cinema tickets, when you can spend 1/3 of that, get an online delivery and watch Netflix (and chill)?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87f0b86fbb1c384cb4dbca3819c29e0a",
"text": "\"This is known as \"\"Zone Pricing\"\" or \"\"Geographical Pricing\"\". http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/19/business/fi-calprice19 Such price variations may seem odd, but they are not unique to Anaheim. On any given day, in any major U.S. city, a single brand of gasoline will sell for a wide range of prices even when the cost to make and deliver the fuel is the same. The primary culprit is zone pricing, a secret and pervasive oil company strategy to boost profits by charging dealers different amounts for fuel based on traffic volume, station amenities, nearby household incomes, the strength of competitors and other factors. It's a controversial strategy, but the courts have thus far deemed it legal, and the Federal Trade Commission recently said the effect on consumers was ambiguous because some customers got hurt by higher prices while others benefited from lower ones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_pricing Zone pricing, as practiced in the gasoline industry in the United States, is the pricing of gasoline based on a complex and secret weighting of factors, such as the number of competing stations, number of vehicles, average traffic flow, population density, and geographic characteristics. This can result in two branded gas stations only a few miles apart selling gasoline at a price differential of as much as $0.50 per gallon. But the short answer is \"\"because they can\"\". It's legal, provided that some people are paying less while others are paying more. Essentially the larger, richer audience is subsidizing the product for other areas. It's not terribly different than the way most drugs are priced in the world.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73546c29cd824959056a3bf34e60ee69",
"text": "I think they have a solid model, most theaters are empty most hours, so if this puts butts in seats, it's better than them going empty, and the theater mainly makes its money at the concession stand, so more people into the theater, more chances of making money off the concession. Only thing is that it might be too cheap. I enjoy going to the movies and I'd have paid upwards of $50 for this even if I'd only go two-five times a month. This is just far too cheap and would necessitate having a ridiculous amount of people signed up for it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5147a957c33e626687cd2ef5cccf6fea",
"text": "Don't discount regulatory issues (the mess that was CableCard, Tru2Way, tuning adapters, and the lack of AllVid) and monopolistic pressure (the cable companies liked receiving $5/box/month and don't want to give any of that income up, combined with fear of becoming the dumb pipe they really are so they applied as much pressure as possible against good regulations).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25c24377f1738666a0983f2ecea7887a",
"text": "The key is that you need to use your debit card to earn the higher interest rate. The bank can offer a higher interest rate on accounts connected with a debit card because: They earn additional income through debit card fees charged towards account holders, among other things. They offer the higher interest rate specifically to encourage people to use their debit cards. By offering a joint checking/savings account that requires you to use your debit card, the bank is assuming that you'll keep more money in your account than you would in a standard checking-only account. Your higher balance translates into more money the bank can loan out or invest, which usually leads to higher profit for them. Businesses pay fees to the bank to accept debit cards. These fees represent another source of profit for the bank. The more you use your debit card, the more the bank earns in fees, so the bank encourages you to use your debit card more frequently through incentives like a higher interest rate or waiving fees on your account if you use your card enough. Plus, since it's likely that an individual who maintains a fairly high balance in an account linked to a debit card is going to spend more (simply because they can spend more), banks will sometimes waive fees on the consumer side for balances over a certain amount.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6913ee4ec4b8cc12d1a45e16e86dc931",
"text": "\"E) Spend a small amount of that money on getting advice from a paid financial planner. (Not a broker or someone offering you \"\"free\"\" advice; their recommendations may be biased toward what makes them the most money). A good financial planner will talk to you about your plans and expectations both short and long term, and about your risk tolerance (would a drop in value panic you even if you know it's likely to recover and average out in the long run, that sort of thing), and about how much time and effort you want to put into actively managing your portfolio. From those answers, they will generate an initial proposed plan, which will be tested against simulations of the stock market to make sure it holds up. Typically they'll do about 100 passes over the plan to get a sense of its probable risk versus growth-potential versus volatility, and tweak the plan until the normal volatility is within the range you've said you're comfortable with while trying to produce the best return with the least risk. This may not be a perfect plan for you -- but at the very least it will be an excellent starting point until you decide (if you ever do decide) that you've learned enough about investing that you want to do something different with the money. It's likely to be better advice than you'll get here simply because they can and will take the time to understand your specific needs rather than offering generalities because we're trying to write something that applies to many people, all of whom have different goals and time horizons and financial intestinal fortitude. As far as a house goes: Making the mistake of thinking of a house as an investment is a large part of the mindset that caused the Great Recession. Property can be an investment (or a business) or it can be something you're living in; never make the mistake of putting it in both categories at once. The time to buy a house is when you want a house, find a house you like in a neighborhood you like, expect not to move out of it for at least five years, can afford to put at least 20% down payment, and can afford the ongoing costs. Owning your home is not more grown-up, or necessarily financially advantageous even with the tax break, or in any other way required until and unless you will enjoy owning your home. (I bought at age 50ish, because I wanted a place around the corner from some of my best friends, because I wanted better noise isolation from my neighbors, because I wanted a garden, because I wanted to do some things that almost any landlord would object to, and because I'm handy enough that I can do a lot of the routine maintenance myself and enjoy doing it -- buy a house, get a free set of hobbies if you're into that. And part of the reason I could afford this house, and the changes that I've made to it, was that renting had allowed me to put more money into investments. My only regret is that I didn't realise how dumb it was not to max out my 401(k) match until I'd been with the company for a decade ... that's free money I left on the table.)\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
84d2b30ad4547d424f1cf0c685bb4600
|
My account's been labeled as “day trader” and I got a big margin call. What should I do? What trades can I place in the blocked period?
|
[
{
"docid": "f144289b9cdf6ed2ae03ee3433f9895d",
"text": "The SEC considers a day trade to be any trade that is opened and closed within the same trading day, and considers a day trader to be any trader that completes 4 or more day trades within 5 business days. If so they would label you day trader and in the US you are required to have at least $25K in your account. Maybe that's why they require you to add more money to your account? See more at Day trading restriction on US stocks and Wikipedia - Pattern day trader.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ffea634afb34ef8300a36b65480bcd8",
"text": "\"I assume that whatever you're holding has lost a considerable amount of its value then? What sort of instrument are we talking about? If the margin call is 14k on something you borrowed against the 6900 you're a bit more leveraged than \"\"just\"\" another 100%. The trading company you're using should be able to tell you exactly what happens if you can't cover the margin call, but my hunch is that selling and taking the cash out ceased to be an option roughly at the time they issued the margin call. Being labelled as a day trader or not most likely did not have anything to do with that margin call - they're normally issued when one or more of your leveraged trades tank and you don't have enough money in the account to cover the shortfall. Not trying to sound patronising but the fact that you needed to ask this question suggests to me that you shouldn't have traded with borrowed money in the first place.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c63aad6e45412db0ff76bec5941037b",
"text": "You need to contact the trading company and ask them what's going on. If it's simply a matter of needing to add more cash because you are now classified as a day trader, then call them, ask them what you need to do to not be considered a day trader, and do that. It would likely consist of not trading for a week and then trading less than you were going forward to avoid getting classified as a day trader again. That would be the easy problem to solve, so I hope that's right.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "388670e63fb77129a0bf0dd35d0389df",
"text": "The spread is two trades, one of which opens up some risk one of which limits/cancels the risk. There is nothing stopping you from selling part of the spread opening the door to the risk. You're required to have a margin account to open risky positions, even if the specific spread trade you're attempting to open has a risk limiting/cancelling counterpart.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e767c26bb5156cea063ee0911642690",
"text": "\"Yes. I heard back from a couple brokerages that gave detailed responses. Specifically: In a Margin account, there are no SEC trade settlement rules, which means there is no risk of any free ride violations. The SEC has a FAQ page on free-riding, which states that it applies specifically to cash accounts. This led me to dig up the text on Regulation T which gives the \"\"free-riding\"\" rule in §220.8(c), which is titled \"\"90 day freeze\"\". §220.8 is the section on cash accounts. Nothing in the sections on margin accounts mentions such a settlement restriction. From the Wikipedia page on Free Riding, the margin agreement implicitly covers settlement. \"\"Buying Power\"\" doesn't seem to be a Regulation T thing, but it's something that the brokerages that I've seen use to state how much purchasing power a client has. Given the response from the brokerage, above, and my reading of Regulation T and the relevant Wikipedia page, proceeds from the sale of any security in a margin account are available immediately for reinvestment. Settlement is covered implicitly by margin; i.e. it doesn't detract from buying power. Additionally, I have personally been making these types of trades over the last year. In a sub-$25K margin account, proceeds are immediately available. The only thing I still have to look out for is running into the day-trading rules.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "915530153fe8420174831d635f1a06ce",
"text": "It's about how volatile the instrument is. Brokers are concerned not about you but about potential lawsuits stemming from their perceived inadequate risk management - letting you trade extremely volatile stocks with high leverage. On top of that they run the risk of losing money in scenarios where a trader shorts a stock with all of the funds, the company rises 100% or more by the next day, in which case the trader owes money to the broker. If you look in detail you'll see that many of the companies with high margin requirements are extremely volatile pharmaceutical companies which depend heavily of FDA approvals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5da3dbbbf01c01fc8c409241323433b",
"text": "\"If you own a stake large enough to do that, you became regulated - under Section 13(d) of the 1934 Act and Regulation (in case of US stock) and you became regulated. Restricting you from \"\"shocking\"\" market. Another thing is that your broker will probably not allow you to execute order like that - directed MKT order for such volume. And market is deeper than anyone could measure - darkpools and HFTs passively waiting for opportunities like that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b75e930b98cb6c9e4b9a575ff5982ce1",
"text": "To Chris' comment, find out if the assignment commission is the same as the commission for an executed trade. If that does affect the profit, just let it expire. I've had spreads (buy a call, sell a higher strike call, same dates) so deep in the money, I just made sense to let both exercise at expiration. Don't panic if all legs ofthe trade don't show until Sunday or even Monday morning.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95c2adec4356b3c197307f57a31ce4a5",
"text": "Brokerage firms must settle funds promptly, but there's no explicit definition for this in U.S. federal law. See for example, this article on settling trades in three days. Wikipedia also has a good write-up on T+3. It is common practice, however. It takes approximately three days for the funds to be available to me, in my Canadian brokerage account. That said, the software itself prevents me from using funds which are not available, and I'm rather surprised yours does not. You want to be careful not to be labelled a pattern day trader, if that is not your intention. Others can better fill you in on the consequences of this. I believe it will not apply to you unless you are using a margin account. All but certainly, the terms of service that you agreed to with this brokerage will specify the conditions under which they can lock you out of your account, and when they can charge interest. If they are selling your stock at times you have not authorised (via explicit instruction or via a stop-loss order), you should file a complaint with the S.E.C. and with sufficient documentation. You will need to ensure your cancel-stop-loss order actually went through, though, and the stock was sold anyway. It could simply be that it takes a full business day to cancel such an order.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7f2391e31ce498b64165c6829fe0da9",
