Split (1)

train · 58.4k rows

query_id stringlengths 32 32	query stringlengths 7 4.81k	positive_passages listlengths 1 23	negative_passages listlengths 10 100	subset stringclasses 7 values
cc4d0abda910d06a2e135af4739c9893	When is the right time to buy a new/emerging technology?	[ { "docid": "f09139630d79fcf3de3541ad61eb8b70", "text": "If you're looking for a purely financial answer (ignoring the social/environmental aspects) there are a few different ways you can look at it. For these types of improvements the simplest is a payback calculation. How long would it take you to recoup the initial costs? For example, if the entire installation cost $5,000 (including any tax credits), and you save $100 per month (I'm making both numbers up), you'll pay back your investment in 50 months, or about 4 years. (Note that if you borrow money to do the improvement, then your payback period is longer because you're reducing the amount that you're saving each month by paying interest.) If you're deciding between different uses for the money (like investing, or paying down other debt) then you can look at the return that you're getting. Using the same example, you are spending $5,000 and getting $100 per month back, for a 24% annual return ($1,200 / $5,000), which is better than you can get on almost anything but a 401(k) match (meaning don't stop your 401(k) contributions to do this either). The decision on whether or wait or not then becomes - will the price drop faster than the amount of savings you will realize. So if you will save $100 per month in your electric bill, is the price of the complete installation going down by more than $100 each month? If not, you'd be better off buying now and start paying back the investment sooner.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7b23d7b3242c0f126e48a4d2f6e2edc", "text": "The short answer is that it's never the right time to buy an emerging technology. As long as the technology is emerging, you should expect that newer revisions will be both better and less expensive. With solar, specifically, there are some tax credits to help the early adopters that may help you on the cost/benefit analysis, but in the end, you still have to decide whether the benefits outweigh the costs now, and if not, whether that will change in the near future. For me, part of the solar benefit is the ability to generate electricity when the power goes out. That option does require local battery storage, however. One of the benefits of using Musk's solar tiles instead of actual slate is the weight of the quartz tiles which is much lower than the weight of real slate. In many cases a slate roof is heavy enough to require major reinforcement of the roof trusses before installation. The lower weight also saves significantly on shipping costs. This is where Musk can lower costs enough to be competitive to some of the materials he hope to compete with.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a29b0792cd39ac89b4fa096127c4a585", "text": "When is the right time to buy a new/emerging technology? When it's trading at a discount that allows you to make your money back and then some. The way you presented it, it is of course impossible to say. You have to look at exactly how much cheaper and efficient it will be, and how long that will take. Time too has a cost, and being invested has opportunity cost, so the returns must not only arrive in expected quantity but also arrive on time. Since you tagged this investing, you should look at the financial forecasts of the business, likely future price trajectories, growth opportunity and so on, and buy if you expect a return commensurate with the risk, and if the risk is tolerable to you. If you are new to investment, I would say avoid Musk, there's too much hype and speculation and their valuations are off the charts. You can't make any sensible analysis with so much emotion running wild. Find a more obscure, boring company that has a sound business plan and a good product you think is worth a try. If you read about it on mainstream news every day you can be sure it's sucker bait. Also, my impression that these panels are actually really expensive and have a snowball's chance in Arizona (heh) in a free market. Recently the market has been manipulated through green energy subsidies of a government with a strong environmentalist voter base. This has recently changed, in case you haven't heard. So the future of solar panels is looking a bit uncertain. I am thinking about buying solar panels for my roof. That's not an investment question, it's a shopping question. Do you actually need a new roof? If no, I'd say don't bother. Last I checked the payoff is very small and it takes over a decade to break even, unless you live in a desert next to the Mexican border. Many places never break even. Electricity is cheap in the United States. If you need a new roof anyway, I suppose look at the difference. If it's about the same you might as well, although it's guaranteed to be more hassle for you with the panels. Waiting makes no sense if you need a new roof, because who knows how long that will take and you need a roof now. If a solar roof appeals to you and you would enjoy having one for the price available, go ahead and get one. Don't do it for the money because there's just too much uncertainty there, and it doesn't scale at all. If you do end up making money, good for you, but that's just a small, unexpected bonus on top of the utility of the product itself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0388757d1240e9f213f9597711d299ac", "text": "As you said, the next generation will be cheaper and more efficient. Same for the generation after that. From a financial standpoint, there isn't a steadfast theory that supports when to buy the technology. It comes down to primarily personal issues. As far as I know, Musk's claims about the cost were relating to a traditional slate roof, not a traditional asphalt shingle roof. I can't recall if he explicitly said one way or the other, but I have yet to see any math that supports a comparison to asphalt shingles. If you look at all of the demos and marketing material, it's comparisons to various styles of tile roofing, which is already more expensive than asphalt shingles. Do you feel it's worth it to invest now, or do you think it would be more worth it to invest later when the costs are lower? A new roof will last 10-20 years (if not longer...I'm not a roof expert). Do you need a new roof yet? Are your electricity bills high enough that the cost of going solar will offset it enough? Can you sell unused power back to your power company? I could go on, but I think you get the point. It's entirely a personal decision, and not one that will have a definitive answer. If you keep waiting to make a purchase because you're worried that the next generation will be cheaper and more efficient, then you're never going to make the purchase.", "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": "5d876cb085eda6e8eea31f3493f64d58", "text": "You want to buy when the stock market is at an all-time low for that day. Unfortunately, you don't know the lowest time until the end of the day, and then you, uh can't buy the stock... Now the stock market is not random, but for your case, we can say that effectively, it is. So, when should you buy the stock to hopefully get the lowest price for the day? You should wait for 37% of the day, and then buy when it is lower than it has been for all of that day. Here is a quick example (with fake data): We have 18 points, and 37% of 18 is close to 7. So we discard the first 7 points - and just remember the lowest of those 7. We bear in mind that the lowest for the first 37% was 5. Now we wait until we find a stock which is lower than 5, and we buy at that point: This system is optimal for buying the stock at the lowest price for the day. Why? We want to find the best position to stop automatically ignoring. Why 37%? We know the answer to P(Being in position n) - it's 1/N as there are N toilets, and we can select just 1. Now, what is the chance we select them, given we're in position n? The chance of selecting any of the toilets from 0 to K is 0 - remember we're never going to buy then. So let's move on to the toilets from K+1 and onwards. If K+1 is better than all before it, we have this: But, K+1 might not be the best price from all past and future prices. Maybe K+2 is better. Let's look at K+2 For K+2 we have K/K+1, for K+3 we have K/K+2... So we have: This is a close approximation of the area under 1/x - especially as x → ∞ So 0 + 0 + ... + (K/N) x (1/K + 1/K+1 + 1/K+2 ... + 1/N-1) ≈ (K/N) x ln(N/K) and so P(K) ≈ (K/N) x ln(N/K) Now to simplify, say that x = K/N We can graph this, and find the maximum point so we know the maximum P(K) - or we can use calculus. Here's the graph: Here's the calculus: To apply this back to your situation with the stocks, if your stock updates every 30 seconds, and is open between 09:30 and 16:00, we have 6.5 hours = 390 minutes = 780 refreshes. You should keep track of the lowest price for the first 289 refreshes, and then buy your stock on the next best price. Because x = K/N, the chance of you choosing the best price is 37%. However, the chance of you choosing better than the average stock is above 50% for the day. Remember, this method just tries to mean you don't loose money within the day - if you want to try to minimise losses within the whole trading period, you should scale this up, so you wait 37% of the trading period (e.g. 37% of 3 months) and then select. The maths is taken from Numberphile - Mathematical Way to Choose a Toilet. Finally, one way to lose money a little slower and do some good is with Kiva.org - giving loans to people is developing countries. It's like a bank account with a -1% interest - which is only 1% lower than a lot of banks, and you do some good. I have no affiliation with them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c62a9ef6ddf8a9f66d4ec1c669245f41", "text": "\"Basically, unless you are an investment professional, you should not be investing in a venture in a developing country shown to you by someone else. The only time you should be investing in a developing country is if a \"\"lightbulb\"\" goes off in your head and you say to yourself, \"\"With my engineering background, I can develop this machine/process/concept that will work better in this country than anywhere else in the world.\"\" And then run it yourself. (That's what Michael Dell, a computer repairman, did for \"\"made to order\"\" computers in the United States, and \"\"the rest is history.\"\") E.g. if you want to invest in \"\"real estate\"\" in a developing country, you might design a \"\"modular home\"\" out of local materials, tailored to local tastes, and selling for less than local equivalents, based on a formula that you know better than anyone else in the world. And then team up with a local who can sell it for you. Whatever you do, don't \"\"invest\"\" and revisit it in 10-15 years. It will be gone.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d852c52b7861c2ea92f12f79e72212a", "text": "By not timing the market and being a passive investor, the best time to invest is the moment you have extra money (usually when wages are received). The market trends up. $10 fee on $2000 represents 0.5% transaction cost, which is borderline prohibitive. I would suggest running simulations, but I suspect that 1 month is the best because average historical monthly total return is more than 0.5%.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb8c0f954bb7a2e6924705100868bec4", "text": "Let's say that you bought a share of Apple for $10. When (if ever) their stock sold for $10, it was a very small company with a very small net worth; that is, the excess of assets over liabilities. Your $10 share was perhaps a 1/10,000,000th share of a tiny company. Over the years, Apple has developed both software and hardware that have real value to the world. No-one knew they needed a smartphone and, particularly, an iPhone, until Apple showed it to us. The same is true of iPads, iPods, Apple watches, etc. Because of the sales of products and services, Apple is now a huge company with a huge net worth. Obviously, your 1/10,000,000th share of the company is now worth a lot more. Perhaps it is worth $399. Maybe you think Apples good days are behind it. After all, it is harder to grow a huge company 15% a year than it is a small company. So maybe you will go into the marketplace and offer to sell your 1/10,000,000th share of Apple. If someone offers you $399, would you take it? The value of stocks in the market is not a Ponzi scheme, although it is a bit speculative. You might have a different conclusion and different research about the future value of Apple than I do. Your research might lead you to believe the stock is worth $399. Mine might suggest it's worth $375. Then I wouldn't buy. The value of stocks in the market is based on the present and estimated future value of living, breathing companies that are growing, shrinking and steady. The value of each company changes all the time. So, then, does the price of the stock. Real value is created in the stock market when real value is created in the underlying company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "719104e49dea86adee1d721d1f412b5e", "text": "Remove your money. If you do not need this money for some time, you can convert it to Gold, and now is a good time to buy. Gold is not expected to decrease much in price as we're already at the bottom of the employment cycle and the Depression is already begun and will take about two years to grip the world.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e5e47bf5b7cbbafca617ed1640c3f45", "text": "\"The best time to buy a stock is the time of day when the stock price is lowest! Obviously you learned nothing from that sentence, but unfortunately you won't get a much better answer than that. Here's a question that is very similar to yours: \"\"Is it better to have a picnic for lunch or for dinner to minimize the chance of getting rained out?\"\" Every day is different...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d3786a4e8a8966bf704974b96a52ffa", "text": "\"Actually, this is a pretty good analogy to certain types of stocks, specifically tech and other \"\"fad\"\" stocks. Around the turn of the century, there were a lot of \"\"Bobs\"\" buying tech stocks (like they would baseball cards), for tech stocks' sakes. That's what drove the internet and tech stock bubbles of high valuations. At other times, the tech stocks are bought and sold mainly by \"\"Steve's\"\" for business reasons such as likely (not merely possible) future appreciation, and command a much lower valuation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ecaf5b8798b632c7f3dde298577f22c5", "text": "\"In this environment, I don't think that it is advisable to buy a broad emerging market fund. Why? \"\"Emerging market\"\" is too broad... Look at the top 10 holdings of the fund... You're exposed to Russia & Brazil (oil driven), Chinese and Latin American banks and Asian electronics manufacturing. Those are sectors that don't correlate, in economies that are unstable -- a recipie for trouble unless you think that the global economy is heading way up. I would recommend focusing on the sectors that you are interested in (ie oil, electronics, etc) via a low cost vehicle like an index ETF or invest using a actively managed emerging markets fund with a strategy that you understand. Don't invest a dime unless you understand what you are getting into. An index fund is just sorting companies by market cap. But... What does market cap mean when you are buying a Chinese bank?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2dc6d6fc7fc3635ee59de7c15499d99", "text": "The segment only briefly talked about the economic aspect of this. I feel a lot of this has to do with the fact that tech companies are IP heavy as supposed to capital heavy. This makes them more flexible to enter new markets. It is somewhat unthinkable for a non-tech company to go into a market in a different vertical (e.g. Amazon going into movie making). Also I much rather the government tackle cable/utilities monopoly first, as that market is already anti-consumer even on price. Tech is still pro-consumer on price, just anti-consumer on choice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b82dfef6dbd9e0551f0b3fb6cb756590", "text": "In the theory: Somewhere between the most you think you can get, and the minimum you think you deserve In your case: If they want you to actually invest, they aren't purely interested in your technical expertise. which means that you need to actually believe in the idea and be involved in the decision making process. That really depends on what technology entrepreneurship exactly you are talking about.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2cb116b7138656269772ea1ef0834246", "text": "This is something I love about only investing in tech. Every company I'd want to invest in has a great balance sheet anyway, that's just how their economics work, so I don't have to worry about this. I actually work in reverse. Like with AAPL, I'm deducting their cash from their market cap to get an even more attractive valuation. As opposed to trying to work out all the complex debt and liabilities of a bank or something. AAPL actually does have some debt now but it's dead simple to deduct and only a workaround to their offshore cash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5dee461595cf49c9e87ebe15415b1ee2", "text": "This is dumb on many levels. First are they really trying to blame the Flash Crash for investors leaving the market. It's 2014 and they claim in 17 of 25 months since the 2010 crash investors have withdrawn (not really sure what this means either, since shares don't disappear- does this just mean the market is up? It's unclear). Either way the article quoted is from 2012! And for a research team creating an empirical model, this is a very scary usage of small sample size, mistaking correlation for causation, etc. And the algo, though they don't give much info, seems to be the very essence of data mining. Pick a million signals and filter on those that are empirically the best. If you are an individual investor or a small fund thinking of purchasing something like this, first consider: if it really worked, why are the founders selling it when they could just use it themselves and profit from it? It's almost guaranteed not to work out of sample", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8385719c8db684b5a4e3be501ec207d1", "text": "\"Your chance of even correctly recognizing the actual lowest point of a dip are essentially zero, so if you try to time the market, you'll most likely not get the \"\"buy cheap\"\" part perfectly right. And as you write yourself, while you wait for the dip, you have an ongoing opportunity cost. Cost averaging is by far the best strategy for non-professional and risk averse investors to deal with this. And yes, over the long run, it's far more important to invest at all than when you do it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2a40a55ccb43867015befa3ae7927e4", "text": "\"The price movements of Bitcoin are actually cogent in at least one sense: Why in the world would somebody use bitcoin right now to buy anything? That $100 item you bought today represents (to most) a huge opportunity cost as far as \"\"missed returns in the future\"\" go. It's basically a dollar-deflationary cycle, which we know to be corrosive to an economy: You don't buy today what you expect to be cheaper tomorrow. That's highly problematic for bitcoin as far as business adoption is concerned.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
f21ed4e7ebd37e099f9049dda8fb657e	What is the difference between “good debt” vs. “bad debt”?	[ { "docid": "141eafddbda39e17d4fc29f187dd72dc", "text": "\"The word \"\"good\"\" was used in contrast to \"\"bad\"\" but these words are misused here. There are three kinds of debt: Debt for spending. Never go into debt to buy consumables, go out for a good time, for vacations, or other purchases with no lasting financial value. Debt for depreciating assets, such as cars and sometimes things like furniture. There are those who put this in the same category as the first, but I know many people who can budget a car payment and pay it off during the life of the car. In a sense, they are renting their car and paying interest while doing so. Debt for appreciating, money-making assets. Mortgage and student loans are both often put into the good category. The house is the one purchase that, in theory, provides an immediate return. You know what it saves you on the rent. You know what it costs you, after tax. If someone pays 20% of their income toward their fixed rate mortgage, and they'd otherwise be paying 25% to rent, and long term the house will keep up with inflation, it's not bad in the sense that they need to aggressively get rid of it. Student loans are riskier in that the return is not at all guaranteed. I think that one has to be careful not to graduate with such a loan burden that they start their life under a black cloud. Paying 10% of your income for 10 years is pretty crazy, but some are in that position. Finally, some people consider all debt as bad debt, live beneath their means to be debt free as soon as they can, and avoid borrowing money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "262b3aa336e364f9d8b702737a0c465a", "text": "I think people are conflating two orthogonal sets of terms. Unsecured/secured and good/bad are not synonyms. Debt may be secured or unsecured. If I take a loan against a car or house it is typically secured, so the object is collateral against the loan. Bad debt in financial terms is a loan that is not expected to be recovered. A bank might write off a loan or a portion of a loan as bad debt if the borrower goes bankrupt or into administration for example. Both secured and unsecured loans may be considered bad debt. I think the context in which the question is being asked is how to distinguish between sensible and inadvisable borrowing. An extreme example of inadvisable borrowing would be to buy a PC on a store card. PCs devalue very quickly and a store card may charge 30% APR, so paying the minimum off each month would mean paying more than twice the sticker price for a product that is now worth less than half the original borrowed amount. On the other hand, a 3% mortgage when borrowing less than 60% of the value of a property is a good bet from a lender's perspective, and would be a good debt to have (not as good as no debt, but better thhan a high APR one).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc857f6d3574927958580066c5cdad09", "text": "\"Here's what Suze Orman has to say about it: Good debt is money you borrow to purchase an asset, such as a home you can afford. History shows that home values generally rise in step with the inflation rate, so a mortgage is good debt. Student loans are, too, because they're an investment in the future. Census data pegs the average lifetime earnings of a high school graduate at a million dollars below that of someone with a bachelor's degree. Bad debt is money you borrow to buy a depreciating asset or to finance a \"\"want\"\" rather than a \"\"need.\"\" A car is a depreciating asset; from the day you drive it off the lot, it starts losing value. Credit card balances or a home equity line of credit that's used to pay for indulgences—vacations, shopping, spa days—is bad debt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90d93fb8b362e381549433cb9ca8678c", "text": "\"In general, all forms of debt are bad, as they keep you tied to a financial institution and can be an emotional burden for many. In the book Payback (by Margaret Atwood), debt is even described as a sin. However some forms of debt are necessary and some can help create wealth. \"\"Good\"\" debt: a mortgage - to purchase a home, which is an asset that usually appreciates in value. Necessary debt: car loan or lease - only when there is no other mode of transportation to get to work. Really bad debt: unpaid credit cards - for dinners out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a53203e93e54c64b01441646a3c92d95", "text": "\"None of the previous answers (which are all good) mention margin accounts (loans from your broker). You may also have heard them described as \"\"leverage\"\". It may seem odd to mention this rather narrow form of debt here, but it's important because overuse of leverage has played a large part in pretty much every financial crisis you can think of (including the most recent one). As the Investopedia definitions indicate, leverage magnifies gains, but also magnifies losses. I consider margin/leverage to be \"\"bad\"\" debt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8aaf167eb2c41d5f96cc799f1d14288", "text": "First of all debt is a technology that allows borrower to bring forward their spending; it's a financial time machine. From borrowers point of view debt is good when it increases overall economic utility. A young person wants to bring up a family but cannot afford the house. Had they waited for 30 years they would have reached the level of income and savings to buy the house for cash. By the time it might be too late to raise a family, sure they'd enjoy the house for the last 20 years of their life. But they would loose 30 years of utility - they could have enjoyed the house for 50 years! So, for a reasonable fee, they can bring the spending forward. Another young person might want to enjoy a life of luxury, using the magical debt time machine and bringing forward their future earnings. They might spend 10 years worth of future earnings on entertainment within a year and have a blast. Due to the law of diminishing marginal utility - all that utility is pretty much wasted, but they'll still will need to make sacrifices in the future. The trick is to roughly match the period of debt repayment to the economic life of the purchase. Buying a house means paying over 30 years for an asset that has an economic life of 80 years+, given that the interest fee is reasonable and the house won't loose it's value overnight that's a good debt. Buying a used car with a remaining life of 5 years and financing its with a seven years loan - is not a good idea. Buying a luxurious holiday that lasts a fortnight with 2 years of repayments, i.e. financing non-essential short term need with medium term debt is insane. The other question is could the required utility be achieved through a substitute at a lower cost without having to bring the spending forward or paying the associated fee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "caeb923f77b21e2486ed1b64f5c179df", "text": "\"From what I've heard in the past, debt can be differentiated between secured debt and unsecured debt. Secured debt is a debt for which something stands good such as a mortgage on your house. You have a debt, but that debt is covered by the value of an asset and if you needed to free yourself of the debt, then you could by selling that asset. This is what is known as \"\"good\"\" debt. Unsecured debt is debt that is incurred where the only thing that is available to pay it back is your income. An example of this is credit card debt where you purchase something that couldn't be sold again to pay off the debt. This is know as \"\"bad\"\" debt. You have to be careful about thinking that house debt is always \"\"good\"\" debt because the house stands good for it though. The problem with that is that the house could go down in value and then suddenly your \"\"good\"\" debt is \"\"bad\"\" debt (or no longer secured). Cars are very risky this way because they go down in value. It is really easy to get a car loan where before long you are upside down. This is the problem with the term \"\"good\"\" debt. The label makes it sound like it is a good idea to have that debt, and the risk associated with having the debt is trivialized and allows yourself to feel good about your financial plan. Perhaps this is why so many houses are in foreclosure right now, people believed the \"\"good\"\" debt myth and thought that it was ok to borrow MORE than the home was worth to get into a house. Thus they turned a secured debt into an unsecured debt and put their residence at risk by levels of debt they couldn't afford. Other advice I've heard and tend to agree with, is that you should only borrow for a house, an education and maybe a car (danger on that last one), being careful to buy a modest house, car etc that is well within your means to repay. So if you do have to borrow for a car, go for basic transportation instead of the $40,000 BMW. Keep you house payment less than 1/4th of your take home pay. Pay off the school loans as quickly as possible. Regardless of the label, \"\"good\"\" \"\"bad\"\" \"\"unsecured\"\" \"\"secured\"\", I think that less debt is better than more debt. There is definitely such a thing as too much \"\"good\"\" debt!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c27dc08d8b8d07b4672b01911a91d43", "text": "\"All very good answers for the most part, but I have a definition for Good and Bad debt which is a little bit different from those mentioned here so far. The definitions come from Robert Kiyosaki in his book \"\"Rich Dad Poor Dad\"\", which I have applied to all my debts. Good Debt - Good Debt is debt used to fund a money making asset, an asset which puts money into your pockets (or bank account) each month. In other words the income produced by that asset is more than all the expenses (including the interest repayments on the debt) associated with the asset. Bad Debt - Bad Debt is debt used to fund both money losing assets and non-assets, where the interest repayments on the debt are more than any income (if any at all) produced by the goods or services the debt was used to purchase, so that you need to take money out of your pockets (or bank account) each month to sustain the debt. Based on this definition a mortgage used to purchase the house you live in would be classed as bad debt. Why? Because you are making interest repayments on the mortgage and you have other expenses related to the house like rates and maintenance, but you have no income being produced by the house. Even a mortgage on an investment (or rental) property where the rent is not enough to cover all the expenses is considered to be bad debt. For the debt on an investment property to be considered as good debt, the rent would have to cover the full interest payments and all other expenses. In other words it would need to be a positively geared (or a cashflow positive) asset. Why is this definition important in distinguishing between good and bad debt? Because it looks at the cashflow associated with the debt and not the profit. The main reason why most investors and businesses end up selling up or closing down is due to insufficient cashflow. It may be a profitable business, or the value of the property may have increased since you bought it, but if you don't have enough cash every month to pay the bills associated with the asset you will need to sell it. If the asset produces enough cashflow to pay for all the expenses associated with the asset, then you don't have to fund the asset through other sources of income or savings. This is important in two ways. Firstly, if you are working and suddenly lose your job you don't have to worry about paying for the asset as it is more than paying for itself. Secondly, if you don't have to dig into your other source/s of income or savings to sustain the asset, then theoretically you can buy an unlimited number of similar type assets. Just a note regarding the mortgage to buy a house you live in being classed as bad debt. Even though in this definition it is considered as bad debt, there are usually other factors which still can make this kind of debt worthwhile. Firstly, you have to live somehere, and the fact that you have to live somwhere means that if you did not buy the house you would probably be renting instead, and still be stuck with a similar monthly payment. Secondly, the house will still appreciate over the long term so in the end you will end up with an asset compared to nothing if you were renting. Just another note to mention the definition provided by John Stern \"\"...debt is a technology that allows borrower to bring forward their spending; it's a financial time machine...\"\", that's a clever way to think of it, especially when it comes to good debt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4553349fecda42e7d3fb6c6f864dbef3", "text": "\"When I look at debt I try to think of myself as a corporation. In life, you have a series of projects that you can undertake which may yield a positive net present value (for simplicity, let's define positive net present value as a project that yields more benefit than its cost). Let's say that one of the projects that you have is to build a factory to make clothing. The factory will cost 1 million dollars and will generate revenue of 1.5 million dollars over the next year, afterwhich it wears out. Although you have the knowledge to build this wonderful factory, you don't have a million bucks laying around, so instead, you go borrow it from the bank. The bank charges you 10% interest on the loan, which means that at the end of the year, the project has yielded a return of 400k. This is an extremely simplified example of what you call \"\"good\"\" debt. It is good if you are taking the debt and purchasing something with a positive value. In reality, this should be how people should approach all purchases, even if they are with cash. Everything that you buy is an investment in yourself - even entertainment and luxury items all could be seen as an investment in your happiness and relaxation. If more people approached their finances in this way, people would have much more money to spend, William\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "8143e59701da827051bb11538170aa2e", "text": "Hi guys, have a question from my uni finance course but I’m unsure how to treat the initial loan (as a bond, or a bill or other, and what the face value of the loan is). I’ll post the question below, any help is appreciated. “Hi guys, I have a difficult university finance question that’s really been stressing me out.... “The amount borrowed is $300 million and the term of the debt credit facility is six years from today The facility requires minimum loan repayments of $9 million in each financial year except for the first year. The nominal rate for this form of debt is 5%. This intestest rate is compounded monthly and is fixed from the date the facility was initiated. Assume that a debt repayment of $10 million is payed on 31 August 2018 and $9million on April 30 2019. Following on monthly repayments of $9 million at the end of each month from May 31 2019 to June 30 2021. Given this information determine the outstanding value of the debt credit facility on the maturity date.” Can anyone help me out with the answer? I’ve been wracking my brain trying to decide if I treat it as a bond or a bill.” Thanks in advance,", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73f46ebcfc2e50b94d835095573d2fd9", "text": "You should definitely pay the remaining loan amount as quickly as possible. A loan in bad debts means that Bank has written it off books as its a education loan and there is no collateral. The defaults do get report to CIBIL [Credit Information Bureau India] and as such you will have difficulties getting credit card / new loans in future. Talk to the Bank Manager and ask can you regularize the loan? There are multiple options you would need to talk and find out; 1. You can negotiate and arrive at a number. Typically more than the principal outstanding and less than interest and penalties charged. 2. You can request to re-do the monthly payments with new duration, this will give you more time. 3. May one time large payment and subsequent amount in monthly payments. At the end its Bank's discretion whether to accept your terms or not.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3aa6a4201058d4e0b109b5961a49f21a", "text": "Yes, a mortgage is debt. It's unique in that you have a house which should be worth far more than the mortgage. After the mortgage crisis, many found their homes under water i.e. worth less than the mortgage. The word debt is a simple noun for money owed, it carries no judgement or negative connotation except when it's used to buy short lived items with money one doesn't have. Aside from my mortgage, I get a monthly credit card bill which I pay in full. That's debt too, only it carried no interest and rewards me with 2% cash back. Many people would avoid this as it's still debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a59e5808f002b3d6230adb254f34b8e", "text": "Think about India's government, and then think about Spain's. Credit rating is a measure of risk of default. What government is more likely to default: A developed, relatively transparent European government with mature industries and an educated populous. Or a developing, relatively opaque SouthEast Asian government with a large amount of its populous uneducated, living in poverty. Ask yourself, would you rather make a loan to Spain or India? Which is more likely to pay you back? edit: Despite the fact that Spain needs a bailout, it already has a very mature, very advanced infrastructure/economy in place. With a little cash, the government can get that industrial machine working at efficiency again.", "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": "aa7af14c1c1b06bc00c9fef9c666de64", "text": "Cars are not houses. The comparison is apples to oranges. Bad car loans actually can be good business for car dealers. When someone defaults on their car loan they very quickly lose the car. That car is then resold. Default on a home loan and you don't even have to leave the house, and there is no way for them to take the house back from you. It often takes a year or two for the bank and lawyers to get you kicked out of the house. A car however is on wheels, it can easily be moved and taken back. This article is some poorly researched 'sky is falling' click-bait.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3cafe9fcecfcd58776eaa19019664cb6", "text": "I don't have numbers on that, but I imagine the average student loan is much higher. Stilll, student loans, due to their default-less nature, are a bit of a different beast IMO. I think student loans will put a prolonged drag on the economy, but I really don't see where the catalyst for a crisis would be.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63b9b79c6ef4b4ab69da4988ac1f7d32", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/04/britain-addicted-debt-crash-2007-sub-prime-mortgages-personal-credit) reduced by 93%. (I'm a bot) *** > This is, of course, what determined the depth of the last crash, the wheeze of the collateralised debt obligation, which left no one able to distinguish between a good debt and a bad one. > Alex Brazier, executive director of financial stability at the Bank of England, warned last month that consumer loans had gone up by 10% in the past year, with average household debt having already eclipsed 2008 levels. > Student loan debt is counted separately from consumer loans, and stands at &pound;13bn a year. * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6y43cq/we_are_addicted_to_debt_and_headed_for_a_crash_it/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~204396 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: debt^#1 know^#2 year^#3 much^#4 loan^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6acbb37e49c0f1cbf78c1923d813df7", "text": "\"The problems with ratings and the interpretation of ratings is that they are retrospective, and most people read them as prospective. They basically tell you that debtor is solvent right now. What does that mean? It means that the ratings are based on the audited financial statements of a company, government or other organization issuing debt. So, in the best case scenario where the rating agency is acting properly, they are still dependent on folks with fiduciary responsibility telling the truth. And even if they are telling the \"\"truth\"\", accounting rules make it possible to obscure problems for years in some cases. Municipal goverments are a great example of this... the general obligation bonds cities and even states with deep structural budget problems still get good ratings, because they are solvent and have sufficient operating cash to meet obligations today. But towards the end of a 30-year bond's life, that may not be the case anymore unless they dramatically alter their budgets. At the end of the day, ratings are one aspect of due diligence. They are useful screening devices, but you need to understand who you are lending money to by purchasing bonds and diversify your holdings to protect your wealth. The problem, of course, is when the trustees of your pension fund invests in garbage assets after getting a sales pitch on the beach in Hawaii, then conveniently place all of the blame for that bad investment on the rating agency. You unfortunately have zero control over that.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5c88c5babbd9efce0d5539f9d5fa6fc", "text": "Did you read the article? They weren't arguing whether or not the debt could be defaulted on. They were arguing that one side can't unilaterally change the terms of the contract and decide to pay less. Which seems like common sense, but whatever.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3e58d223a5031306e05985a5cbdf450", "text": "\"No idea what you are trying to say here. You default on a loan, student or otherwise, by not paying. That is what creates the default, but you still owe it. Student loans actually can be discharged, but it is very uncommon and an uphill battle. You have to prove \"\"undue hardship\"\" which has a rather high standard. The last firm I worked at did manage to get a large amount of student loans discharged for someone who was in a car wreck and became a quadriplegic after incurring the student loan. And even that was not an easy case, my old firm was actually rather pleased at their success.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ac5cffbd419a4f21a5789c2b9dc010d", "text": "Here is another way to look at it. Does this debt enable you to buy more car than you can really afford, or more car than you need? If so, it's bad debt. Let's say you don't have the price of a new car, but you can buy a used car with the cash you have. You will have to repair the car occasionally, but this is generally a lot less than the payments on a new car. The value of your time may make sitting around waiting while your car is repaired very expensive (if, like me, you can earn money in fine grained amounts anywhere between 0 and 80 hours a week, and you don't get paid when you're at the mechanic's) in which case it's possible to argue that buying the new car saves you money overall. Debt incurred to save money overall can be good: compare your interest payments to the money you save. If you're ahead, great - and the fun or joy or showoff potential of your new car is simply gravy. Now let's say you can afford a $10,000 car cash - there are new cars out there at this price - but you want a $30,000 car and you can afford the payments on it. If there was no such thing as borrowing you wouldn't be able to get the larger/flashier car, and some people suggest that this is bad debt because it is helping you to waste your money. You may be getting some benefit (such as being able to get to a job that's not served by public transit, or being able to buy a cheaper house that is further from your job, or saving time every day) from the first $10,000 of expense, but the remaining $20,000 is purely for fun or for showing off and shouldn't be spent. Certainly not by getting into debt. Well, that's a philosophical position, and it's one that may well lead to a secure retirement. Think about that and you may decide not to borrow and to buy the cheaper car. Finally, let's say the cash you have on hand is enough to pay for the car you want, and you're just trying to decide whether you should take their cheap loan or not. Generally, if you don't take the cheap loan you can push the price down. So before you decide that you can earn more interest elsewhere than you're paying here, make sure you're not paying $500 more for the car than you need to. Since your loan is from a bank rather than the car dealership, this may not apply. In addition to the money your cash could earn, consider also liquidity. If you need to repair something on your house, or deal with other emergency expenditures, and your money is all locked up in your car, you may have to borrow at a much higher rate (as much as 20% if you go to credit cards and can't get it paid off the same month) which will wipe out all this careful math about how you should just buy the car and not pay that 1.5% interest. More important than whether you borrow or not is not buying too much car. If the loan is letting you talk yourself into the more expensive car, I'd say it's a bad thing. Otherwise, it probably isn't.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8607a75f115f28aefb6c44edda64f6e1", "text": "I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking about making money off loans which weren't defaulted but on but were paid back with interest. Anyway, in abstract preventing something bad absolutely counts as doing something good. The crisis could have been worse, and caused much more pain, hardship, and lost wealth. It was bad enough as it was, I'm personally glad it wasn't worse.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5938b4fa65cfd89f3ab79fcaa8841dc8", "text": "\"No. One of the key ideas behind a corporation is that an investor's liability is limited to the amount he invests, i.e. the amount of stock he buys. This is the primary reason why small businesses become corporations, even though one person owns 100% of the stock. Then if the business goes broke, he won't lose his house, retiretment fund, etc. He'll lose everything he had in the business, but at least there's a limit to it. (In some countries there are other ways to achieve the same results, like creating a \"\"limited liabililty company\"\", but that's another story.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d64f746c5d5b41bec65f707a0054fb13", "text": "(a) you give away your money - gift tax The person who receives the gift doesn't owe any tax. If you give it out in small amounts, there will be no gift tax. It could have tax and Estate issues for you depending on the size of the gift, the timing, and how much you give away in total. Of course if you give it away to a charity you could deduct the gift. (b) you loan someone some money - tax free?? It there is a loan, and and you collect interest; you will have to declare that interest as income. The IRS will expect that you charge a reasonable rate, otherwise the interest could be considered a gift. Not sure what a reasonable rate is with savings account earning 0.1% per year. (c) you pay back the debt you owe - tax free ?? tax deductible ?? The borrower can't deduct the interest they pay, unless it is a mortgage on the main home, or a business loan. I will admit that there may be a few other narrow categories of loans that would make it deductible for the borrower. If the loan/gift is for the down payment on a house, the lender for the rest of the mortgage will want to make sure that the gift/loan nature is correctly documented. The need to fully understand the obligations of the homeowner. If it is a loan between family members the IRS may want to see the paperwork surrounding a loan, to make sure it isn't really a gift. They don't look kindly on loans that are never paid back and no interest collected.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
718eb354d32d2ec4ea306371dd38f108	Paid cash for a car, but dealer wants to change price	[ { "docid": "071b3b8ff236f00fddadf437f90e4066", "text": "Let me get this straight. I would stand my ground. Your son negotiated in good faith. Either they messed up, or they are dishonest. Either way your son wasn't the one supposed to know all the internal rules. I don't think it matters if they cashed the check or not. I would tell them if they have cashed it, that is even more evidence the deal was finalized. But even if they they didn't cash it, it only proves they are very disorganized. If for some reason your son feels forced to redo the deal, have him start the negotiations way below the price that was agreed to. If the deal for some strange reason gets voided don't let him agree to some sort of restocking fee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9db9532178ba35de15a402f67b59a31a", "text": "I had a similar situation when I was in college. The difference was that the dealer agreed to finance and the bank they used wanted a higher interest rate from me because of my limited credit history. The dealer asked for a rate 5 percentage points higher than what they put on the paperwork. I told them that I would not pay that and I dropped the car off at the lot with a letter rescinding the sale. They weren't happy about that and eventually offered me financing at my original rate with a $1000 discount from the previously agreed-upon purchase price. What I learned through that experience is that I didn't do a good-enough job of negotiating the original price. I would suggest that your son stop answering phone calls from the dealership for at least 1 week and drive the car as much as possible in that time. If the dealer has cashed the check then that will be the end of it. He owes nothing further. If the dealer has not cashed the check, he should ask whether they prefer to keep the check or if they want the car with 1000 miles on the odometer. This only works if your son keeps his nerve and is willing to walk away from the car.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3131fea694d5ac842c532e951554e55", "text": "\"I'm sorry to hear you've made a mistake. Having read the contract of sale we signed, I do not see any remedy to your current situation. However, I'm interested in making sure I do not take advantage of you. As such, I'll return the vehicle, you can return my money plus the bank fees I paid for the cashiers check, tax, title, and registration, and I will look at buying a vehicle from another dealership. This seems to be the most fair resolution. If I were to pay for your mistake at a price I did not agree to, it would not be fair to me. If you were to allow this vehicle to go to me at the price we agreed to, it wouldn't be fair to you. If I were to return the car and begin negotiations again, or find a different car in your lot, it would be difficult for us to know that you were not going to make a similar mistake again. At this point I consider the sale final, but if you'd prefer to have the vehicle back as-is, returning to us the money we gave you as well as the additional costs incurred by the sale, then we will do so in order to set things right. Chances are good you will see them back down. Perhaps they will just cut the additional payment in half, and say, \"\"Well, it's our mistake, so we will eat half the cost,\"\" or similar, but this is merely another way to get you to pay more money. Stand firm. \"\"I appreciate the thought, but I cannot accept that offer. When will you have payment ready so we can return the car?\"\" If you are firm that the only two solutions is to keep the car, or return it for a full refund plus associated costs, I'd guess they'd rather you keep the car - trust me, they still made a profit - but if they decide to have it returned, do so and make sure they pay you in full plus other costs. Bring all your receipts, etc and don't hand over the keys until you have the check in hand. Then go, gladly, to another dealership that doesn't abuse its customers so badly. If you do end up keeping the car, don't plan on going back to that dealership. Use another dealership for warranty work, and find a good mechanic for non-warranty work. Note that this solution isn't legally required in most jurisdictions. Read your contract and all documentation they provided at the time of sale to be sure, but it's unlikely that you are legally required to make another payment for a vehicle after the sale is finalized. Even if they haven't cashed the check, the sale has already been finalized. What this solution does, though, is put you back in the driver's seat in negotiating. Right now they are treating it as though you owe them something, and thus you might feel an obligation toward them. Re-asserting your relationship with them as a customer rather than a debtor is very important regardless of how you proceed. You aren't legally culpable, and so making sure they understand you aren't will ultimately help you. Further, dealerships operate on negotiation. The primary power the customer has in the dealership is the power to walk away from a deal. They've set the situation up as though you no longer have the power to walk away. They didn't threaten with re-possession because they can't - the sale is final. They presented as a one-path situation - you pay. Period. You do have many options, though, and they are very familiar with the \"\"walk away\"\" option. Present that as your chosen option - either they stick with the original deal, or you walk away - and they will have to look at getting another car off the lot (which is often more important than making a profit for a dealership) or selling a slightly used car. If they've correctly pushed the title transfer through (or you, if that's your task in your state) then your brief ownership will show up on carfax and similar reports, and instantly reduces the car's worth. Having the title transfer immediately back to the dealership doesn't look good to future buyers. So the dealership doesn't want the car back. They are just trying to extract more money, and probably illegally, depending on the laws in your jurisdiction. Reassert your position as customer, and decide now that you'll be fine if you have to return it and walk away. Then when you communicate that to them, chances are good they'll simply cave and let the sale stand as-is.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "137a3e87be092013b7b45a65eb330fc6", "text": "The sales manager and/or finance manager applied a rebate that did not apply. It's their fault. They have internal accounts to handle these situations as they do come up from time to time. The deal is done. They have no legal ground.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd99c77ee8b7febe66494eacc2d709d6", "text": "I have one additional recommendation: if the dealer continues to press the issue, tell them that they need to drop it, or you will write a Yelp review in excruciating detail about the entire experience. Used car dealers are very aware of their Yelp presence and don't like to see recent, negative reviews because it can cost them a lot of new business. (I'm assuming this is a used car. If it's a new car, you could go over their heads and bring up the problem with the manufacturer. Dealers hate it when you go directly to the manufacturer with a dealer complaint.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f008d3c6f65df99406062ccbf7d77e7", "text": "Don't take the car back! The dealership wants you to take it back to try and earn more money. Simply stated, the dealerships hate paid up front cash deals. They make money on the financing. So to call back and try to up their fee is them realizing their not making a large enough profit. Say thank you and move on. The deal is done!!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58543b29e1af5f251960eed3c0cb0e77", "text": "On the surface this sounds ridiculous, which makes me suspect that there might be something that the dealer intends to cling on to; otherwise it sounds like the dealer should be ashamed to even call your son about its own incompetence. I'd recommend politely refusing the request since said mistake didn't happen on your end, and wait to see if the dealer comes back with some sort of argument.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cee712904c22253683819c081aae7fc", "text": "I've been an F&I Manager at a new car dealership for over ten years, and I can tell you this with absolute certainty, your deal is final. There is no legal obligation for you whatsoever. I see this post is a few weeks old so I am sure by now you already know this to be true, but for future reference in case someone in a similar situation comes across this thread, they too will know. This is a completely different situation to the ones referenced earlier in the comments on being called by the dealer to return the vehicle due to the bank not buying the loan. That only pertains to customers who finance, the dealer is protected there because on isolated occasions, which the dealer hates as much as the customer, trust me, you are approved on contingency that the financing bank will approve your loan. That is an educated guess the finance manager makes based on credit history and past experience with the bank, which he is usually correct on. However there are times, especially late afternoon on Fridays when banks are preparing to close for the weekend the loan officer may not be able to approve you before closing time, in which case the dealer allows you to take the vehicle home until business is back up and running the following Monday. He does this mostly to give you sense of ownership, so you don't go down the street to the next dealership and go home in one of their vehicles. However, there are those few instances for whatever reason the bank decides your credit just isn't strong enough for the rate agreed upon, so the dealer will try everything he can to either change to a different lender, or sell the loan at a higher rate which he has to get you to agree upon. If neither of those two things work, he will request that you return the car. Between the time you sign and the moment a lender agrees to purchase your contract the dealer is the lien holder, and has legal rights to repossession, in all 50 states. Not to mention you will sign a contingency contract before leaving that states you are not yet the owner of the car, probably not in so many simple words though, but it will certainly be in there before they let you take a car before the finalizing contract is signed. Now as far as the situation of the OP, you purchased your car for cash, all documents signed, the car is yours, plain and simple. It doesn't matter what state you are in, if he's cashed the check, whatever. The buyer and seller both signed all documents stating a free and clear transaction. Your business is done in the eyes of the law. Most likely the salesman or finance manager who signed paperwork with you, noticed the error and was hoping to recoup the losses from a young novice buyer. Regardless of the situation, it is extremely unprofessional, and clearly shows that this person is very inexperienced and reflects poorly on management as well for not doing a better job of training their employees. When I started out, I found myself in somewhat similar situations, both times I offered to pay the difference of my mistake, or deduct it from my part of the sale. The General Manager didn't take me up on my offer. He just told me we all make mistakes and to just learn from it. Had I been so unprofessional to call the customer and try to renegotiate terms, I would have without a doubt been fired on the spot.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a44e8cbf7e4a965cdc2a692b9e07023", "text": "\"As others have said, if the dealer accepted payment and signed over ownership of the vehicle, that's a completed transaction. While there may or may not be a \"\"cooling-off period\"\" in your local laws, those protect the purchaser, not (as far as I know) the seller. The auto dealer could have avoided this by selling for a fixed price. Instead, they chose to negotiate every sale. Having done so, it's entirely their responsibility to check that they are happy with their final agreement. Failing to do so is going to cost someone their commission on the sale, but that's not the buyer's responsibility. They certainly wouldn't let you off the hook if the final price was higher than you had previously agreed to. He who lives by the fine print shall die by the fine print. This is one of the reasons there is huge turnover in auto sales staff; few of them are really good at the job. If you want to be kind to the guy you could give him the chance to sell you something else. Or perhaps even offer him a $100 tip. But assuming the description is correct, and assuming local law doesn't say otherwise (if in any doubt, ask a lawyer!!!), I don't think you have any remaining obligation toward them On the other hand, depending on how they react to this statement, you might want to avoid their service department, just in case someone is unreasonably stupid and tries to make up the difference that was.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63cc41b9a6b889d94dfc4cb8f422a265", "text": "Lets look at it this way. Your son bought the car and then 2 days later, he wants to change the price. Will the dealership let him do that after all the paperwork is signed?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2335e2302d6eee2c43c7bfdc105a902e", "text": "As mhoran_psprep and others have already said, it sounds like the sale is concluded and your son has no obligation to return the car or pay a dime more. The only case in which your son should consider returning the car is if it works in his favor--for example, if he is able to secure a similar bargain on a different car and the current dealer buys the current car back from your son at a loss. If the dealer wants to buy the car back, your son should first get them to agree to cover any fees already incurred by your son. After that, he should negotiate that the dealer split the remaining difference with him. Suppose the dealership gave a $3000 discount, and your son paid $1000 in title transfer, registration, and any other fees such as a cashier's check or tax, if applicable. The remaining difference is $2000. Your son should get half that. In this scenario, the dealer only loses half as much money, and your son gains $1000 for his trouble.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b90152e12b9beda4523a34625545dbca", "text": "\"Your son is in the right. But he broke the \"\"unwritten\"\" rules, which is why the car dealer is upset. Basically, cars are sold in the United States at a breakeven price. The car company makes ALL its money on the financing. If everyone bought \"\"all cash,\"\" the car companies would not be profitable. No one expected anyone, least of all your son, a \"\"young person,\"\" to pay \"\"all cash.\"\" When he did, they lost all the profit on the deal. On the other hand, they signed a contract, your son met all the FORMAL requirements, and if there was an \"\"understanding\"\" (an assumption, actually), that the car was supposed to be financed, your son was not part of it. Good for him. And if necessary, you should be prepared to back him up on court.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca41100d583073f7e920e91d5bf8d4b2", "text": "If the discount is only for financed car then their software application should have accepted the payment (electronic transfer ID) from financed bank. In this case the bank should have given the payment on behalf of your son. I believe the dealer know in advance about the paper work and deal they were doing with your son. Financing a car is a big process between dealer and bank.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b72227cdfe352fa48872d135288cc532", "text": "Yes, of course it is. Car dealers are motivated to write loans even more than selling cars at times. When I bought a new car for the first time in my life, in my 40's, it took longer to get the finance guy out of my face than to negotiate and buy the car. The car dealer selling you the used car would be happy to package the financing into the selling price. Similar to how 'points' are used to adjust the actual cost of a mortgage, the dealer can tinker with the price up front knowing that you want to stretch the payment out a bit. To littleadv's point, 3 months isn't long, I think a used car dealer wold be happy to work with you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12262c326568149698533a3c185be27c", "text": "If a shop offers 0% interest for purchase, someone is paying for it. e.g., If you buy a $X item at 0% interest for 12 months, you should be able to negotiate a lower cash price for that purchase. If the store is paying 3% to the lender, then techincally, you should be able to bring the price down by at least 2% to 3% if you pay cash upfront. I'm not sure how it works in other countries or other purchases, but I negotiated my car purchase for the dealer's low interest rate deal, and then re-negotiated with my preapproved loan. Saved a good chunk on that final price!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bcd026c79da30d4424b9df38978406a4", "text": "\"The question is about the dealer, right? The dealer isn't providing this financing to you, Alfa is, and they're paying the dealer that same \"\"On the Road\"\" price when you finance the purchase. So the dealer gets the same amount either way. The financing, through Alfa, means your payments go to Alfa. And they're willing to give you 3,000 towards purchase of the car at the dealer in order to motivate those who can afford payments but not full cash for the car. They end up selling more cars this way, keeping the factories busy and employees and stockholders happy along the way. At least, that's how it's supposed to work out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49be8a82d19df5fa7b139fed606d7d12", "text": "But.. what I really want to know.... is it illegal, particularly the clause REQUIRING a trade in to qualify for the advertised price? The price is always net of all the parts of the deal. As an example they gave the price if you have $4000 trade in. If you have no trade in, or a trade in worth less than 4K, your final price for the new car will be more. Of course how do you know that the trade in value they are giving you is fair. It could be worth 6K but they are only giving you a credit of 4K. If you are going to trade in a vehicle while buying another vehicle the trade in should be a separate transaction. I always get a price quote for selling the old car before visiting the new car dealer. I do that to have a price point that I can judge while the pressure is on at the dealership.. Buying a car is a complex deal. The price, interest rate, length of loan, and the value of the trade in are all moving parts. It is even more complex if a lease is involved. They want to adjust the parts to be the highest profit that you are willing to agree to, while you think that you are getting a good deal. This is the fine print: All advertised amounts include all Hyundai incentives/rebates, dealer discounts and $2500 additional down from your trade in value. +0% APR for 72 months on select models subject to credit approval through HMF. No payments or 90 days subject to credit approval. Value will be added to end of loan balance. 15MY Sonata - Price excludes tax, title, license, doc, and dealer fees. MSRP $22085- $2036 Dealer Discount - $500 HMA Lease Cash - $500 HMA Value Owner Coupon - $1000 HMA Retail Bonus Cash - $500 HMA Military Rebate - $500 HMA Competitive Owner Coupon - $400 HMA College Grad Rebate - $500 HMA Boost Program - $4000 Trade Allowance = Net Price $12149. On approved credit. Certain qualifications apply to each rebate. See dealer for details. Payment is 36 month lease with $0 due at signing. No security deposit required. All payment and prices include HMA College Grad Rebate, HMA Military Rebate, HMA Competitive Owner Coupon and HMA Valued Owner Coupon. Must be active military or spouse of same to qualify for HMA Military Rebate. Must graduate college in the next 6 months or within the last 2 years to qualify for HMA College Grad rebate. Must own currently registered Hyundai to qualify for HMA Valued Owner Coupon. Must own qualifying competitive vehicle to qualify for HMA Competitive Owner Coupon.", "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": "1c4d36d1c862dd9d2cccce47377bcd2c", "text": "Fair enough. I was just trying to save them money. If it were me, I'd call up the dealer first and threaten to contact local media if they didn't void the contract. In the end though a lawyer is probably the best bet. Even just having them write a letter to send over would probably get them to nullify it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3c30faa6ac6413950fd269befe2b073", "text": "Absolutely do not pay off the car if you aren't planning to keep it. The amount of equity that you have from a trade in vehicle will always be a variable when negotiating a new car purchase. By applying cash (a hard asset) to increase your equity, you are trading a fixed amount for an unknown, variable amount. You are also moving from a position of more certainty for a position of less certainty. You gain nothing by paying off the car, whereas the dealer can negotiate away a larger piece of the equity in the vehicle.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ef47bc6e77a08529092f461b85d993b", "text": "\"The lead story here is you owe $12,000 on a car worth $6000!! That is an appalling situation and worth a lot to get out of it. ($6000, or a great deal more if the car is out of warranty and you are at risk of a major repair too.) I'm sorry if it feels like the payments you've made so far are wasted; often the numbers do work out like this, and you did get use of the car for that time period. Now comes an \"\"adversary\"\", who is threatening to snatch the car away from you. I have to imagine they are emotionally motivated. How convenient :) Let them take it. But it's important to fully understand their motivations here. Because financially speaking, the smart play is to manage the situation so they take the car. Preferably unbeknownst that the car is upside down. Whatever their motivation is, give them enough of a fight; keep them wrapped up in emotions while your eye is on the numbers. Let them win the battle; you win the war: make sure the legal details put you in the clear of it. Ideally, do this with consent with the grandfather \"\"in response to his direct family's wishes\"\", but keep up the theater of being really mad about it. Don't tell anyone for 7 years, until the statute of limitations has passed and you can't be sued for it. Eventually they'll figure out they took a $6000 loss taking the car from you, and want to talk with you about that. Stay with blind rage at how they took my car. If they try to explain what \"\"upside down\"\" is, feign ignorance and get even madder, say they're lying and they won, why don't they let it go? If they ask for money, say they're swindling. \"\"You forced me, I didn't have a choice\"\". (which happens to be a good defense. They wanted it so bad; they shoulda done their homework. Since they were coercive it's not your job to disclose, nor your job to even know.) If they want you to take the car back, say \"\"can't, you forced me to buy another and I have to make payments on that one now.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da9bc8b786e7314a869004e0ffd56ad0", "text": "\"So there are a few angles to this. The previous answers are correct in saying that cash is different than financing and, therefore, the dealer can rescind the offer. As for financing, the bank or finance company can give the dealership a \"\"kickback\"\" or charge a \"\"fee\"\" based on the customer's credit score. So everyone saying that the dealers want you to finance....well yes, so long as you have good credit. The dealership will make the most money off of someone with good credit. The bank charges a fee to the dealership for the loan to a customer with bad credit. Use that tactic with good credit...no problem. Use that tactic with bad credit.....problem.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d5910124726284e0e65d9ed7ffacf81", "text": "\"I love John's answer, but I just can't help myself from adding my 2 cents, even though it's over 5 years later. I sold cars for a while in the late 90s, and I mostly agree with John's answer. Where I disagree though, is that where I worked, the salesperson did not have ANY authority to make a sale. A sales manager was required to sign off on every sale. That doesn't mean that the manager had to interact with the buyer, that could all be handled behind the scenes, but the pricing and even much of the negotiating strategies were dictated by the sales managers. Some of the seasoned salespeople would estimate numbers on their own, but occasionally you'd hear the managers still chew them out with \"\"I wish you wouldn't have said that\"\". Of course, every dealership is different. Additional purchase advice: There is a strategy that can work well for the buyer, but only in scenarios where the salesperson is trying to prevent you from leaving. They may start interrupting you as you are packing up, or blocking your path to the door, or even begging. If this happens, they are obviously desperate for whatever reason. In this case, if you came prepared with research on a good price that you are comfortable with, then shoot lower and hold firm to the point of near exhaustion. Not so low that that they realize you're too far away- they will let you leave at that point. It needs to be within a reasonable amount, perhaps at most 1-2% of the purchase price. Once you detect the salesperson is desperate, you finally move up to your goal number or possibly a little lower. Typically the salesperson will be so happy to have gotten you to move at all that they'll accept. And if the managers are fed up too (like 45 minutes after close), they'll accept too. I saw this happen multiple times in a high pressure scenario. I also used it once myself as a buyer. If you are planning to purchase options that can be added at the dealer rather than from the factory, keep them up your sleeve at first. Get your negotiations down to where you are a little further apart than the invoice price of the option, then make your move. For example, suppose the option you want retails for $350 with an invoice of $300. Get within about $400 of the dealer. Then offer to pay their price, but only if they throw in the option you want. This will throw them completely off guard because they didn't expect it and all of their calculations were based on without it. If they say yes, you effectively moved $100 and they moved $300. It's much more likely that they'll agree to this than taking $300 off the price of the car. (I'm guessing the reason for this is partially due to how their accounting works with sticker price vs aftermarket price, and partially psychological.) Note, this works best with new cars, and make sure you only do this if it's for items they can add after the fact. Even if they don't have the part in stock it's ok, they can give you an IOU. But if the option requires a car change to something they don't have on the lot, it will probably just make them mad.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "230bf99815c0f1b4b3d8aea5c08f2c0f", "text": "The car dealership doesn't care where you get the cash; they care about it becoming their money immediately and with no risk or complications. Any loan or other arrangements you make to raise the cash is Your Problem, not theirs, unless you arrange the loan through them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f66e25bacedbdcc71660c7a8b122bb2e", "text": "The only issue I can see is that the stranger is looking to undervalue their purchase to save money on taxes/registration (if applicable in your state). Buying items with cash such as cars, boats, etc in the used market isn't all that uncommon - I've done it several times (though not at the 10k mark, more along about half of that). As to the counterfeit issue, there are a couple avenues you can pursue to verify the money is real: *it's the preferred means of payment advocated by some prominent personal financial folks, including Dave Ramsey", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb120e9ee3bcedb436bdfa4189180a21", "text": "There is no rule that says the dealer has to honor that deal, nor is there any that says he/she won't. However, if you are thinking of financing through though the dealership they are likely to honor the deal. They PREFER you finance it. If you finance it through the dealer the salesman just got TWO sales (a car and a loan) and probably gets a commission on both. If you finance it through a third party it makes no difference to the dealer, it is still a cash deal to them because even though you pay off the car loan over years, the bank pays them immediately in full.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc5fd5eeb9a1417fa39f3985391b0af7", "text": "NEVER combine the negotiations for trade-in of an old car and purchase of a new one (and/or financing), if you can avoid doing so. Dealers are very good at trading off one against the other to increase their total profit, and it's harder for you to walk away when you have to discard the whole thing. These are separate transactions, each of which can be done with other parties. Treat them as such.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9adbfcff4d4780479c1deb5a8d63900e", "text": "\"The retailer can sell for whatever price they like, with the caveats that if they consistently sell at a loss they will go out of business and if they set the price too high they will not sell anything! As you mentioned, RRP is only a recommended price, the manufacturer cannot enfore it at all for legal reasons. Having said that I used to work in retail (not cars) and if we discounted a certain manufacturers products and they found out about it, we would find they had suddenly run out of stock when we tried to order more. So manufacturers do have some control over this type of thing depending on how \"\"underhand\"\" they want to be about it. My background is in retail management but not selling cars, but my understanding is the law regards RRP is the same.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
0f35c75ac70f7652b97f95457628f061	How do amortization schedules work and when are they used?	[ { "docid": "adec58e5102508233bfc4c6560c3bb52", "text": "An amortization schedule is often used to produce identical payments for the term (repayment period) of a loan, resulting in the principal being paid off and the debt retired at the end of the loan. This is in contrast to an interest only, or balloon loan. These loans require little or no payment against the balance of the loan, requiring the loan to be paid indefinitely if there is no term, or requiring the loan to be entirely paid off from cash or a new loan at the end of the term. A basic amortization formula can be derived from the compound interest formula: This formula comes from the Wikipedia article on amortization. The basics of the formula are the periodic payment amount, A (your monthly payment), can be determined by the principal loan, P, the rate, r, and the number of payments, n. Lenders lend money to make a profit on the interest. They'd like to get back all the money they lent out. Amortization schedules are popular because the fixed low payments make it easier for borrowers to pay the loan off eventually. They also tend to be very profitable for lenders, especially at the start of the term, because they make a lot of profit on interest, just like the start of your mortgage. The principal of a mortgage has more meaning than the principal of a revolving debt credit card. The mortgage principal is fixed at the start, and represents the value of the collateral property that is your home. You could consider the amount of principal paid to be the percentage of your home that you actually own (as part of your net worth calculation). A credit card has a new balance each month depending on how much you charge and how much you pay off. Principal has less meaning in this case, because there is no collateral to compare against, and the balance will change monthly. In this case, the meaning of the amortization schedule on your credit card is how long it will take you to pay off the balance if you stop charging and pay at the proscribed payment level over the term described. Given the high interest rate on credit cards, you may end up paying twice as much for goods in the long run if you follow your lenders schedule. Amortizing loans are common for consumer loans, unless a borrower is seeking out the lowest possible monthly payment. Lenders recognize that people will eventually die, and want to be paid off before that happens. Balloon and interest only bonds and loans are more commonly issued by businesses and governments who are (hopefully) investing in capital improvements that will pay off in the long run. Thousands of people and businesses have gone bankrupt in this financial crisis because their interest only loans reached term, and no one was willing to lend them money anymore to replace their existing loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a5c999f6f2d116c516acbe766c1eaae", "text": "Amortization is the process by which your loan balance decreases over time. For both mortgages and credit card balances, your interest charges are based on what you owe. The calculation of the balance is a little different, but it still is based on what you owe. You're observing correctly that most of the first payments on a mortgage are interest. This stands to reason since an amortization schedule (for a fixed-rate mortgage) is constructed on the assumption that you're making your payments equally over the course of the mortgage. Since you owe more at the beginning, you accrue more interest, and a larger fraction of your payment is interest. Near the end, you owe little, and most of your payment, therefore, is principal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33566963de30c4b510e893fd513777f9", "text": "Both Credit Card and Mortgage work on same principle. The interest is calculated on the remaining balance. As the balance reduces the interest reduces. The Mortgage schedule is calculated with the assumption that you would be paying a certain amount over a period of years. However if you pay more, then the balance becomes less, and hence the subsequent interest also reduces. This means you would pay the loan faster and also pay less then originaly forecasted. The other type of loan, typically personal loans / auto loans in older days worked on fixed schedule. This means that you need to pay principal + Pre Determined interest. This is then broken into equal monthly installment. However in such a schedule, even if you pay a lumpsum amount in between, the total amount you need to pay remains same. Only the tenor reduces.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3415a1c53a9d79df08c7fa642104a2f", "text": "Simply put, for a mortgage, interest is charged only on the balance as well. Think of it this way - on a $100K 6% loan, on day one, 1/2% is $500, and the payment is just under $600, so barely $100 goes to principal. But the last payment of $600 is nearly all principal. By the way, you are welcome to make extra principal payments along with the payment due each month. An extra $244 in this example, paid each and every month, will drop the term to just 15 years. Think about that, 40% higher payment, all attacking the principal, and you cut the term by 1/2 the time.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "7e2ae1fcb74c88fc96b0b69032761916", "text": "How does compounding of annual interest work? answers this question. It's not simple compound interest. It's a time value of money calculation similar to mortgage calculations. Only the cash flow is the other way, a 'deposit' instead of 'payment'. When using a finance calculator such as the TI-BA35 (Note, it's no longer manufactured, but you can find secondhand. It was the first electronic device I ever loved. Seriously) you enter PV (present value) FV (future value) Int (the interest rate) nPer (number of periods) PMT (payment). For a mortgage, there's a PV, but FV = $0. For you, it's reversed. PMT on this model is a positive number, for you it's negative, the amount you deposit. You also need to account for the fact that a mortgage is paid on day 31, but you start deposits on Day 1. See the other answer (I linked at start) for the equations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff4d4bc62843ecc3a7e577f770f4cfb4", "text": "Many people, especially with lower income/skill/education, have poor money management skills to the point where they will not be able to ration their money for a full month. If the payment schedule is reduced to weekly or bi-weekly it becomes easier for such people to make non-discretionary payments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a69573b10bc69c804febd5912f716dc", "text": "\"There is no formula that can be applied to most variations of the problem you pose. The reason is that there is no simple, fixed relationship between the two time periods involved: the time interval for successive payments, and the time period for successive interest compounding. Suppose you have daily compounding and you want to make weekly payments (A case that can be handled). Say the quoted rate is 4.2% per year, compounded daily Then the rate per day is 4.2/365, or 0.0115068 % So, in one week, a debt would grow through seven compoundings. A debt of $1 would grow to 1 * (1+.000225068)^7, or 1.000805754 So, the equivalent interest rate for weekly compounding is 0.0805754% Now you have weekly compounding, and weekly payments, so the standard annuity formulas apply. The problem lies in that number \"\"7\"\", the number of days in a week. But if you were trying to handle daily / monthly, or weekly / quarterly, what value would you use? In such cases, the most practical method is to convert any compounding rate to a daily compounding rate, and use a spreadsheet to handle the irregularly spaced payments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55c6a70dc07cee2d9521fb386f8a4a85", "text": "\"they apply it to my next payment That's what my bank did with my auto loan. I got so far ahead that once I was able to skip a payment and use the money I would have sent the bank that month for something else. Still, though, I kept on paying extra, and eventually it was paid off faster than \"\"normal\"\". EDIT: what does your loan agreement say is supposed to happen to extra payments?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0aa076ab8960aa77009c1706bff7e023", "text": "I think they're compounding the interest daily. That means you have to look at the number of days between payments to judge how much the interest charge is. From February 3 to March 2 is 28 days (2012 was a leap year). From March 2 to April 3 is 32 days. That's an increase of about 14% in number of days between payments, which accounts reasonably well to the ~$18 difference in interest charge. Daily compounding also explains the minor fluctuations in the other interest charges. I think if you compute interest/day for each month, you'll find that it is, indeed, decreasing over time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54100a57d47534dc11922682d2510962", "text": "In the prior PMI discussions here, it's been stated that the bank is not obligated to remove PMI until the mortgage's natural amortization puts the debt at 78% LTV. So, paying in advance like this will not automatically remove the PMI. Nor will a lump sum payment be certain to move the next payment ahead a year. If it's entered as a principal prepayment, the next month's payment is still due. In the world of coupon books, if you sent in a year's payments, you'd not benefit from the interest saved, in one year you'd owe what the amortization table tells you. There's no free lunch when it comes to mortgages or finance in general. This is why we usually caution that one should not be cash poor the day after buying a house. Best to save 30%, put down 20%, and have a cushion after the closing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1eee4f33571648fb95733b26e6f5736", "text": "\"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": "07fdc7b5970696df79b88b33158237ba", "text": "\"I recently requested an off-schedule escrow analysis. We refinanced a house in August and the servicer got confused about when the home owner's insurance was due (in October). They refunded the \"\"insurance\"\" money to us in September. That combined with the fact that the insurance amount was different than what they expected, made me request the escrow analysis. That way I can decide whether to pay up the escrow account now or do it over the next year. The servicer agent just said that the monthly payment amounts might change again in January when they do the usual analysis. If you like to set up automatic payments, that would be a downside. I haven't done that yet, so not a problem for me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "855bbd660fa58a9434d0eaa33570e747", "text": "When I called Navient about this exact question last year they told me that my loan is a term length loan; so if I were to make extra payments on one of my dozen loans then my total monthly payment would be adjusted (go down) in order to make sure that my loans would still be paid off in x months. It is very important to note however that Navient has at least 4 loan payment types that I know of so I can make no assurances that yours will work the same way. The only way to get an absolute answer to this is going to be to Call Navient and ask them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f8f990af90faba58a954153cb31db3a", "text": "\"There are some loan types where your minimum payment may be less than the interest due in the current period; this is not true of credit cards in the US. Separately, if you have a minimum payment amount due of less than the interest due in the period, the net interest amount would just become principal anyway so differentiating it isn't meaningful. With credit cards in the US, the general minimum calculation is 1% of the principal outstanding plus all interest accrued in the period plus any fees. Any overpayment is applied to the principal outstanding, because this is a revolving line of credit and unpaid interest or fees appear as a charge just like your coffee and also begin to accrue interest. The issue arises if you have multiple interest rates. Maybe you did a balance transfer at a discounted interest rate; does that balance get credited before the balance carried at the standard rate? You'll have to call your lender. While there is a regulation in place requiring payment to credit the highest rate balance first the banks still have latitude on how the payment is literally applied; explained below. When there IS an amortization schedule, the issue is not \"\"principal or interest\"\" the issue is principle, or the next payment on the amortization schedule. If the monthly payment on your car loan is $200, but you send $250, the bank will use the additional $50 to credit the next payment due. When you get your statement next month (it's usually monthly) it will indicate an amount due of $150. When you've prepaid more than an entire payment, the next payment is just farther in to the future. You need to talk to your lender about \"\"unscheduled\"\" principal payments because the process will vary by lender and by specific loan. Call your lender. You are a customer, you have a contract, they will explain this stuff to you. There is no harm that can possibly come from learning the nuances of your agreement with them. Regarding the nuance to the payment regulation: A federal credit card reform law enacted in May 2009 requires that credit card companies must apply your entire payment, minus the required minimum payment amount, to the highest interest rate balance on your card. Some credit card issuers are aggressive here and apply the non-interest portion of the minimum payment to the lowest interest rate first. You'll need to call your bank and ask them.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36030ca6e5aee86487df2458ca0ce83e", "text": "Why won't anyone just answer the original question? The question was not about opportunity cost or flexibility or family expenses. There are no right answers to any of those things and they all depend on individual circumstances. I believe the answer to the question of whether paying off a 30-year mortgage in 15 years would cost the same amount as a 15-year mortgage of the same interest rate is yes but ONLY if you pay it off on the exact same schedule as your supposed 15-year. In reality, the answer is NO for two reasons: the amortization schedule; and the fact that the 30-year will always have a higher interest rate than the 15-year. The way mortgages are amortized, the interest is paid first, essentially. For most people the majority of the monthly payment is interest for the first half of the loan's life. This is good for most people because, in reality, most mortgages only last a couple years after which people refinance or move and for those first couple years the majority of one's housing costs (interest) are tax deductible. It is arguable whether perpetuating this for one's entire life is wise... but that's the reality of most mortgages. So, unless you pay off your 30-year on the exact same amortization schedule of your theoretical 15-year, you will pay more in interest. A common strategy people pursue is paying an extra monthly payment (or more) each year. By the time you get around to chipping away at your principal in that way, you will already have paid a lot more interest than you would have on a 15-year. And, really, if you can afford to substantially pay down principal in the first year or two of your mortgage, you probably should've borrowed less money to begin with. In theory, IF the rates were the same (they're not) and IF you paid the 30 off every month in the EXACT same way as you would've paid a 15 (you won't) you will pay the same amount in the end. You have to decide if the flexibility is worth more to you than the cost savings. For example: a 300k mortgage at 3.5% will have a monthly payment of ~$2150 for a 15-year and ~$1350 for a 30-year, both will start with ~$875/month of that being in interest (gradually declining with time). What I think most people undervalue is the freedom and peace of mind that comes with a paid off or nearly paid off home... and 15 years is a lot more tangible than 30, plus a lot cheaper over all. If you can afford a 15-year mortgage without putting too much stress on your budget, it is definitely the better option for financial security. And be careful of the index fund opportunity cost advice. On average it may be a good idea when you look at the very long run, historically, but a lot of people get less than average returns depending on when they buy and what the market does in the short run. There is no certainty around what returns you will get from the stock market, but if you have a 30-year mortgage there is a lot of certainty around what you will owe every month for the next 30-years. Different mixes of investments make sense for different people, and most people would be wise to get some exposure to the stock market for its returns and liquidity. However, if someone's goal is borrowing more money for their house in order to invest more money in the stock market for their retirement, they would actually be better served in achieving security and independence 15 years sooner.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a5c235f65fc1356e1a56bb1815957f7", "text": "\"a link to this article grabbed my Interest as I was browsing the site for something totally unrelated to finance. Your question is not silly - I'm not a financial expert, but I've been in your situation several times with Carmax Auto Finance (CAF) in particular. A lot of people probably thought you don't understand how financing works - but your Car Loan set up is EXACTLY how CAF Financing works, which I've used several times. Just some background info to anyone else reading this - unlike most other Simple Interest Car Financing, with CAF, they calculate per-diem based on your principal balance, and recalculate it every time you make a payment, regardless of when your actual due date was. But here's what makes CAF financing particularly fair - when you do make a payment, your per-diem since your last payment accrued X dollars, and that's your interest portion that is subtracted first from your payment (and obviously per-diem goes down faster the more you pay in a payment), and then EVerything else, including Any extra payments you make - goes to Principal. You do not have to specify that the extra payment(S) are principal only. If your payment amount per month is $500 and you give them 11 payments of $500 - the first $500 will have a small portion go to interest accrued since the last payment - depending on the per-diem that was recalculated, and then EVERYTHING ELSE goes to principal and STILL PUSHES YOUR NEXT DUE DATE (I prefer to break up extra payments as precisely the amount due per month, so that my intention is clear - pay the extra as a payment for the next month, and the one after that, etc, and keep pushing my next due date). That last point of pushing your next due date is the key - not all car financing companies do that. A lot of them will let you pay to principal yes, but you're still due next month. With CAF, you can have your cake, and eat it too. I worked for them in College - I know their financing system in and out, and I've always financed with them for that very reason. So, back to the question - should you keep the loan alive, albeit for a small amount. My unprofessional answer is yes! Car loans are very powerful in your credit report because they are installment accounts (same as Mortgages, and other accounts that you pay down to 0 and the loan is closed). Credit cards, are revolving accounts, and don't offer as much bang for your money - unless you are savvy in manipulating your card balances - take it up one month, take it down to 0 the next month, etc. I play those games a lot - but I always find mortgage and auto loans make the best impact. I do exactly what you do myself - I pay off the car down to about $500 (I actually make several small payments each equal to the agreed upon Monthly payment because their system automatically treats that as a payment for the next month due, and the one after that, etc - on top of paying it all to principal as I mentioned). DO NOT leave a dollar, as another reader mentioned - they have a \"\"good will\"\" threshold, I can't remember how much - probably $50, for which they will consider the account paid off, and close it out. So, if your concern is throwing away free money but you still want the account alive, your \"\"sweet spot\"\" where you can be sure the loan is not closed, is probably around $100. BUT....something else important to consider if you decide to go with that strategy of keeping the account alive (which I recommend). In my case, CAF will adjust down your next payment due, if it's less than the principal left. SO, let's say your regular payment is $400 and you only leave a $100, your next payment due is $100 (and it will go up a few cents each month because of the small per-diem), and that is exactly what CAF will report to the credit bureaus as your monthly obligation - which sucks because now your awesome car payment history looks like you've only been paying $100 every month - so, leave something close to one month's payment (yes, the interest accrued will be higher - but I'm not a penny-pincher when the reward is worth it - if you left $400 for 1.5 years at 10% APR - that equates to about $50 interest for that entire time - well worth it in my books. Sorry for rambling a lot, I suck myself into these debates all the time :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69ac5ff91f14b449464ffc5a50c2545a", "text": "\"Is there more on where Dalio gets his definitions for the short-term debt cycle (5-8 years or so) and \"\"deleveraging\"\" and the long-term debt cycle (75-100 years)? (or his evidence that separates the two)? At one point 18:10, he says the difference is that in a deleveraging, interest rates hit 0 and can no longer go lower, but I don't know if that works as a definition per se. There are other things that central banks do when interest rates hit 0, like buy up assets (which he does mention and include in the \"\"print money\"\" category of things that can be done during a deleveraging). And one of the deleveragings he cites, England in the 1950s, according to Wikipedia was due to difficulty in transitioning out from war production, and according to [this excel file](http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/Documents/rates/baserate.xls) from the Bank of England on historical rates, it doesn't say interest rates went to 0 at that time (unless Dalio is referring to another point in history when he cites 1950s England). 20:30 His definition of a depression is when debt restructuring or defaults happen. Interesting. What I learned was that there isn't really a hard and fast definition for recessions and depressions (e.g. a recession is two quarters of negative growth in a row and a depression is just a reeeaallly bad/long recession). And I don't think I recall encountering in the past an attempt to define what a \"\"deleveraging\"\" event of an economy is. 24:30 Is debt reduction and redistribution of wealth deflationary? I think it depends on how much the debt reduction or redistribution hurts the spending of the lender or wealthy versus how much it helps the spending of the borrower or the poor. Both are actually similarly \"\"giving some from the haves to the have nots,\"\" and especially redistribution of wealth is similar to fiscal spending, which is mentioned 25:30 as a valid inflationary way to try to help the economy. 26:00 Are deflationary methods (say, austerity) needed to balance out the inflationary methods (central bank buying assets and fiscal spending)? Aren't central bank (interest rates, quantitative easing) and the government (fiscal policy) still the main things that move inflation or deflation? I would think that debt reduction and redistribution of wealth are good when needed, but I wouldn't think you would do those things mainly for their (supposed, see above for my doubts) deflationary effects. Still, a very interesting video and one of the best presented videos on a difficult subject.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5841080e5f9aba6ff7e24e94ad1e718b", "text": "\"This sounds like an accounting nightmare to be 100% precise. With each payment you're going to have to track: If you can account for those, then the fair thing to do is for one person to stop paying after they have paid the amount of principal they had at the beginning of the process, or possibly after they have paid an amount equivalent to the total principal and accrued interest they would have paid if they paid their loans individually. The problem is, one of you is likely going to pay more interest than you would have under the individual plan. In the example you gave, if your brother pays off any of your loans, he is going to be paying more in interest than if he paid on his 5% loans. If you pay the highest rate loans first, whoever has the lower total balance is going to pay more interest since they'll be paying on the higher rates until they've paid their \"\"fair share\"\". I don't see a clean way for you to divvy up the interest savings appropriately unless you trueup at the very end of the process. Math aside, these types of agreements can be dangerous to relationships. What if one of you decides that they don't want to participate anymore? What if one of you gets all of their loans paid off much earlier - they get the joy of being debt free while the other still has all of the debt left? What if they then don't feel obligates to pay the other's remaining debt? Are you both equally committed to cutting lifestyle in order to attack these debts? In my opinion, the complexity and risk to the relationship don't justify the interest savings.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3acc09fce33e69930d2bf14ced64bb7", "text": "If I recall correctly, the pay schedule is such that you initially pay mostly interest. As James Roth suggests, look at the terms of the loan, specifically the payment schedule. It should detail how much is being applied to interest and how much to the actual balance.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
617cd31e8aecb9173e2407ebc9d21294	What if 40% of the remaining 60% Loan To Value (ratio) is not paid, or the borrower wants to take only 60% of the loan?	[ { "docid": "a7956867f4f1264f1897fec1b3d7f90f", "text": "\"The loan-to-value ratio (LTV Ratio) is a lending risk assessment ratio that financial institutions and others lenders examine before approving a mortgage. It sounds like your lender has a 60% requirement. Remember the home is the collateral for the loan. If you stop making payments, they can take the house back from you. That number is less than 100% to accommodate changing market prices, the cost of foreclosure, repairing and reselling the home. They may be a safety factor built in depending on the home's location. If you want to buy a $1.8 million dollar home you will have to come up with 40% down payment. That down payment is what reduces the risk for the lender. So no, there is no way to cheat that. Think about the transaction from the view of the lender. Note: in some areas, you can still get a loan if you don't have the required down payment. You just have to pay a monthly mortgage insurance. It's expensive but that works for many home buyers. A separate insurance company offers a policy that helps protect the lender when there isn't enough deposit paid. Update: Er, no. Keep it simple. The bank will only loan you money if it has collateral for the loan. They've built in a hefty safety margin to protect them in case you quit paying them your monthly payments. If you want to spend the money on something else, that would work as long as you provide collateral to protect the lender. You mention borrowing money for some other purpose then buying a home. That would be fine, but you will have to come up with some collateral that protect the lender. If you wanted to buy a new business, the bank would first ask for an appraisal of the value of the assets of the business. That could be applied to the collateral safety net for the lender. If you wanted to buy a business that had little appraisal value, then the bank would require more collateral from you in other forms. Say you wanted to borrow the money for an expensive operation or cosmetic surgery. In that case there is no collateral value in the operation. You can't sell anything from the surgery to anybody to recover costs. The money is spent and gone. Before the bank would loan you any money for such a surgery, they would require you to provide upfront collateral. (in this case if you were to borrow $60,000 for surgery, the bank would require $100,000 worth of collateral to protect their interest in the loan.) You borrow money, then you pay it back at a regular interval at an agreed upon rate and schedule. Same thing for borrowing money for the stock market or a winning horse at the horse race. A lender will require a hard asset as collateral before making you a loan... Yes I know you have a good tip on a winning horse,and you are bound to double your money, but that's not the way it works from a lender's point of view. It sounds like you are trying to game the system by playing on words. I will say quit using the \"\"40% to 60%\"\" phrase. That is just confusing. The bank's loan to value is reported as a single number (in this case 60%) For every $6000 you want to borrow, you have to provide an asset worth $10,000 as a safety guarantee for the loan. If you want to borrow money for the purchase of a home, you will need to meet that 60% safety requirement. If you want to borrow $1,000,000 cash for something besides a home, then you will have to provide something with a retail value of $1,666,667 as equity. I think the best way for you to answer your own question is for you to pretend to be the banker, then examine the proposal from the banker's viewpoint. Will the banker alway have enough collateral for whatever it is you are asking to borrow? If you don't yet have that equity, and you need a loan for something besides a home, you can always save your money until you do have enough equity. Comment One. I thought that most lenders had a 75% or 80% loan to value ratio. The 60% number seems pretty low. That could indicate you may be a high risk borrower, or possibly that lender is not the best for you. Have you tried other lenders? It's definitely worth shopping around for different lenders. Comment Two. I will say, it almost sounds like you aren't being entirely honest with us here. No way someone with a monthly income who can afford a $1.8 Million home would be asking questions like this. I get that English probably isn't your first language, but still. The other thing is: If you are truly buying a $1.8 Million dollar home your real estate agent would be helping you find a lender that will work with you. They would be HIGHLY motivated to see this sale happen. All of your questions could be answered in ten minutes with a visit to your local bank (or any bank for that matter.) When you add up the costs and taxes and insurance on a 30 fixed loan, you'd have a monthly mortgage payment of nearly $10,500 a month or more. Can you really afford that on your monthly income?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2496a1379b1d804b89bcf3e6c0b4205c", "text": "Sorry, I don't think a bounty is the issue here. You seem to understand LTV means the bank you are talking to will lend you 60% of the value of the home you wish to purchase. You can't take the dollars calculated and simply buy a smaller house. To keep the numbers simple, you can get a $600K mortgage on a $1M house. That's it. You can get a $540K mortgage on a $900K house, etc. Now, 60% LTV is pretty low. It might be what I'd expect for rental property or for someone with bad or very young credit history. The question and path you're on need to change. You should understand that the 'normal' LTV is 80%, and for extra cost, in the form of PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance) you can even go higher. As an agent, I just sold a home to a buyer who paid 3% down. The way you originally asked the question has a simple answer. You can't do what you're asking.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b381fce7dd29bb532e1caeb0c23caf36", "text": "\"Let me summarize your question for you: \"\"I do not have the down payment that the lender requires for a mortgage. How can I still acquire the mortgage?\"\" Short answer: Find another lender or find more cash. Don't overly complicate the scenario. The correct answer is that the lender is free to do what they want. They deem it too risky to lend you $1.1M against this $1.8M property, unless they have $700k up front. You want their money, so you must accept their terms. If other lenders have the same outlook, consider that you cannot afford this house. Find a cheaper house.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3861087c248e59a31cf6b40248e0cf0f", "text": "I wanted to know that what if the remaining 40% of 60% in a LTV (Loan to Value ratio ) for buying a home is not paid but the borrower only wants to get 60% of the total amount of home loan that is being provided by lending company. Generally, A lending company {say Bank] will not part with their funds unless you first pay your portion of the funds. This is essentially to safeguard their interest. Let's say they pay the 60% [either to you or to the seller]; The title is still with Seller as full payment is not made. Now if you default, the Bank has no recourse against the seller [who still owns the title] and you are not paying. Some Banks may allow a schedule where the 60/40 may be applied to every payment made. This would be case to case basis. The deal could be done with only paying 20% in the beginning to the buyer and then I have to pay EMI's of $7451. The lending company is offering you 1.1 million assuming that you are paying 700K and the title will be yours. This would safeguard the Banks interest. Now if you default, the Bank can take possession of the house and recover the funds, a distress sale may be mean the house goes for less than 1.8 M; say for 1.4 million. The Bank would take back the 1.1 million plus interest and other closing costs. So if you can close the deal by paying only 20%, Bank would ask you to close this first and then lend you any money. This way if you are not able to pay the balance as per the deal agreement, you would be in loss and not the Bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c341364afeab9a693ed255b3f300d17", "text": "\"This is the meat of your potato question. The rephrasing of the question to a lending/real estate executive such as myself, I'd ask, what's the scenario? \"\"I would say you're looking for an Owner Occupied, Super Jumbo Loan with 20% Down or $360K down on the purchase price, $1.8 mil purchase price, Loan Amount is ~$1.45 mil. Fico is strong (assumption). If this is your scenario, please see image. Yellow is important, more debt increases your backend-DTI which is not good for the deal. As long as it's less than 35%, you're okay. Can someone do this loan, the short answer is yes. It's smart that you want to keep more cash on hand. Which is understandable, if the price of the property declines, you've lost your shirt and your down payment, then it will take close to 10 years to recover your down. Consider that you are buying at a peak in real estate prices. Prices can't go up more than they are now. Consider that properties peaked in 2006, cooled in 2007, and crashed in 2008. Properties declined for more than 25-45% in 2008; regardless of your reasons of not wanting to come to the full 40% down, it's a bit smarter to hold on to cash for other investments purposes. Just incase a recession does hit. In the end, if you do the deal-You'll pay more in points, a higher rate compared to the 40% down scenario, the origination fee would increase slightly but you'll keep your money on hand to invest elsewhere, perhaps some units that can help with the cashflow of your home. I've highlighted in yellow what the most important factors that will be affected on a lower down payment. If your debt is low or zero, and income is as high as the scenario, with a fico score of at least 680, you can do the deal all day long. These deals are not uncommon in today's market. Rate will vary. Don't pay attention to the rate, the rate will fluctuate based on many variables, but it's a high figure to give you an idea on total cost and monthly payment for qualification purposes, also to look at the DTI requirement for cash/debt. See Image below:\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b00664509225c84581a27c5b2e32bc68", "text": "One reason to not do that is if you consider that one of the loans is at risk of being called in early. e.g. You have a line of credit which is close to its limit, and the bank decides to reduce that limit, forcing you to quickly come up with the money to pay it down below the new limit, which can really throw a wrench into your plans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3721fd666e6ea8920304e2b973bef1c", "text": "\"The part that I find confusing is the loan/stock hybridization. Why would the investor be entitled to a 30% share if he's also expecting to be getting paid back in full? This is the part that's making me scratch my head. I can understand giving equity and buying out later. I can understand giving equity with no expectation of loan repayment. I can understand loan repayment without equity. I can even understand collateralizing the loan with equity. I can not understand how \"\"zeroing out\"\" the loan still leaves him with a claim on 30% of the equity. Would this be more of a good will gesture as a way to thank the investor for taking a chance? Please forgive any naivety in my questions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c5b6570980cee300b2970bed11b976d2", "text": "It's definitely NOT a good idea to pay off one of the smaller loans in your case - a $4k payment split across all the loans would be better than repaying the 5% / $4k loan completely, as it's the most beneficial of your loans and thus is last priority for repayment. A payment that splits across all the loans equally is, in effect, a partial repayment on a loan with an interest rate of 6.82% (weighed average rate of all your loans). It's not as good as repaying a 7% loan, but almost as good. It might be an option to save up until you can repay one of your 7% loans, but it depends - if it takes a lot of time, then you would've paid unneccessary interest during that time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2af792106cc5e769cbe0651e4aa9b4d9", "text": "They offer a coupon that is 40% to 60% the actual amount that it could in theory offer, if not for delinquent cases.... the banks pocket the difference in the name to be able to pay up consistently..... not a pretty picture but it covers their ass", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fad3312aee717d10d69a407a065030d0", "text": "The terms of most mortgages usually include the requirement for tax escrow. Some banks will let you handle your own taxes once you loan to value drops below 50%. It's annoying that you lose the use of your own funds, I agree. It can't hurt to write a note to the bank and see it they'll waive escrow.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73f46ebcfc2e50b94d835095573d2fd9", "text": "You should definitely pay the remaining loan amount as quickly as possible. A loan in bad debts means that Bank has written it off books as its a education loan and there is no collateral. The defaults do get report to CIBIL [Credit Information Bureau India] and as such you will have difficulties getting credit card / new loans in future. Talk to the Bank Manager and ask can you regularize the loan? There are multiple options you would need to talk and find out; 1. You can negotiate and arrive at a number. Typically more than the principal outstanding and less than interest and penalties charged. 2. You can request to re-do the monthly payments with new duration, this will give you more time. 3. May one time large payment and subsequent amount in monthly payments. At the end its Bank's discretion whether to accept your terms or not.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "580a99928ac197a0f28d77e7f3786d50", "text": "That's why they're taking the deal. But it's not like they completely stole all that money. I don't have any stats, but I'd assume most of those people who got their loans are still in their homes. (Sorry, I could be way off. Please correct) But they still are bastards for not letting me refinance. Could have just been because they saw this penalty coming.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2e8aa4caff5531411d25c10c83ca508", "text": "Basically isn't this like if they loaned a bank 400b with 401b due tomorrow, and then the bank took the same loan the next day? Gross exaggeration I know, but I just want to make sure that is the way this works.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac30b6a293c9f11f2127bb4b8f1bbd2e", "text": "That's tricky. Typically you lock in the minimum monthly payment when you close the loan. You can pay more but not less. Options:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc8770d56350ffc67d89bf2d15efa198", "text": "You should read the provisions in your offer and any counteroffer that was signed before paying the earnest money, but generally if the appraisal comes in low, the price has to be adjusted. If you can't get a mortgage (because the appraisal is too low) the next guy usually can't either. Unfortunately without more information (the documents that were signed and the locale, to know which laws might be applicable) I can't tell you with certainty that you'll get your earnest money back.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db55fcd2f97c74a6efdd5ddbac173c5b", "text": "It sounds like there are no provisions in the loan document for how to proceed in this case. I would view this as creating a brand new loan. The amount owed is going to be (Principal remaining + interest from 2 years + penalties). If you created a new loan for 13 years, that would not be how I would expect a lender to behave. I would expect most repayment plans to be something like make double payments until you are caught up or pay an extra $1000 per month until caught up and then resume normal payments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b11f4fa7e336955f0eea0451f70dcdc", "text": "This is dumb. The sub company will lose money but the parent company will pay taxes on the income they made off of expenses to the subcompany. This doesn't systematically reduce their risk either. Banks will loan more money if the parent company is liable to pay the bills if the sub company can't. So yes, a bank may make a loan to the sub company without any liability on the parent company, but its going to be a very small loan compared to what they would've given the parent company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2a856f472bd80bab9f4e6e37f0c37e6", "text": "From your question, it seems your problem is that you have a company that wants to make a deal, but does not currently have enough money to go through with it. Therefore it needs to raise capital. Assuming that you cannot get a loan from a bank and you do not want to seek funding from other sources, the two owners must provide the funds themselves somehow. Option A: The easiest and fairest way to do this is for the two shareholders to provide 75%, and 25% of the funding as a loan to the company. They will provide this loan knowing it may not be paid back if the company goes under. Note that it would not be fair for one of the shareholders to provide more, as that shareholder would be taking all the risk, while the other still reaps the rewards (although you could add a large interest rate to account for this). Option B: But say one of the shareholders cannot provide additional funds. In that case, the company should issue new shares, and each shareholder can purchase however many of the new shares he/she wants (each shareholder is entitled to purchase at least 75% or 25% respectively, but does not have to). The result of this may be that company ownership percentages have changed after the capital raising. This is more complex as it require valuing the company accurately to be fair, and probably requires reporting to a government (depending on the jurisdiction).", "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": "0d6eaeb4ba54c786c2800de434892ca9", "text": "\"I'm going to give a simpler answer than some of the others, although somewhat more limited: the complicated loan parameters you describe benefit the lender. I'll focus on this part of your question: You should be able to pay back whenever; what's the point of an arbitrary timeline? Here \"\"you\"\" refers to the borrower. Sure, yes, it would be great for the borrower to be able to do whatever they want whenever they want, increasing or decreasing the loan balance by paying or not paying arbitrary amounts at their whim. But it doesn't benefit the lender to let the borrower do this. Adding various kinds of restrictions and extra conditions to the loan reduces the lender's uncertainty about when they'll be receiving money, and also gives them a greater range of legal recourse to get it sooner (since they can pursue the borrower right away if they violate any of the conditions, rather than having the wait until they die without having paid their debt). Then you say: And if you want, you can set a legal deadline. But the mere deadline in the contract doesn't affect how much interest is paid—the interest is only affected by how much money is borrowed and how long has passed. I think in many cases that is in fact how it works, or at least it is more how it works than you seem to think. For instance, you can take out a 30-year loan but pay it off in less than 30 years, and the amount you pay will be less if you pay it off sooner. However, in some cases the lender will charge you a penalty for doing so. The reason is the same as above: if you pay off the loan sooner, you are paying less interest, which is worse for the lender. Again, it would be nice for the borrower if they could just pay it off sooner with no penalty, but the lender has no reason to let them do so. I think there are in fact other explanations for these more complicated loan terms that do benefit the borrower. For instance, an amortization schedule with clearly defined monthly payments and proportions going to interest and principal also reduces the borrower's uncertainty, and makes them less likely to do risky things like skip lots of payments intending to make it up later. It gives them a clear number to budget from. But even aside from all that, I think the clearest answer to your question is what I said above: in general, it benefits the lender to attach conditions and parameters to loans in order to have many opportunities to penalize the borrower for making it hard for the lender to predict their cash flow.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
03632d379c18b965e1ebb1f46de80b38	Buying a home without a Real Estate Agent - Who should I get to do the paperwork?	[ { "docid": "41ab4c36b99b96f2f4178669093742e9", "text": "Generally, the paperwork realtors use is pre-written and pre-approved by the relevant State and real-estate organizations. The offers, contracts, etc etc a pretty straightforward and standard. You can ask a realtor for a small fee to arrange the documents for you (smaller than the usual 5% sellers' fee they charge, I would say 0.5% or a couple of hundreds of dollars flat fee would be enough for the work). You can try and get these forms yourself, sometimes you can buy them in the neighborhood Staples, or from various law firms and legal plans that sell standard docs. You can get a lawyer to go over it with you for almost nothing: I used the LegalZoom plan for documentation review, and it cost me $30 (business plan, individual is cheaper) to go over several purchase contracts ($30 is a monthly subscription, but you don't have to pay it for more than one month). But these are standard, so you do it once and you know how to read them all. If you have a legal plan from work, this may cover document review and preparation. Preparing a contract that is not a standard template can otherwise cost you hundreds of dollars. Title company will not do any paperwork for you except for the deed itself. They can arrange the deed and the recording, escrow and title insurance, but they will not write a contract for the parties to use. You have to come with the contract already in place, and with escrow instructions already agreed upon. Some jurisdictions require using a lawyer in a real-estate transaction. If you're in a jurisdiction (usually on a county level) that requires the transaction to go through a lawyer - then the costs will be higher.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa5414bc20e2a29959d95a4517bd6ba1", "text": "Whether or not you use a real estate agent, at some stage most people use a lawyer to do the actual buying and selling and set up the agreements. If you've never dealt with a lawyer directly before it's probably because your agent has acted as a front-person for the lawyer. If you go to a lawyer and tell them what you want to do they will sort it out, and should tell you in advance how much it will cost. You and your friend will probably need one each.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "644f9dfe7e76cf1819d4a18a32471b1d", "text": "For a real estate transaction there are multiple stages: From the sellers viewpoint: From the buyers viewpoint: If both parties are comfortable skipping some of the steps the role of the agent can be minimized. How will a fair price be determined? Some realism might be needed, to make sure that the loan appraisal will not be a problem. Will an inspection still be needed? What warranty will exist if the A/C dies this summer? If you still want help from an agent one should be able to help for far less than the normal commission. The seller normally interviews three agents before selecting one, do the same in this situation. Ask how much they would charge for a sale between friends. They can complete their task in just a couple of hours. If the home inspection comes back relatively clean, the transaction should be very easy. The paperwork is the biggest hurdle. You should jointly identify a local settlement company. They will be the ones actually filing the paperwork. They have lawyers. They will check the county records office for existing liens, plats, mortgages and address all the issues. They can send the proper paperwork to the existing mortgage companies and arrange for mortgage insurance. The cost will be the same regardless of the presence of real estate agents and other lawyers. When they say a lawyer is required, it is only because of the paperwork.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59d1d3529b92ba2c2bd4df949a02786e", "text": "Save yourself a lot of trouble you both agree on a Real Estate Attorney to prepare all the paperwork (ie. contract) and conduct the closing for or with the Title Company. Then you both split the normal costs of the transaction. (Real simple professionally handled and you both save the 6%)", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c1d160ca991e4573a96855b4c0ece8cc", "text": "They are not supposed to force any tax or escrow payments in addition to your normal principal and interest payment, unless you are delinquent on your taxes and insurance. If you are late or delinquent at all they can force you into escrows depending on how your Deed of Trust (mortgage) is worded. That being said, I've had to deal with BoA on behalf of clients over the same issues you just mentioned. Their whole system is made to cause chaos and confusion, especially for poor souls trying to complete a short sale, or a loan restructuring program. They are forever losing vital paperwork, or saying they didn't get documents in time, even though you spoke with someone to confirm receipt. They aren't really set up to help anyone, they just give the illusion of it before they foreclose. I owned a Title and Escrow company for many years, and most all mortgages with most all lenders (in our state) read they had the right to force escrow in the case of delinquency or even accelerate to foreclosure. If you've never been late on either or let your insurance lapse, or taxes fall delinquent, they shouldn't be able to require escrows, unless there is specific language in your original mortgage that says they can. Also, most people aren't aware that non payment isn't the only reason a lender can foreclose. Most mortgages read a lender can foreclose for the following reasons: -Non payment -Failure to keep homeowners insurance -Failure to pay taxes -Condemnation -Storing toxic waste, or hazardous materials -Illegal operations and usage (meth labs, etc...)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c8b73d5026f1e9bb5aa37158a80c2bf", "text": "\"You are asking about a common, simple practice of holding the mortgage when selling a house you own outright. Typically called seller financing. Say I am 70 and wish to downsize. The money I sell my house for will likely be in the bank at today's awful rates. Now, a buyer likes my house, and has 20% down, but due to some medical bills for his deceased wife, he and his new wife are struggling to get financing. I offer to let them pay me as if I were the bank. We agree on the rate, I have a lien on the house just as a bank would, and my mortgage with them requires the usual fire, theft, vandalism insurance. When I die, my heirs will get the income, or the buyer can pay in full after I'm gone. In response to comment \"\"how do you do that? What's the paperwork?\"\" Fellow member @littleadv has often posted \"\"You need to hire a professional.\"\" Not because the top members here can't offer great, accurate advice. But because a small mistake on the part of the DIY attempt can be far more costly than the relative cost of a pro. In real estate (where I am an agent) you can skip the agent to hook up buyer/seller, but always use the pro for legal work, in this case a real estate attorney. I'd personally avoid the general family lawyer, going with the specialist here.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5744b01b567c29e20c49561da9ab4613", "text": "Awesome info, this is what I was looking for. I live in FL so i will look into LLC laws. Is there a difference in obtaining loans for multi-unit properties, or any special requirements? This would be my first purchase so I'm trying to decide if I should start with a multi-unit or a large home. I read something about a first time home buyers and the FHA allowing one to put down less of an initial investment. Im assuming this is if you are actually going to be living in the home or property? Would it make sense to have separate entities for specific types of units? For example One separate corporation per multi-unit property, but have multiple single family homes under another single entity? Thanks for the help. *quick add-on, would you know how long the corporation would have had to exist before being able to obtain a loan? For example, would XYZ, LLC. have to have been around for 3 years prior to the loan, or could i just incorporate the month before going to the bank?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "146939b11f6b5588c7c46d9512c63c47", "text": "what I should think about. If you decide to do this - get everything in writing. Get lease agreements to enforce the business side of the relationship. If they are not comfortable with that much formality, it's probably best not to do it, I'm not saying that you should not do this - but that you need to think about these type of scenarios before committing to a house purchase.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c0e97e531c9ec7b73eafa67907df636", "text": "Selling a home by yourself, without an expensive real estate broker, is easier than most people think, but it will take some work on your part. You will be doing a lot of things that a real estate agent might normally do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e291cf7bd9bc900b436bf966f9ad9f03", "text": "You don't need to hire a lawyer. In general, there are three things a lawyer might do: (1) Review the language of the deed of sale (2) Review the terms of the mortgage (if there is one) (3) Hire a title search company to do a title search If you do not want to do these things or want to do them yourself, then you do not need a lawyer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "712a3ab5d1285093533ad5a00a63dd1a", "text": "\"First, don't try to understand other people's finances. Family or a trust could provide the minimum down payment, or even large chunk of the price, leaving them with a small/manageable monthly mortgage. More importantly, HGTV home buying shows are fake. Buyers don't actually buy, other people touring are just locals/ friends, and the entire plot is literally a written script. Source: My best friend had 3 of his listings on one of the shows as the house options, and our friends were the \"\"other buyers\"\" on the tour.\"", "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": "3ae4e62a46b49c6c6474a711da41519e", "text": "\"The other answers are talking about seller financing. There is another type of arrangement that might be described as \"\"writing your own mortgage,\"\" where the buyer arranges his (or her) own financing. Instead of using a bank, a buyer might find his own investor to hold the mortgage for him. An example would be if I were to buy a house that needs fixing up. I might be able to buy a house for $40,000, but after I fix it up, I believe it will sell for $100,000. Instead of going through a traditional mortgage bank, I find an investor with cash that agrees the house is a good deal, and we arrange for the investor to provide funds for the purchase of the house on a short-term basis (perhaps interest-only), during which I fix up the house and sell it. Just like a regular mortgage, the loan is backed by the house itself. I am not recommending this type of arrangement by any means, but this article does a good job of describing how this would work. It is written by a real-estate guru with lots of training courses and coaching materials that she would like to sell you. :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "faa34371d5e2536da37e935804852217", "text": "Yes, your realtor is a moron. (I am a realtor, and sorry you have such a bad one) Every industry has its good and bad. You really should find a new realtor, a good one. You know the 1031 exchange is for rental property only. And that saving $2000 isn't worth staying in the house to complete the two years required occupancy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17033fd60806f1236b55ecb41824dbe1", "text": "Since you are leaving the country, get it sold by a real estate agent. If you choose to lower the price and get it done quickly, or if you choose to wait for a fair value, the key here is to get many independent referrals (like a dozen) so you agent is trustworthy. I don't think you need to sign over power of attorney as fax machines are pretty reliable these days. I won't matter if you live 50 miles or 5000 miles away. Renting it is not a great option because you can't easily follow up from another country. Don't sell it to the rock bottom places. Either you don't need the money and you can afford to you wait, or you need the money and it would be best to wait.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d32ccf220435358c890dd86b7bce3e2", "text": "\"Generally, it would be an accountant. Specifically in the case of very \"\"private\"\" (or unorganized, which is even worse) person - forensic accountant. Since there's no will - it will probably require a lawyer as well to gain access to all the accounts the accountant discovers. I would start with a good estate attorney, who in turn will hire a forensic accountant to trace the accounts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29392f0f37fbabadd75e643e01fc97a7", "text": "\"Getting a specific service recommendation is off-topic, but the question of what type of professional you need seems on-topic to me. You may be looking for more than one professional in this case, but you could try these to start your search: Different people do things differently, but I think it would be pretty common to have a relationship (i.e. contract, retainer agreement, at least have met the person in case you have an \"\"emergency\"\") with a business law attorney and either a CPA or tax attorney. You may try not to use them too much to keep costs down, but you don't want to be searching for one after you have an issue. You want to know who you're going to call and may establish at least a basis working relationship.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e04901082688c86e0deabb501d103e3", "text": "Whether you need to hire a lawyer depends on whether you are capable enough to understand the fine print and it's consequences in all the contracts you sign with the Builder or not. Even though the REPC is a standard document, the Builder may add additional addendum voiding many of the rights Buyers normally have. If you are not sure or have doubts about specific verbiage, I recommend that you at least get your Realtor to spell it out for you or hire a lawyer as an alternative.", "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": "" } ]	fiqa