"text": "\"I think to some extent you may be confusing the terms margin and leverage. From Investopedia Two concepts that are important to traders are margin and leverage. Margin is a loan extended by your broker that allows you to leverage the funds and securities in your account to enter larger trades. In order to use margin, you must open and be approved for a margin account. The loan is collateralized by the securities and cash in your margin account. The borrowed money doesn't come free, however; it has to be paid back with interest. If you are a day trader or scalper this may not be a concern; but if you are a swing trader, you can expect to pay between 5 and 10% interest on the borrowed money, or margin. Going hand-in-hand with margin is leverage; you use margin to create leverage. Leverage is the increased buying power that is available to margin account holders. Essentially, leverage allows you to pay less than full price for a trade, giving you the ability to enter larger positions than would be possible with your account funds alone. Leverage is expressed as a ratio. A 2:1 leverage, for example, means that you would be able to hold a position that is twice the value of your trading account. If you had $25,000 in your trading account with 2:1 leverage, you would be able to purchase $50,000 worth of stock. Margin refers to essentially buying with borrowed money. This must be paid back, with interest. You also may have a \"\"margin call\"\" forcing you to liquidate assets if you go beyond your margin limits. Leverage can be achieved in a number of ways when investing, one of which is investing with a margin account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9c509c589da4a1113de7886d63dc888",
"text": "Firstly, you haven't traded long enough. Secondly, you have just had a lot of luck that most of your trades came back. Thirdly, you should develop a trading strategy having entry rules, exit rules and risk management rules (never trade on margin without risk management or stop losses). Lastly, never trade on intuition or your emotions, stick to your plan, cut your losses small and early, and let your profits run.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "980cecc6af873f36e39625d078eb2647",
"text": "You can't sell options if you don't have margin account (except covered call). You can't trade futures if you don't have margin account. Everything is immediate when you have margin account. (Including stocks) Margin account is not subject to freeriding rules, but is subject to Pattern Day Trader rules.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c6dd2d49fe387974d70a9f22ca9e5f4",
"text": "\"This doesn't make sense to me. Writing a covered call gives him a long delta position - the exact opposite of what he wants. And the tax losses won't turn a losing position into a winning one. Is there something I'm missing? Edit: Also, doesn't \"\"shorting against the box\"\" mean he has to have a long position, and short against that? That means you've got zero net delta, which isn't very useful at all...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6840ddecbf02e8c564ec38036cce7563",
"text": "You can execute block trades on the options market and get exercised for shares to create a very large position in Energy Transfer Partners LP without moving the stock market. You can then place limit sell orders, after selling directly into the market and keep an overhang of low priced shares (the technical analysis traders won't know what you specifically are doing, and will call this 'resistance'). If you hit nice even numbers (multiples of 5, multiples of 10) with your sell orders, you can exacerbate selling as many market participants will have their own stop loss orders at those numbers, causing other people to sell at lower and lower prices automatically, and simultaneously keep your massive ask in effect. If your position is bigger than the demand then you can keep a stock lower. The secondary market doesn't inherently affect a company in any way. But many companies have borrowed against the price of their shares, and if you get the share price low enough they can get suddenly margin called and be unable to service their existing debt. You will also lose a lot of money doing this, so you can also buy puts along the way or attempt to execute a collar to lower your own losses. The collar strategy is nice because it is unlikely that other traders and analysts will notice what you are doing, since there are calls, puts and share orders involved in creating it. One person may notice the block trade for the calls initially, but nobody will notice it is part of a larger strategy with multiple legs. With the share position, you may also be able to vote on some things, but that solely depends on the conditions of the shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c7e517d976445ea8fea5aa4c0baa1f4",
"text": "What bank, and is there restrictions on the trades? (i.e. they only go through once a week?) I do light medium term trading - maybe 5-10 trades per quarter - and would love to be able to cut out the fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3cd3ed069075fd5d61b92de73b50627",
"text": "\"Scenario 1 - When you sell the shares in a margin account, you will see your buying power go up, but your \"\"amount available to withdraw\"\" stays the same until settlement. Yes, you can reallocate the same day, no need to wait until settlement. There is no margin interest for this scenario. Scenario 2 - If that stock is marginable to 50%, and all you have is $10,000 in that stock, you can buy another $10,000. Once done, you are at 50% margin, exactly.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57a401b1ba49886d5d4103b0fe6c4bdb",
"text": "\"The margin rules are also more complicated. A simple buy on a non-margin account will never run into margin rules and you can just wait out any dips if you have confidence the stock will recover. A \"\"simple\"\" short sell might get you a call from your broker that you have a margin call, and you can't wait it out without putting more money in. Personally I have trouble keeping the short sale margin rules straight in my head, at least compared to a long sale. I got in way over my head shorting AMZN once, and lost a lot of money because I thought it was overvalued at the time, but it just kept going up and I wanted it to go down. I've never gotten stuck like that on a long position.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "412f6b73c849a8a37276bb09219eb959",
"text": "You should watch Margin Call and follow Demi Moore's lead. Do you figure out what derivatives to buy or just calculate how much exposure the firm has and tell someone else? Can you potentially go to jail because of your job or is losing your job the worst that can happen?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9701e7fdf4b29a7491ded870a4907ce1
|
Can I do periodic rollovers from my low-perfoming 401k to an IRA?
|
[
{
"docid": "a05b4763ad0d4ff9cd08035c8bbfd6ed",
"text": "\"There are certain allowable reasons to withdraw money from a 401K. The desire to free your money from a \"\"bad\"\" plan is not one of them. A rollover is a special type of withdrawal that is only available after one leaves their current employer. So as long as you stay with your current company, you cannot rollover. [Exception: if you are over age 59.5] One option is to talk to HR, see if they can get a expansion of offerings. You might have some suggestions for mutual funds that you would like to see. The smaller the company the more likely you will have success here. That being said, there is some research to support having few choices. Too many choices intimidates people. It's quite popular to have \"\"target funds\"\" That is funds that target a certain retirement year. Being that I will be 50 in 2016, I should invest in either a 2030 or 2035 fund. These are a collection of funds that rebalances the investment as they age. The closer one gets to retirement the more goes into bonds and less into stocks. However, I think such rebalancing is not as smart as the experts say. IMHO is almost always better off heavily invested in equity funds. So this becomes a second option. Invest in a Target fund that is meant for younger people. In my case I would put into a 2060 or even 2065 target. As JoeTaxpayer pointed out, even in a plan that has high fees and poor choices one is often better off contributing up to the match. Then one would go outside and contribute to an individual ROTH or IRA (income restrictions may apply), then back into the 401K until the desired amount is invested. You could always move on to a different employer and ask some really good questions about their 401K. Which leads me back to talking with HR. With the current technology shortage, making a few tweaks to the 401K, is a very cheap way to make their employees happy. If you can score a 1099 contracting gig, you can do a SEP which allows up to a whopping 53K per year. No match but with typically higher pay, sometimes overtime, and a high contribution limit you can easily make up for it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87f96a57de6244ee43f16b4d81204083",
"text": "You need to check with your employer. It is called an in-service rollover and it is up to your employer on whether or not it is allowed. There are a lot of articles on it but I would still talk to a professional before making the decision. And there are some new laws in place that put at least some responsibility on your employer to provide a 401k with reasonable options and fees. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-court-edison-401k-fees-20150519-story.html We'll see if it has legs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0eb36cb23e54bb663852701290267fcd",
"text": "My two-cents, read your plan document or Summary Plan Description. The availability of in-service withdrawals will vary by document. Moreover, many plans, especially those compliant with 404(c) of ERISA will allow for individual brokerage accounts. This is common for smaller plans. If so, you can request to direct your own investments in your own account. You will likely have to pay any associated fees. Resources: work as actuary at a TPA firm",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56aca2aa766b7e980642a5b02da78a3b",
"text": "\"If the difference in performance is worth it, consider \"\"borrowing\"\" from your 401k to put into the Roth. You pay it back, but you can stretch it out over time, and the interest charged is actually yours, because you borrowed from yourself. But you can only borrow half of the account and you have to pay it back before you can do another loan.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "753edf69dcb054f73313522bf717bcc9",
"text": "There isn't a general reason why you should not be able to do this, but it is hard to answer without knowing the specifics of your variable annuity. I would start by calling Hartford and asking them how to go about rolling your money to a different IRA and what fees would be assessed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5dddeefab58515aa461298ae819ed1ce",
"text": "401k choices are awful because: The best remedy I have found is to roll over to an IRA when changing jobs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "290c7fe6754d823f4f4597f866625b86",
"text": "It is typically very easy to roll a 401(k) into an IRA. Companies that provide IRA's are very experienced with it, and I would expect that they will take your calls from overseas. You will likely be able to do it over the internet without using a phone at all. Just open an IRA with any brokerage company (Scottrade, Vanguard, Fidelity, Schwab, Ameritrade, etc.) and follow instructions to roll your 401(k) into it. Most likely they will need your signature, but usually a scan of a form you have filled out will do. Be sure to have information on your 401(k) provider, including your account number there, on hand. These companies are all very reputable and this is not a difficult transaction. There's really no downside to rolling into an IRA. 401(k) plans usually have more limited options and/or worse fee structures and are frequently harder to work with, as you have observed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d8b600a339bc3767cbf7600ce233f7b",
"text": "No. Your deposits should not have been accepted in the first place. No legit rollover opportunity exists. Related - Can excess 401K contributions returned with 1099-R be rolled over to a Traditional IRA?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2164e8c58b0d0fb51e5b3005e5e0fb0b",
"text": "Okay thanks, let's hope it's a relatively painless process to correct my mistake! Really odd that my 401(k)s are traditional, I was so sure they weren't. Maybe it's better then to open up a traditional IRA alongside the Roth, use that for rollovers, and just kick a few bucks into the Roth on occasion?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da87ad09f8ea417326955b272c8086e8",