b13db1e601f8e6bfab5d0051e4f445b8	Dispute credit card transaction with merchant or credit card company?	[ { "docid": "cca176d56c7f5661cc84926585f6417a", "text": "\"You should dispute the transaction with the credit card. Describe the story and attach the cash payment receipt, and dispute it as a duplicate charge. There will be no impact on your score, but if you don't have the cash receipt or any other proof of the alternative payment - it's your word against the merchant, and he has proof that you actually used your card there. So worst case - you just paid twice. If you dispute the charge and it is accepted - the merchant will pay a penalty. If it is not accepted - you may pay the penalty (on top of the original charge, depending on your credit card issuer - some charge for \"\"frivolous\"\" charge backs). It will take several more years for either the European merchants to learn how to deal with the US half-baked chip cards, or the American banks to start issue proper chip-and-PIN card as everywhere else. Either way, until then - if the merchant doesn't know how to handle signatures with the American credit cards - just don't use them. Pay cash. Given the controversy in the comments - my intention was not to say \"\"no, don't talk to the merchant\"\". From the description of the situation it didn't strike me as the merchant would even bother to consider the situation. A less than honest merchant knows that you have no leverage, and since you're a tourist and will probably not be returning there anyway - what's the worst you can do to them? A bad yelp review? You can definitely get in touch with the merchant and ask for a refund, but I would not expect much to come out from that.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccc83c20986bc4ce66ffc6f1c1bd529f", "text": "Most merchants (also in Europe) are reasonable, and typically are willing to work with you. credit card companies ask if you tried to work with the merchant first, so although they do not enforce it, it should be the first try. I recommend to give it a try and contact them first. If it doesn't work, you can always go to the credit card company and have the charge reversed. None of this has any effect on your credit score (except if you do nothing and then don't pay your credit card bill). For the future: when a transaction supposedly 'doesn't go through', have them write this on the receipt and give it to you. Only then pay cash. I am travelling 100+ days a year in Europe, using my US credit cards all the time, and there were never any issues - this is not a common problem.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "26767224bfa3076a9bb3993ea4b67af9", "text": "\"As a rule of thumb, go in the order of proximity to the transaction. This would typically mean: Side note: I own a website that provides an online service that accepts PayPal and credit cards (via PayPal), and I personally have experience with all 3 of the above options. I can tell you from the merchant's point of view that I would also prefer the same order. I've had people contact my customer service department asking for a refund and we always immediately comply. Some people never contact us and just file a dispute directly with PayPal, and although refunding through the PayPal dispute is just as easy as refunding directly, it always makes me ask, \"\"Why didn't they just contact us first?\"\" One time we had a customer skip us and PayPal, and filed a dispute directly with their Credit Card. The CC company contacted PayPal and PayPal contacted us. The process was the same from my point of view, I just clicked a button saying issue refund. But my $5 refund cost me an additional $20 due to the CC dispute. Now that I know this I will never approve a CC dispute again. Anytime one happens I would just issue a refund directly, and then notify the dispute that their CC has already been refunded, which should end the dispute.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39ce77a9a6f73da8194f996943405e13", "text": "\"It's very straightforward for an honest vendor to refund the charge, and the transaction only costs him a few pennies at most. If you initiate a chargeback, the merchant is immediately charged an irreversible fee of about $20 simply as an administrative fee. He'll also have to refund the charge if it's reversed. To an honest merchant who would've happily refunded you, it's unfair and hurtful. In any case, now that he's out-of-pocket on the administrative fee, his best bet is to fight the chargeback - since he's already paid for the privilege to fight. Also, a chargeback is a \"\"strike\"\" against the merchant. If his chargeback rate is higher than the norm in his industry, they may raise his fees, or ban him entirely from taking Visa/MC. For a small merchant doing a small volume, a single chargeback can have an impact on his overall chargeback rate. The \"\"threshold of proof\"\" for a chargeback varies by patterns of fraud and the merchant's ability to recover. If you bought something readily fungible to cash - like a gift card, casino chips, concert tickets etc., forget it. Likewise if you already extracted the value (last month's Netflix bill). Credit card chargeback only withdraws a payment method. Your bill is still due and payable. The merchant is within his rights to \"\"dun\"\" you for payment and send you to collections or court. Most merchants don't bother, because they know it'll be a fight, an unpleasant distraction and bad for business. But they'd be within their rights. Working with the merchant to settle the matter is a final resolution.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "213bfb9c6674440fc32a5733bc2f5010", "text": "\"It's not usually apparent to the average consumer, but there's actually two stages to collecting a payment, and two ways to undo it. The particular combination that occurs may lead to long refund times, on top of any human delays (like Ben Miller's answer addresses). When you pay with a credit card, it is typically only authorized - the issuing bank says \"\"I'm setting this money aside for this transaction\"\", but no money actually changes hands. You'll typically see this on your statement as a \"\"pending\"\" charge. Only later, in a process called \"\"settlement\"\", does your bank actually send money to the merchant's bank. Typically, this process starts the same day that the authorization happens (at close of business), but it may take a few days to complete. In the case of an ecommerce transaction, the merchant may not be allowed to start it until they ship whatever you ordered. On the flip side, a given transaction can be voided off or money can be sent back to your card. In the first case, the transaction will just disappear altogether; in the second, it may disappear or you may see both the payment and the refund on your statement. Voids can be as fast as an authorization, but once a transaction has started settlement, it can't be voided any more. Sending money back (a \"\"refund\"\") goes through the same settlement process as above, and can take just as long. So, to specifically apply that to your question: You get the SMS when the transaction is authorized, even though no money has yet moved. The refund money won't show up until several days after someone indicates that it should happen, and there's no \"\"reverse authorize\"\" operation to let you or your bank know that it's coming.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "817577b7bcd07bbd91bb72275efb94be", "text": "Dispute the charge. Receiving the wrong product is grounds for dispute.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "288b1cb6d1f9f84aeb746dd48ba1e61c", "text": "\"You should probably call the travel agency and complain. Not that they will care, but if by any chance they do - they can ask PayPal to remove the block. This is what is called \"\"authorization pending\"\". Usually, a credit card transaction has two stages: The merchant requests its payment processor to authorize the transaction. The processor will contact the card issuer with the transaction details and will get the authorization code which will be passed to the merchant. At that stage the transaction enters the \"\"pending\"\" stage on your account. The merchant submits the transaction and gets the money from its payment processor, who forwards the transaction to the card issuer and gets the money from there. The card issuer charges the card owner. The transaction should have the same authorization code received in step #1, and by matching it to the pending transaction, the card issuer removes the pending transaction, and posts the actual transaction. However, if the transaction in step #2 doesn't include the code from step #1, the match doesn't occur and you see the situation you have now: both the actual transaction and the pending are active. In this case the merchant should contact its merchant processor and request the revocation of the authorization code. The processor will then forward the request to the card issuer, who will then remove the pending transaction. As you can see - multiple parties have to actually care for that to happen, and many times they don't, because they don't have to. As to the period - it's up to the card issuer (PayPal in your case), but 1 month is a very long time. Usually it's about a week or two, unless it's a hotel/car rental. In any case - once it expires, it will go away on its own and if you don't mind for the amounts to be blocked until then - just let it expire. The fact that you used a debit card for this transaction is irrelevant. Unless it was a pin transaction, debit card transactions are processed as credit card transactions by processors. For pin transactions, there process is different and you shouldn't see doubles. If it was a pin transaction - contact PayPal and check with them what's going on. Generally, PayPal is not to be used as a \"\"bank account\"\", it is merely a payment processor, and it is advised to remove the money from there as soon as possible.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e788b9c0aaa2183ef5c768ba4be1f73", "text": "I used to work for a online payment posting company. Anytime a payment is made via Credit Card to a company that does not have PCI DSS(aka the ability/certification to store credit card information) there is a MD5 checksum(of the confirmation code, not the Credit Card information) that get sent to the company from the processor(billing tree, paypal, etc). The company should be able to send this information back to the processor in order to refund the payment. If the company isn't able to do this, to be honest they shouldn't be taking online credit card payments. And by all means do not send your credit card information in an email. As said above, call the company's customer service line and give them the info to credit your account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52b93ea21402f1d2f3d73a6d680c120c", "text": "I have already talked to them over the phone and they insist they haven't charged me yet, and I will not be charged. When I informed them I had in fact been charged they agreed it would be reversed. So I have tried to resolve the issue and I don't have any confidence they will reverse the charge as it has not been done yet. They are difficult to communicate which makes the whole process more difficult. Your best next step is to call the credit card company and share this story. I believe the likely result is that the credit card company will initiate a charge back. My question is, is this a valid reason to file a chargeback on my credit card? Yes. If you attempted to work it out with the vendor and it is not working out, this is an appropriate time to initiate a charge back.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c924f196d6c4d0c392a1e94967d8ebd", "text": "You should start a dispute with the credit card company, and they might be able to recover some/all of the money. Usually, if you act fast enough, credit companies (on the merchant's side) have enough of the deposits not yet disbursed to the merchant, and they'll just reverse the charge. The earlier you start the process - the more chances you have. Otherwise you'll have to sue, I'm not familiar with the Canadian legal system.", "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": "a27715be676e47c2c991c5717c23bdfa", "text": "\"I'm not sure if this answer is going to win me many friends on reddit, but here goes... There's no good reason why they couldn't have just told him the current balance shown on their records, BUT... There are some good reasons why they can't quote a definitive \"\"payoff\"\" balance to instantly settle the account: It's very possible to charge something today, and not have it show up on Chase's records until tomorrow, or Monday, or later. There are still places that process paper credit-card transactions, or that deal with 3rd-party payment processors who reconcile transactions M-F, 9-5ish, and so on. - Most transactions these days are authorized the instant you swipe the card, and the merchant won't process until they get authorization back from the CC company. But sometimes those authorizations come from third-party processors who don't bill Chase until later. Some of them might not process a Friday afternoon transaction until close-of-business Monday. - Also, there are things like taxicab fares that might be collected when you exit the cab, but the record exists only in the taxi's onboard machine until they plug it into something else at the end of the shift. - There are still some situations (outdoor flea-markets, auctions, etc) where the merchant takes a paper imprint, and doesn't actually process the payment until they physically mail it in or whatever. - Some small businesses have information-security routines in place where only one person is allowed to process credit-card payments, but where multiple customer service reps are allowed to accept the CC info, write it down on one piece of paper, then either physically hand the paper to the person with processing rights, or deposit the paper in a locked office or mail-slot for later processing. This is obviously not an instant-update system for Chase. (Believe it or not, this system is actually considered to be more secure than retaining computerized records unless the business has very rigorous end-to-end info security). So... there are a bunch of legit reasons why a CC company can't necessarily tell you this instant that you only need to pay $x and no more to close the account (although there is no good reason why they shouldn't be able to quote your current balance). What happens when you \"\"close an account\"\" is basically that they stop accepting new charges that were made after your notification, but they will still accept and bill you for legit charges that you incurred before you gave them notice. So basically, they \"\"turn off\"\" the credit-card, but they can't guarantee how much you owe until the next billing cycle after this one closes: - You notify them to \"\"close\"\" the account. They stop authorizing new charges. - Their merchant agreements basically give the merchant a certain window to process charges. The CC company process legit charges that were made prior to \"\"closing\"\" the account. - The CC company sends you the final statement after that window for any charges has expired, - When that final statement is paid (or if it is zero), THAT is when the account is settled and reported to Equifax etc as \"\"paid\"\". So it's hard to tell from your post who was being overly semantic/unreasonable. If the CC company refused to tell the current balance, they were just being dickheads. But if they refused to promise that the current balance shown is enough to instantly settle the account forever, they had legit reasons. Hope that helps.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ba2c626ca84ace787e7a478a3acbf83", "text": "There generally isn't much in the way of real identity verification, at least in the US and online. The protection you get is that with most credit cards you can report your card stolen (within some amount of time) and the fraudulent charges dropped. The merchant is the one that usually ends up paying for it if it gets charged back so it's usually in the merchant's best interest to do verification. However the cost of doing so (inconvenience to the customer, or if it's an impulse buy, giving them more time to change their mind, etc) is often greater than the occasional fraudulent charge so they usually don't do too much about it unless they're in a business where it's a frequent problem.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe6c6b035064b9df1adf8d9f29e0d9c0", "text": "In some case the customer wants the name to be cryptic or misleading. They don't want to advertise the true nature of the business they visited. In other cases the transaction may be reported through another business. A few years ago the local PTA was having a silent auction as a fundraiser. A local business allowed the PTA to use their credit card reader to process transactions over a certain amount. Of course when the credit card statement arrived it looked like you spent $500 at the florist. I have seen PayPal listed when donating to some small charities. I have noted another case where confusion can occur. I used a debit card to buy a soda from a vending machine: the name and location were the name of the vending machine company and the location of their main office. It didn't say soda machine city A. It said Joe's vending company city B. In most cases the business and the credit card company want to make it easy to identify the transactions to keep the cost of research and charge backs to a minimum.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e96696585aa02e568d19847187f7acd", "text": "Your simplest option, and probably the only reasonable one, is to dispute the original charge with your bank. Since you used a debit card and not a credit card, you don't have quite as much protection, but you still can dispute the charge and ask your bank to step in and help. See this debit card dispute article for more information on disputing a charge for a debit card. You may or may not have a case here, depending on the specifics. If the merchant accepted your payment without letting you know you should have used paypal, you may have a shot at getting the full refund; but if it was clearly labelled that you should have used paypal, it may be harder.", "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": "02f0413df7c358b8eb5703f2298318a0", "text": "\"The fee structures are different for PIN-based transactions versus \"\"credit\"\" style transactions. Usually there is a fixed fee (around $0.50) for PIN-based transactions and a varying fixed fee plus a percentage for credit transactions (something like $0.35 + 2.5%). There are also value limits for PIN-based transactions... I believe that you cannot exceed $400 in most places. The signature feature of credit transactions isn't there to protect you, it signifies your agreement to comply with the contract you and the credit card issuer, protecting the merchant from some types of chargeback. Some merchants waive the signature for low dollar value transactions to increase convenience and speed up the lines. All of your other questions are answered elsewhere on this site.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "265f8df05a743358d9819a3cef8fc89b", "text": "I would go speak to the bank manager. With Wells, you have to make sure it is the bank manager and not a service manager or something you are talking to (I learned that a few months ago). Tell her/him exactly what happened in detail and that you want the credit card closed and the credit inquiry removed from your credit report. Further, say that once all of that is done, you will decide whether to continue banking with them and whether any legal action is appropriate. If they give you any kind of push back, I'd get advice from a lawyer. The truth is they did open an account against your expressed wishes and it required them to check your credit so it does constitute fraud unless they can produce a signed document saying you agreed to the card. Edit: I just saw that this happened about a year ago. It may have been easier if you had done something at the time and may be more difficult if you've used the card in the meantime.", "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": "" } ]	fiqa
a232910edb2326447cd8ee8f6d90bceb	Should I cancel an existing credit card so I can open another that has rewards?	[ { "docid": "765030ab89ad614b11797593a102d108", "text": "Cancelled cards don't fall off the system for a long time, up to ten years. Card terms change, with notice of course, but it can happen at any time. I had a card with a crazy perk, 5% back in Apple Gift cards. This was pre-iPod days, but it was great to get a new computer every two years for free. But it was short lived. Three years into it, the cards were changed, a no-perk card from the bank. That is now my oldest account, and it goes unused. Instead of holding cards like this, I wish I had flipped it to a different card years ago. Ideally, your mix of cards should provide value to you, and if they all do, then when one perk goes away, it's time to refresh that card. This is a snapshot from my report at CreditKarma. (Disclosure, I like these guys, I've met their PR folk. I have no business relationship with them) Elsewhere on the page it's noted that average card age is a 'medium impact' item. I am 50, but I use the strategy above to keep the cards working for me. My current score is 784, so this B on the report isn't hurting too much. The tens of thousands I've saved in mortgage interest by being a serial refinancer was worth the hit on account age, as was the credit card with a 10% rebate for 90 days, the 'newest account' you see in the snapshot. In the end, the score manipulation is a bit of a game. And some of it is counter-intuitive. Your score can take a minor hit for actions that would seem responsible, but your goal should be to have the right mix of cards, and the lowest interest (long term) loans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76fe6db5439db6d14ae920967b308364", "text": "You're right to keep the oldest one. That's an asset to your credit rating. Since you're already responsible with your credit, a dip in your credit rating doesn't really matter unless you're looking for another loan, like a mortgage. I personally like the cash-back rewards because they're the most flexible, so you have a good thing going with that card. Do those reward cards give you perks on all of your purchases? If they do, then look carefully to see if you can do noticeably better with another card. If not, it may not really be worth it. Regarding cancelling one of the cards, I wouldn't, and here's why. Your cards can get compromised, and sometimes more than one gets compromised at the same time. I was glad that I had three cards, because two of them got hit the same day. Hence, having three cards hit on the same day is possible, and you'll be glad that you have the fourth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7bfa0d3c95302ce39cc3ed6fcf02b429", "text": "Hits to your credit rating for canceling one of the newer cards will be a small hit for a few months. You do have some options. I also believe that a person with good credit should have multiple cards: I like having a cash back card for the majority of our transactions. Unfortunately that card isn't accepted everywhere, so I have two other cards with broad market coverage to make sure we always have an option if the vendor doesn't take the main card. Also having multiple cards makes sure that if there is an issue with one card you are never caught without a card. One time the main card was rejected by a gas station because my wife just used the same account to buy gas across town. When we got home their was a fraud alert message on our phone.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "5aff8bc52a262444e0751a878dacafe6", "text": "Even if you can pull this off (I think it is possible with creativity) it is likely not worth it. The number of ways this can come crashing down is high and the benefits are marginal at best. The opportunity cost of carrying this out is likely higher than the saved interest from just carrying the $500 balance. Do this with too much money and you can find yourself in real trouble if one card gets cancelled (late fees, penalties, and no way to make repayment). Basically this is theoretically possible but not worth it. Just work an extra hour each month and pay the interest. Or, if you don't have a job, just pay the interest and spend the time you save to look for a job.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d47872c305ac82a7baf1b8d3fd8b0b2", "text": "The difference in interest is not a huge factor in your decision. It's about $2 per month. Personally I would go ahead and knock one out since it's one less to worry about. Then I would cancel the account and cut that card up so you are not tempted to use it again. To address the comments... Cutting up the card is NOT the ultimate solution. The solution is to stop borrowing money... Get on a strict budget, live on less than what you bring home, and throw everything you can at this high-interest debt. The destroying of the card is partly symbolic - it's a gesture to indicate that you're not going to use credit cards at all, or at least until they can be used responsibly, not paying a DIME of interest. It's analogous to a recovering alcoholic pouring out bottles of booze. Sure you can easily get more, but it's a commitment to changing your attitude and behavior. Yes leaving the card open will reduce utilization and improve (or not hurt) credit score - but if the goal is to stop borrowing money and pay off the other card, then once that is achieved, your credit score will be significantly improved, and the cancelling of the first card will not matter. The card (really both cards) should never, ever be used again.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11d6e3b365124d47cdc7ff9ed0d3a2d5", "text": "Generally speaking, you don't get the sign-up bonus when you product change to another card. The right thing to do in your case is:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "720826f9bcda8f43ce64a55e6a773523", "text": "I plan to stay debt free, but I appreciate the non-debt-related advantages of having a good credit score. If you plan to stay debt-free, then opening up more cards will not significantly change your credit score. You seem to want to be going from a good score to a great score, which adding cards alone will not do. Also, I highly doubt it will significantly affect any of the five things you mention. If you had a bad credit score, then I could see some effect on renting an apartment, getting a job (where trust with money is a component of the job), etc., but don't try to game the system for some number. You won't magically get cheaper cell phone rates, lower insurance premiums, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9b63ee6b91966273d3a16a44f838842", "text": "Another good reason: if you have to replace a card due to damage, loss, or identity theft it's nice to have a backup you can use until the new card for your primary account arrives. I know folks who use a secondary card for online purchases specifically so they can kill it if necessary without impacting their other uses, online arguably being at more risk. If there's no yearly fee, and if you're already paying the bill in full every month, a second card/account is mostly harmless. If you have trouble restraining yourself with one card, a second could be dangerous.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87f7466bc890563ee9345c8834bfb181", "text": "Also, unless I missed it and someone already mentioned it, do keep in mind the impact of these credit cards balances on your credit score. Over roughly 75% usage on a given credit account reflects badly on your score and has a pretty large impact on how your worthiness is calculated. It gives the impression that you are a person that lives month to month on cards, etc. If you could get both cards down to reasonable balances to where you could begin paying on them regularly and work them down over time, that will not only look incredible for your credit report but also immediately begin making your credit worthiness begin to raise due to the fact that you will not have accounts that (I'm assuming here) are at very high usage (over 75% of your total limit.) If you have to get one card knocked out just to get breathing room, and you're boxed in here -- or honestly even if the mental stress is causing you incredible hardship day to day, then I suppose blow one card out of the water, reassess and start getting to work on that second card. I hope this helped, I'm no expert, but I have had every kind of luck with credit cards and accounts you could think of, so I can only give my experience from the rubber-meets-the-road perspective. Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d14711729b97add28c20e2e8b1141186", "text": "\"I'm the contrarian on this forum. Since you asked a \"\"should I ...\"\" question, I'm free to answer \"\"No, you shouldn't increase your limit. Instead, you should close it out\"\". A credit card is a money pump - it pumps money from your account to the bank's profit margins. When I look at my furniture and the bank's furniture, I know exactly who needs my money more (hint: it's not the bank). Credit cards change people's spending patterns. In my first day of training as a Sears salesman, the use of the card was drummed into our heads. People purchase on average 25% more when they use a card than when they pay cash. That's good if you're a retailer or the lender (at that time Sears was both), but no good if you're a consumer. Build up a $1,000 emergency fund (for emergencies only, not \"\"I need a quick latte because I stayed up too late last night\"\"), then savings for 6 to 12 months living expenses. Close and cut up the credit card. Save up and pay cash for everything except possibly your house mortgage. If you have that much cash in the bank, the bankers will be as willing to talk to you as if you had an 800+ score. I have lived both with and without debt. Life without debt is well worth the short term sacrifice early on.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63d342f0ad89564e38df7ece1bc661f8", "text": "First off, congratulations on taking care of your finances and paying off your cards! Takes a lot of discipline. If your next oldest card is just a year apart, you can safely close this card.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0e1fbb838e5de08120f729b470cc3ed", "text": "PenFed Platinum Cashback Rewards Visa Card is another good choice. Pros: Cons:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3fce490685e386e16b16c2e938b82cf", "text": "Great question. First, my recommendation would be for you to get a card that does not have a yearly fee. There are many credit cards out there that provide cash back on your purchases or points to redeem for gift cards or other items. Be sure to cancel the credit card that you have now so you don't forget about that yearly fee. Canceling will have a temporary impact on your credit score if the credit card is your longest held line of credit. Second, it is recommended not to use more than 20% of all the available credit, staying above that line can affect your credit score. I think that is what you are hearing about running up large balances on your credit card. If you are worried about staying below the 20% line, you can always request a larger line of credit. Just keep paying it off each month though and you will be fine. You already have a history of credit if you have begun paying off your student loans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e39f2aa66c02a22a9eb53c52ff636bd", "text": "A credit balance can happen any time you have a store return, but paid the bill in full. It's no big deal. Why not just charge the next gas purchase or small grocery store purchase, to cycle it through? Yes - unused cards can get canceled by the bank, and that can hurt your credit score. In the US anyway. I'm guessing it's the same system or similar in Canada.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "70be767cf8054746efe00c029e2349f2", "text": "\"The bottom line is that you are kind of a terrible customer for them. Granted you are far better than one that does not pay his bills, but you are (probably) in the tier right above that. Rewards cards are used to lure the unorganized into out of control interest rates and late payments. These people are Capital One's, and others, best customers. They have traded hundreds of dollars in interest payments for a couple of dollars in rewards. The CC company says: \"\"YUMMY\"\"! You, on the other hand, cut into their \"\"meager\"\" profits from fees collected from your transactions. Why should they help you make more money? Why should they further cut into your profits? Response to comment: Given your comment I think the bottom line is a matter of perspective. You seem like a logical, altruistic type person who probably seeks a win-win situation in business dealings. This differs from CC companies they operate to seek one thing: enslavement. BTW the \"\"terrible customer\"\" remark should be taken as a compliment. After you get past the marketing lies you begin to see what reward programs and zero percent financing is all about. How do most people end up with 21%+ interest rates? They started with a zero percent balance loan, and was late for a payment. Reward cards work a bit differently. Studies show that people tend to spend about 17% more when they use a reward card. I've caught myself ordering an extra appetizer or beer and have subsequently stopped using a reward card for things I can make a decision at the time of purchase. For people with tight budgets this leads to debt. My \"\"meager\"\" profits paragraph makes sense when you understand the onerous nature of CC companies. They are not interested in earning 2% on purchases (charge 3% and give back 1%) for basically free money. You rightly see this as what should be a win-win for all parties involved. Thus the meager in quotation marks. CC companies are willing to give back 1% and charge 3% if you then pay 15% or more on your balance. Some may disagree with me on the extracting nature of CC companies, but they are wrong. I like him as an actor, but I don't believe Samuel Jackson's lines.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93926a91c4712436415f97d3fbb92af1", "text": "Start with the cards you already have. If you don't have enough room on the best card, then ask for a credit increase. You have to keep in mind that some of the programs have a maximum amount you can charge to get the bonus cash back amount. Others have a graduated plan where the first few thousand dollars are at a lower cash back rate. If you do decide to get a new card, make sure you get a large enough credit limit or the work to get a new card was for naught. I would start with bankrate.com to research cards.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69972764b24f7e26ef9ebfed92a062e7", "text": "You want to have 2-4 credit cards, with a credit utilization ratio below 30%. If you only have 2 cards, closing 1 would reduce your credit diversity and thus lower your credit score. You also want at least 2 years credit history, so closing an older credit card may shorten your credit history, again lowering your credit score. You want to keep around at least 1-2 older cards, even if they are not the best. You have 4 cards: But having 2-4 cards (you have 4) means you can add a 5th, and then cancel one down to 4, or cancel one down to 3 and then add a 4th, for little net effect. Still, there will be effect, as you have decreased the age of your credit, and you have opened new credit (always a ding to your score). Do you have installment loans (cars), you mention a new mortgage, so you need to wait about 3 months after the most recent credit activity to let the effects of that change settle. You want both spouses to have separate credit cards, and that will increase the total available to 4-8. That would allow you to increase the number of benefits available.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "104ae8a9ec8b6b78961094e0cd95e102", "text": "If you had a CC issuer that allowed you to do bill-pay this way, I suspect the payment would be considered a cash advance that will trigger a fee and a pretty egregious cash advance specific interest rate. It's not normal for a credit payment portal to accept a credit card as payment. If you were able to do this as a balance transfer, again there would be fees to transfer the balance and you would not earn any rewards from the transferred balance. I think it's important to note that cash back benefits are effectively paid by merchant fees. You make a $100 charge, the merchant pays about $2.50 in transaction fee, you're credited with about $1 of cash back (or points or whatever). Absent a merchant transaction and the associated fee there's no pot of money from which to apply cash back rewards.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
7a16937db7efa196d55054e5359a7d9b	Making an offer on a property - go in at market price?	[ { "docid": "d1ac14ed5c52248ddcc1ad2e0d4f19a0", "text": "\"Firstly, the agent doesn't work for you. He works for himself. It's in his interest not to get you a house at the lowest cost but to sell you a house. The higher the price the higher his commission is, or the higher the probability that the seller will sell it meaning less work for him. It depends on the market what price you should give. If I were you, I would do my own research about this area and not just trust the agent's assessment of it being a \"\"seller's\"\" market. Not sure where we are talking about but as you know, house prices have fallen a lot in the last few years and the economy isn't doing that well. It also depends on yourself. Every house is different and there's an emotional attachment to buying property. How much do you really want this house? Would it matter if you didn't get it? Are you prepared to keep looking? If this is your dream house, then maybe it is worth offering a bit more to ensure that you get it. If not, and you are prepared to wait, then yeah, I would shoot a little lower and see what they say. One thing I will say though is generally even if you give them a low offer, unless they're getting lots of other offers or they have to sell urgently, alot of the times the seller will come back and try to negotiate with you anyway. After all, it's business and they're there to get the highest price.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9578d315ac9c6ec13f3573bbae8dd82", "text": "From then on we've felt he was really pushy and rushing us to make a decision (we need to lock in a good rate, its a sellers market, it'll go fast, snooze loose, etc). This is the first reason for walking away. I understand that all those factors might be true but my question is: How do I know we made a good offer? I'm going to be blunt, here: You don't. You work out ahead of time what you will pay (ignore the agent) and you make the offer on the basis of your own research, research you spent months undertaking. The listed price on the location is $375,000 and according to our agent similar units over the last few years had sold for that amount. So our agent suggested making an offer at market price. According to the agent. I'm going to be blunt here, what do any of the real estate sites out there - that offer a wealth of information for free - indicate? If you don't know, then yet again you don't know if you made the right offer or not. Do some research now by yourself. I would be shocked if your offer was at the right level. Set your emotions aside - there are a gazillion houses out there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "241f4865e904c4cb490fc953274884e1", "text": "\"First off; I don't know of the nature of the interpersonal relationship between you and your roommate, and I don't really care, but I will say that your use of that term was a red flag to me, and it will be so to a bank; buying a home is a big deal that you normally do not undertake with just a \"\"friend\"\" or \"\"roommate\"\". \"\"Spouses\"\", \"\"business partners\"\", \"\"domestic partners\"\" etc are the types of people that go in together on a home purchase, not \"\"roommates\"\". Going \"\"halvsies\"\" on a house is not something that's easily contracted; you can't take out two primary mortgages for half the house's value each, because you can't split the house in half, so if one of you defaults that bank takes the house leaving both the other person and their bank in the lurch. Co-signing on one mortgage is possible but then you tie your credit histories together; if one of you can't make their half of the mortgage, both of you can be pursued for the full amount and both of you will see your credit tank. That's not as big a problem for two people joined in some other way (marriage/family ties) but for two \"\"friends\"\" there's just way too much risk involved. Second, I don't know what it's like in your market, but when I was buying my first house I learned very quickly that extended haggling is not really tolerated in the housing market. You're not bidding on some trade good the guy bought wholesale for fifty cents and is charging you $10 for; the seller MIGHT be breaking even on this thing. An offer that comes in low is more likely to be rejected outright as frivolous than to be countered. It's a fine line; if you offer a few hundred less than list the seller will think you're nitpicking and stay firm, while if you offer significantly less, the seller may be unable to accept that price because it means he no longer has the cash to close on his new home. REOs and bank-owned properties are often sold at a concrete asking price; the bank will not even respond to anything less, and usually will not even agree to eat closing costs. Even if it's for sale by owner, the owner may be in trouble on their own mortgage, and if they agree to a short sale and the bank gets wind (it's trivial to match a list of distressed mortgaged properties with the MLS listings), the bank can swoop in, foreclose the mortgage, take the property and kill the deal (they're the primary lienholder; you don't \"\"own\"\" your house until it's paid for), and then everybody loses. Third, housing prices in this economy, depending on market, are pretty depressed and have been for years; if you're selling right now, you are almost certainly losing thousands of dollars in cash and/or equity. Despite that, sellers, in listing their home, must offer an attractive price for the market, and so they are in the unenviable position of pricing based on what they can afford to lose. That again often means that even a seller who isn't a bank and isn't in mortgage trouble may still be losing thousands on the deal and is firm on the asking price to staunch the bleeding. Your agent can see the signs of a seller backed against a wall, and again in order for your offer to be considered in such a situation it has to be damn close to list. As far as your agent trying to talk you into offering the asking price, there's honestly not much in it for him to tell you to bid higher vs lower. A $10,000 change in price (which can easily make or break a deal) is only worth $300 to him either way. There is, on the other hand, a huge incentive for him to close the deal at any price that's in the ballpark: whether it's $365k or $375k, he's taking home around $11k in commission, so he's going to recommend an offer that will be seriously considered (from the previous points, that's going to be the asking price right now). The agent's exact motivations for advising you to offer list depend on the exact circumstances, typically centering around the time the house has been on the market and the offer history, which he has access to via his fellow agents and the MLS. The house may have just had a price drop that brings it below comparables, meaning the asking price is a great deal and will attract other offers, meaning you need to move fast. The house may have been offered on at a lower price which the seller is considering (not accepted not rejected), meaning an offer at list price will get you the house, again if you move fast. Or, the house may have been on the market for a while without a price drop, meaning the seller can go no lower but is desperate, again meaning an offer at list will get you the house. Here's a tip: virtually all offers include a \"\"buyer's option\"\". For a negotiated price (typically very small, like $100), from the moment the offer is accepted until a particular time thereafter (one week, two weeks, etc) you can say no at any time, for any reason. During this time period, you get a home inspection, and have a guy you trust look at the bones of the house, check the basic systems, and look for things that are wrong that will be expensive to fix. Never make an offer without this option written in. If your agent says to forego the option, fire him. If the seller wants you to strike the option clause, refuse, and that should be a HUGE red flag that you should rescind the offer entirely; the seller is likely trying to get rid of a house with serious issues and doesn't want a competent inspector telling you to lace up your running shoes. Another tip: depending on the pricepoint, the seller may be expecting to pay closing costs. Those are traditionally the buyer's responsibility along with the buyer's agent commission, but in the current economy, in the pricepoint for your market that attracts \"\"first-time homebuyers\"\", sellers are virtually expected to pay both of those buyer costs, because they're attracting buyers who can just barely scrape the down payment together. $375k in my home region (DFW) is a bit high to expect such a concession for that reason (usually those types of offers come in for homes at around the $100-$150k range here), but in the overall market conditions, you have a good chance of getting the seller to accept that concession if you pay list. But, that is usually an offer made up front, not a weapon kept in reserve, so I would have expected your agent to recommend that combined offer up front; list price and seller pays closing. If you offer at list you don't expect a counter, so you wouldn't keep closing costs as a card to play in that situation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1671e0c36aa97edecf1b36e4e2d806b0", "text": "\"First piece of advice: fire your agent. A pushy agent is a bad agent. From what you've told us, he's actually given you poor advice regarding mortgage interest rates. Rates are already at historic lows. That and the precarious state of the world economy mean that further rate cuts are more likely in the near term. Second piece of advice: While more information on the real estate market you're in would help, going in at asking price is rarely a good idea. Sale prices from \"\"the last few years\"\" are not relevant to what you should pay, because the last few years include a financial crisis caused in large part by the bursting of a housing bubble. They could be even less relevant depending on your location because of a spike in foreclosures in certain areas of the U.S. There was already a ton of housing inventory before, so an increase due to foreclosures is going to depress prices further. Now that banks are finally practicing the due diligence they should have been all along, your ability to be pre-approved for large mortgage amount puts you in a strong position. Use a tool like Zillow or Redfin to see what properties in that area have sold for over the past six months. You should also be able to see a history of what prices the particular property you're interested in has been offered and/or sold at in the past. Also check and see how long the particular property you're interested in has been on the market. If it's been on the market more than 60-90 days, it's priced too high.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a4fb368b6631427c533efacb6489ecc", "text": "Both of my primary home purchases were either at, or close to asking price. My first house was during the local seller's market in 2001-2002. There were waiting lines for open houses. In hindsight we bought more home than we needed at the time but that had nothing to do with offering asking price. It was the market for the type of property (location and features) at that time. My second house was a little after the peak in 2008. The value had come down quite a bit and the property was priced on the low side versus the comps. To this day my second house still appraises higher than what we paid for it even though it was at asking price. As a third example, my brother-in-law got into a bidding war on his first home purchase and ended up buying it for above asking price. This was normal for the houses in the area he was looking at. With real estate, like other people have said, it really is important to either know the area you are looking at or to get an agent you trust and have them explain their reasons for their offer strategy through the comps. Yes agents need to make money but the good ones have been in the business a while and also live off of repeat business when you sell your house or refer friends and family to them. Agents do a lot less work when it comes to selling by the way so they would love for you to come back to them when it's time to sell. If I'm not happy with the way things are going with my agent I would have a heart to heart with them and give them a chance to correct the relationship. I've spoken to a realtor friend in the past about getting out of buyer's contracts and he told me it's a lot easier as a buyer than a seller. The buyer has most of the power during the process. The seller just has what the buyer wants.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "59b6f3eb56c43f3107ec7bcacdb5d90c", "text": "\"EVERYONE buys at the ask price and sells at the bid price (no matter who you are). There are a few important things you need to understand. Example: EVE bid: 16.00 EVE ask: 16.25 So if your selling EVE at \"\"market price\"\" you are entering an ask equal to the highest bid ($16.00). If you buy EVE at \"\"market price\"\" you are entering a bid equal to the lowest ask price ($16.25). Its key to understand this rule: \"\"An order executes ONLY when both bid and ask meet. (bid = ask).\"\" So a market maker puts in a bid when he wants to buy but the trade only executes when an ASK price meets his BID price. When you see a quote for a stock it is the price of the last trade. So it is possible to have a quote higher or lower then both the bid and the ask.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "302ff94541610d094a190bec9d6a88c4", "text": "Both seem to be reasonable. To decide you need to guess if the value of the house will go up or down between now and when you sell. If you think the value will go up - reach a calculation agreement now. If you think the value will go down - wait until the house is actually sold. So ya pays yer money, and ya takes yer chances... I think I understand the two scenarios Unless you are absolutely confident that you understand both scenarios - make sure your lawyer gets involved and explains them to you until you do understand.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04bfc87cb156f3d2cd6b402f7d5d60ca", "text": "Sounds to me like you're describing just how it should work. Ask is at 30, Bid is at 20; you offer a new bid at 25. Either: Depending on liquidity, one or the other may be more likely. This Investorplace article on the subject describes what you're seeing, and recommends the strategy you're describing precisely. Instead of a market order, take advantage of the fact that the options world truly is a marketplace — one where you can possibly get a better price just by asking. How does that work? If you use a limit order (instead of a market order) when opening a position, you can tell your broker how much you are willing to pay to enter a trade. For example, if you enter a limit price of $1.15, you can see whether the market-maker will bite. You will be surprised at how many times you will get your price (i.e., $1.15) instead of the ask price of $1.30. If your order at $1.15 is not filled after a few minutes, you can modify your order and pay the ask price by entering a market order or limit order at the ask price (that is, you can tell your broker to pay no more than $1.30).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "321a9e0dfd37e1eb1cf5a0bb3780e3f3", "text": "EDIT: new ideas based on the full story. I wouldn't worry about the price history. While it is certainly true that some buyers might try to leverage that information against you, the bottom line is the price is the price. Both the buyer and the seller have to agree. If the initial listing was too high, then lower the price. If that isn't low enough, then readjust down. I see no harm in moving the price down over time repeatedly. In fact, I thin that is a good tactic to getting the most for the house. If you happen to have the luxury of time, then keep lowering that price until it sells. Don't fret how that behavior appears. You can lower the price as often as you like until it sells. I am not a real estate agent, and I am a terrible negotiator, but I would lower the price every quarter until it sells. You can't go down to fast (a buyer might wait you out) and you can't wait to long as you stated. Also, if you house is priced inline with the neighborhood, you can at least get offers and negotiate. Buy asking for such a premium (25%) folks might not even make an offer. You simply need to decide what is more important, the selling price or the time frame in getting it sold. If you house doesn't sell because the market doesn't support your price, then consider keeping it as a rental. You can do it yourself, or if you are not interested in that (large) amount of work, then hire a rental management company to do it for a fee. Renting a home is hard work and requires attention to detail, a good amount of your time and much labor. If you just need to wait a couple of years before selling, renting it can be a good option to cover your costs while you wait for the market to reach you. You should get advice on how to handle the money, how to rent it, how to deal with renters, and the the laws are in your jurisdiction. Rent it out to a trusted friend or family member for a steal of a deal. They save money, and you get the luxury of time waiting for the sale. With a real estate lawyer you hire, get a contract for a lease option or owner finance deal on the house. Sometimes you can expand the market of people looking to buy your house. If you have a willing purchaser will bad credit, you can be doing them a favor and solving your own issue. It costs money and you will make less on the sale, but it could be better than nothing. Take heed, there is a reason some people cannot get a traditional loan on their own. Before you extend your good name or credit think about it. It is another hassle for sure. This won't help if you have to pay off a mortgage, but you could donate it. This is another tricky deal that you really need to speak with a lawyer who specialize in charitable giving. There are tax benefits, but I would make any kind of a deal where tax deductions are the only benefit. This is common enough these days. If you are unable to pay for the mortgage, it benefits you and the bank to get into a short sale arrangement. They bank gets probably more money than if they have to foreclose (and they save money on legal fees) and you can get rid of the obligation. You will do a deed in lieu or the short sale depending on how the market it and what the house can be sold for. You and the bank will have to work it out. This will ruin for a credit for a while, and you will not likely qualify to get a new mortgage for at least a few years. You can stop paying your mortgage, tell the bank and they will foreclose. This is going to ruin your credit for a long time as well as disqualify you from mortgages in the near future. Don't do this. If you are planning a foreclosure, take the time to contact your bank and arrange a short sale or a deed in lieu. There isn't really any excuse to go into foreclosure if you are having problems. Talk to the bank and work out a deal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bffdd2b0003ce358a8fc2bc569131763", "text": "\"Price is decided by what shares are offered at what prices and who blinks first. The buyer and seller are both trying to find the best offer, for their definition of best, within the constraints then have set on their bid or ask. The seller will sell to the highest bid they can get that they consider acceptable. The buyer will buy from the lowest offer they can get that they consider acceptable. The price -- and whether a sale/purchase happens at all -- depends on what other trades are still available and how long you're willing to wait for one you're happy with, and may be different on one share than another \"\"at the same time\"\" if the purchase couldn't be completed with the single best offer and had to buy from multiple offers. This may have been easier to understand in the days of open outcry pit trading, when you could see just how chaotic the process is... but it all boils down to a high-speed version of seeking the best deal in an old-fashioned marketplace where no prices are fixed and every sale requires (or at least offers the opportunity for) negotiation. \"\"Fred sells it five cents cheaper!\"\" \"\"Then why aren't you buying from him?\"\" \"\"He's out of stock.\"\" \"\"Well, when I don't have any, my price is ten cents cheaper.\"\" \"\"Maybe I won't buy today, or I'll buy elsewhere. \"\"Maybe I won't sell today. Or maybe someone else will pay my price. Sam looks interested...\"\" \"\"Ok, ok. I can offer two cents more.\"\" \"\"Three. Sam looks really interested.\"\" \"\"Two and a half, and throw in an apple for Susie.\"\" \"\"Done.\"\" And the next buyer or seller starts the whole process over again. Open outcry really is just a way of trying to shop around very, very, very fast, and electronic reconciliation speeds it up even more, but it's conceptually the same process -- either seller gets what they're asking, or they adjust and/or the buyer adjusts until they meet, or everyone agrees that there's no agreement and goes home.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d8c9f475503a6d26527bf51a9b7c732", "text": "The Bid price is simply the highest buy price currently being offered and the Ask price simply the lowest sell price being offered. The list of Bid and Ask prices is called the market depth. When the Bid and Ask prices match then a sale goes through. When looking to sell you would generally look at both the Bid and Ask prices. As a seller you want to be matched with the Bid price to get a sale, but you also need to check the current list of Ask prices. If the price you want to sell at is too high you will be placed down the Ask price list, and unless the price moves up to match your sell price you will not end up selling. On the other-hand, if your price to sell is too low and in fact much lower than the current lowest sell price you may get a quick sale but maybe at a lower price than you could have gotten. Similarly, when looking to buy, you would generally also look at both the Bid and Ask prices. As a buyer you want to be matched with the Ask price to get a sale, but you also need to check the current list of Bid prices. If the price you want to buy at is too low you will be placed down the Bid price list, and unless the price moves down to match your buy price you will no end up buying. On the other-hand, if your price to buy is too high and in fact much higher than the current highest buy price you may get a quick purchase but maybe at a higher price than you could have gotten. So, whether buying or selling, it is important to look at and consider both the Bid and Ask prices in the market depth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61c079ef2f132f729a06ac1ac383560e", "text": "\"even though they're only asking for 1/2 the money and have excellent credit that the mortgage company may not lend it to them if I'm over priced Yes. If the house's value, as determined by the appraisal, is less than the sale price, the bank will not finance the loan. Appraisals and the appraisal process have become much tighter since the Frannie and Freddie debacle. This fact is true regardless of amounts or credit history. Though this is happens somewhat rarely; typically if a seller and buyer agree to a price, this price is a reasonable value -- after all, that is nearly the definition of \"\"market value\"\". So, yes, it is true (and always true, for any financed purchase), but that shouldn't really affect your decision. If you try to sell for more than the appraisal, you will just lower the price to the appraised amount.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df5527df899950b6cbc702027a4673cc", "text": "\"The real estate agent industry is a cartel. They seek to keep fees high even as their services are becoming less and less necessary. To that end, traditional seller's agents will laugh at your attempt to negotiate their fee. They can do this quite simply because the industry is designed so the vast majority of people think of buyer's agents as \"\"free\"\" even when they are anything but free. That being said, the only way to do what you're trying to do is to find a buyer's agent who will rebate to you a portion of the commission they receive. It is extremely extremely unlikely you'll get a seller's agent to play ball especially once they know you're interested. You can check out redfin which connects people to RE agents that rebate commissions but the buyer's cut isn't that high. Your best bet, IMO, is to contact agents in your area before you go shopping to see what kind of rebate you can negotiate with them. A word of caution, if you look at a house without your own agent, instead asking the seller's agent to show the house they will claim procuring clause and you'll be sunk. In other words, once they claim procuring clause, you can't, later, go back and get a discount broker to get the commission to rebate to you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa3d4b96522bea88e0bdae412d40b18e", "text": "\"There is considerable truth to what your realtor said about the Jersey City NJ housing market these days. It is a \"\"hot\"\" area with lots of expensive condos being bought up by people working on Wall Street in NYC (very easy commute by train, etc) and in many cases, the offers to purchase can exceed the asking price significantly. Be that as is may, the issue with accepting a higher offer but smaller downpayment is that when the buyer's lender appraises the property, the valuation might come in lower and the buyer may have to come up with the difference, or be required to accept a higher interest rate, or be refused the loan altogether if the lender estimates that the buyer is likely to default on the loan because his credit-worthiness is inadequate to support the monthly payments. So, the sale might fall through. Suppose that the property is offered for sale at $500K, and consider two bids, one for $480K with 30% downpayment ($144K) and another for $500K with 20% downpayment ($100K). If the property appraises for $450K, say, and the lender is not willing to lend more than 80% of that ($360K), then Buyer #1 is OK; it is only necessary to borrow $480K - $144K = $336K, while Buyer #2 needs to come up with another $40K of downpayment to be able to get the loan, or might be asked to pay a higher interest rate since the lender will be lending more than 80% of the appraised value, etc. Of course, Buyer #2's lender might be using a different appraiser whose valuation might be higher etc, but appraisals usually are within the same ballpark. Furthermore, good seller's agents can make good estimates of what the appraisal is likely to be, and if the asking price is larger than the agent's estimate of appraised value, then it might be to the advantage of the selling agent to recommend accepting the lower offer with higher downpayment over the higher offer with smaller downpayment. The sale is more likely to go through, and an almost sure 6% of $480K (3% if there is a buyer's agent involved) in hand in 30 days time is worth more than a good chance of nothing at the end of 15 days when the mortgage is declined, during which the house has been off the market on the grounds that the sale is pending. If you really like a house, you need to decide what you are willing to pay for it and tailor your offer accordingly, keeping in mind what your buyer's agent is recommending as the offer amount (the higher the price, the more the agent's commission), how much money you can afford to put down as a downpayment (don't forget closing costs, including points that might be need to be paid), and what your pre-approval letter says about how much mortgage you can afford. If you are Buyer #1, have a pre-approval letter for $360K, and have enough savings for a downpayment of up to $150K, and if you (or your spouse!) really, really, like the place and cannot imagine living in any other place, then you could offer $500K with 30% down (and blow the other offer out of the water). You could even offer more than $500K if you want. But, this is a personal decision. What your realtor said is perfectly true in the sense that for Y > Z, an offer at $X with $Y down is better than an offer at $X with $Z down. It is to a certain extent true that for W > X, a seller would find an offer at $X with $Y down to be more attractive that an offer at $W with $Z$ down, but that depends on what the appraisal is likely to be, and the seller's agent's recommendations.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98ca4d549287c7ab43dc505cd88d3e6b", "text": "Not that I am aware. There are times that an option is available, but none have traded yet, and it takes a request to get a bid/ask, or you can make an offer and see if it's accepted. But the option chain itself has to be open.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "351caceff65bf83be90d557d5c8a94f5", "text": "I stock is only worth what someone will pay for it. If you want to sell it you will get market price which is the bid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66d4014d0285f1fadf49f9f506d8c5c3", "text": "Did he say why he wants double your asking price? Did you explain to him how you came up with the offer you made? Sometimes exploring interests (why people make their decisions) is more helpful than bargaining over positions. If you understand why he wants double your offer (and he understands why you're offering a lower price) you might get closer to an agreement. Another option is to defer to a disinterested third-party who will pick a valuation for the company, and you can agree to abide by their decision (and pick a payout schedule if necessary) Think about what you'll do if you can't come to an agreement: is walking away from the business an option and going out on your own? What would happen to him if you simply walk away? It might be in his best interest to negotiate. Or will you reluctantly pay his asking price? Or can you sell the business to him? One option when partners need to split up is to have one of them set a value for the company, and the other decides if he wants to be the buyer or seller. (It's like the trick with kids where one cuts the cake and the other selects which slice he wants.) Maybe you can come up with a fair way of valuing the company. A lawyer will be needed to draw it all up, but you can agree on the framework of the deal ahead of time and save some money and stress. Last thought: when a win-win agreement isn't possible, sometimes the next best compromise is where everyone feels like he got equally screwed. That's ok, too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "039a71f141e848c3fc83ed22020c9e98", "text": "If you feel the house will appreciate, I'd say go for it. I'm not familiar with the Denver market but real estate can be a great way to build wealth. Besides, it seems like at this point you would lose your earnest money deposit if you back out. I do agree with people here though about the potential risk. The only way to make money is if the property appreciates. In Seattle, properties have appreciated like crazy in the past 5 years. Some have even gone up by 3x or 4x of what it was before. If you are right about appreciation in your market, this could be a gold mine. With all investments, there is risk involved. If you do plan to move forward, here are some suggestions: Best of luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a75dc27af5484d1453a016c56df5290b", "text": "\"If you're risking \"\"everything\"\" by buying stock, you shouldn't be buying stock. The employees are the ones who are really at risk. Should the business go belly up, the investors are out some investment money, they'll make more; the employees don't have an income source anymore. CAT may have no legal obligation to pay better than market-wages but if they want to keep their skilled labor from going to competitors, they might want to think about it. You can't build machines without workers. If you have a good product in an established market, you can always get more investors.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c931e46f81de6d63fdb5f24ab5231f46", "text": "The only way to hedge a position is to take on a countervailing position with a higher multiplier as any counter position such as a 1:1 inverse ETF will merely cancel out the ETF it is meant to hedge yielding a negative return roughly in the amount of fees & slippage. For true risk-aversion, continually selling the shortest term available covered calls is the only free lunch. A suboptimal version, the CBOE BuyWrite Index, has outperformed its underlying with lower volatility. The second best way is to continually hedge positions with long puts, but this can become very tax-complicated since the hedged positions need to be rebalanced continually and expensive depending on option liquidity. The ideal, assuming no taxes and infinite liquidity, is to sell covered calls when implied volatility is high and buy puts when implied volatility is low.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