"text": "\"To answer, I'm going to make a few assumptions. First, the ideal scenario for a pre-tax 401(k) is the deposit goes in at a 25% tax rate (i.e. the employee is in that bracket) but withdrawn at 15%. This may be true for many, but not all. It's to illustrate a point. The SPY (S&P 500 index ETF) has a cost of .09% per year. If your 401(k) fees are anywhere near 1% per year total, over 10 years you've paid nearly 10% in fees, vs less than 1% for the ETF. Above, I suggest the ideal is that the 401(k) saves you 10% on your taxes, but if you pay 10% over the decade, the benefit is completely negated. I can add to the above that funds outside the retirement accounts give off dividends which are tax favored, and if you were to sell ETFs held over a year, they receive favorable cap-gains rates. The \"\"deposit to get the matching funds\"\" should always be good advice, it would take many years of high fees to destroy that. But even that seemingly reasonable 1% fee can make any other deposits a bad approach. Keep in mind, when retired you will have a zero bracket (in 2011, the combined standard deduction and exemption) adding to $9500, as well as a 10% bracket (the next $8500), so having some pretax money to take advantage of those brackets will help. Last, the average person changes jobs now and then. The ability to transfer the funds from the (bad) 401(k) to an IRA where you can control the investments is an option I'd not ignore in the analysis. I arbitrarily picked 1% to illustrate my thoughts. The same math will show a long time employee will get hurt by even .5%/yr if enough time passes. What are the fees in your 401(k)? Edit - Study of 401(k) fees - put out by the Dept of Labor. Unfortunately, it's over 10 years old, but it speaks to my point. Back then, even a 2000 participant plan with $60M in assets had 110 basis points (this is 1.1%) in fees on average. Whatever the distribution is, those above this average shouldn't even participate in their plans (except for matching) and those on the other side should look at their expenses. As Radix07 points out below, yes, for those just shy of retirement, the fee has less impact, and of course, they have a better idea if they will retire in a lower bracket. Those who have some catching up to do, may benefit despite the fees.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "566f05e9449bb06f1efcf50438c9f274",
"text": "You should never roll a 401(k) to a Roth IRA. If the intention is to do so, you are better off rolling to a traditional IRA, and then converting. (Per the comment below, I should add - if the 401(k) contained post tax money, this portion rolls to a Roth, not a Tradition IRA. You then have the exercise of converting/recharacterizing just the TIRA money, as the Roth stands aside) This preserves the ability to recharacterize back to a traditional IRA. You might wish to do this if: The answers so far are great, but I'll add what I see missing -",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98a5868f2c408ae8be508c3de121f711",
"text": "Rolling a 401(k) to an IRA should be your default best option. Rolling a 401(k) to another 401(k) is rarely the best option, but that does happen. I've done it once when I started a job at a company that had a great 401(k) with a good selection of low-cost mutual funds. I rolled the 401(k) from one previous job in to this 401(k) to take advantage of it. In all other cases, I rolled 401(k)s from previous jobs to my Rollover IRA, which gave me the most freedom of investment options. Finally, with 401(k)-to-Roth IRA rollovers, it's important to decouple two concepts so you can analyze it as a sum of two transactions:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1deecfbe9951e08bdc507a92496fe83",
"text": "I'm a series 24 securities principle and have explained and trained people on questions like these more times than I can count. Although, my first recommendation is to speak to a qualified tax professional for the appropriate answer for each individual scenario. Disclosure aside, the source of truth for these questions is always the IRS publications. In this case it's IRS pub 590b: When Must You Withdraw Assets? (Required Minimum Distributions). IRA stands for Individual Retirement Arrangement. Basically it's an arrangement between you a the government to encourage retirement savings. Tax payers(up to a define taxable income amount) agree to receive a deduction during your working years lowering your taxable income in the present. Your taxable income should drop in retirement because you're not working anymore and any withdraws would most likely be taxed at a lower rate. To be clear the require minimum distribution is based on a life expectancy factor and the ending balance of your pre-tax retirement accounts from the prior year(for ex. 2016 ending balance for a 2017 rmd). The rmd works out to be somewhere around 3-4% of your total balance. Most retirement account providers(if not all) have established several conveniences to automate the withdraw process. I've believe that moving funds directly to bank deposits or moving the funds to another taxable investment account are most common. Retirement account providers are required by law to give you notifications about RMDs. Some big firms allow you to setup an auto-distribution a year before you turn 70.5 to start when they need to. Because of the 50% penalty you're given so many notifications about an RMD that it's hard to forget about it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5067249e6b8ae4300dbac7cb050b5742",
"text": "Call up vanguard and tell them you want to do a rollover. They walk you through the process. Spend some time on reading up on asset allocation and benefits of indexing. 1.5% every year is steep and what do you have in return? The advisor's word that he'll make it up. How much did he manage to return during the last lost decade? It's a lose-win situation. He'll get his 1.5% no matter how the market does but that's not the deal you are getting. Go with Vanguard. You are already thinking correctly - diversification, rebalancing, low cost!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a17e74a3d67faa9e2afbcbf1b45754a",
"text": "I would always suggest rolling over 401(k) plans to traditional IRAs when possible. Particularly, assuming there is enough money in them that you can get a fee-free account at somewhere like Fidelity or Vanguard. This is for a couple of reasons. First off, it opens up your investment choices significantly and can allow you significantly reduced expenses related to the account. You may be able to find a superior offering from Vanguard or Fidelity to what your employer's 401(k) plan allows; typically they only allow a small selection of funds to choose from. You also may be able to reduce the overhead fees, as many 401(k) plans charge you an administrative fee for being in the plan separate from the funds' costs. Second, it allows you to condense 401(k)s over time; each time you change employers, you can rollover your 401(k) to your regular IRA and not have to deal with a bunch of different accounts with different passwords and such. Even if they're all at the same provider, odds are you will have to use separate accounts. Third, it avoids issues if your employer goes out of business. While 401(k) plans are generally fully funded (particularly for former employers who you don't have match or vesting concerns with), it can be a pain sometimes when the plan is terminated to access your funds - they may be locked for months while the bankruptcy court works things out. Finally, employers sometimes make it expensive for you to stay in - particularly if you do have a very small amount. Don't assume you're allowed to stay in the former employer's 401(k) plan fee-free; the plan will have specific instructions for what to do if you change employers, and it may include being required to leave the plan - or more often, it could increase the fees associated with the plan if you stay in. Getting out sometimes will save you significantly, even with a low-cost plan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "980789da5abf6464c0e7ff07ef72bc5e",
"text": "\"You have several questions in your post so I'll deal with them individually: Is taking small sums from your IRA really that detrimental? I mean as far as tax is concerned? Percentage wise, you pay the tax on the amount plus a 10% penalty, plus the opportunity cost of the gains that the money would have gotten. At 6% growth annually, in 5 years that's more than a 34% loss. There are much cheaper ways to get funds than tapping your IRA. Isn't the 10% \"\"penalty\"\" really to cover SS and the medicare tax that you did not pay before putting money into your retirement? No - you still pay SS and medicare on your gross income - 401(k) contributions just reduce how much you pay in income tax. The 10% penalty is to dissuade you from using retirement money before you retire. If I ... contributed that to my IRA before taxes (including SS and medicare tax) that money would gain 6% interest. Again, you would still pay SS and Medicare, and like you say there's no guarantee that you'll earn 6% on your money. I don't think you can pay taxes up front when making an early withdrawal from an IRA can you? This one you got right. When you file your taxes, your IRA contributions for the year are totaled up and are deducted from your gross income for tax purposes. There's no tax effect when you make the contribution. Would it not be better to contribute that $5500 to my IRA and if I didn't need it, great, let it grow but if I did need it toward the end of the year, do an early withdrawal? So what do you plan your tax withholdings against? Do you plan on keeping it there (reducing your withholdings) and pay a big tax bill (plus possibly penalties) if you \"\"need it\"\"? Or do you plan to take it out and have a big refund when you file your taxes? You might be better off saving that up in a savings account during the year, and if at the end of the year you didn't use it, then make an IRA contribution, which will lower the taxes you pay. Don't use your IRA as a \"\"hopeful\"\" savings account. So if I needed to withdrawal $5500 and I am in the 25% tax bracket, I would owe the government $1925 in taxes+ 10% penalty. So if I withdrew $7425 to cover the tax and penalty, I would then be taxed $2600 (an additional $675). Sounds like a cat chasing it's tail trying to cover the tax. Yes if you take a withdrawal to pay the taxes. If you pay the tax with non-retirement money then the cycle stops. how can I make a withdrawal from an IRA without having to pay tax on tax. Pay cash for the tax and penalty rather then taking another withdrawal to pay the tax. If you can't afford the tax and penalty in cash, then don't withdraw at all. based on this year's W-2 form, I had an accountant do my taxes and the $27K loan was added as earned income then in another block there was the $2700 amount for the penalty. So you paid 25% in income tax for the earned income and an additional 10% penalty. So in your case it was a 35% overall \"\"tax\"\" instead of the 40% rule of thumb (since many people are in 28% and 35% tax brackets) The bottom line is it sounds like you are completely unorganized and have absolutely no margin to cover any unexpected expenses. I would stop contributing to retirement today until you can get control of your spending, get on a budget, and stop trying to use your IRA as a piggy bank. If you don't plan on using the money for retirement then don't put it in an IRA. Stop borrowing from it and getting into further binds that force you to make bad financial decisions. You don't go into detail about any other aspects (mortgage? car loans? consumer debt?) to even begin to know where the real problem is. So you need to write everything down that you own and you owe, write out your monthly expenses and income, and figure out what you can cut if needed in order to build up some cash savings. Until then, you're driving across country in a car with no tires, worrying about which highway will give you the best gas mileage.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c40d3c9349b7d236127280fc7b9dc354",
"text": "Think about contributing to both a Traditional IRA and a Roth IRA if you have the funds. In theory, you could receive the lowest tax rates by depositing money into a regular IRA during years of democratic rule, depositing money into a Roth during years of Republic rule, and then withdrawing from the Roth during democratic rule and the tradition during Republican rule. Then you would be depositing with lower tax rates and withdrawing with lower tax rates. Granted this method would involve some speculation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d891b17a4ba041626126c90c2c58810c",
"text": "If your SIMPLE IRA is over two years old then you can roll your money to another qualified account such as a rollover IRA. The usual rollover rules apply. You have 60 days to deposit the funds in another qualified account and you are only allowed one such rollover in a 12 month window. If you are still within two years of opening your SIMPLE IRA, you can roll your funds to a SIMPLE IRA with another vendor, but you would then have to wait until that account is two years old before rolling it elsewhere. If you roll the money another type of IRA before your SIMPLE IRA account is two-years old, and under 59 1/2 years old, you will be subject to a 25% penalty (which is much higher than for other types of accounts). Many of the early distribution exceptions apply such as disability, etc. Edit: The first document linked above covers rules for running a SIMPLE IRA. All the specific regulations linked in the second document apply to all IRAs of all types. There is no specific prohibition from rolling only a portion of the money to another qualified account. There are prohibitions against rolling money more than one time in a 12 month period. The usual obstacle to rolling money from a retirement account--like a 401(k)--is that the 401(k) plan is written to prohibit withdrawals while the employee is still employed at the company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eef9aedb0ad4b895b7f771712e625179",
"text": "If you are making regular periodic investments (e.g. each pay period into a 401(k) plan) or via automatic investment scheme in a non-tax-deferred portfolio (e.g. every month, $200 goes automatically from your checking account to your broker or mutual fund house), then one way of rebalancing (over a period of time) is to direct your investment differently into the various accounts you have, with more going into the pile that needs bringing up, and less into the pile that is too high. That way, you can avoid capital gains or losses etc in doing the selling-off of assets. You do, of course, take longer to achieve the balance that you seek, but you do get some of the benefits of dollar-cost averaging.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a6074411372244c07684e2fa471c32b2
|
As an American working in the UK, do I have to pay taxes on foreign income?