60a849e7a58644000a2471f06a438c90	Which practice to keep finances after getting married: joint, or separate?	[ { "docid": "5d5e4e1d4f9c4dd063b662a9cce9501c", "text": "\"If you ask ten different couples what they do, depending on a variety of factors, you'll get anywhere between two and ten different answers. One personal finance blogger that I read swears by the fact that he and his wife keep their finances totally separate. His wife has her own retirement account, he has his. His wife has her own checking and savings, he has his. They pay fifty-fifty for expenses and each buy their own \"\"toys\"\" from their own accounts. He views this as valuable for allowing them to have their own personal finance styles, as his wife is a very conservative investor and he is more generous. My spouse and I have mostly combined finances, and view all of our money as joint (even though there are a smattering of accounts between us with just one name on them as holdovers from before we were married). Almost all of our purchasing decisions except regular groceries are joint. I couldn't imagine it any other way. It leaves us both comfortable with our financial situation and forces us to be on the same page with regards to our lifestyle decisions. There's also the ideological view that since we believe marriage united us, we try to live that out. That's just us, though. We don't want to force it on others. Some couples find a balance between joint accounts and his and her fun money stashes. You might find yet another arrangement that works for you, such as the one you already described. What's going to be important is that you realize that all couples have the same six basic arguments, finances being one of them. The trick is in how you disagree. If you can respectfully and thoughtfully discuss your finances together to find the way that has the least friction for you, you're doing well. Some amount of friction is not just normal, it's almost guaranteed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d40b527cb773fb000584515b7841983", "text": "Echoing Justkt, different approaches will work for different couples. It also depends on your background, life experience, age, maturity.... Irrespective of the structure, any agreement must be based on a thorough understanding of the mechanism by which responsibility and accountability is apportioned. As in any financial relationship, when money is plentiful and covers all ends, then conflict hardly ever arises. Problems only turn up when money vanishes. Business contracts are written with a view to such conflicts and agreements within a marriage must be equatable and based on a shared understanding. So, don't worry too much about the structure. Think about thinkgs like the following: In other words, given that income between spouses is likely to be unbalanced, how do you manage this within a caring relationship so that neither feels like a charity case, a social worker, or dependent? There will not be one clear answer except that open and honest discussion on an ongoing bases can only serve to strengthen your relationship.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "785dfcde9313891b41c7a84d465d469b", "text": "I feel there are two types of answer: One: the financial. Suck all the emotion out of the situation, and treat the two individuals as individuals. If that works for the two of you, fantastic. Two: the philosophical. You're married, it's a union, so unify the funds. If that works for you, fantastic. Personally, my partner and I do the latter. The idea of separate pots and separate accounts and one mixed fund etc makes no sense to us. But that's us. The first step for you in deciding on an approach is to know yourselves as people - and everything else will follow.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf25224291be04a013825b89ed54ef96", "text": "\"We've had everything in one pot almost from day one of marriage. The key ingredients to making that arrangement work is to communicate about the money, and realize that you're in it together. Everything one person does affects the other. Separating finances compartmentalizes the \"\"affecting one another\"\" part and makes it a little clearer perhaps, but I can also see it creating a sense of entitlement: \"\"This is my money.\"\" There should be a place for individual discretionary spending, of course, but I'm not sure that roping off that money is the best way to do it. It's less likely to be viable if there's one main breadwinner in the house. In our house, this is me. If we separated the finances like this, it would amount to giving my wife an allowance. Since she works harder at home than I do at work most of the time (she keeps the house, does meals and shopping, raises and schools our daughter, etc.) but just doesn't get paid for it, it would border on insult to her to treat the finances this way.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a14496dd953240ec031e3d5820cca04a", "text": "My wife and I have a different arrangement. I like to track everything down to the transaction level. She doesn't want everything tracked. We have everything joint and I track everything except she has one credit card where I do not see the statements only the total. She is more comfortable, because she can buy things without me seeing the price for individual transactions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "258f4bd28d5244989f9826624bf5a627", "text": "Here are the main ways of doing this that I've encountered. I've met advocates of each. You might be interested in this set of articles: http://www.slate.com/id/2281885/ which looks at some different ways of doing this and the financial - and other - effects.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb83cd6d3176913addf1ddabb97b7f53", "text": "\"My wife and I maintain seperate accounts. We have the bills split between us so that certain bills are paid by one of us, and other bills by the other. This is not a perfect 50/50 split as we don't make the same amount of money, but comparable enough that neither feels like they're doing all the bills alone. Our investments are similar. That means we each have a pool of money that we can spend on toys or entertainment as we see fit without overspending. Once my bills are paid and my savings are paid for the month, if I want to go buy some DVDs and my wife wants to buy a new lens for the camera, we don't have to agree. We just use our own money and do it. For us that's led to minimal friction or arguments over what to spend money on, simply because we aren't using the same pool. Getting it work requires getting the split right AND having the mindset that the other person is just as entitled to spend their share of the money as you are to spend yours. It really helps to eliminate issues where she spent money that I expected to be able to spend before I could, which can happen in a joint account. (We have no joint accounts, only things like the mortgage are in both our names.) I've been told by more then one person that how we're doing it is \"\"wrong\"\", but it works a lot better for us then trying to combine finances ever did. I think it also helps that we're younger, and this seems far less common amongst older couples.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72beec33a9189a1d0a75501cea6e1376", "text": "\"This particular topic has probably been beaten to death already. But from the other comments, it seems that splitting finances them is a popular solution on this forum. I can see the individual benefit of this - makes it easy to go buy whatever you want. But it can hurt too. What if the situation changes, and you are no longer employed? Your setup will cause stress because now you are having to ask your spouse to pay for everything. If this works for you - congratulations. But, fights may ensue - divorce may follow. I would like to offer an alternative. In my situation, I bring home a paycheck, while my wife does not. In this case, each of us paying 50% would simply not work. Not to say my wife doesn't work - she works her butt off cleaning house, raising kids, etc. What we do is have any money that comes in go into a pot. We budget (Oh no, the B-word!) out regular expenses (lights, gas, rent). Anything that isn't allocated goes towards retirement savings (In the US, an IRA is an Individual Retirement Account), or towards a war-chest for big project (such as home ownership). And each of us gets the same \"\"blow money\"\" allowance every week that we can do with as we please. Keep in mind, using this mentality allows the possibility of me staying home at some point in the future when my wife goes back to her dream job. And there is no financial stress about \"\"whom owns what\"\", or \"\"who paid for what\"\". We own it because we decided to pay for it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "518790024d1d008884adf628880d51c1", "text": "I personally think that you should do whatever you believe works best. I am not married but when I get married I would also want to do what you are doing with having a joint account for certain things but also still having seperate accounts. I find this is a good approach so that neither of you is dependent finanically on the other one. Also, if you want to buy a present for your wife you would do it with your own money and not the joint account money. I hope my answer helps.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1d298504aedaf9c53964353fee7c3c41", "text": "\"Personally I would advise only buying what you can afford without borrowing money, even if it means living in a tent. Financially, that is the best move. If you are determined to borrow money to buy a house, the person with income should buy it as sole owner. Split ownership will create a nightmare if any problems develop in the relationship. Split ownership has the advantage that it doubles the tax-free appreciation deduction from $250,000 to $500,000, but in your case my sense is that that is not a sufficient reason to risk dual ownership. Do not charge your \"\"partner\"\" rent. That is crazy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69f20bd44d5ef7300d1080dd2bf9ccce", "text": "\"There are different approaches, but here is what we do and what I recommend. Now that you are officially a married couple, open a joint bank account, and eliminate your individual accounts. There are several reasons for this. Having a joint account promotes unity and teamwork. When you only have a joint account, you do not have \"\"your income\"\" and \"\"her income,\"\" or \"\"your expenses\"\" and \"\"her expenses.\"\" You work together in everything. You discuss your goals and set your household budget together. If one of you makes more money than the other, that person is no longer \"\"worth more,\"\" because your incomes are pooled together. If one person with a higher income has more in their account than the other person does, it can lead to envy, which you do not want in your marriage. Having a joint account is more efficient and makes more sense. With separate accounts, who pays the rent/mortgage? Who pays the utilities, or buys the food? If you have separate accounts, it takes a lot of work to worry about what is \"\"fair\"\" when deciding how to divide up the expenses. With a single household budget and a joint account, you decide together what the household expenses are, and they get paid from one account. If one of you has debt, you both have debt. You work together to get it paid off and strengthen your financial situation in the process. Having a joint account forces you to discuss your finances together. Working toward common financial goals together is crucial in a strong marriage, but if you maintain your separate accounts, you might be tempted to put off these discussions until you are forced to by life circumstances. It is better to work together from the start, and joining your finances facilitates that. You are intending your marriage to last. Live your financial life like you believe that you are a team for life. If you live in a community property state, separate accounts are a fiction anyway; everything is treated as if it was pooled together in the event of a divorce. I understand that if you are used to having your own money, it can be difficult to give up that sole control over your income, but in my opinion, it is worth it. You will certainly hear of examples from couples who maintain separate accounts and make it work. In my humble opinion, combining your finances completely is easier to do right.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f320b7a4dd6e73f41791713408ae9961", "text": "Obviously, there are many approaches. I’ll describe what we do and why we think it is successful. I have seen many couples having disagreements and even divorce over money; it seems that this is a typical reason to fight and sometimes fight badly. The realization is that different people have different preferences what to spend their money on, and if you are not rich, it continuously leads to disagreements - ‘did you really need another pair of shoes?’, etc. Our solution is a weekly allowance. First, all our money goes into one pot and is considered equal. Many couples find that a difficult step, but I never thought twice about it - I trust my spouse, and I share my life with her, so why not my money? From this, we agree on an ‘allowance’ that is used to cover any non-common cost; this includes all clothing, dining out, buying things, etc. The amount was chosen to match about what we spent for those things anyway, and then adjusted annually. The main point is that there is no critique allowed about what this is spent on - you can blow it all on shoes, or buy books, or wine and dine, or gamble it away, whatever. We are doing this since 23 years now, and we are very happy with the results; we never have financial ‘fights’ anymore. Disadvantages are the effort - you need to keep track of it somehow. Either you use a separate credit card, or hand it out in cash, or have a complete accounting (I do the latter, because I want to). Regarding all other spend, we use the accounting to plan ahead for at least a year on all cost and income that are expected, and that shows us the available cash flow and where it might get tight. It also shows you where the money goes, and where you could cut if cutting is needed (or wanted). Again, there is some effort in collecting the data, but it is worth it (for us).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "701e8af5fd8da73baf91d54053149cb0", "text": "In Ontario, common law marriage requires 3 years of cohabitation, and doesn't give rights to property (which remains separate). I'd say in your situation you can still file as single, but I'd suggest asking your tax accountant to be sure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f9ba9aa9426ce230ecdcf7d11dfdf82", "text": "If it makes your finances easier, why not? My wife and I had his/hers/our since before we were married. I also have an account to handle transactions for my rental property, and one extra for PayPal use. I was paranoid to give out a checking account number with authorization for a third party to debit it, so that account has a couple hundred dollars, maximum. All this is just to explain that your finances should be arranged to simplify your life and make you comfortable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a6ec7acfcc016deaeedb5070d157e0a", "text": "I won't answer in a detailed manner because most people at this site like answers with certain bias' on these questions, like pool resources always relative to which partner is asking. If you follow the above advice, you are hoping things work out. Great! What if they don't? It will be very messy. Unlike most of my peers, I did NOT follow the above advice and had a very clean exit with both of us feeling very good (and no lawyers got involved either; win-win for both of us with all the money we saved). One assumption people make is the person with the lowest income has the strictest limits. This is not always true; I grew up in poverty, but have a very high income and detest financial waste. I can live on about €12,000 a year and even though my partner made a little less, my partner liked to spend. Counter intuitive, right? I was supposed to be the spender because I had a large income, but I wasn't. Also, think about an example with food - sharing expenses. Is it fair for one partner to split whey protein if one partner consumes it, but the other doesn't (answer: in my view, no)? My advice based on your questions: Balance the frugal vs. spendthrift mentality rather than income ratios. If you're both frugal, then focus on income ratios - but one may be more frugal than the other and the thought of spending €300 a month on housing is just insane to a person like me, whereas to most it's too little. Are you both exactly the same with this mentality - and be honest? Common costs that you both agree on can be easily split 50-50 and you can often benefit from economies of scale (like internet, cell phone). Both of us feel very strongly about being financially independent and if possible we both don't want to take money from each other. This is so healthy for a relationship. My partner and I split and we both still really love each other. We're headed in different directions, but we did not want to end bitterly. What you wrote is part of why we ended so well; we both were very independent financially. Kids are going to be a challenge because they come with expenses that partners don't always agree on. What do you and her think of childcare, for instance? You really want to know all this upfront; again a frugal vs. spendthrift mindset could cause some big tensions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f7f94e3e875f0372c59f6f6d08ac30f", "text": "\"Before you are married, I recommend keeping your finances separate. However, once you are married, I recommend combining your finances completely. In my opinion, marriage works best when you work together as a team, a single unit. You no longer have \"\"his money\"\" and \"\"her money,\"\" or \"\"his income\"\" and \"\"her income.\"\" Nor is there \"\"his debt\"\" and \"\"her debt.\"\" There is only \"\"our money,\"\" \"\"our income,\"\" \"\"our debt,\"\" and \"\"our budget.\"\" Indeed, if you are the one with less debt, isn't it in your household's best interest to help eliminate your spouse's debt as fast as possible? If you are the one with more income/employment, how do you quantify the monetary value of the spouse who stays at home more and manages the household? You can't, and it is best not to try. Instead, pool together all income and expenses, and work together to meet common goals. To do this, open up a joint bank account and close your individual accounts. Meet on a regular basis to decide your household budget. If you do that, it doesn't matter who is responsible for the mechanics of paying the bills or balancing the budget. These tasks just get assigned to someone, just like any other household chore. Usually, one of you will be more financially minded than the other, and that person will take the lead in setting the budget, paying the bills, balancing the checkbook, etc. However, it is important that both people are aware of what is going on and have access to the financial information. In our house, I am the one who takes the lead on financial matters. I pay the bills (out of our joint accounts) and set the monthly budget using YNAB software. However, my wife has the ability to look at YNAB at any time to see the budget, and she can log into the bank website to see the transactions there as well. No secrets. To be clear, we each have a small amount of cash/fun money that we can spend without worrying about checking in with the spouse on every little thing. But this is a small percentage of our budget, and we talk to each other before spending any significant amount of money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02d85f7e04b21aed3be88ef5151f5718", "text": "Well the idea of 'good practice' is subjective so obviously there won't be an objectively correct answer. I suspect that whatever article you read was making this recommendation as a budgeting tool to physically isolate your reserve of cash from your spending account(s) as a means to keep spending in check. This is a common idea that I've heard often enough, though I don't think I am alone in believing that it's unnecessary except in the case of a habitual spender who cannot be trusted to stay within a budget. I suppose there is a very small argument to be made about security where if you use a bank account for daily spending and that account is somehow compromised, the short-term damage is limited. In the end, I would argue that if you're in control of spending and budgeting, have a single source of income that is from regular employment, and you use a credit card for most of your daily spending, there's no compelling reason to have more than one bank account. Some people have a checking and savings account simply for the psychological effect of separating their money, some couples have 3-4 accounts for income, personal spending, and savings, other people have separate accounts for business/self-employment funds, and a few people like having many accounts that act as hard limits for spending in different categories. Of course, the other submitted answer is correct in noting that the more accounts that you have, the more you are opening yourself up to accounting issues if funds don't transfer the way you expect them to (assuming you're emptying the accounts often). Some banks are more lenient with this, however, and may offer you the option to freely 'overdraft' by pulling funding from another pre-designated account that you also hold at the same bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b73096242570bd775be7490170df556f", "text": "There would be no point to claim the gift exemption because a gift from a spouse that you file jointly with wouldn't be considered income. It would be the same as if you moved money from one bank account to another.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "101bd8af9cec549d6f124020231f8ebe", "text": "\"These sort of issues in structuring your personal finances relative to expenses can get complicated quickly, as your example demonstrates. I would recommend a solution that reduces duplication as much as possible- and depending on what information you're interested in tracking you could set it up in very different ways. One solution would be to create virtual sub accounts of your assets, and to record the source of money rather than the destination. Thus, when you do an expense report, you can limit on the \"\"his\"\" or \"\"hers\"\" asset accounts, and see only the expenses which pertain to those accounts (likewise for liabilities/credit cards). If, on the other hand, you're more interested in a running sum of expenses- rather than create \"\"Me\"\" and \"\"Spouse\"\" accounts at every leaf of the expense tree, it would make much more sense to create top level accounts for Expenses:His:etc and Expenses:Hers:etc. Using this model, you could create only the sub expense accounts that apply for each of your spending (with matching account structures for common accounts).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a898839170eac251d76c0ad96338106", "text": "Being new does not allow me yet to vote on your question, but what a good question it is. We share our opinion in separating finances in our very well going mariage. Currently I have found a sort of okay solution in two websites. These are http://www.yunoo.nl and http://www.moneytrackin.com/. You can actually tag spendings with multiple tags. I don't like the idea that the data is on a remote server, but since I have not found a proper local software solution, I just naively trust their promise that your data is save. Then again our financial situation is not that special.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ab2b7a9ead93dbd14f80545351f29f7", "text": "The basis of the home is the cost of land and material. That's it. Your time isn't added to basis. No different than if you spend 1000 hours in a soup kitchen. You deduct miles for your car and expenses you can document but you can't deduct your time. Over 2 years, you could have a gain up to $500K per married couple and pay no tax.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "857caa5f04ace57403694601f1826c25", "text": "\"First, filing status. If you and your wife are legally married, you should be filing your tax returns as married, either jointly or separately. In the US, \"\"head of household\"\" has a specific meaning and is for unmarried people who are supporting one or more relatives, per the IRS. If you are working full-time and your wife is not, then likely you will file a joint return, including all your income and all the expenses for your wife's business. So yes, the losses in her business will offset your income. Depending on how complex things are, you may want to hire a professional to help with your taxes. The rules for what can and cannot be deducted as a business expense can be opaque.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71789ebecce6528edd26dec2e904e972", "text": "HSAs are very similar to IRAs. Any investment returns grow tax-deferred and once you reach age 59 1/2 65, you can withdraw the funds for any purpose (subject to ordinary income tax), just like a traditional IRA. If you can afford to do so, I would recommend you to pay medical expenses out-of-pocket and let the funds in your HSA accumulate and grow. In general, the best way to allocate your funds is in the following order: Contribute to a 401(k) if your employer matches funds at a substantial rate Pay off high-interest debt (8% of more in current environment in 2011) Contribute to an IRA (traditional or Roth) Contribute to an HSA Contribute to a 401(k) without the benefit of employer matching One advantage of HSAs versus IRAs is that you don't have to have earned income (salary or self-employment income) in order to contribute. If you derive income solely from rents, interest or dividends, you can contribute the maximum amount ($3,050 for individuals in 2011) and get a full deduction from your income (Of course, you will need to maintain a high-deductible health plan in order to qualify). One downside of HSAs is the lack of competitively priced providers. Wells Fargo offers HSAs for free, but only allows you to keep your funds in cash, earning a very measly interest rate, or invest them in rather mediocre and expensive Wells Fargo mutual funds. Vanguard, known for its low-fee investment options, provides HSAs through a partner company, but the account maintenance charges are still quite high. Overall, HSAs are a worthwhile option as part of your investment plan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6a8f0229200cd6d0b5fe3f5feedd4dc", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-06/are-low-interest-rates-bad-for-growth) reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot) *** > James Chessen, the chief economist of the American Bankers&#039; Association, said in a June 5 interview, &quot;Interest rates have been too low for too long. It has created a problem for banks.&quot; The Independent Community Bankers of America, which represents smaller U.S. banks, believes that &quot;Higher interest rates would be a net plus for the community banking sector that would help them extend more credit,&quot; according to spokesman Paul Merski. > Officials at the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan are sensitive to the side effects of extremely low or even subzero interest rates. > In a May 24 speech in Madrid, ECB President Mario Draghi acknowledged that low policy rates &quot;May compress banks&#039; net interest margins and thus exert pressure on their profitability.&quot; But he said that ECB researchers found that taking into account offsetting beneficial effects, &quot;The overall impact of our measures on bank profitability was positive.\"\" * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6fodm5/is_the_world_overdoing_low_interest_rates/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~138044 tl;drs so far.\"\") \| [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) \| [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") \| Top* keywords: bank^#1 rate^#2 interest^#3 Low^#4 Calomiris^#5\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
2a11551f5794ae1b4efb231290de4b08	US tax for a resident NRI	[ { "docid": "ec3d14f8d9e15d3aab6f98d3a9cf46fd", "text": "If you are tax-resident in the US, then you must report income from sources within and without the United States. Your foreign income generally must be reported to the IRS. You will generally be eligible for a credit for foreign income taxes paid, via Form 1116. The question of the stock transfer is more complicated, but revolves around the beneficial owner. If the stocks are yours but held by your brother, it is possible that you are the beneficial owner and you will have to report any income. There is no tax for bringing the money into the US. As a US tax resident, you are already subject to income tax on the gain from the sale in India. However, if the investment is held by a separate entity in India, which is not a US domestic entity or tax resident, then there is a separate analysis. Paying a dividend to you of the sale proceeds (or part of the proceeds) would be taxable. Your sale of the entity containing the investments would be taxable. There are look-through provisions if the entity is insufficiently foreign (de facto US, such as a Subpart-F CFC). There are ways to structure that transaction that are not taxable, such as making it a bona fide loan (which is enforceable and you must pay back on reasonable terms). But if you are holding property directly, not through a foreign separate entity, then the sale triggers US tax; the transfer into the US is not meaningful for your taxes, except for reporting foreign accounts. Please review Publication 519 for general information on taxation of resident aliens.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e45082ebd31646e9466456f04258ad79", "text": "\"Please declare everything you earn in India as well as the total amount of assets (it's called FBAR). The penalties for not declaring is jail time no matter how small the amount (and lots of ordinary people every 2-3 years are regularly sent to jail for not declaring such income). It's taken very seriously by the IRS - and any Indian bank who has an office in the US or does business here, can be asked by IRS to provide any bank account details for you. You will get deductions for taxes already paid to a foreign country due to double taxation, so there won't be any additional taxes because income taxes in US are on par or even lower than that in India. Using tricks (like transferring ownership to your brother) may not be worth it. Note: you pay taxes only when you realize gains anyway - both in India or here, so why do you want to take such hassles. If you transfer to your brother, it will be taxed only until you hold them. Make sure you have exact dates of gains between the date you came to US and the date you \"\"gifted\"\" to your brother. As long as you clearly document that the stocks transferred to your brother was a gift and you have no more claims on them, it should be ok, but best to consult a CPA in the US. If you have claims on them, example agreement that you will repurchase them, then you will still continue to pay taxes. If you sell your real estate investments in India, you have to pay tax on the gains in the US (and you need proof of the original buying cost and your sale). If you have paid taxes on the real estate gains in India, then you can get deduction due to double tax avoidance treaty. No issues in bringing over the capital from India to US.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "8de35a507e65ca679887497e347f9d74", "text": "I keep visiting Dubai Not sure what kind of work it is, assuming it regular job. For the period mentioned above I was out of India for more than 182 days, If you were out of India for more than 182 days in a given financial year then you would NRI for tax purposes. till date I have not transferred any money from Dubai to my India account. Whether you have transferred the money or not is not relevant for tax purposes. Your status [NRI / Resident] is relevant. Do I need to declare the income I have earned in Dubai? No you are not required to as your status is NRI. You are required to file a return on the income [Salary/Interest/gains/etc] accruing in India. Do I need to change my residential status ? Not sure where you are wanting to change this. Will the income I have earned in Dubai is taxable ? As you are NRI, the income earned outside of India is not taxable in India. From a tax point of view, it does not matter whether you keep the funds in Dubai or transfer it back to India. Edit: The Income Tax rules are not very clear if your wife can claim for her father-in-law. Best consult a CA. For quite a few regulations, Wife's father-in-law are treated at par with father.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "525af4c7a0373197b4a72adee488f3df", "text": "The US will let you keep as much money as you want to within its borders regardless of your citizenship. You'll owe capital gains tax in the US unless you're subject to a tax treaty (which you would probably make as an election in the year of the transaction). I don't know if India has any rules about how it governs its citizens' foreign assets, but the US requires citizens to file a form annually declaring foreign accounts over $10,000. You may be subject to additional Indian taxes if India taxes global income like the US does.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "819197acdc0e88afc44350dcccd999eb", "text": "\"I believe you have to file a tax return, because state tax refund is considered income effectively connected with US trade or business, and the 1040NR instructions section \"\"Who Must File\"\" includes people who were engaged in trade or business in the US and had a gross income. You won't end up having to pay any taxes as the income is less than your personal exemption of $4050.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c69177e47bd21ad594a45558a393d9f", "text": "Assuming that the NRE (NonResident External) account is in good standing, that is, you are still eligible to have an NRE account because your status as a NonResident of India has not changed in the interim, you can transfer money back from your NRE account to your US accounts without any problems. But be aware that you bear the risk of getting back a much smaller amount than you invested in the NRE account because of devaluation of the Indian Rupee (INR). NRE accounts are held in INR, and whatever amounts (in INR) that you choose to withdraw will be converted to US$ at the exchange rate then applicable. Depending on whether it is the Indian bank that is doing the conversion and sending money by wire to your US bank, or you are depositing a cheque in INR in your US bank, you may be charged miscellaneous service fees also. To answer a question that you have not asked as yet, there is no US tax on the transfer of the money. The interest paid on your deposits into the NRE account are not taxable income to you in India, but are taxable income to you in the US, and so I hope that you have been declaring this income each year on Schedule B of your income tax return, and also reporting that you have accounts held abroad, as required by US law. See for example, this question and its answer and also this question and its answer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c409a1afbc53fbc1ed1a0b689ab8c03a", "text": "Assuming you are Resident Indian. As per Indian Income Tax As per section 208 every person whose estimated tax liability for the year exceeds Rs. 10,000, shall pay his tax in advance in the form of “advance tax”. Thus, any taxpayer whose estimated tax liability for the year exceeds Rs. 10,000 has to pay his tax in advance by the due dates prescribed in this regard. However, as per section 207, a resident senior citizen (i.e., an individual of the age of 60 years or above) not having any income from business or profession is not liable to pay advance tax. In other words, if a person satisfies the following conditions, he will not be liable to pay advance tax: Hence only self assessment tax need to be paid without any interest. Refer the full guideline on Income tax website", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7613eabc169fad3fafc9d947392f98d", "text": "The IRS' primary reference Pub 519 Tax Guide for Aliens -- current year online (current and previous years downloadable in PDF from the Forms&Pubs section of the website) says NO: Students and business apprentices from India. A special rule applies .... You can claim the standard deduction .... Use Worksheet 5-1 to figure your standard deduction. If you are married and your spouse files a return and itemizes deductions, you cannot take the standard deduction. Note the last sentence, which is clearly an exception to the 'India rule', which is already an exception to the general rule that nonresident filers never get the standard deduction. Of course this is the IRS' interpretation of the law (which is defined to include ratified treaties); if you think they are wrong, you could claim the deduction anyway and when they assess the additional tax (and demand payment) take it to US Tax Court -- but I suspect the legal fees will cost you more than the marginal tax on $6300, even under Tax Court's simplified procedures for small cases.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ac393eb7139b67ca2c0f1a3581ef89c", "text": "Assuming you are NRI, any income you earn is not taxable in India whether you transfer to India or not. Is this amount taxable in India? If yes then how much I have to pay as tax. No it is not taxable. How to fixed Deposit this money from Saudi Arabia or from India through my husband or parents? You can open Fixed Deposits in your name or your husband/parents name. It is your choice. Some Banks allow you to operate an NRE account via Internet If I put this money in 2-3 FD's (like 5 lakh one FD and 2 or 3 lakh other FD's) then the interest earned is taxable? Interest is taxable. Can I withdraw any FD without maturity if needed in urgent? That depends on type of FD you have opened. Some allow withdrawal before maturity with a penalty other don't allow.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1821d489190ca4b39fdd9e8a953ad6d1", "text": "\"What do you mean by \"\"Canadian income\"\"? Was it income paid to you as wages for the job you did in the US? Or rental/interest income in Canada? If the former - then it doesn't go to NEC, it goes to the main part of the return. If the latter - it doesn't appear on your NR return at all. Yes, it is to validate your residency status. It has no other effect on your taxes.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c2718faab7ee5008d2257c0669ca216", "text": "\"I'm assuming that by saying \"\"I'm a US resident now\"\" you're referring to the residency determination for tax purposes. Should I file a return in the US even though there is no income here ? Yes. US taxes its residents for tax purposes (which is not the same as residents for immigration or other purposes) on worldwide income. If yes, do I get credits for the taxes I paid in India. What form would I need to submit for the same ? I am assuming this form has to be issued by IT Dept in India or the employer in India ? The IRS doesn't require you to submit your Indian tax return with your US tax return, however they may ask for it later if your US tax return comes under examination. Generally, you claim foreign tax credits using form 1116 attached to your tax return. Specifically for India there may also be some clause in the Indo-US tax treaty that might be relevant to you. Treaty claims are made using form 8833 attached to your tax return, and I suggest having a professional (EA/CPA licensed in your State) prepare such a return. Although no stock transactions were done last year, should I still declare the value of total stocks I own ? If so what is an approx. tax rate or the maximum tax rate. Yes, this is done using form 8938 attached to your tax return and also form 114 (FBAR) filed separately with FinCEN. Pay attention: the forms are very similar with regard to the information you provide on them, but they go to different agencies and have different filing requirements and penalties for non-compliance. As to tax rates - that depends on the types of stocks and how you decide to treat them. Generally, the tax rate for PFIC is very high, so that if any of your stocks are classified as PFIC - you'd better talk to a professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about how to deal with them. Non-PFIC stocks are dealt with the same as if they were in the US, unless you match certain criteria described in the instructions to form 5471 (then a different set of rules apply, talk to a licensed tax adviser). I will be transferring most of my stock to my father this year, will this need to be declared ? Yes, using form 709. Gift tax may be due. Talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). I have an apartment in India this year, will this need to be declared or only when I sell the same later on ? If there's no income from it - then no (assuming you own it directly in your own name, for indirect ownership - yes, you do), but when you sell you will have to declare the sale and pay tax on the gains. Again, treaty may come into play, talk to a tax adviser. Also, be aware of Section 121 exclusion which may make it more beneficial for you to sell earlier.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b06cf61d9da1756b77f18ecfb634e214", "text": "You do not need to report gifts from US residents (US citizens/green card holders/tax residents due to length of stay) since filing gift tax return is their responsibility. In case of foreigners you need to report gifts in excess of $100K. In any case, transfers between spouses are exempt from gift tax.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "012f605227ef0d892bc1b5ebfac70818", "text": "From an Indian Tax point of view, you can bring back all the assets acquired during the period you were NRI back to India tax free. Subject to a 7 years period. i.e. all the assets / funds / etc should be brought back to India within 7 years. It would still be treated as There are certain conditions / paperwork. Please consult a CA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "746c2df9ea5a586fc65a71a374c66c25", "text": "I have some more inputs to investigate: India has dual tax avoidance treaty signed with european countries so that NRIs dont pay tax in both countries. Please check if India has some agreement with Swiss Also for freelance job that is delivered from India, u need to make sure where you have to pay taxes as you are still in India so the term NRI will not hold good here. Also, if Swiss company is paying tax there, and you are a freelancer from India(resident in india) how to tax filing /rate etc has to be investigated. Also, can you apply for tax back from swiss( a portion of tax paid can be refunded eg: in Germany) but I dont know if this is true for Freelancers and also for people out side SWISS. Bip", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb2e53bae376cfbc345663b020909f61", "text": "After that I moved to the Middle East on March 23rd, 2015 As an NRI, one should not hold any Savings account. Please have this converted to NRO Account. Additionally it is advised that you open an NRE account. Both these can be done remotely. If I transfer money from here to a non NRE/NRO account then is it taxable? Assuming its income earned when you are NRI, it is not taxable. However if there is audit enquiry you would need to have sufficient proof to back that this income is earned during your period as NRI and hence not taxable. As indicate above, holding a savings account when you are NRI is a breach of FEMA regulation. I have been getting mail from myITreturns.com to file income tax returns. Since I am considered as NRI, do I have to fill any non return form online? If there is a source of income in India, interest on savings account etc, it is taxable and you would need to file appropriate returns. Even if you have zero income, it is safe to file a NIL return. For the year 2014 do I have to file income tax returns? For the financial year 1st April 2014 to 31st March 2015, you are still a resident Indian for tax purposes. You should have filed the return by June 2015 if there was tax due, else by March 2016. If you have not done so, please do this ASAP and regularise it.", "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": "a72f166a535fb9410d51387be1ec78a1", "text": "What are the steps to bring the money to the US? It is worth 1.25 Crore and I have already paid the 20% tax in India. Under the Liberalized Remittance Scheme an Individual can repatriate funds upto USD 250,000 without any paperwork. However most banks would be cautious and request for Form 15CA and Form 15CB if you are moving funds from NRO Account. Form 15 CA you would need to declare why you are moving the said funds. The Form 15 CB is to be filled by Chartered Account certifying that relevant taxes have been already paid to Income Tax. Most Banks would offer these services. Compare the Fx Rate and Fees before you make a decision as to which Bank to proceed with.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
5887ae10bf4ab41246a1f0c385e4673d	How to withdraw money from currency account without having to lose so much to currency conversion?	[ { "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": "04e22683b2bf282a1ed2d51366b707aa", "text": "\"In answer to the \"\"how I can perform withdrawal with the lower rate (having GBP)?\"\" part of your question, as Joe stated you need to use another bank or currency exchange company to convert the GBP to PLN. Most of the UK banks charge similar amounts, and it's usually not possible to transfer the GBP to a foreign bank unless you have a GBP account with them. Some currency exchange firms are Transferwise, FairFX, CaxtonFX, a web search will show a fuller range. You could also use Paypal to do the transfer (if you have a paypal account) by transferring the GBP from Barclays to your paypal account and then from there to your PLN account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8a3be770ce129bad4209e137762f080", "text": "In your position I would use one of the existing Polish currency exchange platforms (you can find a list here: http://jakikantor.pl). A few of them have bank accounts in Britain so the exchange rate will be close to market price.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "0848988ee6bf5d902b7090dcbc46de00", "text": "The location does matter in the case where you introduce currency risk; by leaving you US savings in USD, you're basically working on the assumption that the USD will not lose value against the EUR - if it does and you live in the EUR-zone, you've just misplaced some of your capital. Of course that also works the other way around if the USD appreciates against the EUR, you gained some money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca5d202b93c164af5f61d58a5cd0aa01", "text": "Here's what the GnuCash documentation, 10.5 Tracking Currency Investments (How-To) has to say about bookkeeping for currency exchanges. Essentially, treat all currency conversions in a similar way to investment transactions. In addition to asset accounts to represent holdings in Currency A and Currency B, have an foreign exchange expenses account and a capital gains/losses account (for each currency, I would imagine). Represent each foreign exchange purchase as a three-way split: source currency debit, foreign exchange fee debit, and destination currency credit. Represent each foreign exchange sale as a five-way split: in addition to the receiving currency asset and the exchange fee expense, list the transaction profit in a capital gains account and have two splits against the asset account of the transaction being sold. My problems with this are: I don't know how the profit on a currency sale is calculated (since the amount need not be related to any counterpart currency purchase), and it seems asymmetrical. I'd welcome an answer that clarifies what the GnuCash documentation is trying to say in section 10.5.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56f91d84f1a43125d0d28f4dd642bb6f", "text": "Well, one way I avoid all exchange fees is to trade currency with an individual. There's no trick, though. Just find a friend or family member on the other side of the border who wants your USD or your CAD, look up the exchange rate for the day, and hand over the money (or write each other checks). It's win-win because both sides are getting a good deal with no fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6f497d0d1f37a618b3d6ef7938703e3", "text": "Wire transfers are the best method. Costs can vary from $10 to $100 or more, depending on the banks and countries involved. There's rarely any saving using the same bank, although HSBC may have reduced charges if you have Premier accounts in both countries (for a one-off transaction, it may not be worth the effort to open an account). However, that cost is insignificant compared to your possible losses on the currency exchange. Assuming your money is currently in Hong Kong Dollars (HKD), it will need to be converted to US Dollars (USD). One place where it could be converted is at your Hong Kong bank. You'll get their retail rate. Make sure you are aware of the rate they will use, and any fees, in advance. Expect to pay around 2-3% from the mid-market rate (the rate you see quoted online, which doesn't fluctuate much for HKD-USD as the currencies are linked). Another place where the currency could be converted is at your US bank. You really don't get any control over that if it arrives as HKD and is then automatically converted into your USD. The rate and fees could be quite poor, especially if it is a minor US bank that has to deal with anther bank for foreign currency. For amounts of this size, it's worthwhile using a specialist currency conversion company instead. Currency Fair in Ireland is one. It's a peer-to-peer exchange that is generally the best deal (at least for the currency pairs I use). You wire the money to them, do the exchange on their site at a rate that is much closer to 0.5% from the midrate, then the money is transferred out by wire for a few dollars. Adds a few days to the process, but will possibly save you close to US$1000. Another established option is Currency Online in New Zealand. There are probably also specialist currency exchange companies in Hong Kong. The basic rule is, don't let the banks exchange currencies at rates that suit them, use a third party that offers a better rate and lower fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5a5158de606e7e460cd70ae9d56b730", "text": "\"UPDATE: Unfortunately Citibank have removed the \"\"standard\"\" account option and you have to choose the \"\"plus\"\" account, which requires a minimum monthly deposit of 1800 sterling and two direct debits. Absolutely there is. I would highly recommend Citibank's Plus Current Account. It's a completely free bank account available to all UK residents. http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/bankingproducts/currentaccounts/sterling/plus/index.htm There are no monthly fees and no minimum balance requirements to maintain. Almost nobody in the UK has heard of it and I don't know why because it's extremely useful for anyone who travels or deals in foreign currency regularly. In one online application you can open a Sterling Current Account and Deposit Accounts in 10 other foreign currencies (When I opened mine around 3 years ago you could only open up to 7 (!) accounts at any one time). Citibank provide a Visa card, which you can link to any of your multi currency accounts via a phone call to their hotline (unfortunately not online, which frequently annoys me - but I guess you can't have everything). For USD and EUR you can use it as a Visa debit for USD/EUR purchases, for all other currencies you can't make debit card transactions but you can make ATM withdrawals without incurring an FX conversion. Best of all for your case, a free USD cheque book is also available: http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/international/eurocurrent.htm You can fund the account in sterling and exchange to USD through online banking. The rates are not as good as you would get through an FX broker like xe.com but they're not terrible either. You can also fund the account by USD wire transfer, which is free to deposit at Citibank - but the bank you issue the payment from will likely charge a SWIFT fee so this might not be worth it unless the amount is large enough to justify the fee. If by any chance you have a Citibank account in the US, you can also make free USD transfers in/out of this account - subject to a daily limit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97d71f0aa71ee30780c8ca0195c66503", "text": "To transfer US$30,000 from the USA to Europe, ask your European banker for the SWIFT transfer instructions. Typically in the USA the sending bank needs a SWIFT code and an account number, the name and address of the recipient, and the amount to transfer. A change of currency can be made as part of the transfer. The typical fee to do this is under US$100 and the time, under 2 days. But you should ask (or have the sender ask) the bank in the USA about the fees. In addition to the fee the bank may try to make a profit on the change of currency. This might be 1-2%. If you were going to do this many times, one way to go about it is to open an account at Interactive Brokers, which does business in various countries. They have a foreign exchange facility whereby you can deposit various currencies into your account, and they stay in that currency. You can then trade the currencies at market rates when you wish. They are also a stock broker and you can also trade on the various exchanges in different countries. I would say, though, they they mostly want customers already experienced with trading. I do not know if they will allow someone other than you to pay money into your account. Trading companies based in the USA do not like to be in the position of collecting on cheques owed to you, that is more the business of banks. Large banks in the USA with physical locations charge monthly fees of $10/mo or more that might be waived if you leave money on deposit. Online banks have significantly lower fees. All US banks are required to follow US anti-terrorist and anti-crime regulations and will tend to expect a USA address and identity documents to open an account with normal customers. A good international bank in Europe can also do many of these same sorts of things for you. I've had an account with Fortis. They were ok, there were no monthly fees but there were fees for transactions. In some countries I understand the post even runs a bank. Paypal can be a possibility, but fees can be high ~3% for transfers, and even higher commissions for currency change. On the other hand, it is probably one of the easiest and fastest ways to move amounts of $1000 or less, provided both people have paypal accounts.", "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": "71e219616902d8413d4e308625b6c570", "text": "The only advantage of changing all your money now to the new currency is that you might get a better conversion rate now than later, so you get more of the new currency and you may pay a lower percentage fee for changing a larger sum of money. However, regarding the better conversion rate - you will not know this except with hindsight. The disadvantage of changing all at once is that if you have changed too much and need to change back to your own currency or a third currency, you will be charged fees and lose on the conversion rate twice. If you know how long you are going to be in the new country, say 12 months, maybe start by converting an amount you think you will be spending in a month. If you spend more then you can change a bit more the next month, or if you spend less change less the next month. If you find you are spending similar amounts for the next month or so, then you can budget on the amount you may be spending for the remainder of your stay and then convert this amount over. If you have a little left over at the end of your stay maybe reward yourself with something or buy a present for someone special back at home. If you need a little more, just convert this amount in the last month or so.", "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": "a784e06e0738e08af5368a14b5afae86", "text": "There's another dimension here as currency conversion isn't necessarily the final answer. As stated by others, converting money between the three should theoretically end up with the exact same value, less transactional costs. However the kink is that the price of most products are not updated as the currencies change. In many cases the price difference is such that even accounting for shipping and exchange fees, purchasing a product from a distributor in a foreign country can be cheaper than just picking it up at the local store. You might even be able to take advantage of this when purchasing at a single store. If that store is set up to accept multiple currencies then it's a matter of looking at the conversion rates the moment you are buying and deciding which one is the cheapest route for you. Of course, this generally will not work for smaller purchases like a cup of coffee or a meal. Primarily because the fee for the exchange might eclipse any savings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14c5d648e9c36963ce54c11facfab02d", "text": "You didn't specify where in the world you account is - ScotiaBank operates in many countries. However, for large amounts where there is a currency conversion involved, you are almost guaranteed to be better off going to a specialist currency broker or payments firm, rather than using a direct method with your bank (such as a wire transfer). Based on my assumption that your account is in Canada, one provider who I have personally used with success in transferwise, but the best place to compare where is the best venue for you is https://www.fxcompared.com In the off chance that this is an account with Scotiabank in the United States, any domestic payment method such as a domestic wire transfer should do the job perfectly well. The fees don't matter for larger amounts as they are a single fee versus a percentage fee like you see with currency conversions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb7dcaebe389d9431bffa36af21264dc", "text": "Other than the exchange risk, one more thing to consider is interest rate risk and the returns you are generating from your money. If it is lying around in a current account with no interest then it is rational to keep it where you intend to stay(US or AUS). Now if your money is working for you, earning interest or has been invested in the market then it seems reasonable that you should put it where it earns the maximum for you. But that comes with a rider, the exchange risk you may have to bear if you are converting between the currencies. Do the returns earned by your money cancel out the FX rates moving up and down and still leave you with a positive return, compared with what you would earn if your money was where you stayed. Consider the below scenarios Do evaluate all your options before you transfer your money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c98cf6419843e739fcdc244c80134fbc", "text": "A 2.5% fee is standard, and you're not likely to avoid a transaction fee when withdrawing cash from an ATM. You'd do better to get foreign currency before leaving the US, or to use a credit card abroad. Capital One has a credit card with no fee on foreign-currency purchases, for example. Another option is to open a bank account in the foreign currency, if you go to a particular country often enough to make it worthwhile.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "057c8941ff4fd43be95685dd3b8b1374", "text": "I'm sorry I guess what i meant to say was, what's the downside here? Why isn't everyone doing this, what am i missing? Someone clarified that i'm completely exposed to FX risk if I bring it back. What if I am IN australia, how would I do this, short USD's?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "695a4021c1cf2de1f21f58272eb7eafc", "text": "Devaluation is a relative term, so if you want to protect yourself against devaluation of your currency against dollars - just buy dollars. Inflation is something you cannot protect yourself against because it is something that describes the purchasing power of the money. You will still need to purchase, and usually with money. A side effect of inflation is usually devaluation against other currencies. So one of the ways to deal with inflation is not to keep the money in your currency over time, and only convert from a more stable currency when you need to make purchases. Another way is to invest in something tangible that can easily be sold (for example, jewelery and precious metals, but it has other risks). Re whats legal and illegal in your country - we don't really know because you didn't tell what country that is to begin with, but the usual channels like travelers' checks or bank transfer should work. Carrying large amounts of cash are usually either illegal or strictly regulated.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
84b63f658229e8028d417b63ef53dfe9	How are stock buybacks not considered insider trading?	[ { "docid": "45f923b590f9c623236b50c3523b36a7", "text": "In fact, buybacks WERE often considered a vehicle for insider trading, especially prior to 1982. For instance, Prior to the Reagan era, executives avoided buybacks due to fears that they would be prosecuted for market manipulation. But under SEC Rule 10b-18, adopted in 1982, companies receive a “safe harbor” from market manipulation liability on stock buybacks if they adhere to four limitations: not engaging in buybacks at the beginning or end of the trading day, using a single broker for the trades, purchasing shares at the prevailing market price, and limiting the volume of buybacks to 25 percent of the average daily trading volume over the previous four weeks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afad69ebd5de2d1abad06bfb878e19eb", "text": "In most countries there are specific guidelines on buy backs. It is never a case where by one fine morning company would buy its shares and sell it whenever it wants. In general company has to pass a board resolution, sometimes it also requires it to be approved by share holders. It has to notify the exchange weeks in advance. Quite a few countries require a price offer to all. I.E. it cannot execute a market order. All in all the company may have inside information, but it cannot time the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f573f0f78dede80290bd63fb89b32989", "text": "Companies already have to protect themselves against employees trading the company's shares with insider information. They typically do that in a number of ways: Taken together, this tends to mostly mitigate the risk of employees trading with insider information, though it's probably not perfect. In practice, the company itself's knowledge of insider information is the same as that of its senior management. So it makes sense for a company to be allowed to trade under the same conditions as its senior management. From https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2013/03/14/questions-surrounding-share-repurchases/ : If the company is repurchasing outside of a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan, it should limit its purchases to open window periods when officers and directors are able to buy and sell securities of the company. In addition, the company also can choose to disclose any material non-public information prior to any share repurchase if it is in possession of material non-public information at a time when it is seeking to make a share repurchase outside of a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan. As mentioned in the quote, a company can also set up a trading plan in advance (at a time when it doesn't have inside information) to be executed unconditionally in the future. Then even if the company comes into possession of inside information, it won't be using this knowledge to direct trades.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f73c466ce053f41b7197563386edddd5", "text": "\"Another way to look at this is that pure insider trading is an activity with the aim to use secret information to make personal profit or let others make personal profit at the expense of the company shareholders or investors. In buybacks, it is not company managers to get personal gain in this would-be \"\"insider trading\"\". The end-winners in this case are the shareholders. So there is nothing inherently bad in buying back stock. Moreover, it is a general practice to buy shares back (as opposed to paying dividends) when the company sees its shares being undervalued (of course, provided that it has the cash/borrowing ability to implement this), since it creates shareholders value, thereby maximising shareholder wealth, which is one of the primary tasks of the company managers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6dfe1333439370985d38d5a8a2ca24a3", "text": "\"The reason that stock buybacks are not considered insider trading is because the offers are open to all on equal terms to everyone outside the company. Even if the company knows \"\"inside\"\" information, it's not supposed to tell it (and company executives are not allowed to tender shares, unless they had previously set up a \"\"blind\"\" selling program on a\"\"schedule.\"\") If that's actually the case, no one investor is better informed than another, and hence there is no insider trading. The issue of inside trading is that \"\"insiders\"\" ARE better informed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20ff5cb24583d12967d4db5e7d7eea81", "text": "Buybacks do not increase the company's value. Cash is traded for outstanding shares. This is similar to a dividend, but instead of cash, investors receive a rising share-price. Whether an investor prefers a cash dividend or capital gains is less important than the outcome that their investment is gaining value for them.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "45aaf754b277715c534239e40d20050a", "text": "To dig a little deeper, a number of analysts within (and without) Reuters are polled for their views on individual stocks and markets on buy-hold-sell. The individual analysts will be a varied bunch of fundamentalists, technical, quant and a mixture of the three plus more arcane methodologies. There may be various levels of rumors that aren't strong enough to be considered insider trading, but all of these will give an analyst an impression of the stock/market. Generally I think there isn't much value there, except from the point of view if you are a contrarian trader, then this will form a part of the input to your trading methodology.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1741e85519d9f6f3edb360a2eb5bf284", "text": "\"Definitely not what I'm saying, I'm saying that instead of some of these companies spending 70% of their earnings on stock buybacks they should reinvest that money into their employees and pay out larger dividends to shareholders. I understand share repurchases are fine when not done in excess, but right now it's in excess to manipulate EPS and hit targets. You're missing the point, I'm not talking about the \"\"NPV of a random project\"\". Edit: this article I just found explains perfectly what I'm talking about: https://amp.businessinsider.com/whats-a-buyback-and-why-do-some-investors-hate-them-2016-6\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb44aa9c88eed2b53e5cbd2e480982bf", "text": "If you are in a position to have information that will impact the shares of a stock or index fund and you use that information for either personal gain or to mitigate the losses that you would have felt then it is insider trading. Even if in the end your quiet period passes with little or no movement of the stocks in question. It is the attempt to benefit from or the appearance of the attempt to benefit from inside information that creates the crime. This is the reason for the quiet periods to attempt to shield the majority of the companies employees from the appearance of impropriety, as well as any actual improprieties. With an index you are running a double edged sword because anything that is likely to cause APPLE to drop 10% is likely to give a bump to Motorola, Google, and its competitors. So you could end up in jail for Insider trading and lose your shirt on a poor decision to short a Tech ETF on knowledge that will cause Apple to take a hit. It is certainly going to be harder to find the trade but the SEC is good at looking around for activity that is inconsistent with normal trading patterns of individuals in a position to have knowledge with the type of market impact you are talking about.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15c0f3c6db362623acc63f89373449c7", "text": "What?? What a strange (and horribly wrong) thesis. Buybacks are economically the same as dividends. They are a way of distributing profits to investors. A company does this when it cannot find any good investment opportunities. It does not cause a lack of those opportunities. This guy has it completely backwards. After the buyback the previous stockholders now have cash to find opportunities that the firm wasn't itself either wasn't equipped to move on or didn't know about. That buyback distribution doesn't just get incinerated - it gets reinvested as per the previous owners desires. His example of how previously a firm had to invest since it had no way to return profits to investors is a perfect example of capital misallocation caused by taxation. This piece should be nominated for worst of the year. All intro econ students should read this and learn to dissect such claims.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ed31ce88106900d05930df8c45fe709", "text": "SEC forms are required when declaring insider activity. An insider is defined by the SEC to be a person or entity which (i) beneficially owns 10% or more of the outstanding shares of the company, (ii) is an officer or director of the company, or (iii), in the case of insider trading, does so based on knowledge which is not otherwise publically available at the time. At any rate, the person or entity trading the stock is required to file certain forms. Form 3 is filed when a person first transitions into the status of an insider (by becoming an officer, director, or beneficial owner of a certain percentage of stock). Form 4 is filed when an existing insider trades stock under the company's symbol. Form 5 is filed when certain insider trades of small value are reported later than usual. More information can be found at the SEC's website. Another possibility is that a large number of options or derivatives were exercised by an officer, director, or lending institution. In the cases of officers or directors, this would need to be declared with an SEC form 4. For an institution exercising warrants obtained as a result of a lending agreement, either form 3 or 4 would need to be filed. In addition to the above possibilities, username passing through pointed out a very likely scenario in his answer, as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "455ed166eb7e627286d56be7073dcf01", "text": "\"These people are pretty off. Insider trading cases, outside of a tender offer context, require some sort of a breach of duty. It's not simply \"\"non-public material information\"\". You have to trade securities in interstate, based on or while in possession of the material non-public information, and in doing so is a breach of duty owed to the company or to the information source. Now simply saying \"\"personal info\"\" about an executive does not tell me much about its materiality. So assuming it passes the materiality test, and assuming you yourself aren't a corporate insider, then the only thing left to discuss is whether or not it is misappropriation. To be misappropriation you need to be breaching some duty owed to your information source. Now this isn't just principal-agent duty, this can extend to friends and family if there is a pattern of keeping confidences. So unless you're this guys brother or doctor there really isn't a strong claim against you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0fb1bdfa0afcbebd9e440cff0ee16612", "text": "I actually disagree that it is unethical or even wrong, and I think allowing insider trading to occur again would help increase confidence in markets for several reasons. It's still not a good look for the politicians though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc51a6bde4b85c0849c31a210d1ba7a3", "text": "\"In [United States vs. O'Hagan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._O%27Hagan)* the Supreme Court established the precedent of interpreting SEC rule 10(b) using the \"\"misappropriation theory\"\". The theory establishes that: > misappropriating confidential information for securities trading purposes, in breach of a duty owed to the source of that information, gives rise to a duty to disclose or abstain. You're correct that from a legal perspective the rules are anything but clear outside of company insiders. However, your own admission is consistent with what anyone in the securities industry knows is true - if you trade on material non-public information, you risk being charged. I think most would conclude that it's unethical irrespective of the letter of the law. It damages the integrity and functioning of markets. Furthermore, if the law was clarified, I think it's highly unlikely it would state \"\"trading on material non-public information is permissible for anyone who is not a company insider\"\". Instead, I would expect it to be consistent with \"\"Trading on material non-public information is illegal. If in doubt, abstain.\"\" And this is exactly what the government officials should be doing - abstaining.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc8a62eba2e7e399e1295a6c80f1ee90", "text": "\"Since doodle77 handled arbitrage, I'll take goodwill. Goodwill is an accounting term that acts much like a \"\"plug\"\" account: you add/subtract to it the amount that makes everything balance. In the case of goodwill, it generally only applies to mergers & acquisitions. The theory (and justification) is this: firms buy other firms at prices other than the market price (usually higher), and it is assumed that this is because the acquirer values its acquisition more than other people do. But whether you use historical prices or market prices when you add (subtract) assets and liabilities to to (from) your balance sheet, this will never add up, because you paid more (less) than the assets are worth in the market, so more (less) cash flowed out than assets flowed in. The difference goes into the goodwill account, so firms with a large goodwill account are ones that have made lots of acquisitions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d28219405d809d4659b582e77e331c6", "text": "Insiders (those who are aware of non-public material information, not necessarily employees) are the ones who actually cannot sell once they learned about whatever, by law. Martha Stewart went to jail for that. Any such deviation from the norm triggers abnormal response and avalanche of rumors, so by default investors assume something bad and try to minimize the loss. When dealing with a tiny company (market cap of less than 15M) with a tiny market volume (6.2M), the swings can be very significant. For such a small company, it is safe to assume that something happened that lead them to delay the conference call, and since they didn't tell what happen, investors assume the worst. It might end up as the CEO and CFO having bad stomach after celebrating 100% growth in revenue they were going to announce, but you'll have to wait and see....", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0683565621aff565ab849e4edfad786a", "text": "\"You have to read some appeals court cases see scholar.google.com , as well as SEC enforcement actions on sec.gov to get an understanding of how the SEC operates. http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/insidertrading/cases.shtml There are court created guidelines for how insider trading would be proven There is no clear line, but it is the \"\"emergency asset injunctions\"\" (freezing your assets if you nailed a suspiciously lucrative trade) you really want to avoid, and this is often times enforced/reported by the brokers themselves since the SEC does not have the resources to monitor every account's trading activities. There are some thin lines, such as having your lawyer file a lawsuit, and as soon as it is filed it is technically public so you short the recipient's stock. Or having someone in a court room updating you on case developments as soon as possible so you can make trades (although this may just be actually public, depending on the court). But the rules create the opportunities Also consider that the United States is the most strict country in this regard, there are tons of capital markets and the ideals or views of \"\"illegal insider trading\"\" compared to \"\"having reached a level of society where you are privileged to obtain this information\"\" vary across the board contains charts of countries where an existing insider trading prohibition is actually enforced: http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=articles https://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~charvey/Teaching/BA453_2005/BD_The_world.pdf Finally, consider some markets that don't include equities, as trading on an information advantage is only applicable to things the SEC regulates, and there are plenty of things that agency doesn't regulate. So trying to reverse engineer the SEC may not be the most optimal use of energy\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d3da25089418411eb6408c048816288", "text": "In the United States, when key people in a company buy or sell shares there are reporting requirements. The definition of key people includes people like the CEO, and large shareholders. There are also rules that can lock out their ability to buy and sell shares during periods where their insider knowledge would give them an advantage. These reporting rules are to level the playing field regarding news that will impact the stock price. These rules are different than the reporting rules that the IRS has to be able to tax capital gains. These are also separate than the registration rules for the shares so that you get all the benefits of owning the stock (dividends, voting at the annual meeting, voting on a merger or acquisition).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50affc8a60ecd2bea2f5508658e5f3b4", "text": "\"Actually there is no law that makes insider trading illegal, except for actual company insiders (people working at the company). Insider trading as you describe is just a court precedent set in the 80s (I think it was the 80s) and it's based on the concept of \"\"fraud\"\", whereby you are misappropriating information that you should not have. So no, insider trading isn't \"\"illegal\"\" in that sense, and the jury is out as to whether it's even bad or not for the markets. That doesn't mean I would recommend doing it or really anything even closely resembling it, since they're pretty aggressive about pursuing those cases.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "284f2fbee5b6cc709b75948be82d8d58", "text": "An oxymoron is something that contradicts itself. Inside trading is sharing information that isn't public. How the fuck do you think these hedge funds and investment banks can offer almost 50% returns during these times in our economy??? Oh yea it's called inside trading. Reason why it's an oxymoron is because trading information is considered ilegal yet that what everyone does on the market, rules are made to give off fear but past that it's all open roads and deep pockets. And if you really don't believe that stock market isn't rigged then there is no reason for me to explain myself on that because it would be like taking to a wall. And I thank you for being one of those people that thinks it's not rigged because you help my portfolio look good from your dumb investments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "059852dbffd3476675acc40c0dfb6773", "text": "1) Yes, buyouts are always higher than the trading price. 2) ANYTHING can be negotiated. There is no rule saying buyouts have to be higher.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