|
[
{
"docid": "706cab9010b11714da53588d1d51bd40",
"text": "Short answer: it's complicated. The UK govt pages on foreign income are probably your best starting point: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/LeavingOrComingIntoTheUK/DG_10027480 As you can see, it depends on your precise residence status here. (There is a tax treaty between the UK and the US so you wouldn't be double taxed on the income either way. But there might still be reporting obligations).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "326e509907a0cd7a78e5cf4f2abef8db",
"text": "A) a tax treaty probably covers this for the avoidance of double taxation. Tax treaties can be very cryptic and have little precedence clarifying them http://www.irs.gov/businesses/international/article/0,,id=169552,00.html B) I'm going to say NO since the source of your income is going to be US based. But the UK tax laws might also have specific verbage for resident source income. sorry it is an inconclusive answer, but should be some factors to consider and point you in the right direction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24dc4877cb805249a4eae606cff85213",
"text": "\"Yes. You do have to pay taxes in the UK as well but it depends on how much you have already been taxed in the US. http://taxaid.org.uk/situations/migrant-workernew-to-the-uk/income-from-abroad-arising-basis-vs-remittance-basis Say, you have to pay 20% tax in the UK for your earnings here. You ARE required to pay the same percentage on your foreign income as well. Now, if your \"\"home\"\" country already taxed you at 10% (for the sake of example), then you only need to pay the \"\"remaining\"\" 10% in the UK. However, the tax law in the UK does allow you to choose between \"\"arising\"\" basis and \"\"remittance\"\" basis on your income from the country you are domiciled in. What I have explained above is based on when income \"\"arises.\"\" But the laws are complicated, and you are almost always better off by paying it on \"\"arising\"\" basis.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "04b3ee3f698ca5b4f450524d8a56f4aa",
"text": "\"Am I eligible for declaring my earnings to the IRS? You're always eligible. You're probably asking whether you're required. In the US it doesn't matter where you deposit the money, it matters where you earn it. Money is earned where the services are provided. This is called \"\"sourcing\"\". So if you are working in a foreign country - you're only subject to the US laws to the extent you're a US citizen/permanent resident or qualify for the substantial presence test.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fb23bd799c61ed8b37fa617d8ef07d1",
"text": "\"Can the companies from USA give job to me (I am from New Zealand)? Job as being employee - may be tricky. This depends on the labor laws in New Zealand, but most likely will trigger \"\"nexus\"\" clause and will force the employer to register in the country, which most won't want to do. Instead you can be hired as a contractor (i.e.: being self-employed, from NZ legal perspective). If so, what are the legal documents i have to provide to the USA for any taxes? If you're employed as a contractor, you'll need to provide form W8-BEN to your US employer on which you'll have to certify your tax status. Unless you're a US citizen/green card holder, you're probably a non-US person for tax purposes, and as such will not be paying any tax in the US as long as you work in New Zealand. If you travel to the US for work, things may become tricky, and tax treaties may be needed. Will I have to pay tax to New Zealand Government? Most likely, as a self-employed. Check how this works locally. As for recommendations, since these are highly subjective opinions that may change over time, they're considered off-topic here. Check on Yelp, Google, or any local NZ professional review site.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cbcd9ea50347e19d0428f324b99d1f49",
"text": "The PAYE tax and NI will be deducted as usual. Send HMRC a P85 form to tell them you're emigrating, and they will refund the tax.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "328d9ea0fda297f04389a4d04d3ab323",
"text": "It is unlikely that UK tax will be due on the money -- see here: Foreign students usually don’t pay UK tax on foreign income or gains, as long as they’re used for course fees or living costs But if the UK doesn't tax you on the money then double-taxation agreements probably won't apply, and so any Italian tax due will be payable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8872ea7a2ea65d86a4e2086ad3fcac2d",
"text": "In both the US and UK you are taxed on your income. Transferring your own money from one country to another does not count as income, so you won't be taxed on it. If it's not your money you are transferring that will be different. You may have to report transfers to comply with money laundering rules. You have to report large amounts of cash you bring with you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cbc909847ba684c0856d3df9be9f5403",
"text": "If you're a US citizen/resident - you pay taxes on your worldwide income regardless of where you live. The logic is that Americans generally don't agree to the view that there's more than one country in the world. If you're non-US person, not physically present in the US, and provide contract work for a US employer - you generally don't pay taxes in the US. The logic is that the US doesn't actually have any jurisdiction over that money, you didn't earn it in the US. That said, your employer might withheld tax and remit it to the IRS, and you'll have to chase them for refund. If you receive income from the US rental property or dividends from a US company - you pay income tax to the US on that income, and then bargain with your home tax authority on refunds of the difference between what you paid in the US and what you should have paid at home. You can also file non-resident tax return in the US to claim what you have paid in excess. The logic is that the money sourced in the US should be taxed in the US. You earned that money in the US. There are additional rules to more specific situation, and there are also bilateral treaties between countries (including a US-Canadian treaty) that supersede national laws. Bottom line, not only that each country has its own laws, there are also different laws for different situations, and if some of the international treaties apply to you - it further complicates the situation. If something is not clear - get a professional advice form a tax accountant licensed in the relevant jurisdictions (in your case - any of the US states, and the Canadian province where you live).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f395c55d7f9fd1f519a973966956ddbe",
"text": "The relevant IRS publication is pub 463. Note that there are various conditions and exceptions, but it all starts with business necessity. Is it necessary for you to work from the UK? If you're working from the UK because you wanted to take a vacation, but still have to work, and would do the same work without being in the UK - then you cannot deduct travel expenses. It sounds to me like this is the case here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "810d4842bdc077402c3b1d10247a8e7f",
"text": "If your gross income is only $3000, then you don't need to file: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf That said, pay careful attention to: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxpayers-living-abroad You should be reporting ALL income, without regard to WHERE you earned it, on your US taxes. Not doing so could indeed get you in trouble if you are audited. Your level of worry depends on how much of the tax law you are willing to dodge, and how lucky you feel.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9b1750861a184a70777dda66fa97951",
"text": "\"Be careful here: If ACME were in California, I would pay taxes on USD 17,000 because I had revenue of 20,000 and expenses of 3,000. To CALIFORNIA. And California taxes S-Corps. And, in addition, you'd pay $800 for the right of doing business in the State. All that in addition to the regular Federal and State taxes to the State where you're resident. Suppose that ACME is in Britain (or anywhere else for that matter). My revenue and expenses are the same, but now my money has been earned and my expenses incurred in a foreign country. Same thing exactly. Except that you'll have to pay taxes to the UK. There may be some provision in the tax treaty to help you though, so you may end up paying less taxes when working in the UK than in California. Check with a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) who won't run away from you after you say the words \"\"Tax Treaty\"\". Does it even make sense to use my S-Corporation to do business in a foreign country? That should be a business decision, don't let the tax considerations drive your business.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0aca48ad4b9f2b175753f2e40374432f",
"text": "You will have to pay your taxes in the UK not USA. For tax purposes it is the company's tax residency not where the server is located. You are just hiring a server in USA. Take for example a CDN being used for your same service then would you pay taxes in 300 different countries if you use Akamai? Does not work that way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "feb2ecb57b9ac11c3fe943205c63ea0f",
"text": "As the name says, its for income earned in a Foreign country. If you have been paying US income tax on this while living in the US, nothing is going to change here. You should be informing yourself on how to avoid double taxation in your new country of residence. Passive income earned abroad (dividends, interest) also do not fall under this exemption. The purpose of the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion is to make it easy for expats who work abroad to avoid double income taxation without going through the complicated process of applying for tax credits. The US is the only industrial country that taxes its residents regardless of where they reside. That is also why it only goes to about $100,000 a year. If you are a high earner, they want to make it more difficult. Also as a side note, since you are going to be abroad for a year. I will point out that if you have more than $10,000 in foreign accounts at any point in the year you need to declare this in an FBAR form. This is not advertised as well as it should be and carries ridiculous penalties for non-compliance. I can't count the number of times I have heard a US expat say that they were unaware of this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2cd770682f25805fc6be5eea23b57d81",
"text": "I see no reason why a US ID would be mandatory anywhere in the UK. I'm sure they have their own tax IDs in the UK. However, if the gallery requires US persons to submit US W-9 - then yes, you're covered under that requirement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22b5a58c9b402f5d89f7f3c5801e101a",
"text": "Hi u/Sagiv1, Short answer: Yes, you do have to pay taxes in Israel for all your worldincome. Long answer: All countries within the OCDE consider you as a fiscal resident in the country where you spend over half a year in (183 days and up). If you do not spend that much time in any country, there are other tying measures to avoid people not being fiscal residents in any country. Since you are living in Israel, you will have to pay all your worlwide generated income in Israel, following the tax regulation that is in place there. I am no Isarely Tax Lawyer so I cannot help you there. Having a lot of business internationally brings other headaches with it. Taking for example the U.S. there is a possibility that they withold taxes in their payments. It is unlikely, though, as they have a Tax Treaty to prevent double taxation. You can ask for this witholded money to be returned from the U.S. or other countries through each country's internal process. Another thing to take into account is that you can be taxed in other countries for any revenue you generate in said country. This is especially relevant for revenue that comes from Real Estate. The country where the real estate is will tax you in the country and you will have to deduct these taxes paid in your country, Israel in this case. If there is no tax treaty you might possibly be paying twice. I know you said you do promotion, but I have to warn you about this, because I ignore what other countries tax or do not tax. So been giving more info won't hurt. If the US is the main and/or only country you will be doing business with, I strongly recommend you real the Tax treaty with lots of love and patience. You can find it here: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/israel.pdf or here: Treaty:http://mfa.gov.il/Style%20Library/AmanotPdf/005118.pdf Amendment: http://mfa.gov.il/Style%20Library/AmanotPdf/005120.pdf If you are from Israel and prefer it in Hebrew, here are the treaties in your language: Treaty: http://mfa.gov.il/Style%20Library/AmanotPdf/005119.pdf Amendment: http://mfa.gov.il/Style%20Library/AmanotPdf/005121.pdf Normally most IRS Departments have sections with very uselful help on these sort of matters. I'd recomment you to take a look at yours. Last, what I've explained is the normal process that applies almost all over the world. But each country has their own distinctions and you need to look carefully. Take what I said as a starting point and do your own research or ideally try to find a tax consultant/lawyer who helps you. Best of luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "253a71e92dc2a0871bdb22b4423e3a6d",
"text": "Generally all the countries have similar arrangement regarding Income Tax, if you live in the UK for more than you stay in India for a given year then the Indian authorities won't be able to tax you but you might come under the UK Tax Law.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f272dff1e0d553e55b5cbe51aea5d43",
"text": "If what you are paying in interest on the debt is a higher percentage than what your investments are returning, the best investment you can make is to pay off the debt. If you're lucky enough to be paying historically low rates (as I am on my mortgage) and getting good returns on the investments so the latter is the higher percentage, the balance goes the other way and you'd want to continue paying off the debt relatively slowly -- essentially treating it as a leveraged investment. If you aren't sure, paying off the debt should probably be the default prefrence.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
355a81720ada853326aab7b5336e5a5b
|
How does on-demand insurance company Trov prevent insurance fraud or high prices?