0ffbb12aa53a19e4c4a7225c5f0a54fa	Am I still building a credit score if I use my credit card like a debit card?	[ { "docid": "eea62142409630f507da1c760d51d624", "text": "\"I strongly suggest you look at CreditKarma and see how each aspect of what you are doing impacts your score. Here's my take - There's an anti-credit approach that many have which, to me, is over the top. \"\"Zero cards, zero credit\"\" feels to me like one step shy of \"\"off the grid.\"\" It's so far to the right that it actually is more of an effort than just playing the game a bit. You are depositing to the card frequently to do what you are doing. That takes time and effort. Why not just pay the bill in full each month, and just track purchases so you move the cash to the account in advance, whether that's physical or on paper? In your case, it's the same as charging one item every few months to keep the card active. If that's what you'd like to do, that's fine. I'd just avoid having the card take up too much of your time and thought. (Disclaimer - I've used and written about Credit Karma. I have no business relationship with them, my articles are to help readers, and not paid placement.) mhoran's response is in line with my thinking. His advice to use the card to build your score is what the zero-credit folk criticize as \"\"a great debt score.\"\" Nonsense. If you use debt wisely, you'll never pay interest (except for a mortgage, perhaps) and you may gain rewards with no cost to you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0158d90036d675c31f5634bff5202605", "text": "Regardless of how it exactly impacts the credit score, the question is does it help improve your credit situation? If the score does go up, but it goes up slowly that was a lot of effort to retard credit score growth. Learning to use a credit card wisely will help you become more financially mature. Start to use the card for a class of purchases: groceries, gas, restaurants. Pick one that won't overwhelm your finances if you lose track of the exact amount you have been charging. You can also use it to pay some utilities or other monthly expenses automatically. As you use the card more often, and you don't overuse it, the credit card company will generally raise your credit limit. This will then help you because that will drop your utilization ratio. Just repeat the process by adding another class of charges to you credit card usage. This expanded use of credit will in the long run help your score. The online systems allow you to see every day what your balance is, thus minimizing surprises.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d924152e21fea9126d8690a43f98daaa", "text": "\"I always hesitate to provide an answer to \"\"how does this affect my credit score?\"\" questions, because the credit agencies do not publish their formulas and the formulas do change over time. And many others have done more reverse engineering than I to figure out what factors do affect the scores. To some extent, there is no way to know other than to get your credit score and track it over time. (The credit report will tell you what the largest negative factors are.) However, let me make my prediction. You have credit, you aren't using a large percentage of it, and don't have defaults/late payments. So, yes, I think it would help your credit score and would build a history of credit. Since this is so unusual, this is just an educated guess.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "231ac48f7fc11c37f7e3955a4c51fe7f", "text": "AIUI credit cards report three main things. The potential problem with your strategy is that by pre loading you never actually get a bill and so your provider may not report your payments. Better to wait until the bill comes and then pay it in full. That ensures that your use of the card is properly reported.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1bf43b55a55057cebd95e74979301a9a", "text": "To get a credit history you need to use credit from someone that reports to the major credit agencies. I don't suppose you have to BUY anything. You could just get a cash loan and hold it for a long time, but it seems silly to pay interest only for the purpose of building credit. The student loan should help you build credit. Also, I'm assuming you buy things all the time like gas, groceries, etc. Why not put those on a credit card and pay the balance off every month? That way you aren't buying anything specifically to get credit. Also there are numerous other benefits: Another suggestion: Set up your cards so the full balance is drafted from your bank automatically on the due date. That will ensure that you always pay on time (helping your credit) and also make you think twice about putting things on the card that you can't afford with the cash you have in the bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9ecbd20ba2f2a878ed7134224091f9b", "text": "\"When using a debit card in a \"\"credit\"\" way, you don't need to enter your PIN, which protects you from skimmers and similar nastiness. Also, assuming it's a Visa or Mastercard debit card, you now have access to all of the fraud protection and other things that you would get with a credit card. The downside for the merchant is that credit card transaction fees are typically higher than debit card transaction fees. I'm less familiar with using a credit card in a \"\"debit\"\" way, so don't have anything to offer on that part of your question.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5508414a61fc0d5f77fd9551e59b8de", "text": "To add to what others have said, INSTALLMENT CREDIT is a stronger factor when building credit. An installment credit is essentially a loan with a fixed repay amount such as a student loan and a car loan. Banks (when it comes to buying your first home) want to see that you are financially able to repay a big debt (car loan). But be careful, if you cannot pay cash, you cannot afford it. My rule of thumb is that when I'm charging something to my CC, I MUST pay it off when it posts to my account. I just became debt free (paid off about 15k in CC and student loan debt in 18 months) and I love it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2786cbf4423fa30dc7a0d1cbed87a1a5", "text": "If you are in the U.S., without credit cards, you probably don't have a credit history. Without a credit history, you won't be able to get a loan/mortgage, and even if you do, you'll get it on very unfavorable terms. Depending on where you live you might even have great difficulty renting an apartment. So, the most important reason to have credit cards is to have a good credit score. People have already listed other advantages of having credit cards, but another thing that wasn't mentioned is fraud protection. Credit cards are better protected against fraud than debit cards. You probably shouldn't use debit cards online unless you must. Also, without a credit card or credit history, some simple and important liberties like renting a car while you are travelling might be denied to you. So, in conclusion, it's bizarre, but in modern America you need credit cards, and you need them bad.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12846ee71ec9c5769954964fdc8c2f01", "text": "\"Patience has never been my strong suit Unfortunately this is what you need to build up credit. The activities that increase your credit score are paying your bills on time and not using too much of the available credit that you do have. The rest (age of accounts, recent pulls, etc.) are short-term indicators that indicate changes in behavior that will make lenders pause and understand what the reasons behind the events are. Also keep in mind that your credit score shouldn't run your life. It should be a passive indicator of your financial habits - not something that you actively manipulate. Is there anything I can do to raise my score without having to take out a loan with interest? Pay your bills on time, and don't take out more credit than you need. You're already in the \"\"excellent\"\" category, so there's no reason to panic or try to manipulate it. Even if you temporarily dip below, if you need to make a big purchase (house), your loan-to-value and debt/income ratio will be much bigger factors in what interest rate you can get. As far as the BofA card goes, if you don't need it, cancel it. It might cause a temporary dip in your credit, but it will go away quickly, and you're better off not having credit cards that you don't need.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98deac234312b8b39ece2d300ed8d336", "text": "I don't use debit cards, but if I did I would review that portion of the statement. I look at my credit card statements pretty closely, and probably catch one or two mistakes or things I want to question every year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5964e038b78de817efa3fe3d15bc7e0b", "text": "You can use the debit card for practically any purchase that you make. You'll have to take the usual precautions and then a few additional ones. Cards make your life really easy and convenient with some basic precautions. All the best for your travel and stay in the USA. My two cents.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "01264d3bf1b37ab9fb671b8d57b01293", "text": "I've read multiple times that the way to rebuild the credit score is to get a credit card and then have some minor charges on it every month and have them paid in full every month. Old negative events age and this disciplined activity rebuild the score to some not to horrible levels. Now it's true that it's hard to get reasonably good credit cards when your credit score is poor. Yet it's not necessary to have a good credit card for this case - such things as large credit limit are not needed. All that's needed is a long grace period so that there's no interest between the moment a charge is done and a moment the bill is paid in full at the end of the month. Yes, the card may have rather high interest and rather low credit limit, but it doesn't really matter. I've read once on MSN Money that people are offered credit even while they're in the middle of bankruptcy, so it's not impossible to get a credit card in the described situation. Goes without saying that a lot of discipline will be needed to have all this implemented.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c944fefdbc93e50f6dc709bd42f3708", "text": "What type of credit card should I be looking in to to build credit from scratch? I have a stable job and will be able to pay back debts right away I just don't want to get into something and then regret it in the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d74a74d5aeabef3044cf1f4454d7077d", "text": "Need is a strong word. As far as merchants are concerned, if they accept, e.g., Visa credit, they will accept Visa Debit. The reverse is not necessarily true. Up until lately, Aldi would only accept debit cards (credit cards have higher merchant fees), and when I used to got to Sam's Club, they would accept Visa debit, but not credit (they had/have an exclusive deal with Discover for credit). So, yes, they can tell from the card number whether it's credit or debit. However, I've never heard of a case of the situation being biased against debit.* That said there are some advantages to having a credit card: ETA: I don't know how credit history works in the EU, but in the US having open credit accounts definitely does affect your credit score which directly affects what rate you can get for a mortgage. *ETA_2: As mentioned in the comments and another answer, car rentals will often require credit cards and not debit (Makes sense to me that they would want to make sure they can get their money if there is damage to the car). Many credit cards do include rental car insurance if you use it to pay for your rental, so that's another potential advantage for credit cards.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c392eba0ad6ab801cc2013507daae51a", "text": "The question should be - do you need a debit card? Other than American Express I have to tell my other credit card issuers to not make my cards dual debit/credit. Using a debit card card can be summed up easily - It creates a risk of fraud, errors, theft, over draft, and more while providing absolutely no benefit. It was simply a marketing scheme for card companies to reduce risk that has lost favor, although they are still used. That is why banks put it on credit cards by default if they can. (I am talking about logical people who can control not overspending because of debit vs. credit - as it is completely illogical that you would spend more based on what kind of card you have.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf5e9fa941ac38c0cf3dae70a40d1c44", "text": "\"The trick to using a credit card responsibly is accounting. With your old system, you were paying for everything out of your savings account. Everytime you had an expense, it was immediately withdrawn from your savings account, and you saw how much money you had left. Now, with a credit card, there isn't any money being withdrawn from your savings account until a month later, when you have a huge credit card bill. The trick is to treat every credit card transaction as if it was a debit card transaction, and subtract the money from your \"\"available funds\"\" on paper immediately. Then you'll know how much money you actually have to spend (not by looking at your bank statement, but by looking at your \"\"available funds\"\" number), and when the credit card bill comes, you'll have money sitting there waiting to go to the credit card company. This requires more work than you had with your old system, and if it sounds like too much work, you might be better off with a debit card or cash. But if you want to continue to use the credit card, you'll find that the right software will make the accounting process easier. I like YNAB, but there are other software products that work as well. Just make sure that your system accounts for each credit card transaction as it is spent, deducting the amount from your budget now, so that there is money set aside for the credit card bill. Software that simply categorizes your spending after the fact is not as useful.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "102c30a822fd503925f07060b6aca3c4", "text": "The post that you linked to saying that a pre-paid credit card is really a debit card is kind of right and kind of wrong. From your point of view, to get a $1000 pre-paid credit card, you need to hand over $1000. So nobody is giving any credit to you. You can only spend money that you actually own, like a debit card. For the merchant accepting your card, it is exactly like a credit card. He doesn't know what deals you had to make to get the card. The merchant just knows that up to some amount, he will receive money. So in that sense it is a credit card and will be accepted like a credit card.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22f5aec3e608838bdd46b9d393d4ee05", "text": "No, it won't affect your score until your statement is posted. Paying your bill before your statement is posted is actually a good way to keep your credit utilization low. If you're worried about high credit utilization negatively affecting your credit score, consider paying your bill several times a month to ensure that when your final monthly statement is posted, your utilization is still low. When my credit limit was very low while I was in college, I did this almost every month, and I've seen other sites recommend this practice as well. From creditkarma.com: The easiest way [to lower credit utilization] is to make credit card payments more than once a month so that your balance never gets too high. and creditcards.com: Consider making payments to creditors more than once each month. Otherwise, if you put a major expense -- like a new appliance -- on a credit card, even if you plan to pay it off, your FICO score may take a hit. The reason is that credit scores are calculated as a snapshot in time, so if that happens to be right after you charged a new $700 washing machine, your utilization ratio will look worryingly high. Remember, though, that it's best to have some balance on your card when your statement is posted (assuming you pay it off in full each month), because as the chart shows, 0% utilization is about as bad as utilization > 31-40%: Also, remember that credit utilization affects your credit score in real time, so if you have high utilization one month but a lower utilization the next month, the hit to your score will disappear once a statement with low utilization is posted.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aaec795b778da2ed3ae3b5fdaa5b15be", "text": "Depends on your credit score. If you came from foreign country, you might not be having enough Credit Score. In that case, you have to go for Prepaid Credit Card offered by Banks. For prepaid credit card,you have to deposit certain amount of money which will act as your credit line.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
7d85d9c64fc7defa0ec5856405015e68	For a car, what scams can be plotted with 0% financing vs rebate?	[ { "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": "85a22b9f88c17e4df080b8498dba4cbc", "text": "\"Here's a number-crunching example of how the \"\"Zero interest rate\"\" offer is misleading. Suppose the offer is that a car \"\"costs $24,000.00 with zero percent financing over 24 months\"\" or as an alternative, \"\"$3,000.00 off for cash\"\". Ignore the hype: the quoted prices and the quoted interest rates. Look at what really happens to two people who take advantage of the two offers, One person hands over $21,000.00 cash, and leaves with the new car. The second promises to make 24 payments of $1000.00, one a month, starting in one month's time, and also leaves with the same make and model new car. The two people have received exactly the same benefit, so the two payment schemes must have the same value. A mortgage program will tell you that paying off a $21,000.00 loan by making 24 monthly payments of $1000.00 requires an interest rate of 1.10% a month, or an effective annual rate of 14.03%.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1380194c0b6436ed04951838f3289501", "text": "If you have enough money to buy a car in full, that probably means you have good credit. If you have good credit, car dealerships will often offer 0% loans for either a small period of time, like 12 months, or the entire loan. Taking a 0% loan is obviously more optimal than paying the entire lump sum up front. You can take the money and invest in other things that earn you more than 0%. However, most dealerships offer a rebate OR a 0% loan. Some commenters below claim that the rebate is usually larger than the saved interest, so definitely do the math if you have that option.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c584db6ae2f9e3b6d480b9df41e05090", "text": "\"I cannot stress this enough, so I'll just repeat it: Don't plan your finances around your credit score. Don't even think about your credit score at all. Plan a budget an stick to it. Make sure you include short and long term savings in your budget. Pay your bills on time. Use credit responsibly. Do all of these things, and your credit rating will take care of itself. Don't try to plan your finances around raising it. On the subject of 0% financing specifically, my rule of thumb is to only ever use it when I have enough money saved up to buy the thing outright, and even then only if my budget will still balance with the added cost of repaying the loan. Other people have other rules, including not taking such loans at all, and you should develop a rule that works for you (but you should have a rule). One rule shouldn't have is \"\"do whatever will optimize your credit score\"\" because you shouldn't plan your finances around your credit score. All things considered, I think the most important thing in your situation is to make sure that you don't let the teaser rate tempt you into making purchases you wouldn't otherwise make. You're not really getting free money; you're just shifting around the time frame for payment, and only within a limited window at that. Also, be sure to read the fine print in the credit agreement; they can be filled with gotchas and pitfalls. In particular, if you don't clear the balance by the end of the introductory rate period, you can sometimes incur interest charges retroactively to the date of purchase. Make sure you know your terms and conditions cold. It sounds like you're just getting started, so best of luck, and remember that Rome wasn't built in a day. Patience can be the most effective tool in your personal finance arsenal. p.s. Don't plan your finances around your credit score.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1495c43f88e687ac41a3febea399f557", "text": "I haven't heard of these before! (And I'm on the board of a Credit Union.) The 0.99% on loans is great. It's especially great on a used car: the steep part of the depreciation curve was paid by the first owner. The network probably have a business relationship with the credit union. Credit unions do indirect lending -- approval of loans that happens at the point of sale, which then the credit union gets as assets. Depending on the cost of that program, it probably won't hurt. Your credit union wants to keep your business, because they know that you have a lot of options for where you bank and where you get loans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2afc463c2de196296f20f632d9d0fe12", "text": "If you're getting 0% on the financing, it's not costing you anything to borrow that money. So its basically free money. If you are comfortable with the monthly payments, consider going with no downpayment at all. Keep that money aside for a rainy day, or invest it somewhere so that you get some return on it. If you need to lower the payments later you can always use that money to pay down part of the loan later (check with the dealer that it is an open loan). If you're not comfortable with the payments at 0 down, put enough down to bring the monthly payment to a level where you are comfortable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12ce6bf1901e7a59419a3c340b6d6bfc", "text": "I could be mistaken on this, but after the GM bailout and others, weren't laws put in place to essentially force companies to maintain a certain level of liquidity? Also, that 0% is probably closer to .25~.50 through way of credit swaps, no? Or if we assume it's earning .1%, that's still $6,666,667/month ($80,000,000,000 x .001/12).", "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": "2030d051b9a4283cf0200420312b9693", "text": "The bank depends on the laws of large numbers. They don't need to make money on every customer -- just on average. There are several ways that zero interest makes sense to them: You asked about banks, and I don't think you see this last scheme in use very much by a bank. Here's why. First, customers absolutely hate it - and when you drop the interest bomb, they will warn their friends away, blow you up on social media, call the TV news consumer protectors, and never, ever, ever do business with you again. Which defeats your efforts in customer acquisition. Second, it only works on that narrow range of people who default just a little bit, i.e. who have an auto-pay malfunction. If someone really defaults, not only will they not pay the punishment interest, they won't pay the principal either! This only makes sense for secured loans like furniture or cars, where you can repo that stuff - with unsecured loans, you don't really have any power to force them to pay, short of burning their credit. You can sue them, but you can't get blood from a stone.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bcd026c79da30d4424b9df38978406a4", "text": "\"The question is about the dealer, right? The dealer isn't providing this financing to you, Alfa is, and they're paying the dealer that same \"\"On the Road\"\" price when you finance the purchase. So the dealer gets the same amount either way. The financing, through Alfa, means your payments go to Alfa. And they're willing to give you 3,000 towards purchase of the car at the dealer in order to motivate those who can afford payments but not full cash for the car. They end up selling more cars this way, keeping the factories busy and employees and stockholders happy along the way. At least, that's how it's supposed to work out.\"", "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": "29c366b66bc9ac78b881ee6be8d430e3", "text": "That interest rate (13%) is steep, and the balloon payment will have him paying more interest longer. Investing the difference is a risky proposition because past performance of an investment is no guarantee of future performance. Is taking that risk worth netting 2%? Not for me, but you must answer that last question for yourself. To your edit: How disruptive would losing the car and/or getting negative marks on your credit be? If you can quantify that in dollars then you have your answer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90784bb2202e09012dc892aadfee1d73", "text": "\"As reported by ZeroHedge in January 2016: \"\"While the media claims that this record has been reached because of drastic improvements to the US economy, they are once again failing to account for the central factor: credit expansion.\"\" \"\"In order to generate more vehicle purchases, these companies have incentivized consumers with hot, hard-to-resist offers, similar to the infamous “liar loans” and “no-money down” loans of the 2008 recession.\"\" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-11/auto-loan-bubble-ready-pop. Pro tip: Get your news over 1 year in advance by reading ZeroHedge and not shitty Bloomberg or other lamestream media.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "454af89ce64a4b4e0a6d5a9c8c1f8ea5", "text": "\"I'd put more money down and avoid financing. I personally don't think car debt is good debt and if you can't afford the car, you are better off with a cheaper car. Also, you should read up on the 0% offer before deciding to commit. Here's one article that is slightly dated, but discusses some pros and cons of 0% financing. My main point though is that 0% financing is not \"\"free\"\" and you need to consider the cost of that financing before making the purchase. Aside from the normal loan costs of having a monthly payment, possibly buying too much car by looking at monthly cost, etc., a 0% financing offer usually forces you to give the dealer/financing company any rebates that are due to you, in essence making the car cost more.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1f1aa4fd1d65fa135ec33d4155d334c", "text": "\"You are correct to be wary. Car dealerships make money selling cars, and use many tactics and advertisements to entice you to come into their showroom. \"\"We are in desperate need of [insert your make, model, year and color]! We have several people who want that exact car you have! Come in and sell it to us and buy a new car at a great price! We'll give you so much money on your trade in!\"\" In reality, they play a shell game and have you focus on your monthly payment. By extending the loan to 4 or 5 years (or longer), they can make your monthly payment lower, sure, but the total amount paid is much higher. You're right: it's not in your best interest. Buy a car and drive it into the ground. Being free of car payments is a luxury!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf8e57c340cfe4475615371f4ab62bad", "text": "\"as a used dealer in subprime sales, finance has to be higher than cash because every finance deal has a lender that takes a percentage \"\"discount\"\" on every deal financed. if you notice a dealer is hesitant to give a price before knowing if cash or finance, because every bit of a cash deal's profit will be taken by a finance company in order to finance the deal and then there's no deal. you might be approved but if you're not willing to pay more for a finance deal, the deal isn't happening if I have $5000 in a car, you want to buy it for $6000 and the finance lender wants to take $1200 as a \"\"buy-fee\"\" leaving me $4800 in the end.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eeac29631c2021c0a70d03a09c16d73b", "text": "Most 0% interest loans have quite high interest rates that are deferred. If you are late on a payment you are hit with all the deferred interest. They're banking on a percentage of customers missing a payment. Also, this is popular in furniture/car sales because it's a way to get people to buy who otherwise wouldn't, they made money on the item sale, so the loan doesn't have to earn them money (even though some will). Traditional banks/lenders do make money from interest and rely on that, they would have to rely on fees if interest were not permitted.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3032f0c1e019306a1cce6d9b7e359c4e	How to check the paypal's current exchange rate?	[ { "docid": "e0011c2d147a78e3b4afab4acd9ea44c", "text": "PayPal does charge a premium, both for sending and receiving. Here's how you find their rates:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e9d9f9cdbfb2ddae39e31b503360c5e", "text": "The Paypal 'classic' site option has now been removed and you will not know what you will be charged UNTIL YOU COMMIT TO BUY. Paypal told me today ( brexit day 24th ) that their site is NOT connected to the Ebay site so when Ebay tells me '$77.00 approximately £52.43' for an item I would in fact pay £59.62. You will Not be aware of this UNTIL you commit to by. Paypal informs me there are no plans to restore the 'classic' option Paypal site.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a22174c44403030698e39181361ab771", "text": "fx-rate.net offers a AUDUSD exchange rate comparison, which includes paypal: Currencyfair $1.14 Transferwise $ 2.29 Worldremit $ 3.50 Xendpay $ 3.71 Tranzfers $ 5.52 Ukforex $ 7.35 Skrill $ 15.13 Paypal $ 25.77 Kantox $ 27.76 http://fx-rate.net/currency-transfer/?c_input=AUD&cp_input=USD", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8def29393e303b6be727289894f80600", "text": "\"FYI, just found this (https://www.paypal.com/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full#8) \"\"8.9 Currency Conversion Currency Conversion 2.5% added to the exchange rate The Currency Conversion spread applies whenever a currency conversion is required to complete your transaction. The exchange rate is determined by a financial institution and is adjusted regularly based on market conditions. Adjustments may be applied immediately and without notice to you. When your payment is funded by a debit or credit card and requires a currency conversion, you consent to and authorize PayPal to convert the currency in place of your debit or credit card issuer. You have the right to have your card issuer perform the currency conversion and can choose this option during checkout on your transaction review page before you complete the transaction.\"\" 2.5%!! Can this be true?\"", "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": "12c783ab58e622f4b75a45d00cc7d18a", "text": "There is a way I discovered of finding the current exchange rate before committing to buy, go to send payments, put in your own second email, pay 1gbp as the amount and it will give you the exchange rate and fees in your own currency, in my case euro, before you have to click on send payment", "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": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "cbfaa8e5b417b674e4a7ec3116770215", "text": "PayPal charges a 2.5% currency conversion fee to exchange funds from one currency to another. That means, the receiver would receive $ 9.75. Read More", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccef86861b5918e8ad02925f6b4ea9c4", "text": "Is there not some central service that tracks current currency rates that banks can use to get currency data? Sure. But this doesn't matter. All the central service can tell you is how much the rate was historically. But the banks/PayPal don't care about the historical value. They want to know the price that they'll pay when they get around to switching, not the last price before the switch. Beyond that, there is a transaction cost to switching. They have to pay the clearinghouse for managing the transaction. The banks can choose to act as a clearinghouse, but that increases their risk. If the bank has a large balance of US dollars but dollars are falling, then they end up eating that cost. They'll only take that risk if they think that they'll make more money that way. And in the end, they may have to go on the currency market anyway. If a European bank runs out of US dollars, they have to buy them on the open market. Or a US bank might run out of Euros. Or Yen. Etc. Another problem is that many of the currency transactions are small, but the overhead is fixed. If the bank has to pay $5 for every currency transaction, they won't even break even charging 3% on a $100 transaction. So they delay the actual transaction so that they can make more than one at a time. But then they have the risk that the currency value might change in the meantime. If they credit you with $97 in your account ($100 minus the 3% fee) but the price actually drops from $100 to $99, they're out the $1. They could do it the other way as well. You ask for a $100 transaction. They perform a $1000 transaction, of which they give you $97. Now they have $898 ($1000 minus the $5 they paid for the transaction plus the $3 they charged you for the transaction). If there's a 1% drop, they're out $10.98 ($8.98 in currency loss plus a net $2 in fees). This is why banks have money market accounts. So they have someone to manage these problems working twenty-four hours a day. But then they have to pay interest on those accounts, further eating into their profits. Along with paying a staff to monitor the currency markets and things that may affect them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4365e9c6ffd3fc7b9acb7f2a38cece51", "text": "I used MoneyCorp - they typically charge you approximately 2% on top of the official exchange rate. You would probably need to declare that in your home country - I do not know Pakistan rules so can't help there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f668293a44aa11b7f4bf48fcf050ab1d", "text": "If I remember correctly my own experience : no you can't. Paypal will block the money even if it's only for online payement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "625b4ac57726954c615a0f324b509988", "text": "There are several red flags here. can they get my bank account info in any way from me transferring money to them? Probably yes. Almost all bank transactions are auditable, and intentionally cause a money track. This track can be followed from both sides. If they can use your bank account as if they were you, that is a bit deeper than what you are asking, but yes they (and the polish cops) can find you through that transfer. I did look up the company and didn't find any scam or complaints concerning them. Not finding scams or complains is good, but what did you find? Did you find good reviews, the company website, its register, etc, etc? How far back does the website goes (try the wayback machine) Making a cardboard front company is very easy, and if they are into identity theft the company is under some guy in guam that never heard of poland or paypal. As @Andrew said above, it is probably a scam. I'd add that this scam leverages on the how easier is to get a PayPal refund compared to a regular bank transfer. It is almost impossible to get the money back on an international transaction. Usually reverting a bank transfer requires the agreement in writing of the receiver and of both banks. As for paypal, just a dispute from the other user: You are responsible for all Reversals, Chargebacks, fees, fines, penalties and other liability incurred by PayPal, a PayPal User, or a third party caused by your use of the Services and/or arising from your breach of this Agreement. You agree to reimburse PayPal, a User, or a third party for any and all such liability. (source) Also, you might be violating the TOS: Allow your use of the Service to present to PayPal a risk of non-compliance with PayPal’s anti-money laundering, counter terrorist financing and similar regulatory obligations (including, without limitation, where we cannot verify your identity or you fail to complete the steps to lift your sending, receiving or withdrawal limit in accordance with sections 3.3, 4.1 and 6.3 or where you expose PayPal to the risk of any regulatory fines by European, US or other authorities for processing your transactions); (emphasis mine, source) So even if the PayPal transfer is not disputed, how can you be sure you are not laundering money? Are you being paid well enough to assume that risk?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0878af8aa13a09e310192c9020de479d", "text": "For those who are interested, I am answering my own question: We used Postbank and transferred 6000 Euro, we chose to Transfer in US$, and selected Shared Fees. There were three fees in total: All in all, I paid ~37$; this is about half of what I expected; and I got a perfect exchange rate. Postbank might have its downsides, but it seems they are still a good deal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd2f1fc30829819c8c5653ecd6f4f808", "text": "As an Indian resident you can open an Resident Foreign Currency Account, i.e. an USD account. This facility is provided by all major banks. I am not sure if PayPal would transfer money to these accounts or would convert. The alternative is to give this account number along with other Bank details to the company in US and ask them to send money via remittance services.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb9b830ba43c5a42c6f41b9e1714634b", "text": "PayPal will be contacting you shortly, I'm sure. You'll see the reversal on their site in a few days as well as a fee from their end I bet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4b740c53cd6ff4f2ff8b29ed3c99642", "text": "I want to shop in the currency that will be cheapest in CAD at any given time. How do you plan to do this? If you are using a debit or credit card on a CAD account, then you will pay that bank's exchange rate to pay for goods and services that are billed in foreign currency. If you plan on buying goods and services from merchants that offer to bill you in CAD for items that are priced in foreign currency (E.g. buying from Amazon.co.uk GBP priced goods, but having Amazon bill your card with equivalent CAD) then you will be paying that merchant's exchange rate. It is very unlikely that either of these scenarios would result in you paying mid-market rates (what you see on xe.com), which is the average between the current ask and bid prices for any currency pair. Instead, the business handling your transaction will set their own exchange rate, which will usually be less favorable than the mid-market rate and may have additional fees/commission bolted on as a separate charge. For example, if I buy 100 USD worth of goods from a US vendor, but use a CAD credit card to pay, the mid-market rate on xe.com right now indicates an equivalent value of 126.97 CAD. However the credit card company is more likely to charge closer to 130.00 CAD and add a foreign transaction fee of maybe $2-3, or a percentage of the transaction value. Alternatively, if using something like Amazon, they may offer to bill the CAD credit card in CAD for those 100 USD goods. No separate foreign transaction fee in this case, but they are still likely to exchange at the less favorable 130.00 rate instead of the mid-market rates. The only way you can choose to pay in the cheapest equivalent currency is if you already have holdings of all the different currencies. Then just pay using whichever currency gets you the most bang for your buck. Unless you are receiving payments/wages in multiple currencies though, you're still going to have to refill these accounts periodically, thus incurring some foreign transaction fees and being subject to the banker's exchange rates. Where can I lookup accurate current exchange rates for consumers? It depends on who will be handling your transaction. Amazon will tell you at the checkout what exchange rate they will apply if you are having them convert a bill into your local currency for you. For credit/debit card transactions processed in a different currency than the attached account, you need to look at your specific agreement or contact the bank to see which rate they use for daily transactions (and where you can obtain these rates), whether they convert on the day of the transaction vs. the day it posts to your account, and how much they add on ($ and/or %) in fees and commission.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc6e266b59ecc292bde5266b4226db53", "text": "\"The solution I've come up with is to keep income in CAD, and Accounts Receivable in USD. Every time I post an invoice it prompts for the exchange rate. I don't know if this is \"\"correct\"\" but it seems to be preserving all of the information about the transactions and it makes sense to me. I'm a programmer, not an accountant though so I'd still appreciate an answer from someone more familiar with this topic.\"", "title": "" }, { "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": "260f08aa3ed67443f642e7942a91ec08", "text": "It will cost the same no matter what currency you use, unless you have access to a deal with a currency exchange that gives you an especially favourable conversion rate for a particular currency. If the current exchange rates are US$1.70 to the £, CA$1.80 to the £ and HK$12.50 to the £, then £1, US$1.70, CA$1.80 and HK$12.50 are just four different ways of writing the same amount of money. So whether you pay in US$, CA$ or HK$ it's the same amount of money that you're paying.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58f356edc765539400f4a3ea5ef4d3b4", "text": "Yes. I have a US based website that accepts payments via PayPal and can confirm we have many customers from India. Here is a list of countries PayPal supports. Note typically there are some additional fees associated with currency conversion.", "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": "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": "" } ]	fiqa
9fe00b43a03b528cd6afd5f8f5a8961a	Retirement formula for annual compound interest with changing principal	[ { "docid": "37528e2711eafb0e0573772a2bf49083", "text": "The equation is the same one used for mortgage amortization. You first want to calculate the PV (present value) for a stream of $50K payments over 20 years at a10% rate. Then that value is the FV (future value) that you want to save for, and you are looking to solve the payment stream needed to create that future value. Good luck achieving the 10% return, and in knowing your mortality down to the exact year. Unless this is a homework assignment, which need not reflect real life. Edit - as indicated above, the first step is to get that value in 20 years: The image is the user-friendly entry screen for the PV calculation. It walks you though the need to enter rate as per period, therefore I enter .1/12 as the rate. The payment you desire is $50K/yr, and since it's a payment, it's a negative number. The equation in excel that results is: =PV(0.1/12,240,-50000/12,0) and the sum calculated is $431,769 Next you wish to know the payments to make to arrive at this number: In this case, you start at zero PV with a known FV calculated above, and known rate. This solves for the payment needed to get this number, $568.59 The excel equation is: =PMT(0.1/12,240,0,431769) Most people have access to excel or a public domain spreadsheet application (e.g. Openoffice). If you are often needing to perform such calculations, a business finance calculator is recommended. TI used to make a model BA-35 finance calculator, no longer in production, still on eBay, used. One more update- these equations whether in excel or a calculator are geared toward per period interest, i.e. when you state 10%, they assume a monthly 10/12%. With that said, you required a 20 year deposit period and 20 year withdrawal period. We know you wish to take out $4166.67 per month. The equation to calculate deposit required becomes - 4166.67/(1.00833333)^240= 568.59 HA! Exact same answer, far less work. To be clear, this works only because you required 240 deposits to produce 240 withdrawals in the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "26821c66dd72cf208a64336d6b63caa5", "text": "I've found the systems that seem to work. Firstly, you need to find how much money is required to pay for the withdrawals after retirement, while still accruing interest. I couldn't seem to do this with an equation, but this bit of javascript worked: yearsToLast: Number of years of yearly withdrawals yearlyWithdrawal: Amount to withdraw each year interest: Decimal form of yearly compounding interest Now that we have how much is required at the beginning of the retirement, to figure out how much to add yearly to hit this mark, you'd use: amount: Previously found required amount to reach interest: Decimal form of yearly compounding interest yearsSaving: Number of years saving till amount needs to be hit I hope this helps some other poor soul, because I could find squat on how to do this. Max", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "00155b67fc1e919484a70eadd7488566", "text": "It would help if we had numbers to walk you through the analysis. Current balance, rate, remaining term, and the new mortgage details. To echo and elaborate on part of Ben's response, the most important thing is to not confuse cash flow with savings. If you have 15 years to go, and refinance to 30 years, at the rate rate, your payment drops by 1/3. Yet your rate is identical in this example. The correct method is to take the new rate, plug it into a mortgage calculator or spreadsheet using the remaining months on the current mortgage, and see the change in payment. This savings is what you should divide into closing costs to calculate the breakeven. It's up to you whether to adjust your payments to keep the term the same after you close. With respect to keshlam, rules of thumb often fail. There are mortgages that build the closing costs into the rate. Not the amount loaned, the rate. This means that as rates dropped, moving from 5.25% to 5% made sense even though with closing costs there were 4.5% mortgages out there. Because rates were still falling, and I finally moved to a 3.5% loan. At the time I was serial refinancing, the bank said I could return to them after a year if rates were still lower. In my opinion, we are at a bottom, and the biggest question you need to answer is whether you'll remain in the house past your own breakeven time. Last - with personal finance focusing on personal, the analysis shouldn't ignore the rest of your balance sheet. Say you are paying $1500/mo with 15 years to go. Your budget is tight enough that you've chosen not to deposit to your 401(k). (assuming you are in the US or country with pretax retirement account options) In this case, holding rates constant, a shift to 30 years frees up about $500/mo. In a matched 401(k), your $6000/yr is doubled to $12K/year. Of course, if the money would just go in the market unmatched, members here would correctly admonish me for suggesting a dangerous game, in effect borrowing via mortgage to invest in the market. The matched funds, however are tough to argue against.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98b754f24b889e94e2c6761e6418131a", "text": "What is the formula for calculating the total cost of a loan with extra payments towards the principal? The formula you require is the standard one for calculating the time to repay. With larger repayments the time to completely repay the loan is reduced. Where The total cost of the loan is then n * d. Explanation & Calculation The formula for a loan is derived from the sum of the cash flows discounted to present value being equal to the principal. For further info see the section here titled: Calculating the Present Value of an Ordinary Annuity The summation can be reduced to a closed form by induction: Rearranging for d and n With the OP's figures The original monthly repayment is $1,006.96 Adding $200 each month ... With the higher repayment the loan is repaid in 257.36 months instead of 360. (Of course a bank would simply take a reduced payment in month 258, but the amounts work out the same.) The saving is $51,882.37 Addendum If the repayments increase was made part-way through the term of the loan the summation and formula would be Where Then For example, if for the first ten years the payments are $1,006.96 and for the remaining time the repayments are $1,206.96 The loan is completely repaid in 302.528 months. The saving is Plotting over a range of m months:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98d274e0165cfccc061e8c55403a3152", "text": "Yes your basic math is correct. If your tax bracket never changes, then either type of retirement account will end up in the same place. Assuming that there are no income restrictions that will limit your ability to contribute to the type of account you want. Now your job is to guess what your tax bracket will be each and every year for the next 3 or 4 decades. Events that will influence your bracket: getting married; having children; buying a house; selling a house; paying for college; the cost of medical care; moving to a state with a different state tax structure. Of course that assumes that you don't get a big bonus one year or that congress changes the tax brackets. That is why many people have both types of retirement accounts: Roth and non-Roth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b73b0ea57bf9938c6d3d2aaaf99b4c1b", "text": "\"Well, the first one is based on the \"\"Pert\"\" formula for continuously-compounded present value, while the second one is the periodically-compounded variant. Typically, the continuously-compounded models represent the ideal; as the compounding period of time-valued money shrinks towards zero, and the discount rate (or interest rate if positive) stays constant over the time period examined, the periodic equation's results approach that of the continuously-compounded equation. Those two assumptions (a constant rate and continuous balance adjustment from interest) that allow simplification to the continuous form are usually incorrect in real-world finance; virtually all financial institutions accrue interest monthly, for a variety of reasons including simpler bookkeeping and less money paid or owed in interest. They also, unless prohibited by contract, accrue this interest based on a rate that can change daily or even more granularly based on what financial markets are doing. Most often, the calculation is periodic based on the \"\"average daily balance\"\" and an agreed rate that, if variable, is based on the \"\"average daily rate\"\" over the previous observed period. So, you should use the first form for fast calculation of a rough value based on estimated variables. You should use the second form when you have accurate periodic information on the variables involved. Stated alternately, use the first form to predict the future, use the second form in retrospect to the past.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77f2fb35a2beff9e1f1c485393fb6fd7", "text": "\"Hey guys I have a quick question about a financial accounting problem although I think it's not really an \"\"accounting\"\" problem but just a bond problem. Here it goes GSB Corporation issued semiannual coupon bonds with a face value of $110,000 several years ago. The annual coupon rate is 8%, with two coupons due each year, six months apart. The historical market interest rate was 10% compounded semiannually when GSB Corporation issued the bonds, equal to an effective interest rate of 10.25% [= (1.05 × 1.05) – 1]. GSB Corporation accounts for these bonds using amortized cost measurement based on the historical market interest rate. The current market interest rate at the beginning of the current year on these bonds was 6% compounded semiannually, for an effective interest rate of 6.09% [= (1.03 × 1.03) – 1]. The market interest rate remained at this level throughout the current year. The bonds had a book value of $100,000 at the beginning of the current year. When the firm made the payment at the end of the first six months of the current year, the accountant debited a liability for the exact amount of cash paid. Compute the amount of interest expense on these bonds for the last six months of the life of the bonds, assuming all bonds remain outstanding until the retirement date. My question is why would they give me the effective interest rate for both the historical and current rate? The problem states that the firm accounts for the bond using historical interest which is 10% semiannual and the coupon payments are 4400 twice per year. I was just wondering if I should just do the (Beginning Balance (which is 100000 in this case) x 1.05)-4400=Ending Balance so on and so forth until I get to the 110000 maturity value. I got an answer of 5474.97 and was wondering if that's the correct approach or not.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78ea266bd36fb5b163f07f784e26b5d4", "text": "I would like to know how they calculated such monthly payment The formula is: Your values would come out to be: r = (1+3.06/(100365))^31-1=0.002602 (converting your annual percentage to a monthly rate equivalent of daily compounded interest) PV = 12865.57 n = 48 Inserting your values into the formula: P = [r(PV)]/[1-(1+r)^(-n)] P = [0.002602(12865.57)]/[1-(1.002602)^(-48)] P = 285.47", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98f243b08477754a4db0a21dd740ad38", "text": "The really simple answer is that compound interest is compound not linear. Money invested for longer earns more interest, and the sooner you start investing, the longer it has to earn interest. These ideas come out of pension investment where 65 is the usual retirement age and what you invest in the 1st ten years of your pension (or any other compound interest fund) accounts for over 50% of what you will get out. 25 to 65 is forty years and $100 invested at 7% for 40 years is $1400. $100 invested every year for 40 years the pot would be worth just under $20,000. At 30 years, it would be worth under $10,000, and at 20 years it would be worth only $4099. If you double your investment amount every 10 years you would have invested $15700, and the pot would be worth $45,457. Do exactly the same but starting at 35 instead of 25 and your pot would only be worth $14,200.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "544f3cee0128618541de2661be51233f", "text": "First, assuming you are making payments for a savings deposit. The present value of the deposit is the sum of the all the payments discounted to present value. In this case they would be discounted by the rate of inflation: £100 deposited next year is worth less than £100 today because it will be eroded by inflation. With a higher rate of inflation the payments are discounted more heavily, so the present value decreases. A deposit, or annuity due (see Calculating the Present Value of an Annuity Due), can be expressed mathematically like so:- ∴ by induction So for example, the following annuity has a present value of £1,136.76 The total amount that will be paid for the annuity is 12 x £100 = £1,200. With a higher rate of inflation, say 2% per month, and with the same 12 x £100 payments, the present value of the annuity decreases. In Excel (£1,078.68) A similar case is that for a loan, or ordinary annuity (see Calculating the Present Value of an Ordinary Annuity), except the discounting factor is the loan interest rate rather than inflation and repayments are made at the end of each period rather than at the start. The present value of a loan is the value of the all the future repayments discounted to present value. With a higher interest rate the payments are discounted more heavily, so the present value decreases. A loan can be expressed mathematically like so:- ∴ by induction So for example, the following values fulfill a loan worth £1,125.51 The total amount that will be paid for the loan is 12 x £100 = £1,200. With a higher rate of interest, say 2% per month, and the same 12 x £100 repayments, the present value of the loan that can be obtained decreases. In Excel (£1,057.53)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41e358f0c4f17a2e8510b504eef1f6d2", "text": "Retirement calculation, in general, should be based on the amount of money needed per year/month and the expected life expectancy. Life expectancy, if calculated to 90 years (let's say) indicates that post retirement age (60 yrs.) your accumulated/invested money should generate adequate income to cover your expenses till 90 years. The problem in general is not how long you shall live but what would be your expected spending from retirement to end of life expectancy. The idea is at the minimum your investments should generate income that is inflation adjusted. One way to do this is to consider your monthly expense now i.e. the expense that is absolute minimum for carrying on (food, electricity, water, medicines, household consumables, car petrol, insurance, servicing, entertainment, newspaper etc.) this does not contain the amortizable liabilities (home loan, child's education, other debts). It is better to take this amount per family rather than per person and yearly rather than monthly (as we tend to miss a lot of yearly expenses). This amount that you need today will increase at a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of the average inflation. For example, if today you spend 100 per year in 7 years you will need to spend appx. 200 at 10% inflation. Now, your investments will not increase post your retirement, so your current investment needs to do two things (1) give you your yearly requirement (2) grow by a fixed amount so that next year it can give you CAGR adjusted returns. In general, this kind of investment grows by high net amounts initially and slowly the growth decrease. The above can be calculated by Net Present value (NPV) formulae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value). The key is to remember that the money that is invested when you retire should be able to give you inflation adjusted returns to cover your yearly expenses. How much money you need depends on your life style/expectation and how much return is received depends on the instruments that you invest on. As for your question above on the difference between the age of you and your spouse, it better to go with the consolidated family requirement and get an idea of how much investment is necessary and provision the same as soon as possible from your as well as your spouse's income. Hope this helps.- thanks", "title": "" }, { "docid": "415e726f50391132ed4c01460adb72a3", "text": "\"The formula you are looking for is pretty complicated. It's given here: http://itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda3661.htm You might prefer to let somebody else do the grunt work for you. This page will calculate the probability for you: http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/normal.aspx. In your case, you'd enter mean=.114, standard deviation=.132, and \"\"standard score\"\"= ... oh, you didn't say what you're paying on your debt. Let's say it's 6%, i.e. .06. Note that this page will give you the probability that the actual number will be less than or equal to the \"\"standard score\"\". Enter all that and click the magic button and the probability that the investment will produce less than 6% is ... .34124, or 34%. The handy rule of thumb is that the probability is about 68% that the actual number will be within 1 standard deviation of the mean, 95% that it will be within 2 standard deviations, and 99.7% that it will be within 3. Which isn't exactly what you want because you don't want \"\"within\"\" but \"\"less than\"\". But you could get that by just adding half the difference from 100% for each of the above, i.e. instead of 68-95-99.7 it would be 84-98-99.9. Oh, I missed that in a follow-up comment you say you are paying 4% on a mortgage which you are adjusting to 3% because of tax implications. Probability based on mean and SD you gave of getting less than 3% is 26%. I didn't read the article you cite. I assume the standard deviation given is for the rate of return for one year. If you stretch that over many years, the SD goes down, as many factors tend to even out. So while the probability that money in a given, say, mutual fund will grow by less than 3% in one year is fairly high -- the 25 - 35% we're talking here sounds plausible to me -- the probability that it will grow by an average of less than 3% over a period of 10 or 15 or 20 years is much less. Further Thought There is, of course, no provably-true formula for what makes a reasonable risk. Suppose I offered you an investment that had a 99% chance of showing a $5,000 profit and a 1% chance of a $495,000 loss. Would you take it? I wouldn't. Even though the chance of a loss is small, if it happened, I'd lose everything I have. Is it worth that risk for the modest potential profit? I'd say no. Of course to someone who has a billion dollars, this might be a very reasonable risk. If it fails, oh well, that could really cut in to what he can spend on lunch tomorrow.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4bd07322012f097a21bf63a11cc85067", "text": "Since the compounding period and payment period differs (Compounded Daily vs Paid Monthly), you need to find the effective interest rate for one payment period (month). This means that each month you pay 0.33387092772% of the outstanding principal as interest. Then use this formula to find the number of months: Where PV = 21750, Pmt = 220, i = 0.0033387092772 That gives 120 Months. Depending on the day count convention, (30/360 or 30.416/365 or Actual/Actual), the answer may differ slightly. Using Financial Calculator gives extremely similar answer. The total cash paid in the entire course of the loan is 120 x $220 = $26,400", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e14660d08b4b2fa45f1d81f43002d2c7", "text": "\"Wow, this turns out to be a much more difficult problem than I thought from first looking at it. Let's recast some of the variables to simplify the equations a bit. Let rb be the growth rate of money in your bank for one period. By \"\"growth rate\"\" I mean the amount you will have after one period. So if the interest rate is 3% per year paid monthly, then the interest for one month is 3/12 of 1% = .25%, so after one month you have 1.0025 times as much money as you started with. Similarly, let si be the growth rate of the investment. Then after you make a deposit the amount you have in the bank is pb = s. After another deposit you've collected interest on the first, so you have pb = s rb + s. That is, the first deposit with one period's growth plus the second deposit. One more deposit and you have pb = ((s * rb) + s) * rb + s = s + s * rb + s * rb^2. Etc. So after n deposits you have pb = s + s * rb + s * rb^2 + s * rb^3 + ... + s * rb^(n-1). This simplifies to pb = s * (rb^n - 1)/(rb - 1). Similarly for the amount you would get by depositing to the investment, let's call that pi, except you must also subtract the amount of the broker fee, b. So you want to make deposits when pb>pi, or s(ri^n-1)/(ri-1) - b > s(rb^n-1)/(rb-1) Then just solve for n and you're done! Except ... maybe someone who's better at algebra than me could solve that for n, but I don't see how to do it. Further complicating this is that banks normally pay interest monthly, while stocks go up or down every day. If a calculation said to withdraw after 3.9 months, it might really be better to wait for 4.0 months to collect one additional month's interest. But let's see if we can approximate. If the growth rates and the number of periods are relatively small, the compounding of growth should also be relatively small. So an approximate solution would be when the difference between the interest rates, times the amount of each deposit, summed over the number of deposits, is greater than the fee. That is, say the investment pays 10% per month more than your bank account (wildly optimistic but just for example), the broker fee is $10, and the amount of each deposit is $200. Then if you delay making the investment by one month you're losing 10% of $200 = $20. This is more than the broker fee, so you should invest immediately. Okay, suppose more realistically that the investment pays 1% more per month than the bank account. Then the first month you're losing 1% of $200 = $2. The second month you have $400 in the bank, so you're losing $4, total loss for two months = $6. The third month you have $600 in the bank so you lose an additional $6, total loss = $12. Etc. So you should transfer the money to the investment about the third month. Compounding would mean that losses on transferring to the investment are a little higher than this, so you'd want to bias to transferring a little earlier. Or, you could set up a spreadsheet to do the compounding calculations month by month, and then just look down the column for when the investment total minus the bank total is greater than the broker fee. Sorry I'm not giving you a definitive answer, but maybe this helps.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0fcaada709d1c45c7d277159146313d", "text": "With 10% return over three years, depositing $900 each month, in three years $34,039.30. Re. downvote. I guess this is too brief and without explanation, but I was rushing. If you want further explanation of how this is calculated check the link already posted by JoeTaxpayer, and have a look at the formula for continuously compounded return. Also, try out the numbers in the simplified example below yourself. E.g. Addendum mhoran_psprep has pointed out that I didn't read the OP's post closely enough. With rolling investments the total return will be: Where n is the month number i.e. 36, 37, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34ff158b6ef5069454476b94d3c6f49b", "text": "Okay, I think I managed to find the precise answer to this problem! It involves solving a non-linear exponential equation, but I also found a good approximate solution using the truncated Taylor series. See below for a spreadsheet you can use. Let's start by defining the growth factors per period, for money in the bank and money invested: Now, let S be the amount ready to be invested after n+1 periods; so the first of that money has earned interest for n periods. That is, The key step to solve the problem was to fix the total number of periods considered. So let's introduce a new variable: t = the total number of time periods elapsed So if money is ready to invest every n+1 periods, there will be t/(n+1) separate investments, and the future value of the investments will be: This formula is exact in the case of integer t and n, and a good approximation when t and n are not integers. Substituting S, we get the version of the formula which explicitly depends on n: Fortunately, only a couple of terms in FV depend on n, so we can find the derivative after some effort: Equating the derivative to zero, we can remove the denominator, and assuming t is greater than zero, we can divide by the constant ( 1-G t ): To simplify the equation, we can define some extra constants: Then, we can define a function f(n) and write the equation as: Note that α, β, γ, G, and R are all constant. From here there are two options: Use Newton's method or another numerical method for finding the positive root of f(n). This can be done in a number of software packages like MATLAB, Octave, etc, or by using a graphics calculator. Solve approximately using a truncated Taylor series polynomial. I will use this method here. The Taylor series of f(n), centred around n=0, is: Truncating the series to the first three terms, we get a quadratic polynomial (with constant coefficients): Using R, G, α, β and γ defined above, let c0, c1 and c2 be the coefficients of the truncated Taylor series for f(n): Then, n should be rounded to the nearest whole number. To be certain, check the values above and below n using the formula for FV. Using the example from the question: For example, I might put aside $100 every week to invest into a stock with an expected growth of 9% p.a., but brokerage fees are $10/trade. For how many weeks should I accumulate the $100 before investing, if I can put it in my high-interest bank account at 4% p.a. until then? Using Newton's method to find roots of f(n) above, we get n = 14.004. Using the closed-form approximate solution, we get n = 14.082. Checking this against the FV with t = 1680 (evenly divisible by each n + 1 tested): Therefore, you should wait for n = 14 periods, keeping that money in the bank, investing it together with the money in the next period (so you will make an investment every 14 + 1 = 15 weeks.) Here's one way to implement the above solution with a spreadsheet. StackExchange doesn't allow tables in their syntax at this time, so I'll show a screenshot of the formulae and columns you can copy and paste: Formulae: Copy and paste column A: Copy and paste column B: Results: Remember, n is the number of periods to accumulate money in the bank. So you will want to invest every n+1 weeks; in this case, every 15 weeks.", "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": "" } ]	fiqa