|
[
{
"docid": "f1995ca1fbceee023309ccebb5e0b007",
"text": "Anything can be insured for the right price... this product is offered for devices at higher risk, which would be logical purpose of owner needing coverage for a specific length of time. Typically this would be a type of adverse selection, but TROV targets customers that typically would not require insurance on their device, but as you said they may be traveling and putting their devices at added risk. Like all insurance companies, their Loss Ratio (Losses/Premiums) will depend on the law of large numbers and spread of risk. As we know, the majority of the time trips are taken, electronics make it back home safely. Like many tech companies, their advantage over conventional insurers is likely low overhead costs. Being on a mobile platform, they likely have a fraction of the claims handling cost of a conventional insurer. Payments are likely automated by linking bank accounts, so there is little transaction cost burden on this company. In short, their operation is likely highly automated with few staff and low expenses, allowing them to take on a higher loss ratio than conventional insurers and still leave room for profit. Without having ever used this service, I can tell you they likely price in anticipated fraud, the same way Walmart prices in inventory loss (shoplifting) into their prices. I personally would share your concern that it'd be difficult to combat fraud on such a platform, especially with no claims adjusters whom are typically the first line of defense. Again, I answer this never having used their service, but I work as an Analyst at a large insurer and these would be my assumptions based on what I know of TROV.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7d82cccee4da724a6800ad82c18e73c",
"text": "For example, it is not allowed to buy flood insurance at peak flood season and then cancel it when it is over. They are not offering this right now. So it would be interesting to see if they offer this and how they offer this. For example, you can insure your camera for a week when you are going on vacation. They call it on-demand insurance. They segment Trov is targeting consumer electronics. More often people don't take insurance in this segment as the insurance cost is high and benefits low. However if going on vacation, most are afraid of loosing / damaging equipments. Generally although we are afraid, most often nothing happens. It is this segment; you make the insurance cheap and easy to buy and create a new segment. Insurance fraud detection is an important part of insurance process such that insurance companies allocate a lot of resources to detect improper insurance claims. The website does not mention how they process claims. Although it looks easy, they may have a more stringent process. For example what is stopping me from buying an insurance after event; i.e. break my phone Monday, buy insurance on Monday and make a claim on Tuesday saying the phone broke on Tuesday.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b3fafaa967083f6341aed5116b52e70",
"text": "There is not necessarily a need to prevent what you describe - 'turning insurance on before high risk situations'. They just need to calculate the premiums accordingly. For example, if an insurance needs to take 50$/year for insuring your house against flood, and a flood happens in average every 10 years, if you just insure the two weeks in the ten years where heavy rain is predicted, you might pay 500$ for the two weeks. The total is the same for the insurance - they get 500$, and you get insurance for the dangerous period. In the contrary; if a flooding (unexpectedly) happens outside your two weeks, they are out. From the home owners view, 500$ for two weeks when heavy rains and floods are expected, and nothing otherwise sounds pretty good, compared to 50$ every year. It is the same of course, but psychology works that way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b634f9d34707808a743bffec4a10c1d0",
"text": "I am not familiar with the startup you mentioned, but in general there are three approaches to avoid losing money in insurance business: review before policy is issued (underwriting) review before claim is paid (claims handling) setting high enough rates to cover underwriting losses The fact that Trov is customer friendly / lax (make your choice of term) when issuing a policy says nothing about their rates or claims payment. It is even possible they are building a portfolio for sale, and do not really care about the claims performance (policies are sold / customers acquired now, and it takes a time for claims to arrive).",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2447d62ff04c16cf8ef4f21ba6dfaf57",
"text": "\"You have to realize that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to do things \"\"unofficially\"\" by not reporting the accident (to insurance companies and/or police), but you want to do it \"\"officially\"\" in that you want to have legal recourse if they try to hit you up for more money. The only way to have it both ways is to trust the other person. From a financial perspective, ultimately you need to decide if the monetary cost of your raised insurance premiums, etc., outweighs the cost of whatever money the other party in the accident will try to squeeze out of you (factoring in the likelihood that they will do so). You also would need to factor in the likelihood that, rather than trying to scam you, they'll pursue legal action against you. In short, from a purely monetary perspective, if the legitimate cost of repairs is $700 and the cost to you of doing it by the book via insurance is $2000, you should be willing to be scammed for up to $1300, because you'll still come out ahead. Of course, there are psychological considerations, like whether someone unscrupulous enough to scam you will stop at $1300. But those numbers are the baseline for whatever outcome calculations you want to do. On the more qualitative side of things, it is possible they're trying to scam you, but also possible they're just trying to hustle you into doing everything quickly without thinking about it. They may not be trying to gouge you monetarily, they just want to pressure you so they get their money. I agree with other answerers here that the ideal way would be for them to send you an actual bill after repairs are complete. However, you could ask them to send you a written copy of the repair shop estimate, along with a written letter in which they state that they will consider payment of that amount to resolve the issue and won't pursue you further. The legal strength of that is dubious, but at least you have some documentation that you didn't just try to stiff them. If they won't give you some form of written documentation, I would read that as a red flag, bite the bullet, and contact your insurance company.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c1674dbe0971d64da0bdbd3313c7196",
"text": "\"There are (at least) two problems with the argument suggested in the OP. First, the ability to cover the cost, doesn't mean willingness, ease, or no major side effects of doing so. Second is the mitigation of \"\"upside risk\"\". It might be true that the most usual loss is small and manageable, but 10% of incidents could be considerably larger and 1% may be very much larger - without limit. Your own attitude to risk and loss will determine how much these are seen as unlikely+ignore, or worst case situation+avoid.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2298ebfb5de33ae737aa535599ebd79f",
"text": "My dad runs an AV labor company (trade show setups etc) and his insurance company called him as they were finalizing his workers comp. They asked when he was submitting all of his employees drug screenings. My dad laughed at them and said he would not be submitting any. They told him his premium would be higher to which my dad replied that if he drug tested, he would have 4 people working for him and thus wouldn't even have a business - just send the bill.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7abffd4c1dbacf9d526c136028c8ade6",
"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.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc9736300627a5a9469e0cc63d941993",
"text": "As someone who has worked for both an insurance carrier and an insurance agent, the reason people buy insurance is two fold: to spread risk out, and to get the benefits (when applicable) of approaching risk as a group. What you are really doing when you buy insurance is you are buying in to a large group of people who are sharing risk. You put money in that will help people when they take a loss, and in exchange get a promise of having your losses covered. There is an administrative fee taken by the company that runs the group in order to cover their costs of doing business and their profits that they get for running the group well (or losses they take if they run it poorly.) Some insurances are for profit, some are non-profit; all work on the principle of spreading risk around though and taking risk as a larger group. So let's take a closer look at each of the advantages you get from participating in insurance. The biggest and most obvious is the protection from catastrophic loss. Yes, you could self-insure with a group size of one, by saving your money and having no overhead (other than your time and the time value of your money) but that has a cost in itself and also doesn't cover you against risk up front if you aren't already independently wealthy. A run of bad luck could wipe you out entirely since you don't have a large group to spread the risk around. The same thing can still happen to insurance companies as well when the group as a whole takes major losses, but it's less likely to occur because there are more rare things that have to go wrong. You pay an administrative overhead for the group to be run for you, but you have less exposure to your own risks in exchange for a small premium. Another significant but less visible advantage is the benefit of being part of a large group. Insurance companies represent a large group of people and lots of business, so they can get better rates on dealing with recovering from losses. They can negotiate for better health care rates or better repair rates or cheaper replacement parts. This can potentially save more than the administrative overhead and profit that they take off the top, even when compared to self-insuring. There is an element of gambling to it, but there are also very real financial benefits to having predictable costs. The value of that predictability (and the lesser need for liquid assets) is what makes insurance worth it for many people. The value of this group benefit does decrease a lot as the value of the insurance coverage (the amount it pays out) decreases. Insurance for minor losses has a much smaller impact on liquidity and is much easier to self insure. Cheaper items that have insurance also tend to be high risk items, so the costs tend to be very high relative to the amount of protection. If you are financially able, it may make more sense to self-insure in these cases, particularly if you tend to be more cautious. It may make sense for those who are more prone to accidents with their devices to buy insurance, but this selection bias also drives the cost up further. Generally, the reason to buy insurance on something like a cellphone is because you expect you will break it. You are going to end up paying for an entire additional phone over time anyway and most such policies stop paying out after the first replacement anyway. The reason why people buy the coverage anyway, even when it really isn't in their best interest is due to two factors: being risk averse, as base64 pointed out, and also being generally bad at dealing with large numbers. On the risk averse side, they think of how much they are spending on the item (even if it is less compared to large items like cars or houses) and don't want to lose that. On the bad at dealing with large numbers side, they don't think about the overall cost of the coverage and don't read the fine print as to what they are actually getting coverage for. (This is the same reason that you always see prices one cent under the dollar.) People often don't really subconsciously get that they are paying more even if they would be able to eat the loss, so they pay what feels like a small amount to offset a large risk. The risk of loss is a higher fear than the known small, easy payment that keeps the risk away and the overall value proposition isn't even considered.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e8c80dffb78f1f16f07f91f6b655194",
"text": "That is exactly how the insurance companies work. What you described here falls under P/L. If you are buying insurances you are betting that you might get sick. Same as when insurance companies sells you insurance they are betting that you won't get sick. No one will sell you insurance if you are oreads sick. That's why you have government to take of you. Of course there are pools of healthy and unhealthy people. The healthier the better for the company. No one is in it to loose money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fde7f24cd4ccccf7f3fbe82607eb1e79",
"text": "Answer all of their questions honestly and as accurately as you can, but don't stress too much about it. If you don't know the answer to something, ask the insurance agent what it means; that's what they're there for. (If you're doing this online, email the support, or the 'live chat' feature many of them have. Or, don't do it online, if you feel better having an agent in person; nowadays, most of the major insurers are similar on price so it's not a massive savings to skip the agent.) As far as whether it's important to pick a specific insurer - that's really your call. Read reviews, understanding that folks with bad experiences are more likely to write reviews than the 90% of folks who get no benefit from homeowner's insurance. You need to make the decision as to how important reputation and ease of claims process is versus price. That's why there are multiple insurers, after all - you can decide how important it is to you. It sounds like you would prefer a simpler claims process, so perhaps you should go with someone who is known for an easier claims process (understanding that no insurer is always going to agree with every claimant 100%).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbf0fc4b67ce83fe17f8e66cbbb2f0d4",
"text": "This argument appears to assume that premiums will remain the same. You have to ask: If autonomy reduces the frequency of accidents, why would you consider to pay the same insurance premium for the product? If Geico was selling a product that had a $1000 premium with a 50% margin, but is now selling a $200 product with a 75% margin, it's making a heck of a lot less in aggregate. Can't say that's a good thing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fad58094dff5fc338f65e7c6a7e0b9c",
"text": "This depends on the jurisdiction, but such companies are typically subject to regulations (and audits) that require them to keep the customers' accumulated premiums very strictly separated from the company's own assets, liabilities and expenses. Additionally, they are typically only allowed to invest the capital in very safe things like government bonds. So, unless something truly catastrophic happens (like the US government defaulting on its bonds) or people in the company break the regulations (which would invovle all kinds of serious crimes and require complicity or complete failure of the auditors), your premiums and the contractual obligation to you would still be there, and would be absorbed by a different insurance company that takes over the defunct company's business. Realistically, what all this means is that insurance companies never go bankrupt; if they do badly, they are typically bought up by a competitor long before things get that bad.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "080d0f2b00d0613a800275de5fabfde1",
"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).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60c15e38c1f6fc5e587b25638c68d5e1",
"text": "The cost of insurance very well may swing the opposite direction. Last year premiums jumped 50% across the board because there were so many drivers on the road that accident rates increased. So autonomous vehicles may have lower (or zero) premiums while human driven vehicles might see triple digit increases in premiums.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f3f868eb39f299c09b943e77bb8b3d0",
"text": "Protect competition, not protect competitors. In a lot of cases in the tech world no one knows who the competitors is a few quarters/years down the road. Also, enforce regulations against regulation-arbitrage companies like Uber/Lyft, AirBnB, or reg-arb tech like ICO, all of which relied on regulatory leeways allowing them to crush existing companies that's been saddled w/ regulations. In countries where regulatory arbitrage doesnt exist these 'innovators' fail, e.g., Uber in South Korea.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8862161d023090a19e10c93cd537f166",
"text": "@Jeremy Using CVV doesn't decrease the transaction cost. I know this because I have quotes for CC transactions and the cost/transaction doesn't depend on using CVV. That said we don't plan to use CVV because we sell insurance and the likelihood that someone who steals CC will buy insurance is very low.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10d4bf01e17c812fc8e72a843b096553",
"text": "\"Some people are better drivers than others. A collision can happen to anybody, even good drivers. The collision might not be your fault at all; it might be entirely the fault of the other party. However, the best drivers do a better job of avoiding collisions in situations where the other drivers on the road are doing the wrong things. The \"\"no claims discount\"\" is a way to identify and reward those good drivers, as they have a lower likelihood of claims in the future.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "042b242265023ff11bf09c68b010334d",
"text": "If you can qualify for two mortgages, this is certainly possible. For this you can talk to a banker. However, most people do not qualify for two mortgages so they go a different route. They make offers on a new home with a contingency to sell the existing home. A good Realtor will walk you through this and any possible side effects. Keep in mind that the more contingencies in an offer the less attractive that offer is to sellers. This is how cash buyers can get a better deal (no contingencies and a very fast close). Given the hotness of your market a seller might reject your offer as opposed to first time home buyer that does not need to sell an old home. On the other hand, they may see your contingency as low risk as the market is so hot. This is why you probably need a really good agent. They can frame the contingency in a very positive light.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1020716aaaec32888344facc7b371987
|
Is buying a lottery ticket considered an investment?