a087468cdab42d44a74f7d262a0fbdee	What is a typical investment portfolio made up of?	[ { "docid": "f5fb93b7a5cd0209d2b227983b37eb21", "text": "Most people carry a diversity of stock, bond, and commodities in their portfolio. The ratio and types of these investments should be based on your goals and risk tolerance. I personally choose to manage mine through mutual funds which combine the three, but ETFs are also becoming popular. As for where you keep your portfolio, it depends on what you're investing for. If you're investing for retirement you are definitely best to keep as much of your investment as possible in 401k or IRAs (preferably Roth IRAs). Many advisers suggest contributing as much to your 401k as your company matches, then the rest to IRA, and if you over contribute for the IRA back to the 401k. You may choose to skip the 401k if you are not comfortable with the choices your company offers in it (such as only investing in company stock). If you are investing for a point closer than retirement and you still want the risk (and reward potential) of stock I would suggest investing in low tax mutual funds, or eating the tax and investing in regular mutual funds. If you are going to take money out before retirement the penalties of a 401k or IRA make it not worth doing. Technically a savings account isn't investing, but rather a place to store money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2106c31d84b4c18a5fd0a1c91430e2b5", "text": "Paying off the high-interest debt is a good first start. Paying interest, or compound interest on debt is like paying somebody to make you poor. As for your 401k, you want to contribute enough to get the full match from your employer. You might also consider checking out the fees associated with your 401k with an online fee analyzer. If it turns out you're getting reamed with fees, you can reduce them by fiddling with your investments. Checking your investment options is always a good idea since jobs frequently change them. Opening an IRA is a good call. If you're eligible for both Roth and Traditional IRAs, consider the following: Most financial institutions (brokers or banks) can help you open an IRA in a matter of minutes. If you shop around, you will find very cheap or even no fee options. Many brokers might try to get your business by giving away something for ‘free.' Just make sure you read the fine print so you understand the conditions of their promotional offer. Whichever IRA you choose, you want to make sure that it's managed properly. Some people might say, ‘go for it, do it yourself’ but I strongly disagree with that approach. Stock picking is a waste of time and market timing rarely works. I'd look into flat fee financial advisors. You have lots of options. Just make sure they hear you out, and can design/execute an investment plan specific to your needs At a minimum, they should: Hope this is helpful.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3fec87ba98c65968d2530af5cf61d076", "text": "\"An investment portfolio is typically divided into three components: All three of those can be accessed through mutual funds or ETFs. A 401(k) will probably have a small set of mutual funds for you to pick from. Mutual funds may charge you silly expenses if you pick a bad one. Look at the prospectus for the expense ratio. If it's over 1% you're definitely paying too much. If it's over 0.5% you're probably paying too much. If it's less than 0.1% you have a really good deal. US stocks are generally the core holding until you move into retirement (or get close to spending the money on something else if it's not invested for retirement). International stocks are riskier than US stocks, but provide opportunity for diversification and better returns than the US stocks. Bonds, or fixed-income investments, are generally very safe, but have limited opportunities for returns. They tend to do better when stocks are doing poorly. When you've got a while to invest, you should be looking at riskier investments; when you don't, you should be looking for safer investments. A quick (and rough) rule of thumb is that \"\"your age should match the portion of your portfolio in bonds\"\". So if you're 50 years old and approaching retirement in 15 years or so, you should have about 50% in bonds. Roughly. People whose employment and future income is particularly tied to one sector of the market would also do well to avoid investing there, because they already are at risk if it performs badly. For instance, if you work in the technology sector, loading up on tech stocks is extra risky: if there's a big bust, you're not just out of a job, your portfolio is dead as well. More exotic options are available to diversify a portfolio: While many portfolios could benefit from these sorts of holdings, they come with their own advantages and disadvantages and should be researched carefully before taking a significant stake in them.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ea3fa55dc99d74165a2688fa631cbe1", "text": "Don't over think about your choices. The most important thing to start now and keep adjusting and tuning your portfolio as you move along in your life. Each individual's situation is unique. Start with something simple and straight forward, like 100 - your age, in Total Stock market Index fund and the remaining total bond market index fund. For your 401k, at least contribute so much as to get the maximum employer match. Its always good if you can contribute the yearly maximum in your 401k or IRA. Once you have built up a substantial amount of assets (~ $50k+) then its time to think more about asset allocation and start buying into more specific investments as needed. Remember to keep your investment expenses low by using index funds. Also remember to factor in tax implications on your investment decisions. eg. buying an REIT fund in a tax advantaged account like 40k is more tax efficient than buying it in a normal brokerage account.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "e4cbddfaee0024ce7a0ec84c4ca73a32", "text": "You are diversified within a particular type of security. Notably the stock market. A truly diversified portfolio not only has multiple types of holdings within a single type of security (what your broad market fund does) but between different types. You have partially succeeded in doing this with the international fund - that way your risk is spread between domestic and international stocks. But there are other holdings. Cash, bonds, commodities, real estate, etc. There are broad index funds/ETFs for those as well, which may reduce your risk when the stock market as a whole tanks - which it does on occasion.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78324133f5ee24f7ae0dc6de65f65c25", "text": "I strongly suggest you go to www.investor.gov as it has excellent information regarding these types of questions. A mutual fund is a company that pools money from many investors and invests the money in securities such as stocks, bonds, and short-term debt. The combined holdings of the mutual fund are known as its portfolio. Investors buy shares in mutual funds. Each share represents an investor’s part ownership in the fund and the income it generates. When you buy shares of a mutual fund you're buying it at NAV, or net asset value. The NAV is the value of the fund’s assets minus its liabilities. SEC rules require funds to calculate the NAV at least once daily. Different funds may own thousands of different stocks. In order to calculate the NAV, the fund company must value every security it owns. Since each security's valuation is changing throughout the day it's difficult to determine the valuation of the mutual fund except for when the market is closed. Once the market has closed (4pm eastern) and securities are no longer trading, the company must get accurate valuations for every security and perform the valuation calculations and distribute the results to the pricing vendors. This has to be done by 6pm eastern. This is a difficult and, more importantly, a time consuming process to get it done right once per day. Having worked for several fund companies I can tell you there are many days where companies are getting this done at the very last minute. When you place a buy or sell order for a mutual fund it doesn't matter what time you placed it as long as you entered it before 4pm ET. Cutoff times may be earlier depending on who you're placing the order with. If companies had to price their funds more frequently, they would undoubtedly raise their fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cde469018b3cfb591796938d77a8ff2d", "text": "I don't see balance sheet in what you're looking at, and I'd definitely suggest learning how to read a balance sheet and looking at it, if you're going to buy stock in a company, unless you know that the recommendations you're buying on are already doing that and you're willing to take that risk. Also, reading past balance sheets and statements can give you an idea about how accurate the company is with their predictions, or if they have a history of financial integrity. Now, if you're going the model portfolio route, which has become popular, the assumption that many of these stock buyers are making is that someone else is doing that for them. I am not saying that this assumption is valid, just one that I've seen; you will definitely find a lot of skeptics, and rightly so, about model portfolios. Likewise, people who trade based on what [Person X] does (like Warren Buffett or David Einhorn) are assuming that they're doing the research. The downside to this is if you follow someone like this. Yeah, oops. I should also point out that technical analysis, especially high probability TA, generally only looks at history. Most would define it as high risk and there are many underlying assumptions with reading the price movements by high probability TA types.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c6894948ead5872e579b7d433107eba", "text": "At its simplest level it's an application of basic statistics/probability: Suppose you have n independent and identically distributed assets with the return on asset i denoted R_i which has mean m and variance s^2 (same for all assets). You can easily weaken these assumptions but I make them to simplify the exposition [Square brackets show a numerical example with n=20, m=8%, s=2%] if you invest in one of these assets you expect to get a return of m [8%] with standard deviation s [2%] (so you expect with probability 95% (approx) to get a return between m-2s and m+2s. [between 4% and 12%] Now suppose you split your money equally among the n-assets. Your return is now R = (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n R_i your expected return is E(R) = (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n E(R_i) = (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n m = m [8%] the variance of your return is Var(R) = Var( (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n R_i ) = (1/n^2)\\Sum{i=1}^n Var(R_i) = n * s^2 / n^2) = s^2/n So, the standard deviation is SD(R) = Sqrt(V(R)) = s/Sqrt(n) [2%/Sqrt(20) = 0.44%] Now, with 95% probability we get a return between E(R)-2SD(R) and E(R)+2SD(R) [between 7.12% and 8.88%]. This interval is smaller than when we invested in the single asset, so in effect with this portfolio we are achieving the same return m [8%] but with lower variance (risk) [0.44% instead of 2%]. This is the result of diversification. You can assume the assets are not independent (and most book expositions of this topic do indeed do that). In that case the calculation is modified because the variance of the portfolio now depends on the correlation between returns, as does the reduction in variance caused by the diversification. If assets are negatively correlated the result of the diversification will be more reduction in risk and vice versa. You can also assume the assets are not identically distributed and the above analysis does not change too much. You might look for some references on CAPM (Capital Asset Pricing Model) or portfolio theory but broadly these are based on what I have described above - finding the portfolio with minimum variance for a given return by investing proportionally in treasury bonds and risky assets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edc663e7d0c90c031d359caf3f23ca44", "text": "\"The standard measure of risk is the variance of the asset. The return on investment of the asset is understood as a random variable with a particular distribution. One can make inferences about the underlying distribution using historical data. As you say, this is what the quants do. There are other, more sophisticated measures of risk that allow for such things as skewed distributions and Markov switching. If you are interested in learning more, I suggest starting with the foundations of Modern Portfolio Theory: \"\"Portfolio Selection\"\" by Harry Markowitz and \"\"Capital Asset Prices\"\" by William Sharpe.\"", "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": "36006f966011491e35cf6577dfab4990", "text": "\"DJIA is a price weighted index (as in the amount of each component company is weighted by its price) and the constituents change occasionally (51 times so far). With these two effects you would not get anything like the same return by equally weighting your holdings and would have to rebalance every so often. Note that your premise was most obviously flawed thinking the number of near bankruptcies there have been in that time. More details of the differing make-ups of the index are available on Wikipedia. When you ask about the \"\"average investment\"\" you would have to be a lot more specific; is it limited just to US shares, to shares, to shares and fixed income securities, should I include all commodities, etc. see also What's the justification for the DJIA being share-price weighted?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "958bc50fb642ea1196eccc7d99737758", "text": "Given that hedge funds and trading firms employ scores of highly intelligent analysts, programmers, and managers to game the market, what shot does the average person have at successful investing in the stock market? Good question and the existing answers provide valuable insight. I will add one major ingredient to successful investing: emotion. The analysts and experts that Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley or the best hedge funds employ may have some of the most advanced analytical skills in the world, but knowing and doing still greatly differ. Consider how many of these same companies and funds thought real estate was a great buy before the housing bubble. Why? FOMO (fear of missing out; what some people call greed). One of my friends purchased Macy's and Las Vegas Sands in 2009 at around $5 for M and $2 for LVS. He never graduated high school, so we might (foolishly) refer to him as below average because he's not as educated as those individuals at Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, etc. Today M sits around $40 a share and LVS at around $70. Those returns in five years. The difference? Emotion. He holds little attachment to money (lives on very little) and thus had the freedom to take a chance, which to him didn't feel like a chance. In a nutshell, his emotions were in the right place and he studied a little bit about investing (read two article) and took action. Most of the people who I know, which easily had quintuple his wealth and made significantly more than he did, didn't take a chance (even on an index fund) because of their fear of loss. I mean everyone knows to buy low, right? But how many actually do? So knowing what to do is great; just be sure you have the courage to act on what you know.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20f359098fd69ea33661b6f8f5533514", "text": "Google Portfolio does the job: https://www.google.com/finance/portfolio You can add transaction data, view fundamentals and much more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1015ffe029820bd6079017d96a071be", "text": "Like an S&P 500 ETF? So you're getting in some cash inflow each day, cash outflows each day. And you have to buy and sell 500 different stocks, at the same time, in order for your total fund assets to match the S&P 500 index proportions, as much as possible. At any given time, the prices you get from the purchase/sale of stock is probably going to be somewhat different than the theoretical amounts you are supposed to get to match, so it's quite a tangle. This is my understanding of things. Some funds are simpler - a Dow 30 fund only has 30 stocks to balance out. Maybe that's easier, or maybe it's harder because one wonky trade makes a bigger difference? I'm not sure this is how it really operates. The closest I've gotten is a team that has submitted products for indexing, and attempted to develop funds from those indexes. Turns out finding the $25-50 million of initial investments isn't as easy as anyone would think.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "100c16089b98c6da4bdec9e3d52ba91b", "text": "\"The raw question is as follows: \"\"You will be recommending a purposed portfolio to an investment committee (my class). The committee runs a foundation that has an asset base of $4,000,000. The foundations' dual mandates are to (a) preserve capital and (b) to fund $200,000 worth of scholarships. The foundation has a third objective, which is to grow its asset base over time.\"\" The rest of the assignment lays out the format and headings for the sections of the presentation. Thanks, by the way - it's an 8 week accelerated course and I've been out sick for two weeks. I've been trying to teach myself this stuff, including the excel calculations for the past few weeks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f22e794d25699e76013708b1fc5884b6", "text": "Not according to the SEC: A mutual fund is an SEC-registered open-end investment company that pools money from many investors and invests the money in stocks, bonds, short-term money-market instruments, other securities or assets, or some combination of these investments. The combined securities and assets the mutual fund owns are known as its portfolio, which is managed by an SEC-registered investment adviser. Each mutual fund share represents an investor’s proportionate ownership of the mutual fund’s portfolio and the income the portfolio generates. And further down: Mutual funds are open-end funds.", "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": "198ed04523c8fccd9e40079232c52c8f", "text": "There is no typical return for an IRA. Understand that an IRA is not an investment type, it is just an account that gets special tax treatment by the Federal Government. The money in the IRA could be invested in almost anything including Gold, Stocks, Bonds, Cash, CDs, etc. So the question as phrased isn't exactly meaningful. It is kind of like asking what is the typical price of things if I use $10 bills. As for a 10.6% annualized return on your portfolio. That's not a bad return. At that rate you will double your investment (with compounding) every 7.2 years. Again, however, some context is needed. You can really only evaluate investment returns with your risk profile in mind. If you are invested in super safe investments like CDs, that is an absolutely incredible return. You compare it to several indexes, which is a good way to do it if you are investing in the types of investments tracked by those indexes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef25a6623be4b8f0fea3b10714130202", "text": "Have a look at: Diversify Portfolio. The site provides various tools all focused on correlation, diversification and portfolio construction. You can scan through every stock and ETF listed on the NASDAQ and NYSE to find any kind of correlation you're looking for. You can also create a portfolio and then analyze all the correlations within it, or search for specific stocks that can be added to the portfolio based on correlation and various other factors.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
2d85c4c171b61dabb2c10df8a18742a4	What exactly happens during a settlement period?	[ { "docid": "22f5b5bd6ddbadb3f7c70481c5b68139", "text": "\"Securities clearing and settlement is a complex topic - you can start by browsing relevant Wikipedia articles, and (given sufficient quantities of masochism and strong coffee) progress to entire technical books. You're correct - modern trade settlement systems are electronic and heavily streamlined. However, you're never going to see people hand over assets until they're sure that payment has cleared - given current payment systems, that means the fastest settlement time is going to be the next business day (so-called T+1 settlement), which is what's seen for heavily standardized instruments like standard options and government debt securities. Stocks present bigger obstacles. First, the seller has to locate the asset being sold & make sure they have clear title to it... which is tougher than it might seem, given the layers of abstraction/virtualization involved in the chain of ownership & custody, complicated in particular by \"\"rehypothecation\"\" involved in stock borrowing/lending for short sales... especially since stock borrow/lending record-keeping tends to be somewhat slipshod (cf. periodic uproar about \"\"naked shorting\"\" and \"\"failure to deliver\"\"). Second, the seller has to determine what exactly it is that they have sold... which, again, can be tougher than it might seem. You see, stocks are subject to all kinds of corporate actions (e.g. cash distributions, spin-offs, splits, liquidations, delistings...) A particular topic of keen interest is who exactly is entitled to large cash distributions - the buyer or the seller? Depending on the cutoff date (the \"\"ex-dividend date\"\"), the seller may need to deliver to the buyer just the shares of stock, or the shares plus a big chunk of cash - a significant difference in settlement. Determining the precise ex-dividend date (and so what exactly are the assets to be settled) can sometimes be very difficult... it's usually T-2, except in the case of large distributions, which are usually T+1, unless the regulatory authority has neglected to declare an ex-dividend date, in which case it defaults to standard DTC payment policy (i.e. T-2)... I've been involved in a few situations where the brokers involved were clueless, and full settlement of \"\"due bills\"\" for cash distributions to the buyer took several months of hard arguing. So yeah, the brokers want a little time to get their records in order and settle the trade correctly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31bb2bcfa644d2d77d932c3d312c5cf9", "text": "During the settlement period, the buyer transfers payment to the seller and the seller transfers ownership to the buyer. This is really a holdover from the days when so much of stock trading was done by individual human traders, and computers were still not a huge part of the operation. Back then, paper tickets for trades exchanged hands, and the time period was actually 5 days, so 3 days is an improvement. A settlement period was necessary for everyone to figure out their trades and do what was necessary to make the settlements happen, so it was not always a quick process, mainly because of smaller trading firms that didn't have technology to help them along. Nowadays, technology makes settlements easy, and they usually occur at the end of the trading day. The trading firms sum up their trades, figure out who they owe, and send lump sum settlements to the counterparties to their trades. If anything, the 3-day period may just be used now to let parties verify trades before settling. I hope this helps. Good luck!", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b3ab4e4fb8cddfc0117247a078637e87", "text": "\"The settlement date for any trade is the date on which the seller gets the buyer's money and the buyer gets the seller's product. In US equities markets the settlement date is (almost universally) three trading days after the trade date. This settlement period gives the exchanges, the clearing houses, and the brokers time to figure out how many shares and how many dollars need to actually be moved around in order to give everyone what they're owed (and then to actually do all that moving around). So, \"\"settling\"\" a short trade is the same thing as settling any other trade. It has nothing to do with \"\"closing\"\" (or covering) the seller's short position. Q: Is this referring to when a short is initiated, or closed? A: Initiated. If you initiate a short position by selling borrowed shares on day 1, then settlement occurs on day 4. (Regardless of whether your short position is still open or has been closed.) Q: All open shorts which are still open by the settlement date have to be reported by the due date. A: Not exactly. The requirement is that all short positions evaluated based on their settlement dates (rather than their trade dates) still open on the deadline have to be reported by the due date. You sell short 100 AAPL on day 1. You then cover that short by buying 100 AAPL on day 2. As far as the clearing houses and brokers are concerned, however, you don't even get into the short position until your sell settles at the end of day 4, and you finally get out of your short position (in their eyes) when your buy settles at the end of day 5. So imagine the following scenarios: The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 2. Since your (FINRA member) broker has been told to report based on settlement date, it would report no open position for you in AAPL even though you executed a trade to sell on day 1. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 3. Your sell still has not settled, so there's still no open position to report for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 4. Your sell has settled but your buy has not, so the broker reports a 100 share open short position for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 5. Your sell and buy have both settled, so the broker once again has no open position to report for you. So, the point is that when dealing with settlement dates you just pretend the world is 3 days behind where it actually is.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1fdcd7e54bb83602f5e55c5b27dc940", "text": "At the bottom of the page you linked to, NASDAQ provides a link to this page on nasdaqtrader.com, which states Each FINRA member firm is required to report its “total” short interest positions in all customer and proprietary accounts in NASDAQ-listed securities twice a month. These reports are used to calculate short interest in NASDAQ stocks. FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date. The dates you are seeing are the dates the member firms settled their trades. In general (also from nasdaq.com), the settlement date is The date on which payment is made to settle a trade. For stocks traded on US exchanges, settlement is currently three business days after the trade.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1fd9eff2faeeb0d51d749525ca2d2c11", "text": "What typically happens to brokerage accounts during similar situations? This depends on country, time and situation. Nothing is predictable in such situations. In Greece during the said period the stock exchanges were closed for 5 weeks. There was no trading. Edits: Every situation is different and it would be unfair to compare one against another or use it to predict something else. Right now in India due to demonitization, cash withdrawal is limited. One can trade in stocks, unlimited bank transfers, transfer money out of India ...etc. Everything same except for cash withdrawal. In 1990, the ASEAN countries survived a financial collapse, everything was allowed except moving money out of country.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1869cf15c6b9a97003f6139f6dfb8f0", "text": "No, you cannot withdraw the money until settlement day. Some brokers will allow you to trade with unsettled funds, but you cannot withdraw it until it is settled. Think about it, when you buy stock you have to pay for them by T+3, so if you sell you actually don't receive the funds until T+3.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ad39f83aacc8997b0def6e760c28763", "text": "You have to call Interactive Brokers for this. This is what you should do, they might even have a web chat. These are very broker specific idiosyncrasies, because although margin rules are standardized to an extent, when they start charging you for interest and giving you margin until settlement may not be standardized. I mean, I can call them and tell you what they said for the 100 rep.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32c2716abf18c9873139c68bc1960ebb", "text": "Looks like the result got decided recently, with a little uncertainty about exactly how much is the total allowed claims: http://www.wilmingtontrust.com/gmbondholders/plan_disclosure.html http://www.wilmingtontrust.com/gmbondholders/pdf/GUC_Trust_Agreement.pdf They give the following example: Accordingly, pursuant to Section 5.3 of the GUC Trust Agreement, a holder of a Disputed Claim in the Amount of $2,000,000 that was Allowed in the amount of $1,000,000 (A) as of the end of the first calendar quarter would receive: Corresponding to the Distribution to the Holders of Initial Allowed Claims: Corresponding to the First Quarter Distribution to Holders of Units: Total:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df7fcd1a81102f1a96ffe8c8bfdb0914", "text": "\"Ignoring the complexities of a standardised and regulated market, a futures contract is simply a contract that requires party A to buy a given amount of a commodity from party B at a specified price. The future can be over something tangible like pork bellies or oil, in which case there is a physical transfer of \"\"stuff\"\" or it can be over something intangible like shares. The purpose of the contract is to allow the seller to \"\"lock-in\"\" a price so that they are not subject to price fluctuations between the date the contract is entered and the date it is complete; this risk is transferred to the seller who will therefore generally pay a discounted rate from the spot price on the original day. In many cases, the buyer actually wants the \"\"stuff\"\"; futures contracts between farmers and manufacturers being one example. The farmer who is growing, say, wool will enter a contract to supply 3000kg at $10 per kg (of a given quality etc. there are generally price adjustments detailed for varying quality) with a textile manufacturer to be delivered in 6 months. The spot price today may be $11 - the farmer gives up $1 now to shift the risk of price fluctuations to the manufacturer. When the strike date rolls around the farmer delivers the 3000kg and takes the money - if he has failed to grow at least 3000kg then he must buy it from someone or trigger whatever the penalty clauses in the contract are. For futures over shares and other securities the principle is exactly the same. Say the contract is for 1000 shares of XYZ stock. Party A agrees to sell these for $10 each on a given day to party B. When that day rolls around party A transfers the shares and gets the money. Party A may have owned the shares all along, may have bought them before the settlement day or, if push comes to shove, must buy them on the day of settlement. Notwithstanding when they bought them, if they paid less than $10 they make a profit if they pay more they make a loss. Generally speaking, you can't settle a futures contract with another futures contract - you have to deliver up what you promised - be it wool or shares.\"", "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": "90ce3189b5431a3e5deccd34b726d818", "text": "The original option writer (seller) can close his short position in the contracts he wrote by purchasing back matching contracts (i.e. contracts with the same terms: underlying, option type, strike price, expiration date) from any others who hold long positions, or else who write new matching contract instances. Rather than buyer and seller settling directly, options are settled through a central options clearing house, being the Options Clearing Corporation for exchange-listed options in the U.S. See also Wikipedia - Clearing house (finance). So, the original buyer of the put maintains his position (insurance) and the clearing process ensures he is matched up with somebody else holding a matching obligation, if he chooses to exercise his put. I also answered a similar question but in more detail, here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "526bc7b18ef95d6807cad2ecda7b09ab", "text": "If you participate, you will either get some money or some other renumeration. If you do not participate, you will not get anything. The only risk of participating is that if you have suffered actual damages, the settlement may under-compensate you. By significant, I mean thousands of dollars, since bringing suit yourself would be very expensive. Unless you can demonstrate that you have suffered from significant damages as a result of MBNA's bad behavior, joining the class to get whatever you are going to get is almost certainly a no-brainer decision.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe0000ec75eb49b8dd3971dad3a268c4", "text": "Typically there are several parties involved: (Sometimes one company plays multiple roles; for example AmEx is a network and an issuer.) When a merchant charges a card and the issuer approves it, money is transferred from the issuer to the acquirer to the merchant. This settlement process takes some time, but generally is completed within a day. Of course, most cardholders pay on a monthly basis. The issuer must use their own funds in the mean time. If the cardholder defaults, the issuer takes the loss.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "123b23a493b497031a0d631a994c11dc", "text": "The T+3 settlement date only affects cash accounts. In a cash account, you need to wait until the T+3 settlement date for your funds to be available to make your next trade. But if you convert your cash account into a margin account, then you do not need to wait until the T+3 settlement date for your next trade - your broker will allow you to make another trade immediately.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12679eab5d95c3cab86365b68d69c28d", "text": "I used to work on the software in the front office (and a bit of the middle office) of a brokerage firm. This page describes the process pretty well. Basically there are three parts: So to your question: how does an order get executed? ETFs work the same since they are effectively shares of a mutual fund's assets. True mutual fund shares work differently since they don't get traded in the market. They get traded at the end of the market as just a bookkeeping exercise.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79b730bea961def6987f5d292bed6251", "text": "Let P denote the amount of the investment, R the rate of return and I the rate of inflation. For simplicity, assume that the payment p is made annually right after the return has been earned. Thus, at the end if the year, the investment P has increased to P(1+R) and p is returned as the annuity payment. If I = 0, the entire return can be paid out as the payment, and thus p = PR. That is, at the end of the year, when the dust settles after the return PR has been collected and paid out as the annuity payment, P is again available at the beginning of the next year to earn return at rate R. We have P(1+R) - p = P If I > 0, then at the end of the year, after the dust settles, we cannot afford to have only P available as the investment for next year. Next year's payment must be p(1+I) and so we need a larger investment since the rate of return is fixed. How much larger? Well, if the investment at the beginning of next year is P(1+I), it will earn exactly enough additional money to pay out the increased payment for next year, and have enough left over to help towards future increases in payments. (Note that we are assuming that R > I. If R < I, a perpetuity cannot be created.) Thus, suppose that we choose p such that P(1+R) - p = P(1+I) Multiplying this equation by (1+I), we have [P(1+I)](1+R) - [p(1+I)] = P(1+I)^2 In words, at the start of next year, the investment is P(1+I) and the return less the increased payout of p(1+I) leaves an investment of P(1+I)^2 for the following year. Each year, the payment and the amount to be invested for the following year increase by a factor of (1+I). Solving P(1+R) - p = P(1+I) for p, we get p = P(R-I) as the initial perpetuity payment and the payment increases by a factor (1+I) each year. The initial investment is P and it also increases by a factor of (1+I) each year. In later years, the investment is P(1+I)^n at the start of the year, the payment is p(1+I)^n and the amount invested for the next year is P(1+I)^{n+1}. This is the same result as obtained by the OP but written in terms that I can understand, that is, without the financial jargon about discount rates, gradients, PV, FV and the like.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1e85d77351e39748acab3932a4c949f", "text": "I wish this was the case in Canada. I lost about 60k on my home in one year and have to sell now to move for work. In the US I could simply default and the bank takes the loss. In Canada if I default, CMHC pays the bank, then I'm sued by CMHC and stuck with the bad debt. Simply put - here the onus of repayment is on the lender, not the lending institution. It sounds good until you are the one looking at losing your shirt.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
2a0fe0dc4cc341d0ee1d7688fc229fc0	Should I purchase a whole life insurance policy? (I am close to retirement)	[ { "docid": "abfe341af61637ca246e2c5f0a6d6b15", "text": "\"First of all, congratulations on being in an incredible financial position. you have done well. So let's look at the investment side first. If you put 400,000 in a decent index fund at an average 8% growth, and add 75,000 every year, in 10 years you'll have about $1.95 Million, $800k of which is capital gain (more or less due to market risk, of course) - or $560k after 30% tax. If you instead put it in the whole life policy at 1.7% you'll have about $1.3 Million, $133k of which is tax-free capital gain. So the insurance is costing you $430K in opportunity cost, since you could have done something different with the money for more return. The fund you mentioned (Vanguard Wellington) has a 10-year annualized growth of 7.13%. At that growth rate, the opportunity cost is $350k. Even with a portfolio with a more conservative 5% growth rate, the opportunity cost is $178k Now the life insurance. Life insurance is a highly personal product, but I ran a quick quote for a 65-year old male in good health and got a premium of $11,000 per year for a $2M 10-year term policy. So the same amount of term life insurance costs only $110,000. Much less than the $430k in opportunity cost that the whole life would cost you. In addition, you have a mortgage that's costing you about $28K per year now (3.5% of 800,000). Why would you \"\"invest\"\" in a 1.7% insurance policy when you are paying a \"\"low\"\" 3.5% mortgage? I would take as much cash as you are comfortable with and pay down the mortgage as much as possible, and get it paid off quickly. Then you don't need life insurance. Then you can do whatever you want. Retire early, invest and give like crazy, travel the world, whatever. I see no compelling reason to have life insurance at all, let alone life insurance wrapped in a bad investment vehicle.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e15a5b72f9e1e52242505a6f3cc09a2c", "text": "I'll start by saying that if this is being explored to scratch a specific itch you have then great, if this was a cold call it's probably safe to ignore it. Certain whole life products (they vary in quality by carrier) can make sense for very high earners who are looking for additional tax preferred places to store money. So after you IRA, 401(k), etc options are maxed out but you still have income you'd like to hide from taxes whole life can be a potential vehicle because gains and death benefit are generally exempt from income taxes. Be on the look out for loads charged to your money as it comes in to the policy. Life insurance in general is meant to keep your dependents going without having to sell off assets in the event of your death. People may plan for things like school tuition, mortgage/property tax for your spouse. If you own a business with a couple of partners it's somewhat common for the partners to buy policies on each other to buyout a spouse to avoid potential operating conflicts. Sometimes there can be estate planning issues, if you're looking to transfer assets when you ultimately pass it can make sense to form a trust and load cash in to a whole life policy because death benefits can be shielded from income tax and the estate tax calculation; the current estate tax exemption is about $5.5 million today (judging from your numbers you might actually be close to that including the net value of the homes). Obviously, though, the tax rules are subject to change and you need to be deliberate in your formation of the trust in order to effectively navigate estate tax issues. You seem to have a very solid financial position from this perspective it looks like your spouse would be in good shape. If you are specifically attempting to manage potential estate tax liability you should probably involve an financial planner with experience forming and managing trusts; and you should be very involved with the process because it will absolutely make your finances more complicated.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0022ac822ab0387b525238d0b7156096", "text": "There's nothing new about Whole Life Insurance. The agent stands to earn a pretty hefty commission if he can sell it to you. I don't think your assets warrant using it for avoiding the taxes that would be due on a larger estate. I don't see a compelling reason to buy it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6919c986116458e4bbfc0dab46fc07c", "text": "\"Disclaimer: I work in life insurance, but I am not an agent. First things first, there is not enough information here to give you an answer. When discussing life insurance, the very first things we need to fully consider are the illustration of policy values, and the contract itself. Without these, there is no way to tell if this is a good idea or not. So what are the things to look for? A. Risk appetite. People love to discuss projections of the market, like for example, \"\"7-8% a year compounded annually\"\". Go look at the historical returns of the stock market. It is never close to that projection. Life insurance, however, can give you a GUARANTEED return (this would be show in the 'Guaranteed' section of the life insurance illustration). As long as you pay your premiums, this money is guaranteed to accrue. Now most life insurance companies also show 'Non-Guaranteed' elements in their illustrations - these are non-guaranteed projections based on a scale at this point in time. These columns will show how your cash value may grow when dividends are credited to your policy (and used to buy paid-up additional insurance, which generates more dividends - this can be compared to the compounding nature of interest). B. Tax treatment. I am definitely not an expert in this area, but life insurance does have preferential tax treatment, particularly to your beneficiaries. C. Beneficiaries. Any death benefit (again, listed as guaranteed and maybe non-guaranteed values) is generally completely tax free for the beneficiary. D. Strategy. Tying all of this together, what exactly is the point of this? To transfer wealth, to accrue wealth, or some combination thereof? This is important and unstated in your question. So again, without knowing more, there is no way to answer your question. But I am surprised that in this forum, so many people are quick to jump in and say in general that whole life insurance is a scam. And even more surprising is the fact the accepted answer has already been accepted. My personal take is that if you are just trying to accrue wealth, you should probably stick to the market and maybe buy term if you want a death benefit component. This is mostly due to your age (higher risk of death = higher premiums = lower buildup) and how long of a time period you have to build up money in the policy. But if a 25 year old asked this same question, depending on his purposes, I may suggest that a WL policy is in fact a good idea.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a06d0f962d79ab8e476d9ed71d01f442", "text": "\"Buy term and invest the rest is something you will hear all the time, but actually cash value life insurance is a very misunderstood, useful financial product. Cash value life insurance makes sense if: If you you aren't maxing out your retirement accounts, just stick with term insurance, and save as much as you can for retirement. Otherwise, if you have at least 5 or 10k extra after you've funded retirement (for at least 7 years), one financial strategy is to buy a whole life policy from one of the big three mutual insurance firms. You buy a low face value policy, for example, say 50k face value; the goal is to build cash value in the policy. Overload the policy by buying additional paid up insurance in the first 7 years of the policy, using a paid-up addition rider of the policy. This policy will then grow its cash value at around 2% to 4% over the life of the policy....similar perhaps to the part of your portfolio that would would be in muni bonds; basically you are beating inflation by a small margin. Further, as you dump money into the policy, the death benefit grows. After 7 or 8 years, the cash value of the policy should equal the money you've put into it, and your death benefit will have grown substantially maybe somewhere around $250k in this example. You can access the cash value by taking a policy loan; you should only do this when it makes sense financially or in an emergency; but the important thing to realize is that your cash is there, if you need it. So now you have insurance, you have your cash reserves. Why should you do this? You save up your cash and have access to it, and you get the insurance for \"\"free\"\" while still getting a small return on your investment. You are diversifying your financial portfolio, pushing some of your money into conservative investments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "431f89ea81976d1f00f23cea8adacaa5", "text": "\"You, yourself, cannot spend the money from life insurance because, well, you are dead. So the question becomes \"\"what is best for those you leave behind?\"\". Thus is a question that can only be answered by examining the individual(s) you would leave behind. Near as I can tell, you currently have no one else who may be significantly hurt by your passing. So you cannot answer this question until there is (are) that (those) other(s). In the meantime, 'self-insure' by saving (true investing) up the money that you would otherwise be spending on premiums.\"", "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": "90a96629e1d1487295f45c0df0e5d43a", "text": "\"Note that it isn't always clear that \"\"turning it all into an annuity\"\" is the right answer. Annuities are essentially insurance policies -- you're paying them a share of your income to guarantee a specific payout. If you outlive the actuarial tables, that may be a win. If the market crashes, that may be a win. But I'm increasingly hearing the advice that staying in investments (albeit in a very conservative position) may pay better longer. There are tools which will do monte-carlo modelling based on what the market has done in the past. You give them your estimate of how much in today's dollars would be needed to \"\"maintain your lifestyle\"\", and they'll tell you how much savings you need -- and what form you might want to keep those savings in -- to have good odds of being able to live entirely off the earnings and never touch the capital My employer makes such a tool available to us, and in fact Quicken has a simpler version built into it; it's nice that the two agree.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f72cb7e41ad67c99edfd822831b804ba", "text": "\"Life insurance may be tax-privileged under certain circumstances. The intent must be to buy an annuity, at retirement age. Unlike \"\"banksparen\"\", you must consider what happens if you die early.\"", "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": "bf53d98116e6b5288511d85a53574e6e", "text": "If you have doubts about the long term prospects at your employer or jobs in your area, you may want to keep the option of moving to find a new job open while you save up for a larger down payment on a house. While there are insurance products out there that claim to cover your mortgage, they often have loopholes which make them difficult to collect on. Insurance companies are in business to make money and premiums are high when it's likely that people will try to collect. Splitting those premiums into your mortgage and your own self-insured unemployment fund (i.e. an emergency fund in a money market bank account) will usually be a better deal. As always, make sure you have term life insurance for a family and long term disability insurance just in case something really bad happens in the near term. Buying a home is a better financial decision when you know you'll be in an area for at least 5 years. Saving until you have 20% down on place that you can afford to pay off in 15 years (even if you take a 30 year loan) will be a lot cheaper and less stressful.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f076dd3187018636d45d0f17fa3d758", "text": "\"Note: this answer was provided when the question was only about Life Insurance, therefore it does not address any other \"\"benefits\"\" Term Life Insurance is very easy to evaluate, once you have determined how much you need and for how long. For significant amounts of coverage they may require a physical to be performed. The price quotes will be for two levels of health, so you can compare costs from many companies quite easily. You have several sources in no particular order: employer, independent company, 3rd party like AARP, AAA, or via you bank or credit union. Note that the 3rd party will be getting a cut of the premium. Also some choices offered from the employer or 3rd party may be limited in size or duration. The independent companies will be able to have terms that extend for 10 years or more. So view the insurance offered by AARP as just another option that has to be compared to all your other options.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfd3f789eb8401cadbe5234c4f129e0f", "text": "\"Whole life is life insurance that lasts your whole life. Seriously. Since the insurance company must make a profit, and since they know they will always pay out on a whole life policy, whole life tends to be very expensive, and has lower \"\"death\"\" benefits than a term policy. Some of these policies are \"\"paid-up\"\" policies, meaning that they are structured so that you don't have to pay premiums forever. But what it amounts to is that the insurance company invests your premiums, and then pays you a smaller \"\"dividend,\"\" much like banks do with savings accounts. Unless you are especially risk-averse, it is almost always a better decision to get an inexpensive term policy, and invest the money you save yourself, rather than letting the insurance company invest it for you and reap most of the benefits. If you are doing things properly, you won't need life insurance your whole life, as retirement investments will eventually replace your working income.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ede2b51cdd872e298ff41ff9de74aa4", "text": "Yes, you should be saving for retirement. There are a million ideas out there on how much is a reasonable amount, but I think most advisor would say at least 6 to 10% of your income, which in your case is around $15,000 per year. You give amounts in dollars. Are you in the U.S.? If so, there are at least two very good reasons to put money into a 401k or IRA rather than ordinary savings or investments: (a) Often your employer will make matching contributions. 50% up to 6% of your salary is pretty common, i.e. if you put in 6% they put in 3%. If either of your employers has such a plan, that's an instant 50% profit on your investment. (b) Any profits on money invested in an IRA or 401k are tax free. (Effectively, the mechanics differ depending on the type of account.) So if you put $100,000 into an IRA today and left it there until you retire 30 years later, it would likely earn something like $600,000 over that time (assuming 7% per year growth). So you'd pay takes on your initial $100,000 but none on the $600,000. With your income you are likely in a high tax bracket, that would make a huge difference. If you're saying that you just can't find a way to put money away for retirement, may I suggest that you cut back on your spending. I understand that the average American family makes about $45,000 per year and somehow manages to live on that. If you were to put 10% of your income toward retirement, then you would be living on the remaining $171,000, which is still almost 4 times what the average family has. Yeah, I make more than $45,000 a year too and there are times when I think, How could anyone possibly live on that? But then I think about what I spend my money on. Did I really need to buy two new computer printers the last couple of months? I certainly could do my own cleaning rather than hiring a cleaning lady to come in twice a month. Etc. A tough decision to make can be paying off debt versus putting money into an investment account. If the likely return on investment is less than the interest rate on the loan, you should certainly concentrate on paying off the loan. But if the reverse is true, then you need to decide between likely returns and risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f3358b29eec782ddab5b1b3b864a075", "text": "\"Your wife is probably not going to be able to get a policy until all tests are complete and the doctors give her a clean bill of health. A change in your health could make your premiums 50% to 75% higher than they would be if you applied for a policy in perfect health. Health history is one of the biggest factor in calculating an LTCi premium. The average age for purchasing a policy is 59. Including all rate increases, the average long-term care insurance premium is $1,591 per year, based on my calculations from a 2015 National Association of Insurance Commissioners report with 2014 data. Because of new consumer protections designed to prevent rate increases, policies purchased today do cost more than older policies. In 2015, the average premium for a new policy was $2,532 per year, according to a LIMRA survey of most companies selling long-term care insurance. (Couples can get discounts as high as 30 percent when purchasing policies at the same time.) Do NOT work with just a local insurance agent who sells many different types of insurance. ONLY work with an insurance agent who specializes in LTC insurance and that represents at least 7 of the top companies. There are probably a couple of hundred agents in the country that specialize in LTC, are independent agents representing a lot of companies AND have a lot of experience. Interview at least 3 different agents. Get quotes from every agent you speak with and ask each of them their opinion about which policy you should get. Go with the agent who seems the most knowledgeable and professional. Do NOT buy LTC insurance from a \"\"financial advisor\"\". They are usually limited to offering only a few companies (because of their broker/dealer arrangements) and they rarely understand LTC underwriting. Do NOT buy LTC insurance from the company you get auto insurance or home insurance with. And do NOT buy a policy just because your retirement association or alumni association recommends it. SHOP around. In your wife's case it would probably be wise to apply to more than one company at the same time in case one of them denies her application. Here is an article I wrote for NextAvenue.org (a website owned by PBS) which answers some of the most common misconceptions about LTC insurance: An Insurance Agent’s Case for Buying Long-Term Care Insurance.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21ff386e7a21906780042edb5ffa2a1d", "text": "Good news! It will be enough if you make the most important decision after retirement; that is, the decision to live within your means. With $220,000 per year in 2015 resources, will you live in the same size home in the same location as you do now? Or will you downsize a bit and move to a town with more reasonably priced homes and lower taxes? Apply the same thinking to all of your expenses. In my opinion, making the decision to live within your means is the biggest decision you can make going into retirement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25874c2a7eeab0057b1f0559a8b40762", "text": "\"Term is the way to go. Whole/universal are basically a combo of term and savings, so buy term life insurance and invest the difference in cost yourself. You should make a lot more that way (as far as savings go) than by buying whole life. By the time term life gets too expensive to be worth (when you're a lot older) you will have enough saved to become \"\"self-insured\"\". Just don't touch the savings :) You really only need insurance when there is income to replace and debts to cover - house/mortgage, kids/school, job income, etc.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e986d00b1b65c89f70aea126b6dfa7a3", "text": "\"You are kind of thinking of this correctly, but you will and should pay for insurance at some point. What I mean by that is that, although the insurance company is making a profit, that removing the risk for certain incidents from your life, you are still receiving a lot of value. Things that inflict large losses in your life tend to be good insurance buys. Health, liability, long term care, long term disability and property insurance typically fall into this category. In your case, assuming you are young and healthy, it would be a poor choice to drop the major medical health insurance. There is a small chance you will get very sick in the next 10 years or so and require the use of this insurance. A much smaller chance than what is represented by the premium. But if you do get very sick, and don't have insurance, it will probably wipe you out financially. The devastation could last the rest of your life. You are paying to mitigate that possibility. And as you said, it's pretty low cost. While you seem to be really good at numbers it is hard to quantify the risk avoidance. But it must be considered in your analysis. Also along those lines is car insurance. While you may not be willing to pay for \"\"full coverage\"\" it's a great idea to max out your personal liability if you have sufficient assets.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44d368f9c761debde9b6911dd5d7e889", "text": "The problem with the cash value is that it's really slow to accumulate. For the first many years you'll just be paying premiums which are front loaded until the insurance company gets their money back. Whole life is NOT an investment, regardless of what your 'advisor' says. It's insurance, and expensive insurance at that.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
358ccd45afeaf1f9bb8bc4789b143543	Insurance company sent me huge check instead of pharmacy. Now what?	[ { "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": "2dbf908577422d9e9844958a62782629", "text": "Checks are awesome things in that, even if it gets lost the money doesn't change hands until the check is cashed. I would highly recommend NOT signing a check over and putting it in the mail though. Essentially putting your signature on it is saying yes, pay to whomever. Theoretically acceptable, rarely a good idea. Call the insurance company and have them cancel current check to reissue to the correct people. Don't forget to write VOID (in huge letters) on the check before throwing away and/or tearing it up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c472e28a902255d7f3e8918550a37e7f", "text": "Option 4: Go talk with someone in person at an office of the Insurance company. They have helped me several times with things like this. They can get everyone involved on a conference call and make something happen. But you have to go in. Calling is a good way to waste time and get nowhere, they will throw the issue back and forth. Find an office and go. This is the most effective solution.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "608ef839a75b4a9d959fb21bd1c79110", "text": "So: What you do:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec5f508e7f500cdad2d26fd1adf49a37", "text": "Deposit check and send a personal check (resulting in tax and IRS reporting issues) That's a bad idea, unless maybe the check you're receiving is a certified bank draft. Suppose the insurance company are crooks and the check is fraudulent. It could take weeks or months for some investigation to catch up to that, long after your own personal check was cashed by the pharmacy. The bank will then put you on hook for the 20 grand by reversing the check, even though the funds had been deposited into your account. Do not put yourself into the position of a money handler; you don't have the cash base, insurance, government protection and whatever else that a bank has. And, of course, you're being a free money handler if you do that. (You're not even compensated for postage, time and whatnot). If you're handling money between two parties, you should collect a percentage, or else refuse. That percentage has to be in proportion to the risk, since cashing a check for someone carries a risk similar to (and is effectively a form of) making a loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "857974453afa724ad8ac67c7e3956c66", "text": "In one of your comments you say: Even if the pharmacy is not in the insurance provider network? This is why you got the check instead of your insurance company. I have Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and recently my wife underwent a procedure in the hospital, where one of the physicians involved was not in my providers network. I got a letter from the physicians office stating that since they are out of network, the standard practice was for BCBS to issue the check to me, rather than to the provider. I received the check and made the payment. The main contention is the difference in price, and that is what you need to discuss with both the pharmacy (actual billing) and your insurance company (paid benefits).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2765e690af1f88102daa11d29be4a1f0", "text": "You mentioned depositing the check and then sending a personal check. Be sure to account for time, since any deposit over $10,000 the money will be made available in increments, so it may take 10-14 days to get the full amount in your account before you could send a personal check. I would not recommend this option regardless, but if you do, just a heads up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e", "text": "", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d260f2a8ecc297314ac859d57166400", "text": "\"This is not a mistake. This is done for \"\"Out of Network\"\" providers, and mainly when the patient is an Anthem member, be it Blue Shield or Blue Cross. Even though an \"\"Assignment of Benefits\"\" is completed by the patient, and all fields on the claim from (CMS1500 or UB04) are completed assigning the benefits to the provider, Anthem has placed in their policy that the Assignment of Benefits the patient signs is null and void. No other carrier that I have come across conducts business in this manner. Is it smart? Absolutely not! They have now consumed their member's time in trying to figure out which provider the check is actually for, the member now is responsible for forwarding the payment, or the patient spends the check thinking Anthem made a mistake on their monthly premium at some point (odds are slim) and is now in debt thousands of dollars because they don't check with Anthem. It creates a huge mess for providers, not only have we chased Anthem for payment, but now we have to chase the patient and 50% of the time, never see the payment in our office. It creates more phone calls to Anthem, but what do they care, they are paying pennies on the dollar for their representatives in the Philippines to read from a script. Anthem is the second largest insurance carrier in the US. Their profit was over 800 million dollars within 3 months. The way they see it, we issued payment, so stop calling us. It's amazing how they can accept a CMS1500, but not follow the guidelines associated with it. Your best bet, and what we suggest to patients, either deposit the check and write your a personal check or endorse and forward. I personally would deposit the check and write a personal check for tracking purposes; however, keep in mind that in the future, you may depend on your bank statements for proof of income (e.g. Social Security) and imagine the work having to explain, and prove, a $20,000 deposit and withdraw within the same month.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "9b677bf9fd32eb6bc39174c40ce70a5b", "text": "If the hospital is run like hospitals in the US it can take a long time just to determine the bill. The hospital, Emergency room, ER doctors, surgeons, anesthesiologists, X-Ray department, pharmacy and laboratory are considered separate billing centers. It can take a while to determine the charges for each section. Is there an insurance company involved? When there is one involved it can take weeks or months before the hospital determines what the individual owes. The co-pays, coverages, and limits can be very confusing. In my experience it can take a few months before the final amount is known. You may want to call the hospital to determine the status of the bills.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1203172087dc797dbf83340a004bf503", "text": "\"check the DATE OF SERVICE on all your invoices carefully. It's possible you actually DID pay already. Sometimes when a medical provider gets \"\"mostly\"\" paid by a third party insurer, they just drop the (small) remainder, as it's more cost than it's worth if it is a trivial amount. Alternatively, they wait until you show up for another office visit, and \"\"ding\"\" you then!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed29c570eae7fb018586b19dfcde1b80", "text": "\"This is really unfortunate. In general you can't back date individual policies. You could have (if it was available to you) elected to extend your employer's coverage via COBRA for the month of May, and possibly June depending on when your application was submitted, then let the individual coverage take over when it became effective. Groups have some latitude to retroactively cover and terminate employees but that's not an option in the world of individual coverage, the carriers are very strict about submission deadlines for specific effective dates. This is one of the very few ways that carriers are able to say \"\"no\"\" within the bounds of the ACA. You submit an application, you are assigned an effective date based on the date your application was received and subsequently approved. It has nothing to do with how much money you send them or whether or not you told them to back date your application. If someone at the New York exchange told you you could have a retroactive effective date they shouldn't have. Many providers have financial hardship programs. You should talk to the ER hospital and see what might be available to you. The insurer is likely out of the equation though if the dates of service occurred before your policy was effective. Regarding your 6th paragraph regarding having paid the premium. In this day and age carriers can only say \"\"no\"\" via administrative means. They set extremely rigid effective dates based on your application date. They will absolutely cancel you if you miss a payment. If you get money to them but it was after the grace period date (even by one minute) they will not reinstate you. If you're cancelled you must submit a new application which will create a new coverage gap. You pay a few hundred dollars each month to insure infinity risk, you absolutely have to cover your administrative bases because it's the only way a carrier can say \"\"no\"\" anymore so they cling to it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fcc99ce53784564e60c8529112455a1e", "text": "You seem overly fixated on dead tree documentation of purchases. They are deducting this from your account monthly - the mere fact that the money was taken is enough to prove in court that they have you on their books and to hold them to paying out said insurance. The email copies is actually a better way to organize receipts in most cases (can't be destroyed as easily, etc.) You can cancel the insurance - but don't just stop paying (you'd owe them money then). I foresee increasing difficulty navigating the 21st century for you unless you can get past this concern about physical receipts. I doubt other companies would do much better. FWIW, I live in the continental US. I don't know how different the Philippines is with regard to moving everything to digital", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbbeb5a0fef77fa10d779f442ce583e1", "text": "You didn't buy it. Your mother did. You can try to cancel it if it was purchased in your name; if your mother purchased it she would have to cancel it. Either way, the company has done it's part by carrying you until that cancellation and you have no grounds for demanding a refund for time already covered. If your mother was spending your money, that is something you need to take up with her unless you want to bring charges against her for theft/fraud. If she was spending her own money, then you may want to talk to a lawyer about getting her declared incompetent so someone else can control her spending. But the money paid is probably gone. It isn't the insurance company's fault that you didn't want it doesn't, and if you don't bring charges you can't complain about their having accepted stolen money. Even if you do bring charges and win, it isn't clear you can get a refund. If you really want to pursue any of this, your next step is to talk to a lawyer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8db1c181bc68dc201970efb4f4b3abab", "text": "\"There's nothing you can do. If he has indeed deposited the check, it would appear on your account fairly quickly - I've never seen it taking more than 2-3 business days. However, a check is a debt instrument, and you cannot close the account until it clears, or until the \"\"unclaimed property\"\" laws of your state kick in. If he claims that he deposited the check, ask it in writing and have your bank (or the bank where it was deposited) investigate why it takes so long to clear. If he's not willing to give it to you in writing - he's likely not deposited it. Whatever the reason may be, even just to cause you nuisance. Lesson learned. Next time - cashier's check with a signed receipt. Re closing the LLC: if you're the only two partners - you can just withdraw yourself from the LLC, take out your share, and drop it on him leaving him the only partner. Check with your local attorney for details.\"", "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": "c4158d595a69b938712cdfcd60768492", "text": "No you do not insure the cheque. A cheque is just standardized form that instructs a bank to transfer money. It is no more important than an ordinary letter. A cheque carries no commercial value, especially when it has a designated recipient. No mail insurance will cover the financial loss as a result of bank fraud. It is a kind of indirect loss. Just tell her to write your account number at the back of the paper, walk into your bank's branch and tell the teller to deposit it. There is no need of mailing.", "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": "c2b853fe46b7cbb9694b08f72eb9668b", "text": "What would happen if you was to cash a check, didn’t realize it was to you and your finance company, take it to a local business that has a money center, they cash the check without even having you sign let alone having the finance companies endorsement on it . The money cleared my account like a couple months ago and it was just brought up now .. ? The reason why the check was made out the owner and the lender is to make sure the repairs were done on the car. The lender wants to make sure that their investment is protected. For example: you get a six year loan on a new car. In the second year you get hit by another driver. The damage estimate is $1,000, and you decide it doesn't look that bad, so you decide to skip the repair and spend the money on paying off debts. What you don't know is that if they had done the repair they would have found hidden damage and the repair would have cost $3,000 and would have been covered by the other persons insurance. Jump ahead 2 years, the rust from the skipped repair causes other issues. Now it will cost $5,000 to fix. The insurance won't cover it, and now a car with an outstanding loan balance of $4,000 and a value of $10,000 if the damage didn't exist needs $5,000 to fix. The lender wants the repairs done. They would have not signed the check before seeing the proof the repairs were done to their satisfaction. But because the check was cashed without their involvement they will be looking for a detailed receipt showing that all the work was done. They may require that the repair be done at a certified repair shop with manufacturer parts. If you don't have a detailed bill ask the repair shop for a copy of the original one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cbd9dfe952f74b25dbcfbe52b673e532", "text": "\"A day or so later I get an email from the mattress company where the rep informs me that they will need to issue me a paper check for the full amount and that I would have to contact Affirm to stop charging me. To which I rapidly answered \"\"Please confirm that with Affirm prior to mailing anything out. On my end the loan was cancelled.\"\" To which the rep replied \"\"confirmed. It has been cancelled.\"\" I think your communication could have been more explicit mentioning that not only was the loan cancelled, you got your initial payments. You have not paid for the mattress. The refund if any should go to Affirm. The Rep has only confirmed that loan has been cancelled. at what point, if any, am i free to use this money? I was planning to just let it sit there until the shoe drops and just returning. But for how long is too long? Sooner or later the error would get realized and you would have to pay this back.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d2fefa7b803c708ff1d023b7780e877", "text": "\"•Have you had any problems with bills not being paid? NO •If you had issues, were they addressed satisfactorily? Answer: A big issue that blindsided me: With my bank, the funds come out of my account right away, but the actual payment is done through a third-party service. On my bank's online site it appears that the payment has been made, but that does not necessarily mean that the intended recipient has cashed it. Looking online at my credit union's site is useless, because all I can tell is that the payment has been sent. The only way to verify payment is to contact the intended recipient. Or I may telephone the online bill pay representative at my bank/credit union, who has access to the third party service. If I do nothing, after 90 days, the check is void, at which time the third party service notifies the bank/credit union and the funds will eventually end up back in my account. I learned this today, after a third-party paper check to a health care provider was returned to me via mail by the recipient (because insurance had already paid and I did not owe them anything). The money was in the hands of the third-party service, not in my account, nor that of my credit union nor the recipient. At first my credit union told me that I would have to contact the third-party service myself and work it out. I said \"\"NO WAY\"\" and the credit union did get the money back into account the same day. This is a sweet deal for the third party, who has my money interest-free anywhere from a few days to three months. And risk-free as well, because the money goes directly from my account to the third party service.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc7a6be9b8252d019482eb7a6c261482", "text": "Look up escheatment. Companies that have unclaimed property are supposed to send it to your State government. They should have a unclaimed property department of some sort. In short, the company is going to have to pay either you, or your State (In Your Name) so they have to pay it either way. It would be easier for them to just give you new check. Expect them to give you some grief in verifying it has not been cashed and such... but if you have the original, in hand, it shouldn't be too bad. A 'Lost' check may be harder to get replaced. Not a lawyer, don't want to be.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b285e55976bdcb3fcc8739e2e1f1296e", "text": "Long story short, 8% turned out to be the tipping point because it was the average subordination level of the A rated tranches of the subprime MBS bonds. The reason this was the magic number is because of the way bonds were placed during the period. Basically no end user wanted to take on the risk of buying below A-rated paper, so instead of being sold directly, these BBB rated and below bonds were re-packaged into CDOs and tranched off. Again, the higher rated paper was sold off to whomever, while the BBB and below stuff got reshuffled and repackaged into other CDOs or CDO^2 , further levering up the initial subprime bonds. Now, back to the magic 8% number. Remember how I said that 8% was the subordination level for the A rated subprime paper? The other way of saying that is once defaults reached 8%, the BBB and below tranches of the the MBS were completely wiped out. Since the CDOs were largely made up of these BBB and below MBS, once they started getting written down so did the CDOs. When the lower rated CDO tranches started to go, because they were also repackaged in the same way, it just continued the negative feedback loop and before long even the AA and AAA rated paper was seeing massive losses. As more and more supposedly safe paper started to get wiped out, highly leveraged CDS contracts started coming due, causing AIG (which had written contracts on over $500 billion in assets) to get downgraded by the rating agencies, putting it on the brink of going under. Because basically every major bank had exposure to AIG, had they gone under, the other banks would have all had to write down those contracts at the same time, essentially causing the entire financial system to collapse.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "983d2b5de6ce0fa254f27f73d368e1d6", "text": "No, I felt that's what aweraw was trying to say, but they were not doing a good job of it so I took a crack at it from my point of view. I see where you are coming from too. Really, I suspect if we all sat down and had to write a unified view of the role luck plays in our lives we would be surprised how much we agree. :)", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