|
[
{
"docid": "a74ccfd8ffa26a2638753a76c7d37c52",
"text": "There is a clear difference between investing and gambling. When you invest, you are purchasing an asset that has value. It is purchased in the hopes that the asset will either increase in value or generate income. This definition holds true whether you are investing in shares of stock, in real estate, or in a comic book collection. You can also purchase debt: if you loan money, you own debt that will (hopefully) be repaid and generate income. Gambling is playing a game for chance. When you gamble, you have not purchased an asset; you have only paid to participate in a game. Some games have a degree of skill (blackjack, poker), others are pure chance (slot machine). In most gambling games, the odds are against the player and in favor of the one running the game. Lottery tickets, without a doubt, are gambling. There is a good article on Investopedia that discusses the difference between investing and gambling in more detail. One thing that this article discusses is the house edge, or the advantage that the people running a gambling game have over the players. With most casino games, the house has an advantage of between 1 and 15% over the players. With a typical lottery, the house edge is 50%. To address some of the points made by the OP's recent edit and in the comments: I do not think the definitions of investment and gambling need to be dependent on expected value. There can be bad investments, where the odds of a good result are low. Similarly, there could be gambling games where the odds are in the player's favor, either due to the skill of the player or through some quirk of the game; it's still gambling. Investing is purchasing an asset; gambling is a game of chance. I do not consider a lottery ticket an asset. When you buy a lottery ticket, you are just paying a fee to participate in a game. It is the same as putting a coin in a slot machine. The fact that you are given a piece of paper and made to wait a few days for the result do not change this. Assets have inherent value. They might be valuable because of their ability to generate income (stocks, bonds, debt), their utility (precious metals, commodities, real estate), or their desirability as a thing of beauty (collectibles), for example. A lottery ticket, however, is only an element of a game. It has no value other than in the game.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81274e1b77476085f38c34e0060682d1",
"text": "\"This question feels like an EL&U question to me, and so I will treat it as one. Investment, noun form of to invest, originally from the Latin investire, meaning to clothe, means: [T]o commit (money) in order to earn a financial return Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Invest, vb. tr., definition 1 As such, when a person commits money with the purpose of earning a financial return, they are investing. Playing the lottery, when done so for the purpose of financial return, would fall under this definition - even if it's a poor choice. Gambling, verb tense of to gamble, likely originally from the word gamen, meaning to play, means: a : to play a game for money or property b : to bet on an uncertain outcome Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Gamble, vb. itr., definition 1 Playing the lottery is clearly gambling (as a lottery is a game, by definition). The second definition could well include investing in the stock market, particularly certain kinds of investments (derivatives, currency speculation, for example). Aside from the definitions, however, normal usage clearly favors investment to be something with an expectation of positive return, while gambling is taking a risk without that expectation (rather with the hope of positive return). Legally, as well, playing the lottery is not something that is considered investment (so it is taxed differently). However, the question was \"\"Can\"\", and by definition, clearly it can be (assuming you are not asking legally).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aeb64b07561075ceb2b069672dc49c04",
"text": "From a mathematical expected-value standpoint, there is no difference between gambling (e.g. buying a lottery ticket) and investing (e.g. buying a share of stock). The former probably has negative expected value while the latter probably has positive expected value, but that is not a distinction to include in a definition (else every company that gives a bad quarterly earnings report suddenly changes categories). However, investment professionals have a vested interest in claiming there is a difference; that justifies them charging fees to steer you into the right investment. Consequently, hair-splitting ideas like the motive behind a purchase are introduced. The classification of an item to be purchased should not depend on the mental state of its purchaser. Depending on the situation, it may be right to engage in negative EV behavior. For example, if you have $1000 and need $2000 by next week or else you can't have an operation and you will die (and you can't find anyone to give you a loan). Your optimal strategy is to gamble your $1000, at the best odds you can get, with a possible outcome of $2000. So even if you only have a 1/3 chance of winning and getting that operation, it's still the right bet if you can't find a better one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e1a614a6c1eba9e5fe5b6d85ad36831",
"text": "\"Why must terms must be mutually exclusive? This (false) dichotomy is what seems to cause the most debate. It is the SINGLE EVENT OUTCOME that defines gambling. Gambling will involve an aleatory contract. That is, the outcome is specifically tied to a single event that determines profit/loss. This could be the outcome of a race or the roll of a dice, but should involve chance. This is why gambling is often in the context of a game, but I would make the argument that some investment tools fall into this category - The price of a stock at a certain date, for example. This may also be called \"\"betting\"\", which opens up a whole other discussion. Investing has no such implication, and as such it is the broader term. Investing is to put something (money) to work to return a profit. Some forms of gambling could fall under this umbrella. Some would say that is a \"\"bad investment\"\" and even if they are right, it may still be the desire and intent of the investor to make a profit. Not all gambling falls under investing. You can gamble for pleasure. The profit/loss of most investments are not contractually tied to a specific event or outcome (e.g. the price of a stock over 10 years is the result of many events affecting its market value). Such an investment would not be considered gambling.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "943130ce93b4e51ffd1dd1b79a500bb6",
"text": "\"logically, yes. legally, no. any reasonable definition of an \"\"investment\"\" must include some types of gambling and insurance. lottery tickets specifically are really crappy high risk/high return investment. obviously most people try to avoid investments with a negative average expected future value, but from a purely semantic perspective anything with a potential future value is an investment. conversely, anyone with a gambling problem should not pretend they are not gambling when making focused investments in high volatility stock options. that said, the irs taxes gains and losses differently depending on whether they are classified as \"\"gambling\"\", or just \"\"crappy investing\"\". so you will not be able to deduct your gambling losses from your earned income (unlike investment losses which can be deducted up to 3k$ per year).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f175d50b874cfd98fd91db1fb224437",
"text": "\"I am reminded of a dozen year old dialog. I asked my 6 year old, \"\"If we call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?\"\" She replied, \"\"Four, you can call it anything you want, but the dog still has four legs.\"\" Early on in my marriage, my wife was heading out to the mall, and remarked that she was \"\"going to invest in a new pair of shoes.\"\" I explained to her that while I was happy she would have new shoes to wear, words have meaning, and unless she was going to buy the ruby red slippers Dorothy wore in the Wizard of Oz, or Elvis' Blue Suede Shoes, her's were not expected to rise in value and weren't an investment. Some discussion followed, and we agreed even the treadmill, which is now 20 years old, was not an 'investment' despite the fact that it saved us more than its cost in a combined 40 years of gym memberships we did not buy. In the end, no one who is financially savvy calls a lottery ticket an investment, and few who buy them acknowledge that it's simply throwing money away.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf558c2e2343e30252737004eaaee0fe",
"text": "\"Although this has been touched upon in comments, I think the following line from the currently accepted answer shows the biggest issue: There is a clear difference between investing and gambling. The reality is that the difference isn't that clear at all. Tens of comments have been written arguing in both directions and looking around the internet entire essays have been written arguing both positions. The underlying emotion that seems to shape this discussion primarily is whether investing (especially in the stock market) is a form of gambling. People who do invest in this way tend to get relatively emotional whenever someone argues that this is a form of gambling, as gambling is considered a negative thing. The simple reality of human communication is that words can be ambiguous, and the way investors will use the words 'investments' and 'gambles' will differ from the way it is used by gamblers, and once again different from the way it's commonly used. What I definitely think is made clear by all the different discussions however is that there is no single distinctive trait that allows us to differentiate investing and gambling. The result of this is that when you take dictionary definitions for both terms you will likely end up including lottery tickets as a valid form of investment. That still however leaves us with a situation where we have two terms - with a strong overlap - which have a distinctive meaning in communication and the original question whether buying lottery tickets is an investment. Over on investorguide.com there is an absolutely amazing strongly recommended essay which explores countless of different traits in search of a difference between investing and gambling, and they came up with the following two definitions: Investing: \"\"Any activity in which money is put at risk for the purpose of making a profit, and which is characterized by some or most of the following (in approximately descending order of importance): sufficient research has been conducted; the odds are favorable; the behavior is risk-averse; a systematic approach is being taken; emotions such as greed and fear play no role; the activity is ongoing and done as part of a long-term plan; the activity is not motivated solely by entertainment or compulsion; ownership of something tangible is involved; a net positive economic effect results.\"\" Gambling: \"\"Any activity in which money is put at risk for the purpose of making a profit, and which is characterized by some or most of the following (in approximately descending order of importance): little or no research has been conducted; the odds are unfavorable; the behavior is risk-seeking; an unsystematic approach is being taken; emotions such as greed and fear play a role; the activity is a discrete event or series of discrete events not done as part of a long-term plan; the activity is significantly motivated by entertainment or compulsion; ownership of something tangible is not involved; no net economic effect results.\"\" The very interesting thing about those definitions is that they capture very well the way those terms are used by most people, and they even acknowledge that a lot of 'investors' are gambling, and that a few gamblers are 'investing' (read the essay for more on that). And this fits well with the way those two concepts are understood by the public. So in those definitions normally buying a lottery ticket would indeed not be an investment, but if we take for example Vadim's operation example If you have $1000 and need $2000 by next week or else you can't have an operation and you will die (and you can't find anyone to give you a loan). Your optimal strategy is to gamble your $1000, at the best odds you can get, with a possible outcome of $2000. So even if you only have a 1/3 chance of winning and getting that operation, it's still the right bet if you can't find a better one. this can suddenly change the perception and turn 'gambling' into 'high-risk investing'.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b361912b65ba982ea0d1c4dfda2b2f4b",
"text": "\"Buying lotteries tickets makes you the fish not the fisher. Just like casinos or drugs. If you like, you can call buying tickets an \"\"investment\"\" or better yet, a donation in the lottery's owner wealth. No real investor is dumb enough to get into a business where 99.9999999% of the \"\"investors\"\" lose EVERYTHING they invested. Besides, a real investments means BIG money. You can call it so if you are ready to sell your house and buy tickets of all those money, but still, the risk is so high that it's not worth it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f7e3a33499478e63a156d3575cb9e11",
"text": "Something that is missing from the discussion is the actual market for the lottery ticket -- if a market existed for the tickets themselves, that would make this far more obvious, but since there isn't one; buying a single ticket gives different Expected Values, but since the ticket has a defined 'game' instance, a single ticket is a gamble. Playing the lottery in the long run could be part of a high risk investment portfolio. [edited for clarity]",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2091cd62b5cbca7826df3753f9b1e77a",
"text": "\"Situation #1: I keep playing, and eventually earn 1000 PED. I withdraw this. Will I get taxed? If so, by how much? This is probably considered an \"\"award\"\", so whatever your country taxes for lottery/gambling winnings would be applicable. If there's no specific taxation on this kinds of income - then it is ordinary income. Situation #2: I deposit $5000, play the game, lose some money and withdraw PED equal to $4000. Will I get taxed? If so, by how much? Since it is a game, it is unlikely that deducting losses from your income would be allowed. However, the $4000 would probably not be taxed as income (since you are getting your own money back). Situation #3: I deposit $5000 and use this to buy in-game items. I later sell these items for massive profits (200%+, this can happen over the course of 2 years for sure). I withdraw $10000. Will I get taxed? If so, by how much? Either the same as #1 (i.e.: ordinary income) or as capital gains (although tax authority may argue that this was not a for-profit investment, and capital gains treatment shouldn't be applicable). Will I get taxed on withdrawals from Real Cash Economy games? And do the taxes apply to the full withdrawal, or only on the profits? Or only on the profits above a certain amount? Generally income taxes only apply on income. So if you paid $10000 and got back $12000 - only the $2000 is considered income. However some countries may tax full amounts under certain conditions. Such taxes are called \"\"franchise taxes\"\". For a proper tax advice consult with the locally licensed tax adviser.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2fe5acd9728103715dfdf53c097f4c8",
"text": "A large number of the general population spends the huge of their cash to purchase lotto tickets and further on some mystery frameworks that offer ensured to win lottery money. The Global Lottery deals ascend to $300 billion for each annum. Take this game as stimulation, not as a source of income since it doesn't ensure that you win. Our lotto e-book motto is to show people how to win small prizes on a regular basis.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edc0718cfe98e4cb618686f18277840e",
"text": "Easy. Start with 2 millions and lose only one. Jokes aside, if you want a million USD, you should be asking yourself how you can produce products or services worth $5 millions. (expect the extra to be eaten up by taxes, marketing, sales, workforce...) If by investment you mean making risky bets on the stock market, you might have a better time going to Las Vegas. On the other hand, if by investment you mean finding something that will produce $$$ and getting involved, it's a different matter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b6771db8851ff839a6450e6120b8f5d",
"text": "If you hold a future plus enough cash collateral it is economically equivalent to owning the underlying asset or shorting the underlying asset. In general financial assets such as stock indices have a positive expected return - that's the main difference between investing and gambling. There's nothing that special about futures, they are just another contractual form of asset ownership. Well, one difference is that regulations or brokerages allow individual investors more leverage with options and futures than with straight borrowing. But this is more a regulatory issue than a conceptual issue with the securities themselves. In theory regulators or brokers could require you to hold enough collateral to make a future equivalent to buying the underlying.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15e9d51f5d01bddba46fc1ea96a54e20",
"text": "\"When you invest in a property, you pay money to purchase the property. You didn't have to spend the money on the property though - you could have invested it in the stock market instead, and expected to make a 4% annualized real rate of return or thereabouts. So if you want to know whether something's a \"\"good investment\"\", ask whether your annual net income will be more or less than 4% of the money you put into it, and whether it is more or less risky than the stock market, and try to judge accordingly. Predicting the net income, though, is a can of worms, doubly so when some of your expenses aren't dollar-denominated (e.g. the time you spend dealing with the property personally) and others need to be amortized over an unpredictable period of time (how long will that furnace repair really last?). Moreover your annualized capital gain and rental income is also unpredictable; rent increases in a given area cannot be expected to conform to a predetermined mathematical formula. Ultimately it is impossible to predict in the general case - if it were possible we probably would have skipped that last housing bubble, so no single simple formula exists.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a02957a9a32e31d2f640034772b0d3af",
"text": "You're confused because the source you cite leaves out one number that isn't relevant to the argument they're making: total costs. The number you're expecting, $9 x 365 or $3285 is the total cost of buying the jewelry which, when subtracted from the $3650 sales volume gives us the net profit of $365. The investment is the amount of money original put into a system our company. In this case the merchant bought his first piece of jewelry for $9, sold it for $10, took one dollar in profit and used the other 9 to reinvest by buying a new piece of jewelry. We can extend the analogy further. After 9 days of selling, the merchant will posses $18, allowing him to now buy 2 pieces of jewelry each morning and sell them for $20. Every day his costs will be $18 and he'll turn a $2 profit, all with the original investment of $9.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a18ba9d2615f5c10a7d2b53e773cae58",
"text": "Although I am not a tax professional, and in this case you would be better off with a professional advice, my understanding (at least of Arizona, New York and California individual tax regulations that I've been dealing with) is that you only pay taxes in the state in which you're domiciled. Lottery winnings are payed by States/State-run corporations and as such sourced to the State that pays it. Buying a ticket in SC links you to the lottery run in that State, even if you live in another. You'll be claiming your winnings in SC, not in NC, and the winnings will be sourced to SC, not NC. As such SC will be taxing them. NC will be taxing them as well, since you're NC resident.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f387828f56595e9bb2de18d7b44aa736",
"text": "A lot of these answers are really weak. The expected value is pretty much the answer. You have to also though, especially as many many millions of tickets are purchased--make part of the valuation the odds of the jackpot being split x ways. So about 1 in 290--> the jackpot needs to be a take-home pot of $580 million for the $2 ticket. Assume the average # of winners is about 1.5 so half the time you're going to split the pot, bringing the valuation needed for the same jackpot to be $870 million. It's actually somewhat not common to have split jackpots because the odds are very bad + many people pick 'favourite numbers'.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98d9f2c9a4ae10eb6c2234f4874cd846",
"text": "Speculation means putting your money on a hunch that some event may occur, depending on current circumstances and some future circumstances. So either you win huge or lose a lot. Investment is a conscious decision made on well defined research and grounded on good reasons i.e. economy, industry, company reports etc. Here is a link on wikipedia with more details on Speculation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c4e169b6c52731461477d99dd8a91b8",
"text": "I think playing certain kinds of lottery is as economically sound as buying certain kinds of insurance. A lottery is an inverted insurance. Let me elaborate. We buy insurance for at least two reasons. The first one is clear: We pay a fee to protect ourselves from a risk which we don't want to (or cannot) bear. Although on average buying insurance is a loss, because we pay all the insurance's office buildings and employee's salaries, it still is a reasonable thing to do. (But it should also be clear that it is unreasonable to buy insurance for risks one could easily bear oneself.) The second reason to buy insurance is that it puts us at ease. We don't have to be afraid of theft or of a mistake we make which would make us liable or of water damage to our house. In that sense we buy freedom of sorrow for a fee, even if the damage wouldn't in fact ruin us. That's totally legitimate. Now I want to make the argument that buying a lottery ticket follows the same logic and is therefore not economically unreasonable at all. While buying a lottery ticket is on average a loss, it provides us with a chance to obtain an amount of money we would normally never get. (Eric Lippert made this argument already.) The lottery fee buys us a small chance of something very valuable, much as the insurance frees us from a small risk of something very bad. If we don't buy the ticket, we may have 0% chance of becoming (extremely) rich. If we buy one, we clearly have a chance > 0%, which can be considered an improvement. (Imagine you'd have a 0.0000001% chance to save the life of a loved one with a ticket who'd be 100% doomed otherwise. You'd bite.) Even the second argument, that an insurance puts us at ease, can be mirrored for lotteries. The chance to win something may provide entertainment in our otherwise dull everyday life. Considering that playing the lottery only makes sense for the chance to obtain more money than otherwise possible, one should avoid lotteries which have lots of smaller prizes because we are not really interested in those. (It would be more economical to save the money for smaller amounts.) We ideally only want lotteries which lean on the big money prizes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b31c1ca4e910dfd4bbe5570f884252d",
"text": "No. You owe taxes in the state you made the money. So unless you can convince the lottery company to retroactively move to Puerto Rico or such, you can't. As others said, if you win, that should not be your worries..",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b0c1e7fed13cf2a37b7ee9f879cd5af",
"text": "Firstly, playing the lottery is not investing it is gambling. The odds in gambling are always against you and with the house. Secondly, no one would ever give you a payout of 3 to 1 when the odds are 50:50, unless they were looking to give away money. Even when you place your chips on either red or black on a roulette table your payout if you are correct is 100% (double your money), however the odds of winning are less than 50%, there are 18 reds, 18 blacks and 2 greens (0 and 00). Even if you place your chips on one single number, your payout will be 35:1 but your odds of winning are 1:38. The odds are always with the house. If you want to play the lotto, use some money you don't need and expect to lose, have some fun and enjoy yourself if you get any small winnings. Gambling should be looked at as a source of entertainment not a source of investing. If you take gambling more serious than this then you might have a problem.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "180d2a7f0af42c2226913663d438e41b",
"text": "\"I think that the answer by @jkuz is good. I'd add that the there's a mathematically precise difference: Gambling games are typically \"\"zero-sum\"\" games, which means that every dollar won by one person is lost by another. (If there's a \"\"house\"\" taking a cut then it's worse than zero-sum, but let's ignore that for the moment.) None of the markets that you mentioned are zero-sum because it's possible for both parties in the transaction to \"\"win\"\" since they typically have different objectives. If I buy stock, I typically desire for it to go up to make money, but, if I sell stock, I typically sell it because I want the money to do something else completely. The \"\"something else\"\" might be invest in another instrument if I think it's better or I'm rebalancing risk. It might also be to buy a house, pay for college, or (if I'm in retirement living on my investments) to buy food. If the stock goes up, the buyer won (increased investment) but the seller also won (got the \"\"other thing\"\" that they wanted/needed), which they would not have been able to get had there not been a buyer willing to pay cash for the stock. Of course it's possible that in some cases not everyone wins because there is risk, but risk should not be considered synonymous with gambling because there's varying degrees of risk in everything you do.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8357a729b20014c82aa2ce046b89fe1c",
"text": "\"Gambling is perhaps not well defined, but it certainly doesn't include things like reality show winnings. However, it is possible he could deduct something for this. If the reality show qualifies as a \"\"hobby\"\", and his expenses exceed the 2% of AGI requirement, it's possible he could deduct those airplane tickets and such. That deduction is explained in Publication 529.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7acc0cc7b924cbf49ca9a80edd4ec788",
"text": "The satisfaction from gains packs less of an emotional impact than the fear of loss. It's very difficult for many people to overcome this fear, so when prices begin to fall, many investors sell to minimize their potential loss. This causes a further drop, which can lead to more selling as other investors reach their emotional threshold for loss. This emotion-based selling keeps the market inefficient in the short term. If there aren't enough value investors waiting to scoop up the stock at the new discount, it can stay undervalued for a long time.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a75a3dfbb3e75824e914fcad7b7df3ba
|
Is there any way to pay online in a country with no international banking system
|
[
{
"docid": "2baba78dfdae88f69f0fe2537b25cb3a",
"text": "According to Paypal, they support transactions in Ethiopia: https://www.paypal.com/webapps/mpp/country-worldwide https://developer.paypal.com/docs/classic/api/country_codes/ However those appear to be limited to transferring money out of the country. (link) There is an article here (link) which talks about how to transfer money from paypal back to your bank in Ethiopia. It sounds like you have to set up a US bank account, withdraw the funds to that then somehow transfer the money from their to your bank. NOTE: I have no relationship to any of the sites above, nor do I know if the information is accurate or the trustworthiness of those businesses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f322ddbf93372f3941aa018e48da74ed",