42537acc467cfa7432277c59811f30ee	How much of my home loan is coming from a bank, how much it goes back?	[ { "docid": "f0a908ea5267c38bd5bf4ac0b9187cee", "text": "\"Judging from your comments, you seem to be confused about the way banking works. Banks can only lend out money that they actually have: whether from deposits or investors or loans taken from other banks/government entities. The rules on how this works varies from country to country, but the principle is always the same. There is no magic money. Let's imagine a closed system. There's only one town, and that town only has one bank. There are 100 people total in town, and each has $10,000. Everyone deposits all of their money in the bank. The bank now has $1,000,000 in total deposits. You take a loan for $100,000 and buy a house. The bank now has $900,000. You make your payments of $965 per month: $833 of interest and $132 toward principal. In this ideal world, the bank has no costs associated with doing business. After one month, the bank has $1,000,000 in deposits, $900,965 in cash on hand, $99,868 in loans, and $833 in profit (from interest). Now here's the confusing part. You bought a house from someone. That person also lives in town. He takes the $100,000 you gave him and... deposits it in the bank. The bank now has $1,100,000 in deposits, $1,000,965 in cash, $99,868 in loans, and $833 in profit. Assume 10 more people buy houses at $100,000 each, taking loans for that whole amount (for the same terms you did). Assume those sellers then deposit the money back in the bank. The bank now has $2,100,000 in deposits, $1,000,965 in cash, $1,099,868 in loans, and $833 in profit. The bank is taking in $10,615 per month ($965 x 11) in loan payments, making profit of $9,163 ($833 x 11) per month from interest. This process of loans and deposits and payments can go on forever without any outside influence. This is the primary way money is created. It's like printing money without the paper. Of course, we're not in a closed system. Banks are limited in endlessly creating money, primarily by two things: Reserve Requirements are set by government agencies. They might say banks can lend until their cash on hand (or liquid equivalent) is, at minimum, 35% of total deposits. So a bank with $1,000,000 in deposits would have to keep $350,000 in cash at any given time. Capital Requirements work largely the same way. It's more the bank saying, \"\"What happens if a bunch of people want their deposits back?\"\" They plan a reasonable amount of cash to have on hand for that scenario.\"", "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": "7bade0b287f3bbd6d84bd49df3fccd12", "text": "\"Ditto mhoran_psprep. I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Where does the money come from? When someone starts a bank, they normally get together a bunch of investors -- perhaps people they know personally, perhaps they sell stock -- to raise initial capital. But most of the money in the bank comes from depositors. Fundamentally, what a bank does is take money from depositors and loan it to borrowers. (Banks also borrow money from other banks and from the government.) They charge the borrowers interest on the loan, and they pay depositors interest on their deposits. The difference between those two interest rates is where the bank gets their profit. Where does the money go when you pay it back? As mhoran_psprep said, some of it goes to pay interest to the depositors; some of it goes to pay the bank's expenses like employee salaries, cost of the building, etc; and some of it goes as profit to the owners or stockholders of the bank. If you're thinking, \"\"Wow, I'm paying back a whole lot more than I borrowed\"\", well, yes. But remember you're borrowing that money for 20 or 30 years. The bank isn't making very much money on the loan each year that you have it -- these days something like 4 or 5% in the U.S., I don't know what the going rates are in other countries.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c2cbdeaba89cdcfdfdb6a2a852cf51ba", "text": "\"Based on your information... The house is $130,000 all in (this might not be the case) Your payment term is 30 years. Your interest rate is about 7.35%. Your payments are about $895.66 Your total payments will total $322,438.95 That's not a very good interest rate for a mortgage, but this might be due to poor credit or limited credit history, too low income, or too much home value being financed (or a combination of the above and other factors). Northern Alabama may not specifically be higher interest rate: it might, honestly, just be you. The reason that you're paying $320,000 is that you're taking $130,000 from a bank and promising to pay it back with interest. Keep in mind, that's over thirty years. That's a LONG time. And the bank needs to earn enough interest to combat inflation (roughly 2% annually, generally). During that time, the bank can't invest that money elsewhere, return it to depositors, etc. A good rule to keep in mind is the \"\"rule of 72.\"\" It's a simple trick to determine, based on an interest rate, how quickly the value of something will double (in this case, the value of your loan payments). If your interest rate was exactly 7.2%, this method would calculate 10 years until doubling. In your case, 72 / 7.35 = 9.7959 years. Now, you're paying off your loan simultaneously, which lowers your interest over time, so your payments total 2.48x of loan value at origination. That still sucks, but remember, it's over a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.\"", "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": "37eefec0f97bf0090dbd8ec66afcbf52", "text": "\"A bank may not like loaning money to you for this. That is one snag. You listed 500,000-600,000$ for a monster of a house (3000 sqft is over three times the average size of homes a hundred years ago). Add in the price of the land at 60K (600K divided ten ways). Where I live, there is a 15% VAT tax on new homes. I can't find out if California imposes a VAT tax on new homes. Anyway, returning back to the topic, because of the risk of loaning you 660K for a piece of land and construction, the bank may only let you borrow half or less of the final expected cost (not value). Another huge snag is that you say in a comment to quid \"\"I came up with this conclusion after talking to someone who had his property built in early 2000s in bay area for that average price\"\". Let's apply 3% inflation over 15 years to that number of 200$/sqft. That brings the range for construction costs to 780K-930K. Even at 2% inflation 670K-810K. Edit: OP later expanded the question making it an inquiry on why people don't collaborate to buy a plot of land and build their homes. \"\"Back in the day\"\" this wasn't all that atypical! For example, my pastor's parents did just this when he was a young lad. Apart from the individual issues mentioned above, there are sociological challenges that arrive. Examples: These are the easy questions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a32ab6bf72d834302a6fca7bae388b3", "text": "\"So with any debt, be it a loan or a bond or anything else, you have two parts, the principal and the interest. The interest payment is calculated by applying the interest % to the principal. Most bonds are \"\"bullet bonds\"\" which means that the principle remains completely outstanding for the life of the bond and thus your interest payments are constant throughout the life of the bond (usually paid semi-annually). Typically part of the purpose of these is to be indefinitely refinanced, so you never really pay the principal back, though it is theoretically due at expiration. What you are thinking of when you say a loan from a bank is an amortizing loan. With these you pay an increasing amount of the principal each period calculated such that your payments are all exactly the same (including the final payment). Bonds, just like bank loans, can be bullet, partially amortizing (you pay some of the principle but still have a smaller lump sum at the end) and fully amortizing. One really common bullet structure is \"\"5 non-call 3,\"\" which means you aren't allowed to pay the principle down for the first three years even if you want to! This is to protect investors who spend time and resources investing in you!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "acc09c5d98f893e55f4d2b9ce0497689", "text": "Disclosure: I work for Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. This is normal. The bank is giving you a discount on the interest rate in exchange for the automatic payments. Unfortunately, the bank has the power here; they have your mortgage, and they have the right to call your loan in full at any time, and foreclose on your house if you don't pony up. It's okay to not like being pushed around, but you need to know when to hold'em and when to fold'em, and your facing a royal flush with pair of 4s.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2091e876d65d16a2472976058dc08912", "text": "A security is a class of financial instrument you can trade on the market. A share of stock is a kind of security, for example, as is a bond. In the case of your mortgage, what happens: You take out a loan for $180k. The loan has two components. a. The payment stream (meaning the principal and the interest) from the loan b. The servicing of the loan, meaning the company who is responsible for accepting payments, giving the resulting income to whomever owns it. Many originating banks, such as my initial lender, do neither of these things - they sell the payment stream to a large bank or consortium (often Fannie Mae) and they also sell the servicing of the loan to another company. The payment stream is the primary value here (the servicing is worth essentially a tip off the top). The originating bank lends $180k of their own money. Then they have something that is worth some amount - say $450k total value, $15k per year for 30 years - and they sell it for however much they can get for it. The actual value of $15k/year for 30 years is somewhere in between - less than $450k more than $180k - since there is risk involved, and the present value is far less. The originating bank has the benefit of selling that they can then originate more mortgages (and make money off the fees) plus they can reduce their risk exposure. Then a security is created by the bigger bank, where they take a bunch of mortgages of different risk levels and group them together to make something with a very predictable risk quotient. Very similar to insurance, really, except the other way around. One mortage will either default or not at some % chance, but it's a one off thing - any good statistician will tell you that you don't do statistics on n=1. One hundred mortgages, each with some risk level, will very consistently return a particular amount, within a certain error, and thus you have something that people are willing to pay money on the market for.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "acb94a9e1d388b05abaf94b5a3a69cde", "text": "If the customer pays 20% of the payment in advance, then he is he owns 20% of the house and the bank owns 80%. Now they say he pays the rest of the amount and also the rent of the house until he becomes the sole owner of the house.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f541367e5b705190aa955065d5e9950e", "text": "You are saving around 2.41% over the Car Loan for a duration of 35 months. Check out if the fees for redrawing on home loan and fees for closing the matches the money saved. Edit: If you are making your current car payments as additional monthy payments to your mortgage then you are in effect paying less interest than current car loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c841acd1c29310d633242b8d2bf418ca", "text": "For a short term loan, the interest is closer to straight line, e.g. A $10K loan at 10% for 3 years will have approximately $1500 in interest. (The exact number is $1616, not too far off). You will save 2.41% on the rate, so you'll the extra payment you'll send to the mortgage will save you about 1000035(2.41/12)/2 or about $350 over the 3 year period.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ba27170201ca4c8ba04ce3df0e29ef2", "text": "Some countries, like the United States, allow a mortgage interest tax deduction. This means the interest you pay on a mortgage, which is typically much more than half of the monthly payment at the beginning of a 25 year mortgage, is tax deductible, so you might get 33% or more of the interest back, and that effectively makes the interest rate significantly lower. Therefore you are borrowing the money really cheap. That makes MrChrister's answer even more appropriate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c59b0cebec63a91223960ef08c299029", "text": "A lender will look at three things when giving a loan: Income. Do you make enough money each month to afford the payments. They will subtract from your income any other loans, credit card debt, student loan debt, mortgage. They will also figure in your housing costs. Your Collateral. For a mortgage the collateral is the house, for a car loan it is the car. They will only give you a loan to a specific percentage of the value of the collateral. Your money in the bank isn't collateral, but it can serve as a down payment on the loan. Your Credit score. This is a measure of how well you handle credit. The longer the history the better. Using credit wisely is better than not using the credit you have. If you don't have a credit card, get one. Start with your current bank. You have a history with them. If they won't help you join a credit union. Another source of car loans is the auto dealer. Though their rates can be high. Make sure that the purchase price doesn't require a monthly payment too high for your income. Good rules of thumb for monthly payments are 25% for housing and 10% for all other loans combined. Even a person with perfect credit can't get a loan for more than the bank thinks they can afford. Note: Don't drain all your savings, you will need it to pay for the unexpected expenses in life. You might think you have enough cash to pay off the student loan or to make a big down payment, but you don't want to stretch yourself too thin.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "879062f352451bc4ee852520a91ffa83", "text": "\"BEFORE you invest in a house, make sure you account for all the returns, risks and costs, and compare them to returns, risks and costs of other investments. If you invest 20% of a house's value in another investment, you would also expect a return. You also probably will not have the cost interest for the balance (80% of ???). I have heard people say \"\"If I have a rental property, I'm just throwing away money - I'll have nothing at the end\"\" - if you get an interest-only loan, the same will apply, if you pay off your mortgage, you're paying a lot more - you could save/invest the extra, and then you WILL have something at the end (+interest). If you want to compare renting and owning, count the interest against the rental incoming against lost revenue (for however much actual money you've invested so far) + interest. I've done the sums here (renting vs. owning, which IS slightly different - e.g. my house will never be empty, I pay extra if I want a different house/location). Not counting for the up-front costs (real estate, mortgage establishment etc), and not accounting for house price fluctuations, I get about the same \"\"return\"\" on buying as investing at the bank. Houses do, of course, fluctuate, both up and down (risk!), usually up in the long term. On the other hand, many people do lose out big time - some friends of mine invested when the market was high (everyone was investing in houses), they paid off as much as they could, then the price dropped, and they panicked and sold for even less than they bought for. The same applies if, in your example, house prices drop too much, so you owe more than the house is worth - the bank may force you to sell (or offer your own house as collateral). Don't forget about the hidden costs - lawn mowing and snow shoveling were mentioned, insurance, maintenance, etc - and risks like fluctuating rental prices, bad tenants, tenants moving on (loss of incoming, cleaning expenses, tidying up the place etc)....\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ff9da401e9a1c69880e5a83ea5ad0c2", "text": "Banks and lenders have become a bit more conservative since the housing crisis. 80% is a typical limit. The reason is to minimize the lender's risk if declining property values would put the borrower upside-down on the loan. http://www.bankrate.com/finance/home-equity/how-much-equity-can-you-cash-out-of-home.aspx", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab635d81d1df649f07e7120320dd0755", "text": "Forget about terms. Think about loans in terms of months. To simplify things, let's consider a $1000 loan with .3% interest per month. This looks like a ten month term, but it's equally reasonable to think about it on a month-to-month basis. In the first month, you borrowed $1000 and accrued $3 interest. With the $102 payment, that leaves $901 which you borrow for another month. So on and so forth. The payoff after five payments would by $503.54 ($502.03 principal plus $1.51 interest). You'd save $2.99 in interest after paying $13.54. The reason why most of the interest was already paid is that you already did most of the borrowing. You borrowed $502.03 for six months and about $100 each for five, four, three, two, and one month. So you borrowed about $4500 months (you borrowed $1000 for the first month, $901 for the second month, etc.). The total for a ten month $1000 loan is about $5500 months of borrowing. So you've done 9/11 of the borrowing. It's unsurprising that you've paid about 9/11 of the interest. If you did this as a six month loan instead, then the payments look different. Say You borrow $1000 for one month. Then 834 for one month. So on and so forth. Adding that together, you get about $168.50 * 21 or $3538.50 months borrowed. Since you only borrow about 7/9 as much, you should pay 7/9 the interest. And if we adding things up, we get $10.54 in interest, about 7/9 of $13.54. That's how I would expect your mortgage to work in the United States (and I'd expect it to be similar elsewhere). Mortgages are pretty straight-jacketed by federal and state regulations. I too once had a car loan that claimed that early payment didn't matter. But to get rid of the loan, I made extra payments. And they ended up crediting me with an early release. In fact, they rebated part of my last payment. I saved several hundred dollars through the early release. Perhaps your loan did not work the same way. Perhaps it did. But in any case, mortgages don't generally work like you describe.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7272a66bfcb146100e122085b2ec6a24", "text": "From what I have heard on Clark Howard if you pay your balance off before the statement's closing date it will help your utilization score. He has had callers confirm this but I don't have first hand knowledge for this to be true. Also this will take two months to make the difference. So it will be boarder line if you will get the benefit in time. Sign up for credit karma if you like. You can get suggestions on how to help your score.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
28c50bb6ba850a7f49a70b8d81a502fd	Are there any statistics that support the need for Title Insurance?	[ { "docid": "b67f2b35494713624f0203abd7192d20", "text": "There seems to be no such information available. What is available is that number of claims are high and the Title Insurance companies have gone bankrupt as per the wikipedia article In 2003, according to ALTA, the industry paid out about $662 million in claims, about 4.3% percent of the $15.7 billion taken in as premiums. By comparison, the boiler insurance industry, which like title insurance requires an emphasis on inspections and risk analysis, pays 25% of its premiums in claims. However, no reference to the relationship between when claims are made and when policies are issued is found. As of 2008, the top three remaining title insurers all lost money, while LandAmerica went bankrupt and sold its title business to Fidelity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_insurance#Industry_profitability The amount of premium received and claim made can be got from some of the companies balance sheet. For Fidelity its at http://www.investor.fnf.com/releasedetail.cfm?CompID=FNT&ReleaseID=363350 The article in here mentions the claims ratio as 5%. Refer http://www.federaltitle.com/blog/title-insuance-qaa", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87fa009194ec46688dcd92918388f273", "text": "The point of title insurance is that when you buy a house, it is possible that you may eventually find out that the seller didn't actually own the property - either because they were trying to deceive you, or some transfer of ownership in the past wasn't carried out properly. If that happens you can find yourself with no house, and still owing the mortgager the purchase price. Hardly anybody can afford to take that kind of hit, which is why you need some form of protection against it. The traditional way of doing this was to get a lawyer to do a title search, in which they check that everything in order. However this costs tens of dollars at least to do the work for every sale, and hardly ever finds anything. Title Insurance is a company volunteering to take the hit for you if there turns out to be a problem, in return for a payment of less than the title search would cost. In essence they are saying that it's cheaper to take the risk than do the work. What are the statistics? This report seems to indicate that payout is around 5% of premium, but title insurance is a one-off premium and the payout can theoretically happen many years down the line. However it is almost certain that the insurance companies have done the math and believe that selling this insurance will be profitable for them, so they believe that payouts are going to be substantially less than 100%. Is title insurance worth it for you? If the payout is 5% of premiums, the in a purely statistical sense it is not worth it. You would on average gain more by not taking it. However that is true of almost all insurance. The policy is there to protect you in the unlikely but not impossible event where you would otherwise lose a huge amount of money. Unless you can afford to lose the value of your house, you need some form of protection. We've already seen that the only other form of protection is a title search, and they cost more. The other issue is that if you are taking a mortgage, your mortgager will absolutely insist that you have either a title search or title insurance. There is no other way - and title insurance is the cheaper of the two. In this case it is best to look on the title insurance as simply a cost of doing business. It's irrelevant whether it's worth it or not - you can't do the transaction without it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36b4aa8281b6d0bed022cc321bfb03ee", "text": "\"I'm really surprised at the answers here. Claims/year per region isn't a statistic that is meaningful here... you need to think about the risk factors and the purpose of the insurance. First, what does title insurance do? It protects you against defects in the deed -- defects that may crop up and mean that your mortgage is no longer valid. This is different from most forms of insurance -- the events that render your title invalid are events that may have happened years, decades or even centuries ago. A big part of the insurance policy and its cost is conducting research to assess the validity of a deed. The whole point of the insurance is to reduce claims by improving data associated with the \"\"chain of custody\"\" of the property. So how do you evaluate the risk of finding out about something that happened a long time ago, that nobody appears to know about? IMO, you have to think about risk factors that increase the probability that things were screwed up in the past: You need to have an informed discussion with your attorney and figure out if it makes sense for you. Don't dismiss it out of hand.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06ff1a68b432456d3375a7be0a7c84fa", "text": "When I bought the house I had my lawyer educate me about everything on the forms that seemed at all unclear, since this was my first time thru the process. On of the pieces of advice that he gave was that title insurance had almost no value in this state unless you had reason to believe the title might be defective but wanted to buy the property anyway. In fact I did get it anyway, as an impulse purchase -- but I'm fully aware that it was a bad bet. Especially since I had the savings to be able to self-insure, which is always the better answer if you can afford to risk the worst case scenario. Also: Ask the seller whether they bought title insurance. Often, it is transferrable at least once.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c531e72f8977fc24c624a99cc206fe5c", "text": "On most of the consumer electronics it would not make much sense to get Insurance. Mostly these are not priced right [are typically priced higher]. IE there is no study to arrive at equivalent claim rates as in motor vehicle. Further on most of the items there is adequate manufacturing warranty to take care of initial defects. And on most it would make sense to buy a newer model as in todays world consumer electronics are not only getting cheaper by the day, but are also have more function & features.", "title": "" }, { "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": "e042485852dc24651d7e8ebc3a6289e4", "text": "\"Yes, a HELOC is great for that. I just had my roof done last month (~$15K, \"\"ugh\"\") and pretty much every major contractor in my area had a 0% same-as-cash for at least 12 months. So that helps - any balance that I don't bank by 11/15/2015 will be on the HELOC.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1837651d08056accb28bde3581e2eb92", "text": "\"The two questions inherent in any decision to purchase an insurance plan is, \"\"how likely am I to need it?\"\", and \"\"what's the worst case scenario if I don't have it?\"\". The actuary that works for the insurance company is asking these same questions from the other end (with the second question thus being \"\"what would we be expected to have to pay out for a claim\"\"), using a lot of data about you and people like you to arrive at an answer. It really boils down to little more than a bet between you and the insurance company, and like any casino, the insurer has a house edge. The question is whether you think you'll beat that edge; if you're more likely than the insurer thinks you are to have to file a claim, then additional insurance is a good bet. So, the reasons you might decide against getting umbrella insurance include: Your everyday liability is low - Most people don't live in an environment where the \"\"normal\"\" insurance they carry won't pay for their occasional mistakes or acts of God. The scariest one for most is a car accident, but when you think of all the mistakes that have to be made by both sides in order for you to burn through the average policy's liability limits and still be ruined for life, you start feeling better. For instance, in Texas, minimum insurance coverage levels are 50/100/50; assuming neither party is hurt but the car is a total loss, your insurer will pay the fair market value of the car up to $50,000. That's a really nice car, to have a curbside value of 50 grand; remember that most cars take an initial hit of up to 25% of their sticker value and a first year depreciation of up to 50%. That 50 grand would cover an $80k Porsche 911 or top-end Lexus ES, and the owner of that car, in the U.S. at least, cannot sue to recover replacement value; his damages are only the fair market value of the car (plus medical, lost wages, etc, which are covered under your two personal injury liability buckets). If that's a problem, it's the other guy's job to buy his own supplemental insurance, such as gap insurance which covers the remaining payoff balance of a loan or lease above total loss value. Beyond that level, up into the supercars like the Bentleys, Ferraris, A-Ms, Rollses, Bugattis etc, the drivers of these cars know full well that they will never get the blue book value of the car from you or your insurer, and take steps to protect their investment. The guys who sell these cars also know this, and so they don't sell these cars outright; they require buyers to sign \"\"ownership contracts\"\", and one of the stipulations of such a contract is that the buyer must maintain a gold-plated insurance policy on the car. That's usually not the only stipulation; The total yearly cost to own a Bugatti Veyron, according to some estimates, is around $300,000, of which insurance is only 10%; the other 90% is obligatory routine maintenance including a $50,000 tire replacement every 10,000 miles, obligatory yearly detailing at $10k, fuel costs (that's a 16.4-liter engine under that hood; the car requires high-octane and only gets 3 mpg city, 8 highway), and secure parking and storage (the moguls in Lower Manhattan who own one of these could expect to pay almost as much just for the parking space as for the car, with a monthly service contract payment to boot). You don't have a lot to lose - You can't get blood from a turnip. Bankruptcy laws typically prevent creditors from taking things you need to live or do your job, including your home, your car, wardrobe, etc. For someone just starting out, that may be all you have. It could still be bad for you, but comparing that to, say, a small business owner with a net worth in the millions who's found liable for a slip and fall in his store, there's a lot more to be lost in the latter case, and in a hurry. For the same reason, litigious people and their legal representation look for deep pockets who can pay big sums quickly instead of $100 a month for the rest of their life, and so very few lawyers will target you as an individual unless you're the only one to blame (rare) or their client insists on making it personal. Most of your liability is already covered, one way or the other - When something happens to someone else in your home, your homeowner's policy includes a personal liability rider. The first two \"\"buckets\"\" of state-mandated auto liability insurance are for personal injury liability; the third is for property (car/house/signpost/mailbox). Health insurance covers your own emergency care, no matter who sent you to the ER, and life and AD&D insurance covers your own death or permanent disability no matter who caused it (depending on who's offering it; sometimes the AD&D rider is for your employer's benefit and only applies on the job). 99 times out of 100, people just want to be made whole when it's another Average Joe on the other side who caused them harm, and that's what \"\"normal\"\" insurance is designed to cover. It's fashionable to go after big business for big money when they do wrong (and big business knows this and spends a lot of money insuring against it), but when it's another little guy on the short end of the stick, rabidly pursuing them for everything they're worth is frowned on by society, and the lawyer virtually always walks away with the lion's share, so this strategy is self-defeating for those who choose it; no money and no friends. Now, if you are the deep pockets that people look for when they get out of the hospital, then a PLP or other supplemental liability insurance is definitely in order. You now think (as you should) that you're more likely to be sued for more than your normal insurance will cover, and even if the insurance company thinks the same as you and will only offer a rather expensive policy, it becomes a rather easy decision of \"\"lose a little every month\"\" or \"\"lose it all at once\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "393cfe7f63759aa40272e57c8141fe59", "text": "\"The long and short of it is, the mortgage company has a significant interest in the resale value of the home in the event of a default. Imagine a scenario where you say to yourselves that you're not going to repair the deck just yet (\"\"meh, we'll do that next summer\"\") and something happens that causes a default on the mortgage. The resale value of the home may be harmed by the deck, even though you're willing to live with it. That being the case, the mortgage company has every right to insist that you carry out the repairs in order to maintain the property in salable condition, so the essence of it is, you don't have much choice but to do the repairs. Keep in mind too that the insurance company paid for the roof and the deck to be repaired. If they were to learn that you now have no intention of using the money to repair the property, you could end up in legal hot water with them. After all, you did accept the check for repairs that you're now not carrying out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d811e4c8d28e6562ab2cec2b871a94d", "text": "Note: This is what one of the people responsible for this process told me quite a few years ago, it might be different today. I work in insurance, but I don't follow this particular process too closely. New cars necessitate a judgment call, which usually involves a look at claims rates for similar (existing) cars, manufacturer-specific labour and parts costs, expected regional distribution (for example, a new BMW will probably sell better in Bavaria than in other areas, which has higher labour rates than most of the rest of the country, and will be categorised accordingly), and other factors, depending on the situation. These preliminary judgments are largely discarded when the new statistics are compiled, though, which is once a year. New insurance groups are published in early September and usually applied to insurance contracts on January 1st.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f84220fd43bec9562e69e878985ace2e", "text": "Insurance - get estimate from an insurance agent who works with policies for commercial real estate. See comments below regarding incorporation. Taxes - if this was basic income for a simple LLC, estimating 25-40% and adjusting over time might work. Rental property is a whole different prospect. Financial experts who specialize in rental properties would be a good source of advice, and worth the cost. See below regarding incorporating. Real estate appreciation - not something you can count on for developed property. Appreciation used to be almost guaranteed to at least keep up with inflation. Now property values are not even guaranteed to go up. Never have been but the general rule was improved real estate in good repair appreciated in price. Even if property values increase over time, rental properties depreciate. In fact, for rental properties, you can claim a certain rate of depreciation over time as an expense on taxes. This depreciation could mean selling for less than you paid for the property after a number of years, and owing capital gains taxes, since you would owe the difference between the depreciated value and the sale price. Related to taxes are local codes. Some areas require you to have a property management license to handle buildings with more than a certain number of units. If you are going to own rental properties, you should protect your private financial life by incorporating. Form a company. The company will own the property and hire any maintenance people or property managers or security staff or any similar employment activities. The company takes out the insurance and pays taxes. The company can pay you a salary. So, bottom line, you can have the company pay all the expenses and take all the risks. Then, assuming there's any money left after expenses, the company can pay you a manager's salary. That way if the worst happens and a tenant breaks their hip in the shower and sues you for ONE MILLION DOLLARS and wins, the company folds and you walk away. You might even consider two companies. One to own the property and lease it to a property management company. The property management company can then go bankrupt in case of some sort of liability issue, in which case you still keep the property, form a new management company, repaint and rename the property and move on. TL;DR: Get insurance advice from insurance agent before you buy. Same for taxes from an accountant. Get trained as a property manager if your local codes require it (might be a good idea anyway). Incorporate and have the company take all the risks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13ee4ee6cbf862faced136bfe3156ba8", "text": "\"Hi I'm the writer thanks for the read and the comment. With the statement you quoted, I'm trying to dispute the claim that \"\"people these days can't afford a house because they would have to pay their entire salary just to afford the mortgage,\"\" which I think is quite common in some circles. The data makes no statement as to whether home ownership is more affordable or not, but simply shows that those buying property are using around the same percentage of their income to pay for it, which the data clearly shows to be true. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N As it turns out, home ownership levels have remained within ~5% of their 1980 levels based on percentage of the total population. I think there is an major classification flaw when comparing only sales because a great deal of people inherit property with no sale ever being made.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de5aca707980d49571f86a463301d315", "text": "The bank doesn't have to do anything. It is your responsibility to provide the proof of insurance. It is the agent's job, which you through your HOA dues paid for, to provide that proof to you. You shouldn't be registering with icerts. They say so in the first sentence on the registration page: Unit Owners, Do Not Register Here! If you own an existing property, and have received a letter from your lender requiring an annual renewal/updated certificate for an association that has recently expired, please forward that letter to [email protected] to receive instructions to place your order. If your request is a new loan of any kind, please contact your lender and request that they either contact us to place this order, or register below. So you can try that route (sending an email to [email protected]), and see if it works. It does cost money, in the range of $20-$100 (I used a different similar service at the time and they charged $75 for this). If it doesn't, you can try and work with the insurance agent. There are some ways to persuade them: California has very strong traditions of consumer protections. In this case, I suggest checking out this site. Let the insurance agent know that as the HOA member - they're working for you, and that in the next HOA meeting you will raise a request to change the insurance agency. Also, remind the agent that the CA Insurance Commission will knock on their doors to ask why they don't provide you with the proof you need. If the HOA management company doesn't help you, you can remind them that they too can be fired. This can be done, and isn't even all that hard. There's a lot of competition in the HOA management market, and it wouldn't be too hard to find a new management company. The HOA management company should have provided you the proof of coverage when they renewed the policy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7713a2682895376021524cd3c65e3cf", "text": "When we got our mortgage in the state of Washington, in the United States, we had to get title insurance before our lender would loan the money. This ensures that the person selling us the house actually owns the title, clean and clear. If there are any surprises, the insurance covers us (or the lender, really).", "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": "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": "9e3f53666b7c9d00610348c62925ba16", "text": "You are not asking for insurance purposes. So I'll go with this - I have two asset numbers I track. All investments, retirement accounts, etc, the kind that are valued at day's end by the market, etc. From that number I subtract the mortgage. This produces the number that I can say is my net worth with a paid in full house. The second number simply adds back the house's value, give or take. Unless I owned art that was valued in the six figures, it seems pointless to me to add it up, except for insurance. If my wife and I died tomorrow, the kid can certainly auction our stuff off, but knowing that number holds no interest for us. When most people talk 'net worth', I don't see them adding these things up. Cars, maybe, but not even that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9971b7228c37ed52f6fedd32ba21e28", "text": "If all you look at is the people that can afford houses, then you're just primarily looking at banking policies -- who they will make a loan to, and on what loan terms; which are fairly consistent over time. FRED's home ownership statistic is calculated as the number of households that are owned; it makes no distinction between a household with a college grad still living with their parents because they can't afford living on their own. Apartment leases aren't getting cheap either.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce36cabdf10f05954d2cfe31dc253790", "text": "Why do people take out life insurance on their children? They do so largely because it's being sold to them. The insurance companies generally push them on the basis that if you have to pay for a funeral and burial, the cost would devastate a family's finances. In some rare instances that might actually be true, but not generally. Should I take out a policy on my child? Generally no. When they sell you a policy they have to dance around a catch-22 - if you have enough money to afford the 'cheap' life insurance, then you have enough money to pay for a funeral and burial that's probably not going to happen. If you don't have enough money to pay those expenses in the rare case that a child does die, then you really can't afford the insurance, even if it's only 'pennies a day for peace of mind.' And why would schools send these home to parents, year-after-year? The schools are paid a commission. It is not much more than a fundraiser for them, just like school pictures. Am I missing something? Yes, in fact, you could be making money hand over fist if you were willing to prey on parental insecurities. Just set up a stand outside the hospital and get parents who are just about to deliver to sign up for your amazing insurance plan in case the tragic occurs.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3de550d0846a6b23e01d679166f56c40	Would it make sense to take a loan from a relative to pay off student loans?	[ { "docid": "005db9a6ec7f3421984f8cbc462239c8", "text": "\"My biggest concern with this plan is that there's no going back should you decide that it is not going to work, either due to the strain on the relationship or for some other reason. If you were borrowing from a relative in place of a mortgage or a car loan, you can always refinance, and might just pay a little more interest or closing costs from a bank. Student loans are effectively unsecured, so your only option for a \"\"refinance\"\" would be to get a personal, unsecured loan (or borrow against existing collateral if you have it). You are going to have a tough time getting another 50k unsecured personal loan at anywhere near student-loan rates. The other negative aspects (overall risk of borrowing from family, loss of possible tax deduction) make this plan a no-go for me. (I'm NOT saying that it's always a good idea to borrow from family for homes or cars, only that there's at least an exit plan should you both decide it was a bad idea).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec55ffc0afb013f63119e61c57879329", "text": "\"Personally, I avoid making business deals with friends and relatives. There's just too much of a possibility that things can go wrong. Let's assume that you're honest people and you have no intention of cheating your mother-in-law. Still, all sorts of things could happen that could make it difficult for you to repay the loan. You could lose your job. You could get some big medical expense. Etc. Then what happens? Then your financial problems become family problems. There's a strong temptation when people borrow from relatives to make paying the loan the lowest priority in their budget. \"\"I know I promised to pay \\$X per month, but things are really tight right now and Mom should understand.\"\" Maybe she does understand and can manage without it. But maybe not. And then it becomes a family fight. \"\"You promised you'd pay it back.\"\" \"\"And we will, we're having a hard time right now. Can't you just give us a break?\"\" Etc. Or she might have some extra expense, and say, \"\"Hey, can't you pay a little more this month? I really need some extra cash.\"\" \"\"I'm sorry, we're struggling just to make the regular payments, we can't.\"\" \"\"Well I was willing to loan you all this money. The least you could do is pay me back when I need it.\"\" Etc. You can end up ruining family relationships over money. Your wife can find herself in the position of having to choose whether to side with her mother or her husband. Etc. I'm sure plenty of people do things like this and it works out just great. But there are big risks. And by the way, apparently this was your idea, not your mother-in-laws. I wonder what her reaction is. Is she eager to help out her daughter and son-in-law and had nothing in particular to do with the money anyway? Or is she feeling very imposed on? It's one thing to ask relatives to let you borrow their car for the weekend. Asking someone to loan you $50,000 is a very big request. If one of my kids asked me to loan them $50,000 from my retirement fund, I'd consider that a very presumptuous request. (Unless they needed the money for life-saving surgery for my grandchild or some such.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f62e1d6e5427c04a8259add514d801be", "text": "I struggle to see the value to this risk from the standpoint of your mother-in-law. This is not a small amount of money for a single person to lend to a single person ignoring your personal relationship. Right now, using a blended rate of about 8% and a 5 year payment period, your cost on that $50,000 is somewhere in the neighborhood of $11,000 with a monthly payment around $1,014. Using the same monthly payment but paying your MIL at 5% you'll complete the loan about 3.5 months sooner and save about $5,000, she will make about $6,000 in interest over 5 years against a $50,000 outlay. Alternatively, you can just prioritize payments to the more expensive loans. It's difficult to work out a total cost comparison without your expected payoff timelines and amount(s) you're currently paying toward all the loans. I'm sure a couple hours with a couple of spreadsheets could yield a plan that would net you a savings substantially close to the $5,000 you'd save by risking your mother in law's money. A lot of people think personal lending risk is about the relationship between the people involved, but there's more to it than that. It's not about you and your wife separating, it's not about the awkward dinner and conversations if you lose your job. Something might physically happen to you, you could become disabled or die. Right now, that's an extremely diversified and calculated risk taken by a gigantic lender. Unless your mother in law is very wealthy, this is not nearly enough reward to assume this sort of risk (in my opinion). Her risk FAR outpaces your potential five year savings. IF you wanted to pursue this as a means of paying interest to a family member rather than the bank, I'd only borrow an amount I budgeted and intended to pay within this single year. Say $10,000 against the highest interest loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "719361dd7da029956d981498d9b0fa43", "text": "I will start with the assumption that you will never have any late payments and will fully pay off the loan. This may be a big assumption, but if you can't assume that, then you wouldn't have asked the question in the first place. The answer depends on your income: You should calculate how much student loan interest you can deduct before and after the switch, and adjust the interest rate accordingly to compensate for any difference.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6e78d648403a607c83fb538ac0fd1d7", "text": "I have recently been the lender to a couple people. It was substantially less money (~$3k), but I was trusting their good faith to pay me back. As a lender, I will never do it again. Reasons, Overall, not worth it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "caf5a078744cc54a81030ae60317e94b", "text": "\"Would it make sense to take a loan from a relative... Other people have pointed this out, but honestly, I'd be very reluctant to answer \"\"yes\"\" to this no matter how you completed that sentence. There's always an intangible risk to mixing money and relationships. There's a lot that can go wrong during the duration of the loan, and if it does, the consequences could be a lot greater than just a bad credit score.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec0dddc2268c033816cb2cfd2c347cbb", "text": "The interest that you are proposing to pay your MIL is actually quite low compared to even extremely conservative investing which easily earns 7% or more with quantifiable low risk. You claim that it would be no risk, but what would happen if you lost your job? The risk she faces is more or less exactly what a bank would experience while giving the loan, or in other words it is pretty much whatever your credit score says. Even worse, she does not have a large pool of investments to distribute this risk like a bank would. Making loans this large in a family situation is a recipe for disaster. Taking a huge risk with the relationship your wife has with her mother over three points of interest is exceptionally unwise. Are these private or federal student loans? Federal student loan debt is some of the safest to carry due to its income based repayment plans and eventual loan forgiveness after 25 years. Have you investigated income based repayment options?", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "3f7daeb76a5bac2d245bcac8cf109e91", "text": "Every time I have loaned money to family members I have never gotten the money back. If they can't make the down payment, they should not be taking out the loan. It's a bad idea to loan money to friends, because when they can't pay you back (which might be forever) they avoid you. So, you lose both your money and your friends.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a3ebfa6c633c4958363319222831edb", "text": "\"Consider the \"\"opportunity cost\"\" of the extra repayment on a 15 year loan. If you owe money at 30% p.a. and money at 4% p.a. then it is a no brainer that the 30% loan gets paid down first. Consider too that if the mortgage is not tax deductable and you pay income tax, that you do not pay tax on money you \"\"save\"\". (i.e. in the extreme $1 saved is $2 earned). Forward thinking is key, if you are paying for someone's college now, then you would want to pay out of an education plan for which contributions are tax deductable, money in, money out. In my country most mortgages, be they 15,25,30 years tend to last 6-8 years for the lender. People move or flip or re-finance. I would take the 15 for the interest rate but only if I could sustain the payments without hardship. Maybe a more modest home ? If you cannot afford the higher repayments you are probably sailing a bit close to the wind anyway. Another thing to consider is that tax benefits can be altered with the stroke of a pen, but you may still have to meet repayments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ca37ccaeb56e7276aa66a6183d66820", "text": "\"I really don't feel co-signing this loan is in the best interests of either of us. Lets talk about the amount of money you need and perhaps I can assist you in another way. I would be honest and tell them it isn't a good deal for anybody, especially not me. I would then offer an alternative \"\"loan\"\" of some amount of money to help them get financing on their own. The key here is the \"\"loan\"\" I offer is really a gift and should it ever be returned I would be floored and overjoyed. I wouldn't give more than I can afford to not have. Part of why I'd be honest to spread the good word about responsible money handling. Co-signed loans (and many loans themselves) probably aren't good financial policy if not a life & death or emergency situation. If they get mad at me it won't matter too much because they are family and that won't change.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33d099c8da7f15157ff66e6ab94e8a96", "text": "My in-laws are pressuring me to buy a home. I don't really have much financial experience. In fact, I'm a nightmare with finances. I almost have my student loans payed off from school. My in-laws and husband are great with finances and with real-estate. My husband has a good job and $200k in savings. I have a good job too, and still have some debt from school. (approx $60k left of 180k). They say the house will be available in Jan or February for purchase, and that we should really try to buy it (prob $2-3 mil). My guess is they want to make it available to us off the market (which is a huge benefit in this area, there are really no houses available lately) . The problem is: I am uncomfortable because I don't have all of my loans payed off, I could divert money away from paying off the loans in order to save for a larger downpayment. I just got a bonus of $35k (after taxes) I don't think I'll have all of my loans payed off by January. Should I save my money for the downpayment or focus on my loans, should I go for the house? I don't know how to weigh these options against each other with such little experience.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1bddb921a5215528c109be80cf7c46b", "text": "Timo's concern may be accurate, but talking to the bank is the next step. If I am the banker, I'm happier that (a) there's 25% down, and (b) it's not an additional loan as some might get from a parent. It's not that your parents have a lien for the 25% as a lender would, the structure is ownership, they own 25%. An important, if not obvious, distinction. Timo is right that as an asset of the parents, the ownership stake is at risk if their finances run into issues. Other than that, so long as all is done above board, your proposal can work. The bank will want your parents to sign the note of course, you can't mortgage property you don't fully own.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c7c7fc1cb06ec373f996b7a2740bf69", "text": "\"You should pay for grad school without taking loans if your circumstances permit. There is the possibility of a tax write off for interest paid on student loans, but it's slightly complicated and it's very much a \"\"give me $10, and I'll give you $5 back\"\" kind of deal. You're better off not borrowing the money to begin with, even though I tend to think that borrowing for things which appreciate-- e.g., a house-- or which can significantly increase your earning capability-- e.g., the right kind of graduate school-- is generally better/wiser/more permissible than borrowing for something which depreciates, like a car. Having no student loan debt after graduation means you have greater freedom than someone who is laboring to pay student loan debt in addition to all of their other bills. My $0.02\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18f63457e8334538d77a5766629da7ed", "text": "If this isn't a case where you would be willing to forgive the debt if they can't pay, it's a business transaction, not a friend transaction. Establish exactly what the interest rate will be, what the term of the loan is, whether periodic payments are required, how much is covered by those payments vs. being due at the end of the term as a balloon payment, whether they can make additional payments to reduce the principal early... Get it all in writing and signed by all concerned before any money changes hands. Consider having a lawyer review the language before signing. If the loan is large enough that it might incur gift taxes, then you may want to go the extra distance to make it a real, properly documented, intra-family loan. To do this you must charge (of at least pay taxes on) at least a certain minimal interest rate, and they have to make regular payments (or you can gift them the payments but you still won't up paying tax on the interest income). In this case you definitely want a lawyer to draw up the papers, I think. There are services on the web Antioch specialize in helping to set this up properly, and which offer services such as bookkeeping and monthly billing (aT extra cost) to make it less hassle for the lender. If the loan will be structured as a mortgage on the borrower's house -- making the interest deductible for the borrower in the US -- there are additional forms that need to be filled. The services can help with that too, for appropriate fees. Again, this probably wants experts writing the agreement, to make sure it's properly written for where you and the borrower live. Caveat: all the above is assuming USA. Rules may be very different elsewhere. I've done a formal intractability mortgage -- mostly to avoid gift tax -- and it wasn't too awful a hassle. Your mileage will vary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04e74a4f44ed1e8e97ae3bfd5f3b6892", "text": "\"Let's summarize your relative's problem: How is this possible? If both of those statements are true, then he should be able to explain exactly why those statements are true, and then you can explain it to us, and then we can all nod our heads and admit, \"\"Wow, that makes sense. Proceed if you want to.\"\" But until that happens I suggest you take the advice I offered in the first paragraph of this answer.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea7fdaf01a430e0832d8219c9145cfec", "text": "\"It's viable for you, but the \"\"investor\"\" is either stupid or willing and able to write off the investment as a gift for a friend in need, knowing it will probably end the friendship. The banks make their money off of indebtedness, with the highest returns being on the highest risk loans . If the bank isn't willing to give you that debt on your own, it's because they already know it's a bad debt. In this case, trust the banks. If you can't come up with the downpayment on your own, you won't be able to meet your other commitments on this contract.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8be4b8c3196627390ff6bf2365f30916", "text": "\"My thoughts on loaning money to friends or family are outlined pretty extensively here, but cosigning on a loan is a different matter. It is almost never a good idea to do this (I say \"\"almost\"\" only because I dislike absolutes). Here are the reasons why: Now, all that said, if my sister or parents were dying of cancer and cosigning a loan was the only way to cure them, I might consider cosigning on a loan with them, if that was the only option. But, I would bet that 99.9% of such cases are not so dire, and your would-be co-borrower will survive with out the co-signing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "512d7c4e1f8831007a9b824440f78073", "text": "Only if (or to put it even more bluntly, when) they default. If your friend / brother / daughter / whoever needs a cosigner on a loan, it means that people whose job it is to figure out whether or not that loan is a good idea have decided that it isn't. By co-signing, you're saying that you think you know better than the professionals. If / when the borrower defaults, the lender won't pursue them for the loan if you can pay it. You're just as responsible for the loan payments as the original borrower, and given that you were a useful co-signer, probably much more likely to be able to come up with the money. The lender has no reason to go after the original borrower, and won't. If you can't pay, the lender comes after both of you. To put it another way: Don't think of cosigning as helping them get a loan. Think of it as taking out a loan and re-loaning it to them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "419ad6232fd4f86fa4f9ae3da5226128", "text": "\"In some cases, it might be rational to pay low-interest debt first, because the consequences of defaulting on that debt are worse. Consider this simplified example. Suppose you have two debts: a low-interest mortgage, secured by your house, and a high-interest unsecured credit card debt, both of which are within a few years of being paid off. There is a chance that sometime between now and then, something will happen to disrupt your income (e.g. medical problems), and it won't be possible to make the payments on either loan. Defaulting on the credit card loan will result in a lower credit score and calls from collection agencies. Defaulting on the mortgage will result in the foreclosure or forced sale of your house, at best forcing you to move, and at worst leaving you homeless, at a time when you are also facing other (e.g. medical) problems. So you might rationally judge that losing your house is much worse than bad credit. Therefore, you might rationally conclude that it would be better to direct extra income toward paying down the mortgage, to increase the chances that, if and when an income disruption might occur, the mortgage would already be paid off. In other words, you shorten the window of time where income disruption results in foreclosure. You might decide that this increased security is worth the extra interest you will pay, compared to the strategy where you pay the high-interest loan first. This is a fairly special situation, but you asked \"\"Why might it be a good idea to do this?\"\", and I am just giving an example where it could rationally be considered a good idea. (Of course, in a real-life version of this example, there might be other options available, such as refinancing the mortgage. If you like, you could imagine a more extreme example where the lower-interest debt is owed to Joey Knuckles the loanshark, who will come and break your kneecaps if you miss a payment.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7319e7d344e18f21491dba0ebe7e93f6", "text": "All of RonJohn's reasons to say no are extremely valid. There are also two more. First, the cost of a mortgage is not the only cost of owning a house. You have to pay taxes, utilities, repairs, maintenence, insurance. Those are almost always hundreds of dollars a month, and an unlucky break like a leaking roof can land you with a bill for many thousands of dollars. Second owning a house is a long term thing. If you find you have to sell in a year or two, the cost of making the sale can be many thousands of dollars, and wipe out all the 'savings' you made from owning rather than renting. I would suggest a different approach, although it depends very much on your circumstances and doesn't apply to everybody. If there is someone you know who has money to spare and is concerned for your welfare (your mention of a family that doesn't want you to work for 'academic reason' leads me to believe that might be the case) see if they are prepared to buy a house and rent it to you. I've known families do that when their children became students. This isn't necessarily charity. If rents are high compared to house prices, owning a house and renting it out can be very profitable, and half the battle with renting a house is finding a tenant who will pay rent and not damage the house. Presumably you would qualify. You could also find fellow-students who you know to share the rent cost.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4dba527ceeb1a824675dbc76b6a6cc12", "text": "\"Let me run some simplistic numbers, ignoring inflation. You have the opportunity to borrow up to 51K. What matters (and varies) is your postgraduation salary. Case 1 - you make 22K after graduation. You pay back 90 a year for 30 years, paying off at most 2700 of the loan. In this case, whether you borrow 2,800 or 28,000 makes no difference to the paying-off. You would do best to borrow as much as you possibly can, treating it as a grant. Case 2 - you make 100K after graduation. You pay back over 7K a year. If you borrowed the full 51, after 7 or 8 years it would be paid off (yeah, yeah, inflation, interest, but maybe that might make it 9 years.) In this case, the more you borrow the more you have to pay back, but you can easily pay it back, so you don't care. Invest your sponsorships and savings into something long term since you know you won't be needing to draw on them. Case 3 - you make 30K after graduation. Here, the payments you have to make actually impact how much disposable income you have. You pay back 810 a year, and over 30 years that's about 25K of principal. It will be less if you account for some (even most) of the payment going to interest, not principal. Anything you borrow above 25K (or the lower, more accurate amount) is \"\"free\"\". If you borrow substantially less than that (by using your sponsorship, savings, and summer job) you may be able to stop paying sooner than 30 years. But even if you borrow only 12K (or half the more accurate number), it will still be 15 years of payments. Running slightly more realistic versions of these calculations where your salary goes up, and you take interest into account, I think you will discover, for each possible salary path, a number that represents how much of your loan is really loan: everything above that is actually a grant you do not pay back. The less you are likely to make, the more of it is really grant. On top of that, it seems to me that no matter the loan/grant ratio, \"\"borrow as much as you can from this rather bizarre source\"\" appears to be the correct answer. In the cases where it's all loan, you have a lot of income and don't care much about this loan payment. Borrowing the whole 51K lets you invest all the money you get while you're a student, and you can use the returns on those investments to make the loan payments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87c67815a720af85f70f07a3783f1f6d", "text": "Paying off your student loan is an investment, and a completely risk-free one. Every payment of your loan is a purchase of debt at the interest rate of the loan. It would be extremely unusual to be able to find a CD, bond or other low-risk play at a better rate. Any investment in a risky asset such as stocks is just leveraging up your personal balance sheet, which is strictly a personal decision based on your risk appetite, but would nearly universally be regarded as a mistake by a financial advisor. (The only exception I can think of here would be taking out a home mortgage, and even that would be debatable.) Unless your loan interest rate is in the range of corporate or government bonds -- and I'm sure it isn't -- don't think twice about paying them off with any free cash you have.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