"text": "paypal says it works with CBE but can't seem to link my account with them, but skrill works perfectly just go to www.skrill.com sign up and you can link your bank account with your skrill account, i've had a few transactions so it should work for you too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ebe64ae34acfabbb767ba96a5b00dc0",
"text": "If the vendor accepts cryptocurrencies, this may be your only option. It's not clear if exporting cryptocurrency violates Ethiopian law, but at least cryptocurrencies have not yet been banned. If you can find someone who can trade you cryptocurrency, you can send it anywhere. Because cryptocurrencies are still extremely price volatile, I recommend you use Ripple, the fastest I can find. It can 100% confirm transactions on average within 10 seconds. This will keep your exposure to price volatility at a minimum if you send the cryptocurrency as soon as you buy it. If you choose this route, please take precausions. Your government may retroactively ban it and pursue you. Considering the Ethiopian government's history, this is not unlikely, and banning cryptocurrencies outright is.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "92bc54545894a84958a397e020d8c194",
"text": "\"Nowadays, some banks in some countries offer things like temporary virtual cards for online payments. They are issued either free of charge or at a negligible charge, immediately, via bank's web interface (access to which might either be free or not, this varies). You get a separate account for the newly-issued \"\"card\"\" (the \"\"card\"\" being just a set of numbers), you transfer some money there (same web-interface), you use it to make payment(s), you leave $0 on that \"\"card\"\" and within a day or a month, it expires. Somewhat convenient and your possible loss is limited tightly. Check if your local banks offer this kind of service.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "171da9a1d82cdc4cd6214ec74d6f3edf",
"text": "With the recent drive in AML [Anti Money Laundering], quite a few countries being signatories; the central banks in almost all countries[that matter] have put in stronger KYC guidelines. This means you will not be able to remotely open a Bank Account in Thailand. More info at below links http://www.bangkokbank.com/BANGKOKBANK/PERSONALBANKING/SPECIALSERVICES/FOREIGNCUSTOMERS/Pages/Openinganaccountnew.aspx http://www.samuifinder.com/en/koh-samui-info/money-in-thailand/bank-account-thailand/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47a26543206f7468bb70e67639da2474",
"text": "No you will have no problems. It's been fourteen years since I've lived in the UK and I've had no trouble with my UK bank accounts in that time. They have happily mailed me statements and new cards abroad for all that time, and I've deposited cheques by mailing them to the branch. Online banking takes care of almost everything else. The only thing I wasn't able to do from abroad was open a new account, because of anti money-laundering regulations. Even that may be possible if you presented the right kind of ID when you opened the original account - mine predated the regulations. Most UK banks will also offer 'offshore' banking for non-residents in which interest is not deducted at source.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e6e9db9180e560964e04f5236776f4b",
"text": "You could use a Credit or Debit Card running in US $, drawing from your US$ account, and pay everything with it. If you pick a company with free foreign conversions, you would get the standard interbank exchange ratio every time you pay, with no fee. For the small payments where credit cards are not accpeted or useful you can convert some cash once every some month - all significant amounts should work with credit or debit card.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fe59b73bc4ebfe8b534e03f3f4cc6a5",
"text": "\"Yes, many banks offer such a service. Often such payments can be made through their \"\"bill pay\"\" interface. You log in to your account on the bank's website, enter the recipient's routing and account numbers, and off you go. You could ask your bank whether they offer this. If not, you could change banks to one that does.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9825f66ddff2952845d37a42b68709f",
"text": "\"I live in Kenya, and also here we have corruption. However, we use EFT, RTGS, Mobile Money and its more safe than cheques. Beware, that paper based payments cost you way more than anything electronic. Often the bank charge you for the cheque book, they charge for receiving paper based payment instruments, and settlement is often a day or two, while mobile/electronic settlement is instant. Seen from a tenants perspective, its also easier. Imagine too, the small likelihood that you loose the cheques from your tenants? Your fear for your account is understandable, but you may need to learn a little now, about how accounts are handled. In an online community only the persons with the necessary electronic credentials can withdraw from your account, being it online via your screen, or at the cashier, or by other means. Therefore, your money are safer via the electronic means. The cause of your concern / unease can be that you are relinquishing your control from a paper-based, visible system, into a system which you may not know so much about, maybe because of that you have not done so much on computers, yet. As a most recent caveat, though, don't get into the so called bitcoin technology, it is not safe, and as you saw, most recently, the very owner himself became the perpetrator breaking his very own bank by artificially inflating amounts on his own account, according to Japanese authorities. Now, electronic banking has been in existence since soon 40 years. Its based on cash, so behind the scenes, between the banks, huge deposits of cash are being moved physically, around from vault to vault, in the bank's money exchange / transaction settlement system. Thereby, a bank does not need to physically transfer money from one physical bank building to another - as they have huge loads of cash stashed in central depositories, between which they can now exchange money as compensation for cheques and electronic transfers. So, behind the scene of the electronic world, there are still physical cash being moved around, deep under the ground, in such vaults. I hope this has given you a little bit of confidence in the \"\"modern times\"\". If you have further questions, you are welcome. These were my 50 cents :-). My background is in software development, where I have worked on banking systems for more than 10 years, making banking systems, as part of huge teams, working for the largest banks in the world.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5adab0640e28fa25efff4062a2c1ffa7",
"text": "\"Is there a solution here that would allow me to provide him with a debit card in his name that I could fund, that wouldn't have foreign transaction fees associated with it (I'd probably be okay with a small fixed ATM fee). There are separate issues here. There is no law limiting bank accounts to U.S. citizens, but most banks will not open an account for a non-citizen outside their declared service area. There are substantial legal liabilities to the bank in allowing it, whether a citizen or non-citizen. The difficulty will be compliance with the Patriot Act. This is an extension of the older \"\"Know Your Customer\"\" doctrine. It is improbable that the bank could comply with the Act without the potential customer being physically present. You would have to check with your bank in advance as to their policies. Banks are not required to accept a customer outside their policies. As to waiving the foreign transaction fee, that is very improbable. Although a handful of institutions do this in specific cases it is uncommon because the bank isn't actually charging the fee, they are passing it along. With a credit card they collect interest and waiving the fee can be thought of as a reduction in interest income, that isn't possible on a debit card. You would want to make sure you have a scrupulously honest nephew. You could be held criminally liable for any actions he takes at both the state and the federal level. U.S. law is global. A citizen who commits a crime in any country of the world can be charged for it in the United States. By being on the account you can acquire any liabilities that are created as an accomplice. This is a bigger issue at the federal level because 4,000 federal laws do not require criminal intent. Some do not require you to even know the action happened. Unlike state law which generally requires you intended to commit a crime and had to be aware of it, federal law often does not. It is also not adequate that the action is legal in Russia if it would be illegal in the United States. If I get a card in my name, and give it to him to use to withdraw money from ATMs, is that legal? What problems might that cause? It is legal, but you are now strictly liable for its use. See the above answer. It would probably get shut down anyway when they phone you and asked: \"\"are you in Russia right now?\"\" The bank is still liable for you giving away the card. The bank may close out all your accounts and submit a currency transaction report on you to the Treasury for possible money laundering. Wire the money. Plan out how much and when, but just wire it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f04c572febf901d91fa7fbf164c5f1f",
"text": "Your chief problem seems to be that you're mixing Visa (credit cards) and Step2 (a European Automated Clearing House). Credit cards are primarily an American concept, but do work worldwide especially in travel&tourism industry. The Credit Card companies are financial institutions themselves and operate similar to international banks They're typically acting as intermediaries between the customer's bank and the retailer's bank, so this works even if those two banks have no existing agreements. This is expensive, though. Step2 is a cheaper European system which eliminates the middle man. It allows the consumer's bank to directly pay the retailer's bank. VISA is not a member of Step2.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73851022abdb3f0a43549072dcdda4a5",
"text": "This really should be a comment, but I can't yet. The question desperately needs a location tag. In at least some countries(New Zealand), the default action on all insufficient funds transactions is to refuse the transaction. Credit cards are the only common exception. Every bank operating in NZ that I know of acts this way. Sometimes there is a fee for bouncing a transaction, sometimes not, that depends on the bank. Any other option must be explicitly arranged in writing with the bank. Personally, coming from a country where declining transactions is the default, I'd be shocked and angry to be stuck with an automatic transfer from another account. Angry enough to change banks if they won't immediately cease and desist.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74b25d87de6f12b66ccaba4060f36109",
"text": "You would need to ask the College. If they accept Wire Transfer, get the Bank details and ask your bank in Ethiopia to make the international transfer. If the college asks for a Bankers check or some other form, take these details and ask you Bank in Ethiopia to arrange for same.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37f1468d33edbdf2cc73c45e8868ae69",
"text": "\"Actually in Finland on some bank + debit/credit card + online retailer combinations you type in your card details as you normally do, but after clicking \"\"Buy\"\" you get directed to your own bank's website which asks you to authenticate yourself with online banking credentials. It also displays the amount of money and to which account it is being paid to. After authentication you get directed back to the retailer's website. Cannot say why banks in US haven't implemented this.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d14c708264ea9f9d8eb46a76dd39c6e1",
"text": "It can be done, but I believe it would be impractical for most people - i.e., it would likely be cheaper to fly to Europe from other side of the world to handle it in person if you can. It also depends on where you live. You should take a look if there are any branches or subsidiaries of foreign banks in your country - the large multinational banks most likely can open you an account in their sister-bank in another country for, say, a couple hundred euro in fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56f82db3f78d5f5a19e418772f91d4da",
"text": "Many banks offer online payment. He can add a payee and just type your name and address in. The bank will mail the check out if they cannot deliver payment electronically. Edit: Recently I came across this (Citibank Global Transfer), you and your friend should see if your bank offers a similar service. Citibank requires both of you to have an account with them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b104d3cec797c0803b96f0f4af67700",
"text": "If you only need to buy stuff online you could consider using paypal perhaps? If you really need an bank account, you could also look at an offshore bank account, HSBC has accounts in multiple currencies, but you will need to be eligible (have a ton of money and provide some documentation).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36094ade5ebd58a72431950f9e483f7d",
"text": "This is not allowed, and there is a name for it: IBAN discrimination. Searching for that term will give you some pointers what to do about it. The EU regulation that prohibits this is 260/2012, article 9, paragraph 2: A payee accepting a credit transfer or using a direct debit to collect funds from a payer holding a payment account located within the Union shall not specify the Member State in which that payment account is to be located, provided that the payment account is reachable in accordance with Article 3. You can report this at the relevant national authorities. In the Netherlands, this is De Nederlandsche Bank, which has a special e-mail address for this: [email protected]",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.