eeb64b4ec6c854e6c8e510a9d96f63b9	Can I buy a new house before selling my current house?	[ { "docid": "a5d1d152614dde74cea6e8431471e43b", "text": "\"You can make a contingent offer: \"\"I will buy this house if I sell my own.\"\" In a highly competitive environment, contingent offers tend to be ignored. (Another commentator described such a contingency clause as synonymous with \"\"Please Reject Me\"\".) You can get a bridge loan: you borrow money for a short term, at punishingly high interest. If your house doesn't sell, you're fscked. You pay for two mortgages (or even buy the other house for cash). If you can afford this, congratulations on, you know, being super-rich. Or you can do what I am doing: selling one house and then living at my mom's until I buy another one. (You will have to stay at your own mom's house; my mom's house will be full, of course.) Edit: A commentator with the disturbingly Kafkaesque name of \"\"R.\"\" made the not-unreasonable suggestion that you buy both and rent out one or the other. Consider this possibility, but remember: On the other hand, if the stars align, you might not want to extricate yourself. If the tenant is paying the mortgage and a little more, you have an appreciating asset, and one you can borrow against. With a little work and a little judicious use of leverage, doing this over and over, you can accumulate a string of income-producing rental properties.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "540f7bc42f160cb712f2a75dbd0dd4ee", "text": "The two most common scenarios are: Since you have more control of timing when you are the buyer compared to when you are the seller, #1 is probably more common, however, a good real estate attorney should be able to walk you through your options should #2 come up. Fortunately, many real estate attorneys do not charge you anything until the sale completes, and you will likely get a discount if you involve them in both the sale and purchase, so I would start by finding an attorney.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60a8bb887508c315f7ed152a2ca94981", "text": "A bridge loan (or bridging loan) is designed for exactly this circumstance. They're short-term loans (6 months is common) designed to help home-buyers to bridge the gap between buying and selling. MoneySupermarket defines them like this: Bridging loans are designed to help people complete the purchase of a property before selling their existing home by offering them short-term access to money at a high-rate of interest. As well as helping home-movers when there is a gap between the sale and completion dates in a chain, this type of loan can also help someone planning to sell-on quickly after renovating a home, or help someone buying at auction. Interest rates are very high, and there are likely to be fees, because you'll only need the loan for a short period. Here are some links to Canadian websites that explain more.", "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": "" }, { "docid": "3a9a85134e2efec3d92f6f364cd2ee12", "text": "There's also the option to put most of your stuff into storage and rent an apartment or go to an extended stay hotel. Some apartments have month-by-month options at a higher rate, though you may need to ask around. I've known some people to use this as their primary plan because it was easier for them to keep the house clean and ready to show when it's empty. Basically, this option is to sell your current house then buy the new house with a (hopefully fairly short) transition time in the middle.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "518cb6ee8a76cbf5dcdd784be6dc8bc5", "text": "As the other answers suggest, there are a number of ways of going about it and the correct one will be dependent on your situation (amount of equity in your current house, cashflow primarily, amount of time between purchase and sale). If you have a fair amount of equity (for example, $50K mortgage remaining on a house valued at $300K), I'll propose an option that's similar to bridge financing: Place an offer on your new house. Use some of your equity as part of the down payment (eg, $130K). Use some more of your equity as a cash buffer to allow you pay two mortgages in between the purchase and the sale (eg, $30K). The way this would be executed is that your existing mortgage would be discharged and replaced with larger mortgage. The proceeds of that mortgage would be split between the down payment and cash as you desire. Between the closing of your purchase and the closing of your sale, you'll be paying two mortgages and you'll be responsible for two properties. Not fun, but your cash buffer is there to sustain you through this. When the sale of your new home closes, you'll be breaking the mortgage on that house. When you get the proceeds of the sale, it would be a good time to use any lump sum/prepayment privileges you have on the mortgage of the new house. You'll be paying legal fees for each transaction and penalties for each mortgage you break. However, the interest rates will be lower than bridge financing. For this reason, this approach will likely be cheaper than bridge financing only if the time between the closing of the two deals is fairly long (eg, at least 6 months), and the penalties for breaking mortgages are reasonable (eg, 3 months interest). You would need the help of a good mortgage broker and a good lawyer, but you would also have to do your own due diligence - remember that brokers receive a commission for each mortgage they sell. If you won't have any problems selling your current house quickly, bridge financing is likely a better deal. If you need to hold on to it for a while because you need to fix things up or it will be harder to sell, you can consider this approach.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "072657906959afacef76be19931af359", "text": "If you're living in a market where some houses are going for $150K over asking, then you MUST buy before you sell. In a seller's market, you will get multiple offers on your current house when you decide to sell, it will sell for (well) over asking, and you can dictate possession dates. You do not need to worry about selling your own home, if you have a competent realtor. But buying a home is an entirely different story. You may struggle to find something affordable, and there may be multiple buyers each time you decide to make an offer. You may go through this cycle several times over many months before your offer is accepted. You should do this while living in your own home, with the comfort of knowing that you can sell your own home easily at any time, instead of the stress of an imminent closing date on your own home. Or worse, move into rented space or Malvolio's mom's house for months or a year while the market increases by 15% and the houses in your old area are now selling for $100K more than you sold for. Ouch, now you really can't afford to buy what you want, and you may end up buying something equivalent to what you used to own, for more, plus legal, realtor, and land transfer costs. If the closing dates don't align, then bridge. This will only end up costing a few hundred dollars, less than $1K including legal fees (the lawyer will also charge to handle this). But by buying before you sell, you'll easily make up that difference. This advice only applies to hot property markets. I'm not a realtor, just a guy living in the GTA who went through this process last year. Lost out on three offers over 10 months, then bought for asking price on fourth offer (very fortunate), then sold for $90K over asking, then bridged for 2 months. My realtor is awesome and made the process as stress free as it can be. Get a good realtor, start house hunting while preparing your own house for sale, and enjoy the process. Also you should negotiate with your realtor, they may be willing to reduce their commission on your sale if they are also representing you on the purchase. Good luck! P.S. Do not make a contingent offer, and do not accept one. Get your financing in place before you make an offer, and if you are concerned about inspection, you can also do that before the offer, if you act quickly. The inspection will cost ~$500, but it will increase the value of your offer by much more than that since you will be going in without conditions. I spent ~$1,000 on two property inspections on homes I lost out on, and I don't regret it. That is the cost of doing business. The other offers on the home I eventually bought were for significantly more than my offer, but they had conditions. I saved at least $40K by being condition free, and I only spent $1,500 on three property inspections. And, some people will just drop out of the multiple offer scenario when they learn that one of the buyers has done an inspection.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7758c3023162cce1343902f8f79088b2", "text": "You don't say why you want to move. Without knowing that, it is hard to recommend a course of action. Anyway... The sequence of events for an ECONOMICAL outcome in a strong market is as follows: (1) You begin looking for a new house (2) You rent storage and put large items into storage (3) You rent an apartment and move into the apartment (4) The house now being empty you can easily do any major cleaning and renovations needed to sell it (5) You sell the house (and keep looking for a new house while you do so). Since the house is empty it will sell a lot more easily than if you are in it. (6) You invest the money you get from selling the house (7) You liquidate your investment and buy the new house that you find. If you are lucky, the market will have declined in the meantime and you will get a good deal on the new house in addition to the money you made on your investment. (8) You move your stuff out of storage into the new house. There are other possibilities that involve losing a lot of money. The sequence of events above will make money for you, possibly a LOT of money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d29769d517e99e0482e50bf6f7b4db8", "text": "I sold my house and had been in the market looking for a replacement house for over 6 months after I sold it. I found someone willing to give me a short term, 3 month lease, with a month to month after that, at an equitable rate, as renters were scarcer than buyers.By the time I found a house, there were bidding wars as surplus had declined (can be caused seasonally), and it was quite difficult to get my new house. However, appraisers help this to a degree because whatever the seller wants, is not necessarily what they get, even if you offer it. I offered $10k over asking just to get picked out of the large group bidding on the house. Once the appraisal came in at $10k below my offer, I was able to buy the house at what I expected. Of course I had to be prepared if it came in higher, but I did my homework and knew pretty much what the house was worth. The mortgage is the same as the lease I had, the house is only 10 years' old and has a 1 year warranty on large items that could go wrong. In the 3 months I've been in the house, I have gained nearly $8k in equity....and will have a tax writeoff of about $19,000 off an income off a salary of $72,000, giving me taxable income of $53,000... making by tax liability go down about $4600. If I am claiming 0 dependents I will get back about $5,000 this year versus breaking even.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "7e7de3d7eb3ed082e34779b92a3595cd", "text": "I would just do a loan for a different number of years on your new mortgage. For example, if you just spent 10 years paying off your first house, then for your second, close the first mortgage upon selling, and then open a 20 or 25 year mortgage and the loan end date as well as the payment should remain similar. This would be more do-able if you paid ahead a little to compensate all the early on interest you have to eat. So if you want to finish around the same time, you could look into doing that since you'll have more equity to make a stronger down payment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca9cdf23b1db6fb5ca4fee410435c107", "text": "First of all, congratulations on your home purchase. The more equity you build in your house, the more of the sale price you get out of it when you move to your next house. This will enable you to consume more house in the future. Think of it as making early payments towards your next down payment. Another option is to save up a chunk of money and recast your mortgage, paying down the principal and having the resulting amount re-amortized to provide you with a lower monthly payment. You may be able to do this at least once during your time in the house, and if you do it early enough it can potentially help your savings in other areas. On the other hand, it is possible given today's low interest rates for mortgages that in other forms of investments (such as index funds) you could make more on the money you'd be putting towards your extra payments. Then you would have more money in savings when you go to sell this house and buy the next one that you would in equity if you didn't go that route. This is riskier than building equity in your home, but potentially has a bigger pay-off. You do the trade-offs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17b2928bee6da11bfcbf89b118b27938", "text": "I'll compare it to a situation that is different, but will involve the same cash flow. Imagine the buyer agrees that you buy only 70% of the house right now, and the remaining 30% in 7 years time. It would be obviously fair to pay 70% of today's value today, pay 30% of a reasonable rent for 7 years (because 30% of the house isn't owned by you), then pay 30% of the value that the house has in 7 years time. 30% of the value in 7 years is the same as 30% of the value today, plus 30% of whatever the house gained in value. Instead you pay 70% of today's value, you pay no rent for the 30% that you don't own, then in 7 years time you pay 30% of today's value, plus 50% of whatever the house gained in value. So you are basically exchanging 30% of seven years rent, plus interest, for 20% of the gain in value over 7 years. Which might be zero. Or might be very little. Or a lot, in which case you are still better off. Obviously you need to set up a bullet proof contract. A lawyer will also tell you what to put into the contract in case the house burns down and can't be rebuilt, or you add an extension to the home which increases the value. And keep in mind that this is a good deal if the house doesn't increase in value, but if the house increases in value a lot, you benefit anyway. A paradoxical situation, where the worse the deal turns out to be after 7 years, the better the result for you. In addition, the relative carries the risk of non-payment, which the bank obviously is not willing to do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a1d91bc6d5291d5aba1cd395504dfff", "text": "What do you see as the advantage of doing this? When you buy a house with a mortgage, the bank gets a lien on the house you are buying, i.e. the house you are buying is the collateral. Why would you need additional or different collateral? As to using the house for your down payment, that would require giving the house to the seller, or selling the house and giving the money to the seller. If the house was 100% yours and you don't have any use for it once you buy the second house, that would be a sensible plan. Indeed that's what most people do when they buy a new house: sell the old one and use the money as down payment on the new one. But in this case, what would happen to the co-owner? Are they going to move to the new house with you? The only viable scenario I see here is that you could get a home equity loan on the first house, and then use that money as the down payment on the second house, and thus perhaps avoid having to pay for mortgage insurance. As DanielAnderson says, the bank would probably require the signature of the co-owner in such a case. If you defaulted on the loan, the bank could then seize the house, sell it, and give the co-owner some share of the money. I sincerely doubt the bank would be interested in an arrangement where if you default, they get half interest in the house but are not allowed to sell it without the co-owner's consent. What would a bank do with half a house? Maybe, possibly they could rent it out, but most banks are not in the rental business. So if you defaulted, the co-owner would get kicked out of the house. I don't know who this co-owner is. Sounds like you'd be putting them in a very awkward position.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "049447e698bc3a74b9f5938b8d8f921e", "text": "No. As long as you live in the house for 3 years, it's yours to keep. Financing has nothing to do with that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59962070028d867ee4b2d9d919702dd7", "text": "Shop lots of houses. Find at least three you want and start by offering a low price and working your way up. Your risk is that houses you would have liked get bought by someone else while you are negotiating, that is how you discover how much you actually have to pay to get a house. Brokers only get paid if a deal closes. That is their incentive to get you a better price. If they know you will buy a different house unless the one they are selling gets your business, then they will work to make that happen.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12b48d3715194753802ef8cc74fc3d4d", "text": "\"Unless you are investing an insignificant amount of money for the home and renovations, you need title insurance. Without it multiple other parties can claim ownership in this property you are purchasing and investing in. Also you can know if there are any liens against the property which can cost you a significant amount in addition to the costs you are budgeting. For example liens against a property I bought a while back amounted to 26% of the price I paid. In my case the seller (a bank) paid those, while in your case you may need to pay any liens as I suspect the seller has little money. That \"\"bone\"\" in your body that has you worried about this transaction is really good. Pay attention to it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea86135aefc19f735f834aa9cfa4eac0", "text": "\"Pre-edit, Pete mentioned that he feels real estate agents would (a) like you to buy as much house as you afford, and (b) would love to show you three houses and have you choose one. As a real estate agent myself, I believe his warnings were understated. As with any industry, there are good and bad people. Agents are paid to move houses. If the median US home is under $200K, and commissions average say 5%, the $10,000 to be gained is split between the buyer brokerage and selling agent. The $5000 to each is then shared with 'the house.' So, this sale would net me $2500, gross. Move one a week, and the income is great, one per month, not so much. Tire kickers will waste an agent's time for a potential decision to wait another year and continue renting. Their obligation is to tell you the truth, but not to offer financial advice. Remember the mortgage crisis? It seems the banks and brokers aren't watching out for you either. They will tell you what they'll lend you, but not what you can afford. These numbers are worlds apart. I strongly recommend a 20% downpayment. The FHA PMI calculator shows that a 90% LTV (i.e. a 10% downpayment) for a $100K house will cost you $1200/yr in PMI. Think about this. For the $10,000 that you didn't put down, you are paying an extra $1200 each year. This is on top of the interest, so even at 5%, that last $10,000 is costing nearly 17%. If you can't raise that $10K (or whatever 10% is on that house) in cheaper funds, you should hold off. Using the 401(k) loan for this purpose is appropriate, yet emotionally charged. As if suck loans are written by the devil himself. \"\"Buy the biggest house you can\"\"? No. I have a better idea. Buy the smallest place you can tolerate. I have a living room (in addition to family room) that has been used 3 times in 20 years. A dining room we actually use. Twice per year. When your house is 50% too big, you pay 50% more property tax, more utility bills, and more maintenance. Closing costs, commission, etc, isn't cheap, but the lifetime cost of living in a too-big house is a money pit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a7975f7b904e476239cf8f0dc1eb4de", "text": "\"If I buy property when the market is in a downtrend the property loses value, but I would lose money on rent anyway. So, as long I'm viewing the property as housing expense I would be ok. This is a bit too rough an analysis. It all depends on the numbers you plug in. Let's say you live in the Boston area, and you buy a house during a downtrend at $550k. Two years later, you need to sell it, and the best you can get is $480k. You are down $70k and you are also out two years' of property taxes, maintenance, insurance, mortgage interest maybe, etc. Say that's another $10k a year, so you are down $70k + $20k = $90k. It's probably more than that, but let's go with it... In those same two years, you could have been living in a fairly nice apartment for $2,000/mo. In that scenario, you are out $2k * 24 months = $48k--and that's it. It's a difference of $90k - $48k = $42k in two years. That's sizable. If I wanted to sell and upgrade to a larger property, the larger property would also be cheaper in the downtrend. Yes, the general rule is: if you have to spend your money on a purchase, it's best to buy when things are low, so you maximize your value. However, if the market is in an uptrend, selling the property would gain me more than what I paid, but larger houses would also have increased in price. But it may not scale. When you jump to a much larger (more expensive) house, you can think of it as buying 1.5 houses. That extra 0.5 of a house is a new purchase, and if you buy when prices are high (relative to other economic indicators, like salaries and rents), you are not doing as well as when you buy when they are low. Do both of these scenarios negate the pro/cons of buying in either market? I don't think so. I think, in general, buying \"\"more house\"\" (either going from an apartment to a house or from a small house to a bigger house) when housing is cheaper is favorable. Houses are goods like anything else, and when supply is high (after overproduction of them) and demand is low (during bad economic times), deals can be found relative to other times when the opposite applies, or during housing bubbles. The other point is, as with any trend, you only know the future of the trend...after it passes. You don't know if you are buying at anything close to the bottom of a trend, though you can certainly see it is lower than it once was. In terms of practical matters, if you are going to buy when it's up, you hope you sell when it's up, too. This graph of historical inflation-adjusted housing prices is helpful to that point: let me just say that if I bought in the latest boom, I sure hope I sold during that boom, too!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b11a00537c257f650ed6a54ae8d0c128", "text": "I'm not sure about your first two options. But given your situation, a variant of option three seems possible. That way you don't have to throw away your appraisal, although it's possible that you'll need to get some kind of addendum related to the repairs. You also don't have your liquid money tied up long term. You just need to float it for a month or two while the repairs are being done. The bank should be able to preapprove you for the loan. Note that you might be better off without the loan. You'll have to pay interest on the loan and there's extra red tape. I'd just prefer not to tie up so much money in this property. I don't understand this. With a loan, you are even more tied up. Anything you do, you have to work with the bank. Sure, you have $80k more cash available with the loan, but it doesn't sound like you need it. With the loan, the bank makes the profit. If you buy in cash, you lose your interest from the cash, but you save paying the interest on the loan. In general, the interest rate on the loan will be higher than the return on the cash equivalent. A fourth option would be to pay the $15k up front as earnest money. The seller does the repairs through your chosen contractor. You pay the remaining $12.5k for the downpayment and buy the house with the loan. This is a more complicated purchase contract though, so cash might be a better option. You can easily evaluate the difficulty of the second option. Call a different bank and ask. If you explain the situation, they'll let you know if they can use the existing appraisal or not. Also consider asking the appraiser if there are specific banks that will accept the appraisal. That might be quicker than randomly choosing banks. It may be that your current bank just isn't used to investment properties. Requiring the previous owner to do repairs prior to sale is very common in residential properties. It sounds like the loan officer is trying to use the rules for residential for your investment purchase. A different bank may be more inclined to work with you for your actual purchase.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d155ae5534d0d32f1e77521fe072f09c", "text": "\"That sounds like a particularly egregious version of exclusivity. However, the way that you could handle that is to include a \"\"contingency\"\" in your purchase agreement stating that your offer is contingent upon the seller paying the brokerage fee. The argument against this, and something your broker might use to encourage you not to do so, is that it makes your offer less attractive to the buyer. If they have two offers in hand for the same price, one with contingencies and one without, they will likely take the no-contingency offer. In my area, right now, house offers are being made without very common contingencies like a financing contingency (meaning you can back out if you can't finance the property) or an inspection contingency. So, if your market is really competitive, this may not work. One last thought is that you could also use this to negotiate with your broker. Simply say you're only sign this expecting that any offer would have such a contingency. If it's untenable in your current market, it will likely cause your broker to move on. Either way, I'd say you should push back and potentially talk to some other brokers. A good broker is worth their weight in gold, and a bad one will cost you a boat load. And if you're in Seattle, I'll introduce you to literally the best one in the world. :-)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ce3b4c25472c83166561bff7a946771", "text": "The mortgage is a debt and you pay interest on it, typically more than you can earn elsewhere (especially once taxes are taken into account.) By lowering the principal, you lower the total interest you pay. This is true whether you sell the house after 1 year, 10 years, or 100 years. In your case, prepayments made in the next few years would mean that when you sell, your mortgage principal would be lower than it otherwise would have been, and your house equity will be higher. You can therefore either move up to more house for the same monthly payment, or have a lower monthly payment for the same kind of house. Either of those are good things, right? Now is the easiest time to find a little more money, so do it if you can. Later you will have more obligations, and develop a taste for more expensive things (statistically speaking) and therefore find a few hundred a month much harder to come by.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8a32bd41ce337dbffc94eb86141d43a", "text": "In response to one of the comments you might be interested in owning the new home as a rental property for a year. You could flip this thinking and make the current home into a rental property for a period of time (1 year seems to be the consensus, consult an accountant familiar with real estate). This will potentially allow for a 1031 exchange into another property -- although I believe that property can't then be a primary residence. All potentially not worth the complication for the tax savings, but figured I'd throw it out there. Also, the 1031 exchange defers taxes until some point in the future in which you finally sell the asset(s) for cash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fab78c04a66a89ee0cd7467bfa6429fa", "text": "In the context of EDV, 4.46 is the indicated dividend rate. The indicated dividend rate is the rate that would be paid per share throughout the next year, assuming dividends stayed the same as prior payment. sources:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6027469fe2cb45ad372b8b736d78b610", "text": "\"The cause of the increase in 2006-2011 was the financial crisis, where, if you recall, the global banking system came close to collapse for reasons that are well documented. Rightly or wrongly, gold is seen as a safe haven asset in times of crisis. The price of gold began to decline in 2011 when the markets decided that the risk of a global banking system collapse had passed without further incident. In the period leading up to 2006, the price of gold was in a flat-to-down trend because there was little net buying interest in gold and large gold sales had been executed by various central banks around the world who felt that gold no longer had a place in central bank reserves. In modern economies gold is seen as a \"\"fringe\"\" asset. It has no role to play. The recent financial crisis may have dented that perception, but those dents are now being forgotten and the price of gold is returning to its long-term downward trend. When the next financial/banking crisis is upon us, the price of gold will again (probably) rally. The extent of the rally will depend on the extent of the crisis.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
ca4e691bdf8fc800d741309897a5ecdc	Can individuals day-trade stocks using High-Frequency Trading (HFT)?	[ { "docid": "c2818bdbcd005e911a4f2012b17a4d0a", "text": "The answer is to your question is somewhat complicated. You will be unable to compete with the firms traditionally associated with High Frequency Trading in any of their strategies. Most of these strategies which involve marketing making, latency arbitrage, and rebate collection. The amount of engineering required to build the infrastructure required to run this at scale makes it something which can only be undertaken by a team of highly skilled engineers. Indeed, the advantage of firms competing in this space such as TradeBot, TradeWorx, and Getco comes from this infrastructure as most of the strategies that are developed are necessarily simple due to the latency requirements. Now if you expand the definition of HFT to include all computerized automated trading you most certainly can build strategies that are profitable. It is not something that you probably want to tackle on your own but I know of a couple of people that did go it alone successfully for a couple of years before joining an established firm to run a book for them. In order to be successful you will most likely need to develop a unique strategies. The good news is because that you are trying to deploy a very tiny amount of capital you can engage in trades that larger firms would not because the strategies cannot hold enough capital relative to the firms capital base. I am the co-founder of a small trading firm that successfully trades the US Equities and Equity Derivatives markets. A couple of things to note is that if you want to do this you should consider building a real business. Having some more smart brains around you will help. You don't need exchange colocation for all strategies. Many firms, including ours, colocate in a data center that simply has proximity to the exchanges data centers. You will need to keep things simple to be effective. Don't except all the group think that this is impossible. It is possible although as a single individual it will be more difficult. It will require long, long hours as you climb the algorithmic trading learning curve. Good luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "149272851f5d804a7cdfb8b8d0c1e600", "text": "Nobody is going to stop you if you want to try that. But you should keep in mind that you have to invest a lot in getting the best hardware you can lay your hands on, best fail-safe connectivity to the exchanges, best trading algorithms and software that money can buy and loads of other stuff. This all needs quite a big amount of upfront investment without guaranteeing returns. That is why you see institutions with deep pockets i.e. banks and trading firms only involve themselves in HFT.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6335dc2c13c1699721868158f6084e78", "text": "\"Yes you can, but to do so successfully, you need lots of money. You also need to be able to meet the criteria for being classified as a \"\"professional trader\"\" by the IRS. (If not, you'll be buried in paperwork.) The fact that you're asking about it here probably means that you do not have enough money to succeed at HFT.\"", "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": "2497dced1eee532e6563c6de5196b408", "text": "It's not necessarily the case that HFT acts as a tax on small traders. I haven't seen any studies demonstrating that HFT increases the average cost of shares; if anything small investors will be largely unaffected by HFT as it will be random noise to them, sometimes creating a slight increase, sometimes a slight decrease. The people most affected by HFT are institutional investors, whom HFT desks are pretty good at predicting the order pattern of and hence exploiting. They have no interest or capacity to exploit the small guys.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3816bdadaff52d8404cf2217ab792410", "text": "There's a lot of hype about HFT. It involves computers doing things that people don't really understand and making a bunch of rich guys a bunch of money, and there was a crisis and so we hate rich wall street guys this year, and so it's a hot-button issue. Meh. There's some reason for concern about the safety of the markets, but I think there's also a lot more of people trying to sell you a newspaper. Remember that while HFT may mean there are a lot of trades, the buying and the selling add up to the same thing. Meanwhile, people who buy stock to hold on to it for significant periods of time will still affect the quantity of stock out there on the market, applying pressure to the price, buying and selling at the prices that they think the security is worth. As a result, it's unlikely that high-frequency trading moves the stock price very far from the price that the rest of the market would determine for very long; if it did, the lower-frequency traders could take advantage of it, buying if it's too low and selling if it's too high. How long do you plan to hold a stock? If you're trying to do day-trading, you might have some trouble; these people are competing with you to do the same thing, and have significant resources at their disposal. If you're holding onto your stock for years on end (like you probably should be doing with most stock) then a trivial premium or discount on the price probably isn't going to be a big deal for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a22dc88fd01f8f0f81bf8091d8020c80", "text": "Can't totally agree with that. Volatility trading is just one trading type of many. In my opinion it doesn't depend on whether you are a professional trader or not. As you might have heard, retail traders are said to create 'noise' on the market, mainly due to the fact that they aren't professional in their majority. So, I would assume, if an average retail trader decided to trade volatility he would create as much noise as if would have been betting on stock directions. Basically, most types of trading would require a considerable amount of effort spent on fundamental analysis of the underlying be it volatility or directional trading. Arbitrage trading would be an exception here, I guess. However, volatility trading relies more on trader's subjective expectations about future deviations, whereas trading stock directions requires deeper research of the underlying. Is it a drawback or an advantage? I.d.k. On the other hand-side volatility trading strategies cover both upward and downward movements, but you can set similar hedging strategies when going short or long on stocks, isn't it? To summarise, I think it is a matter of preference. Imagine yourself going long on S&P500 since 2009. Do you think there are many volatility traders who have outperformed that?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96eaaf4d4da27faaa9cee053a3e9931b", "text": "\"If you're going to be a day trader, you really need to know your stuff. It's risky, to say the least. One of the most important elements to being successful is having access to very fast data streams so that you can make moves quickly as trends stat to develop in the markets. If you're planning on doing this using consumer-grade sites like eTrade, that's not a good idea. The web systems of many of the retail brokerage firms are not good enough to give you data fast enough for you to make good, timely decisions or to be able to execute trades way that day traders do in order to make their money. Many of those guys are living on very thin margins, sometimes just a few cents of movement one way or the other, so they make up for it with a large volume of trades. One of the reasons you were told you need a big chunk of money to day trade is that some firms will rent you out a \"\"desk\"\" and computer access to day trade through their systems if you're really serious about it. They will require you to put up at least a minimum amount of money for this privilege, and $25k may not be too far out of the ballpark. If you've never done day trading before, be careful. It doesn't take much to get caught looking the wrong way on a trade that you can't get out of without losing your shirt unless you're willing to hold on to the stock, which could be longer than a day. Day trading sounds very simple and easy, but it isn't. You need to learn about how it works (a good book to read to understand this market is \"\"Flash Boys\"\" by Michael Lewis, besides being very entertaining), because it is a space filled with very sophisticated, well-funded firms and individuals who spend huge sums of money to gain miniscule advantages in the markets. Be careful, whatever you do. And don't play in day trading with your retirement money or any other money you can't afford to walk away from. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cb4cf822b300219efe529fc8b57c8e3", "text": "\"Day trading is an attempt to profit on high frequency signal changes. Long term investing profits on low frequency changes. What is the difference? High Frequency Signal = the news of the day. This includes things like an earnings report coming out, panic selling, Jim Cramer pushing his \"\"buy buy buy\"\" button, an oil rig blowing up in the ocean, a terrorist attack in some remote region of the globe, a government mandated recall, the fed announcing an interest rate hike, a competitor announcing a new product, hurricanes, cold winters, a new health study on child obesity, some other company in the same sector missing their earnings, etc. Think daily red and green triangles on CNBC: up a buck, down a buck. Low Frequency Signal = The long term effectiveness of a company to produce and sell a product efficiently plus the sum of the high frequency signal over a long period of time. Think 200 day moving average chart of a stock. No fast changes, just, long term trends. Over time, the high frequency changes tend to negate each other. To me, long term investing is wiser because the low frequency signal is dominated by a companies ability to function well over time. That in turn is driven by the effectiveness of its leadership coupled with the skill and motivation of its employees. You are betting on the company and its people. Pseudo-random shorterm forces, which you can't control, play less of a role. The high frequency signal, on the other hand, is dominated by sporadic and unpredictable forces that typically can't be controlled by the company. It has some tinge of randomness about it. Trying to invest on that random component is not investing at all, it is gambling (akin to \"\"investing\"\" in that next coin flip coming up heads) I understand the allure of high frequency trading. Look at the daily chart of a popular stock and focus on the up and down ticks. Mathematically, you could make a killing if you could just stack all those upticks on top of each other. If only it was that easy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f35dc2b4f733eb9ba74e1f60e5b27dd4", "text": "\"FYI, USA is not the only country in the world. If you try to stop people from making money, they will go do it elsewhere. Other countries are more than willing and competent, to accept these HFT folk. Even if all countries stop HFT. There will be encrypted black markets for this on the internets. Google \"\"dark pools\"\". Regulators are light years behind the ingenuity shown by Wall Street to find inefficiencies in the market. Computers and quantitative finance are here to stay. You cannot ask people to trade using emotions like during the Great Depression Era.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "429efb22f2ab89118366a6888d7077f2", "text": "\"n1. go to tradeworx.com and you can read some papers. 2. Revenues of hft have gone down substantially. About 15 years ago the total market was around 7 billion, it has dropped to 1 billion this year. 3. \"\"no goods or valuable services are produced.- That is false. hft provides liquidity and low spreads. There is a reason why you can buy or sell a share of a stock and the spread is 1 penny. One of the main reasons to go public is to have the secondary market liquid. There is a reason you can instantly sell or buy a stock... Do you realize you used to have to actually call your broker and he had to negotiate an order on the floor? hft makes the markets more efficient. The average person can sign up an online acct and trade/invest for basically nothing. Why do you think that is? finally who are you to say how I can or can not allocate my money. If I develop my own strategy that trades every second why can't I?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d44654282465ebd3ebad8d3665381e99", "text": "If #2 is how it really worked I would approve. In the real world, entities who have the money to purchase access have systems which are in a position to execute strategies which shave pennies of of people who want to make real trades. I want to sell for $61.15 and someone wants to buy for $61.10 and the HFT traders force both hands and make their money on that nickel in between us.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67a2494bdf2b722f64eb4ffdaa9ee679", "text": "Lowered bid ask spread. If you as a market market have to onto inventory (risk) for a long period then you have to charge your customers a commensurate premium. The groups who have lost because of HFT are big banks, any large investor who used to get preferential treatment from brokers, and floor traders. The groups who have won are retail investors and those investors who weren't large or connected enough to get preferential treatment from brokers (majority of investors).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a66a5e43fcafe49252adcf58e4aacba", "text": "I will assume that you are not asking in the context of high frequency trading, as this is Personal Finance Stack Exchange. It is completely acceptable to trade odd lots for retail brokerage customers. The odd lot description that you provided in your link, from Interactive Brokers is correct. But even in that context, it says, regarding the acceptability of odd lots to stock exchanges: The exception is that odd lots can be routed to NYSE/ARCA/AMEX, but only as part of a basket order or as a market-on-close (MOC) order. Google GOOG is traded on the NASDAQ. Everything on the NASDAQ is electronic, and always has been. You will have no problem selling or buying less than 100 shares of Google. There is also an issue of higher commissions with odd lots: While trading commissions for odd lots may still be higher than for standard lots on a percentage basis, the popularity of online trading platforms and the consequent plunge in brokerage commissions means that it is no longer as difficult or expensive for investors to dispose of odd lots as it used to be in the past. Notice what it says about online trading making it easier, not more difficult, to trade odd lots.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bac9d17624dca5bf1c7d6d7eb66b7d34", "text": "There is indeed a market for single stock futures, and they have been trading on the OneChicago exchange since 2002. Futures are available in 12,509 individual stocks, according to the exchange's current product listing. One advantage they offer over trading the underlying stock is the significantly higher leverage that is available, combined with the lack of pattern day trader rules that apply to stocks and similar securities. Single stock futures have proven to be something of a regulatory challenge as it has been unclear whether their oversight is the remit of the SEC/FINRA or the CFTC/NFA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b8a316de1395303b95c0c860191c913", "text": "High frequency trades are intra day. The would buy a stock for 100 and sell for 100.10 multiple times. So If you start with 100 in your broker account, you buy something [it takes 2-3 days to settle], you sell for 100.10 [it takes 2-3 days to settle]. You again buy something for 100. It is the net value of both buys and sells that you need to look at. Trading on Margin Accounts. Most brokers offer Margin Accounts. The exact leverage ratios varies. What this means is that if you start with 10 [or 15 or 25] in your broker you can buy stock of 100. Of course legally you wont own the stock unless you pay the broker balance, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77986266e05864064b966505301f2aae", "text": "I agree. Small investors got screwed worse with manually traded shares. Electronic trading was a big part of why fees for trades have come down so much over the years. HFT acts as a tax on small traders, but it is fairly insignificant. This isn't to say that HFT isn't a problem. Systems that cause flash crashes with no one understanding why, isn't good for the market. A small fee is a small change that could provide a solution to the problem.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07cf897e53c911848657e7b6a68ecaca", "text": "\"This is a very important question and you will find arguments from both sides, in part because it is still understudied. Ben Golub, Economics Ph.D., from Stanford answers \"\"Is high-frequency trading good for the economy?\"\" on Quoram quite well. This is an important but understudied question. There are few published academic studies on it, though several groups are working on the subject. You may be interested in the following papers: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1569067 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1361184 These document some of the phenomena that arise in high frequency trading, from a theoretical and an empirical perspective. However, a full equilibrium analysis of the unique features of high frequency trading is still missing, and until it is done, all our answers will be kind of tentative. Nevertheless, there are some obvious things one can say. Currently, high frequency traders are competing to locate physically closer and closer to exchanges, because milliseconds matter. Thus, large amounts of money are being spent to beat other market makers by tiny fractions of a second. Once many firms make these investments, the market looks like it did before in terms of competition and prices, but is a tiny bit faster. This investment is unlikely to be socially efficient: that is, the users of the market don't actually benefit from the fact that their trades are executed half a millisecond faster -- certainly not enough to cover all the investment that went into making that happen. Some people who study the issue believe that high frequency trading (HFT) actually exacerbates market volatility; some plots to this effect are found in the second paper linked above. There is certainly no widely accepted theory that says faster trading technology necessarily increases efficiency, and it is easy to think of algorithms that can make money (at least in the short run) but hurt most other investors, as well as the informational value of the market. One caution is that some of the complaining about HFT comes from those who lose when HFT gets better -- old-style market makers. They certainly have an incentive to make HFT out to be very bad. So some complaints about the predatory nature of HFT should be taken with a grain of salt. There is no strong economic consensus about the value of this activity. For what it's worth, my personal impression is that this is more bad than good. I'll post an update here as more definitive research comes out. You can also find a debate on High-frequency trading from the Economist which gives both sides of the argument. In conclusion: Regardless of how you feel about HFT it seems like it's here to stay and won't be leaving in the foreseeable future. So the debate will rage on... Additional resource you may finding interesting: Europe Begins Push To Ban HFT High Frequency Trading Discussion On CNBC Should High Frequency Trading (HFT) be banned ?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "557de771f5d36064911e7a767f197b57", "text": "\"In US public stock markets there is no difference between the actions individual retail traders are \"\"permitted\"\" to take and the actions institutional/corporate traders are \"\"permitted\"\" to take. The only difference is the cost of those actions. For example, if you become a Registered Market Maker on, say, the BATS stock exchange, you'll get some amazing rebates and reduced transaction prices; however, in order to qualify for Registered Market Maker status you have to maintain constant orders in the book for hundreds of equities at significant volumes. An individual retail trader is certainly permitted to do that, but it's probably too expensive. Algorithmic trading is not the same as automated trading (algorithmic trading can be non-automated, and automated trading can be non-algorithmic), and both can be anywhere from low- to high-frequency. A low-frequency automated strategy is essentially indistinguishable from a person clicking their mouse several times per day, so: no, from a legal or regulatory perspective there is no special procedure an individual retail trader has to follow before s/he can automate a trading strategy. (Your broker, on the other hand, may have all sorts of hoops for you to jump through in order to use their automation platform.) Last (but certainly not least) you will almost certainly lose money hand over fist attempting bid-ask scalping as an individual retail trader, whether your approach is algorithmic or not, automated or not. Why? Because the only way to succeed at bid-ask scalping is to (a) always be at/near the front of the queue when a price change occurs in your favor, and (b) always cancel your resting orders before they are executed when a price change occurs against you. Unless your algorithms are smarter than every other algorithm in the industry, an individual retail trader operating through a broker's trading platform cannot react quickly enough to succeed at either of those. You would have to eschew the broker and buy direct market access to even have a chance, and that's the point at which you're no longer a retail trader. Good luck!\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d2a83f600d6376e069066778242cc300	Is debt almost always the cause of crashes and recessions?	[ { "docid": "c07159e245303172793305c3a1d8a2be", "text": "While debt increases the likelihood and magnitude of a crash, speculation, excess supply and other market factors can result in crashes without requiring excessive debt. A popular counter example of crashes due to speculation is 16th century Dutch Tulip Mania. The dot com bubble is a more recent example of a speculative crash. There were debt related issues for some companies and the run ups in stock prices were increased by leveraged traders, but the actual crash was the result of failures of start up companies to produce profits. While all tech stocks fell together, sound companies with products and profits survive today. As for recessions, they are simply periods of time with decreased economic activity. Recessions can be caused by financial crashes, decreased demand following a war, or supply shocks like the oil crisis in the 1970's. In summary, debt is simply a magnifier. It can increase profits just as easily as can increase losses. The real problems with crashes and recessions are often related to unfounded faith in increasing value and unexpected changes in demand.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "645ffcd5f477c364552f62afc998402d", "text": "\"The statement can be true, but isn't a general rule. Crashes and recessions are two different things. A crash is when the market rapidly revalues something when prices are out of equilibrium, whether it be stocks, a commodity or even a service. When the internet was new, nobody knew how to design webpages, so web page designers were in huge demand and commanded insane price premiums. I literally had college classmates billing real companies $200+/hr for marginal web skills. Eventually, the market \"\"clued up\"\" and that industry collapsed overnight. Another example of a crash from the supply point of view was the discovery of silver in the western US during the 19th century -- these discoveries increased the supply of the commodity to the point that silver coin eroded in value and devastated small family farms, who mostly dealt in silver currency. Recessions are often linked to crashes, but you don't need a crash to have a recession. Basically, during a recession, trade and industrial activity drop. The economy operates in cycles, and the euphoria and over-optimistic projections of a growing or booming economy lead to periods of reduced growth where the economy essentially reorganizes itself. Capital is a (if not the) key element of the economic cycle -- it's a catalyst that makes things happen. Debt is one form of capital -- it's not good, not bad. Generally cheap capital (ie. low interest rates) bring economic growth. Why? If I can borrow at 4%, I can then perform some sort of economic activity (bake bread, make computers, assemble cars, etc) that will earn myself 6, 8 or 10% on the dollar. When interest rates go up, economic activity slows, because the higher cost of credit increases the risk of losing money on an investment. The downside of cheap capital is that risk taking gets too easy and you can run into situations like the $2M ranch houses in California. The downside of expensive/tight capital is that it gets harder for businesses to operate and economic activity slows down. The effects of either extreme cascade and snowball.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7fa4236619f0c3895073c76edb5eb278", "text": "The root cause can be said to always be a crisis in confidence. It may be due to a very real event. However, confidence is what pushes the markets up and worries are what bring them down.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e35a68f6566711783b486d9bc1f8496e", "text": "A lack of trust in the regulator can also stop everyone trading. If you don’t believe the bank notes you are getting paid with are real, why do any work?", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "41ffb7be0749b4171352551b6bcd46bc", "text": "\"There was a time when government policy was actually pretty damn smart. There were a range of \"\"automatic stabilizers\"\" that kicked in when there was a recession and they had a fast and large impact. It wasn't until Reagan that we started to chip away at those as well as go into a perpetual debt stimulus posture. These two actions helped to prime the system for an inevitable \"\"large\"\" shock. Even now, after one of the longest expansions in history we're STILL running a substantial deficit. And as such the appetite to expand it when the next recession hits will be diminished (as it was during the great recession when we really needed 3 trillion in stimulus spending and got less than 1).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d4595c4e33035d108c772b10d26fa5b", "text": "It depends on why the stocks crashed. If this happened because interest rates shot up, bonds will suffer also. On the other hand, stocks could be crashing because economic growth (and hence earnings) are disappointing. This pulls down interest rates and lifts bonds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b8f6e63d5633a6b93d55ac418d50aa71", "text": "Typically the debt is held by individuals, corporations and investment funds, not by other countries. In cases where substantial amounts are held by other countries, those countries are typically not in debt themselves (e.g. China has huge holdings of US Treasuries). If the debts were all cancelled, then the holders of the debt (as listed above) would lose out badly and the knock-on effects on the economy would be substantial. Also, governments that default tend to find it harder to borrow money again in the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "312d9c813916aa05b71e3fdeac51bd57", "text": "\"Yes. Bonds perform very well in a recession. In fact the safer the bond, the better it would do in a recession. Think of markets having four seasons: High growth and low inflation - \"\"growing economy\"\" High growth and high inflation - \"\"overheating economy\"\" Low growth and high inflation - \"\"stagflation\"\" Low growth and low inflation - \"\"recession\"\" Bonds are the best investment in a recession. qplum's flagship strategy had a very high allocation to bonds in the financial crisis. That's why in backtest it shows much better returns.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a53203e93e54c64b01441646a3c92d95", "text": "\"None of the previous answers (which are all good) mention margin accounts (loans from your broker). You may also have heard them described as \"\"leverage\"\". It may seem odd to mention this rather narrow form of debt here, but it's important because overuse of leverage has played a large part in pretty much every financial crisis you can think of (including the most recent one). As the Investopedia definitions indicate, leverage magnifies gains, but also magnifies losses. I consider margin/leverage to be \"\"bad\"\" debt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e82dc8fadcfa9887733a3d37adfb011", "text": "Incredible article, tons of data. Thank you! It does answer the above posters question if you're willing to read through. It provides data with and without 'revolving debt'. Side note; interesting to see how age and income trend. Debt increasing during the family-middle aged years, and during the peak income earning years. I'd say you want these credit card debt lower overall and on average; but with the distribution it may be sustainable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f66a841d1b8220b8ac3b9817ba46358", "text": "Isn't it clear to everyone that something that isn't measured by economists yet is going horribly wrong in the US since they started with the debt bing? I know so many people with no savings whatsoever and just hanging on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e50170e3079427d32863a48ed4f6907", "text": "I was being sarcastic. Student loan crash is a major circle jerk in some Financial subs If anything, it's more likely to manifest itself as OP described. Economic growth is going to be lower is a substantial portion of the populus is servicing debt than consuming goods.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfaeffe85aafea3a5e7818563474d004", "text": "Since 2008, when it all came crashing down, I read a variety of solid data sources that said this asset bubble and mortgage/HELOCs were going to reset (blow up) in slow motion for years, maybe decades. Nothing changed from that time. This has been happening for hundreds of years from what I understand now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc36975d7683f568850949230c160c80", "text": "By the phrasing of your question it seems that you are under the mistaken impression that countries are borrowing money from other countries, in which case it would make sense to question how everyone can be a borrower with no one on the other side of the equation. The short answer is that the debt is owed mostly to individuals and institutions that buy debt instruments. For example, you know those US savings bonds that parents are buying to save for their children's education? Well a bond is just a way to loan money to the Government in exchange for the original money plus some interest back later. It is as simple as that. I think because the debt and the deficit are usually discussed in the context of more complex macroeconomic concerns people often mistakenly assume that national debts are denominated in some shadow banking system that is hidden from the common person behind some red-tape covered bureaucracy. This is not the case here. Why did they get themselves into this much debt? The same reason the average person does, they are spending more than they bring in and are enabled by access to easy credit. Like many people they are also paying off one credit card using another one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d366215b375cef0820dc85e6d867f191", "text": "I agree that the cause of the crash can make a huge difference in the effect on the bond market. Here's a few other possibilities: All that to say that there's no definitive answer as to how the bond market will respond to an equity crash. Bonds are much more highly correlated to equities lately, but that could be due to much lower interest rates pushing more of the risk of bonds to the credit worthiness of the issuer, increasing correlation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49298734e5683df12355c7dbccf30bb4", "text": "\"The default scenario that we're talking about in the Summer of 2011 is a discretionary situation where the government refuses to borrow money over a certain level and thus becomes insolvent. That's an important distinction, because the US has the best credit in the world and still carries enormous borrowing power -- so much so that the massive increases in borrowing over the last decade of war and malaise have not affected the nation's ability to borrow additional money. From a personal finance point of view, my guess is that after the \"\"drop dead date\"\" disclosed by the Treasury, you'd have a period of chaos and increasing liquidity issues after government runs out of gimmicks like \"\"borrowing\"\" from various internal accounts and \"\"selling\"\" assets to government authorities. I don't think the markets believe that the Democrats and Republicans are really willing to destroy the country. If they are, the market doesn't like surprises.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbbf2a6b23742336462b8913f03a364a", "text": "\"Your argument is biased vastly in favor of the banks: Doesn't the simultaneous growth of the residential and commercial real estate pricing bubbles undermines the case made by yourself that Fannie and Freddie were at the root of the problem? Why does your explanation also leave out predatory lending? Or that during 2006, 22% of homes purchased (1.65 million units) were for investment purposes, with an additional 14% (1.07 million units) purchased as vacation homes. During 2005, these figures were 28% and 12%, respectively. In other words, a record level of nearly 40% of homes purchased were not intended as primary residences. Or that housing prices nearly doubled between 2000 and 2006, a vastly different trend from the historical appreciation at roughly the rate of inflation. Or that the proportion of subprime ARM loans made to people with credit scores high enough to qualify for conventional mortgages with better terms increased from 41% in 2000 to 61% by 2006. From wikipedia: So why did lending standards decline? In a Peabody Award winning program, NPR correspondents argued that a \"\"Giant Pool of Money\"\" (represented by $70 trillion in worldwide fixed income investments) sought higher yields than those offered by U.S. Treasury bonds early in the decade. Further, this pool of money had roughly doubled in size from 2000 to 2007, yet the supply of relatively safe, income generating investments had not grown as fast. Investment banks on Wall Street answered this demand with financial innovation such as the mortgage-backed security (MBS) and collateralized debt obligation (CDO), which were assigned safe ratings by the credit rating agencies. In effect, Wall Street connected this pool of money to the mortgage market in the U.S., with enormous fees accruing to those throughout the mortgage supply chain, from the mortgage broker selling the loans, to small banks that funded the brokers, to the giant investment banks behind them. By approximately 2003, the supply of mortgages originated at traditional lending standards had been exhausted. However, continued strong demand for MBS and CDO began to drive down lending standards, as long as mortgages could still be sold along the supply chain. Eventually, this speculative bubble proved unsustainable.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e06513ea6682d175b2be99e6ede27c69", "text": "The short answer is if you own a representative index of global bonds (say AGG) and global stocks (say ACWI) the bonds will generally only suffer minimally in even the medium large market crashes you describe. However, there are some caveats. Not all bonds will tend to react the same way. Bonds that are considered higher-yield (say BBB rated and below) tend to drop significantly in stock market crashes though not as much as stock markets themselves. Emerging market bonds can drop even more as weaker foreign currencies can drop in global crashes as well. Also, if a local market crash is caused by rampant inflation as in the US during the 70s-80s, bonds can crash at the same time as markets. There hasn't been a global crash caused by inflation after countries left the gold standard, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Still, I don't mean to scare you away from adding bond exposure to a stock portfolio as bonds tend to have low correlations with stocks and significant returns. Just be aware that these correlations can change over time (sometimes quickly) and depend on which stocks/bonds you invest in.", "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
500fe766e9e6c66eb149a38862df150d	For young (lower-mid class) investors what percentage should be in individual stocks?	[ { "docid": "54932d70e3156a5d564a63e0bdc9a1f4", "text": "\"The short answer: zero. dg99's answer gives some good reasons why. You will basically never be able to achieve diversification with individual stocks that is anywhere close to what you can get with mutual funds. Owning individual stocks exposes you to much greater risk in that random one-off events that happen to affect one of the companies you own can have a disproportionate effect on your assets. (For instance, some sort of scandal involving a particular company can cause its stock to tank.) There are only two reasons I can see to invest in individual stocks: a. You have some unique opportunity to acquire stock that other people might not be able to get (or get at that price). This can be the case if you work for a privately-held company that allows you to buy stock (or options), or allows you to participate in its IPO. Even then, you should not go too crazy, since having too much stock in the company you work for can double your pain if the company falls on hard times (you may lose your job and your investment). b. For fun. If you like tracking stocks and trying to beat the market, you may want to test your skills at this by using a small proportion of your investable cash (no more than 10%). In this case you're not so much hoping to increase your returns as to just enjoy investing more. This can also have a psychological benefit in that it allows you to \"\"blow off steam\"\" and indulge your desire to make decisions, while allowing your passive investments (index funds) to shoulder the load of actually gaining value.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ae55bf06b5b29598b4932492d995608", "text": "\"You should only invest in individual stocks if you truly understand the company's business model and follow its financial reports closely. Even then, individual stocks should represent only the tiniest, most \"\"adventurous\"\" part of your portfolio, as they are a huge risk. A basic investing principle is diversification. If you invest in a variety of financial instruments, then: (a) when some components of your portfolio are doing poorly, others will be doing well. Even in the case of significant economic downturns, when it seems like everything is doing poorly, there will be some investment sectors that are doing relatively better (such as bonds, physical real estate, precious metals). (b) over time, some components of your portfolio will gain more money than others, so every 6 or 12 months you can \"\"rebalance\"\" such that all components once again have the same % of money invested in them as when you began. You can do this either by selling off some of your well-performing assets to purchase more of your poorly-performing assets or (if you don't want to incur a taxable event) by introducing additional money from outside your portfolio. This essentially forces you to \"\"buy (relatively) low, sell (relatively) high\"\". Now, if you accept the above argument for diversification, then you should recognize that owning a handful (or even several handfuls) of individual stocks will not help you achieve diversification. Even if you buy one stock in the energy sector, one in consumer discretionary, one in financials, etc., then you're still massively exposed to the day-to-day fates of those individual companies. And if you invest solely in the US stock market, then when the US has a decline, your whole portfolio will decline. And if you don't buy any bonds, then again when the world has a downturn, your portfolio will decline. And so on ... That's why index mutual funds are so helpful. Someone else has already gone to the trouble of grouping together all the stocks or bonds of a certain \"\"type\"\" (small-cap/large-cap, domestic/foreign, value/growth) so all you have to do is pick the types you want until you feel you have the diversity you need. No more worrying about whether you've picked the \"\"right\"\" company to represent a particular sector. The fewer knobs there are to turn in your portfolio, the less chance there is for mistakes!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24bde5cc34ca02716339d0bb8a4accbc", "text": "I would not advise any stock-picking or other active management (even using mutual funds that are actively managed). There is a large body of knowledge that needs learning before you even attempt that. Stay passive with index funds (either ETFs or (even better) low-cost passive mutual funds (because these prevent you from buying/selling). But I have not problem saying you can invest 100% in equity as long as your stomach can handle the price swings. If you freek out after a 25% drop that does not recover within a year, so you sell at the market bottom, then you are better off staying with a lot less risk. It is personal. There are a lot of valid reasons for young people to accept more risk - and equally valid reason why not. See list at http://www.retailinvestor.org/saving.html#norisk", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7383dd763f68e1302c984a493b88e7fe", "text": "I don't believe the decision is decided by age or wealth. You only stock pick when a) you enjoy the process because it takes time and if you consider it 'work' then the cost will probably not be offset by higher returns. b) you must have the time to spend trading, monitoring, choosing, etc. c) you must have the skills/experience to 'bring something to the table' that you think gives you an edge over everyone else. If you don't then you will be the patsy that others make a profit off.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "d5e1bde29d805bce6086b8598a343c8b", "text": "This depends completely on your investing goals. Typically when saving for retirement younger investors aim for a more volatile and aggressive portfolio but diversify their portfolio with more cautious stocks/bonds as they near retirement. In other words, the volatility that owning a single stock brings may be in line with your goals if you can shoulder the risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46954434d854deff0918901928a5d57c", "text": "How much should a rational investor have in individual stocks? Probably none. An additional dollar invested in a ETF or low cost index fund comprised of many stocks will be far less risky than a specific stock. And you'd need a lot more capital to make buying, voting, and selling in individual stocks as if you were running your own personal index fund worthwhile. I think in index funds use weightings to make it easier to track the index without constantly trading. So my advice here is to allocate based not on some financial principal but just loss aversion. Don't gamble with more than you can afford to lose. Figure out how much of that 320k you need. It doesn't sound like you can actually afford to lose it all. So I'd say 5 percent and make sure that's funded from other equity holdings or you'll end up overweight in stocks.", "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": "32f8621bb2dbd2b0f0f4b28ba3bab59a", "text": "The only sensible reason to invest in individual stocks is if you have reason to think that they will perform better than the market as a whole. How are you to come to that conclusion other than by doing in-depth research into the stock and the company behind it? If you can't, or don't want to, reach that conclusion about particular stocks then you're better off putting your money into cheap index trackers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6e009ec30f69b32a49996716bf36410", "text": "\"The psychology of investing is fascinating. I buy a stock that's out of favor at $10, and sell half at a 400% profit, $50/share. Then another half at $100, figuring you don't ever lose taking a profit. Now my Apple shares are over $500, but I only have 100. The $10 purchase was risky as Apple pre-iPod wasn't a company that was guaranteed to survive. The only intelligent advice I can offer is to look at your holdings frequently, and ask, \"\"would I buy this stock today given its fundamentals and price?\"\" If you wouldn't buy it, you shouldn't hold it. (This is in contrast to the company ratings you see of buy, hold, sell. If I should hold it, but you shouldn't buy it to hold, that makes no sense to me.) Disclaimer - I am old and have decided stock picking is tough. Most of our retirement accounts are indexed to the S&P. Maybe 10% is in individual stocks. The amount my stocks lag the index is less than my friends spend going to Vegas, so I'm happy with the results. Most people would be far better off indexing than picking stocks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0aa78e92743857ed9109abd1c871a63c", "text": "That is absolute rubbish. Warren Buffet follows simple value and GARP tenants that literally anyone could follow if they had the discipline to do so. I have never once heard of an investment made by Warren Buffet that wasn't rooted in fundamentals and easy to understand. The concept is fairly simple as is the math, buying great companies trading at discounts to what they are worth due to market fluctuations, emotionality, or overreactions to key sectors etc. If I buy ABC corp at $10 knowing it is worth $20, it could go down or trade sideways for FIVE YEARS doing seemingly nothing and then one day catch up with its worth due to any number of factors. In that case, my 100% return which took five years to actualize accounts for an average 20% return per year. Also (and this should be obvious), but diversification is a double edged sword. Every year, hundreds of stocks individually beat the market return. Owning any one of these stocks as your only holding would mean that YOU beat the market. As you buy more stocks and diversify your return will get closer and closer to that of an index or mutual fund. My advice is to stick to fundamentals like value and GARP investing, learn to separate when the market is being silly from when it is responding to a genuine concern, do your own homework and analysis on the stocks you buy, BE PATIENT after buying stock that your analysis gives you confidence in, and don't over diversify. If you do these things, congrats. YOU ARE Warren Buffet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d58f98963f60b0132ca92e895b7293a", "text": "\"Wouldn't this be part of your investing strategy to know what price is considered a \"\"good\"\" price for the stock? If you are going to invest in company ABC, shouldn't you have some idea of whether the stock price of $30, $60, or $100 is the bargain price you want? I'd consider this part of the due diligence if you are picking individual stocks. Mutual funds can be a bit different in automatically doing fractional shares and not quite as easy to analyze as a company's financials in a sense. I'm more concerned with the fact that you don't seem to have a good idea of what the price is that you are willing to buy the stock so that you take advantage of the volatility of the market. ETFs would be similar to mutual funds in some ways though I'd probably consider the question that may be worth considering here is how much do you want to optimize the price you pay versus adding $x to your position each time. I'd probably consider estimating a ballpark and then setting the limit price somewhere within that. I wouldn't necessarily set it to the maximum price you'd be willing to pay unless you are trying to ride a \"\"hot\"\" ETF using some kind of momentum strategy. The downside of a momentum strategy is that it can take a while to work out the kinks and I don't use one though I do remember a columnist from MSN Money that did that kind of trading regularly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b78580b88a1a29dd3ce954b9a6d999d", "text": "I'm in a remarkably similar situation as yourself. I keep roughly 80% of my portfolio in low-cost ETFs (16% bond, 16% commodities, 48% stock), with about 20% in 6-8 individual stocks. Individual stocks are often overlooked by investors. The benefits of individual stock ownership are that you can avoid paying any holding or management fee (unlike ETFs and mutual funds). As long as you assess the fundamentals (P/B, P/E, PEG etc.) of the company you are buying, and don't over-trade, you can do quite well. I recommend semi-annual re-balancing among asset classes, and an individual stock check up. I've found over the years that my individual stocks outperform the S&P500 the vast majority of the time, although it often accompanied by an increase in volatility. Since you're limiting your stake to only 20%, the volatility is not really an issue.", "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": "eee03650200f5d1f81afdedae2ae5dfb", "text": "At 22 years old, you can afford to be invested 100% in the stock market. Like many others, I recommend that you consider low cost index funds if those are available in your 401(k) plan. Since your 401(k) contributions are usually made with each paycheck this gives you the added benefit of dollar cost averaging throughout your career. There used to be a common rule that you should put 100 minus your age as the percentage invested in the stock market and the rest in bonds, but with interest rates being so low, bonds have underperformed, so many experts now recommend 110 or even 120 minus your age for stocks percentage. My recommendation is that you wait until you are 40 and then move 25% into bonds, then increase it to 40% at 55 years old. At 65 I would jump to a 50-50 stock/bonds mix and when you start taking distributions I would move to a stable-value income portfolio. I also recommend that you roll your funds into a Vanguard IRA when you change jobs so that you take advantage of their low management fee index mutual funds (that have no fees for trading). You can pick whatever mix feels best for you, but at your age I would suggest a 50-50 mix between the S&P 500 (large cap) and the Russell 2000 (small cap). Those with quarterly rebalancing will put you a little ahead of the market with very little effort.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "271b245c66784da2295c00234b95afee", "text": "Not knowing the US laws at all, you should worry more about having the best stock portfolio and less about taxes. My 0,02€", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d69f5e6cf8b569f776788242ee66c6a8", "text": "\"Chris - you realize that when you buy a stock, the seller gets the money, not the company itself, unless of course, you bought IPO shares. And the amount you'd own would be such a small portion of the company, they don't know you exist. As far as morals go, if you wish to avoid certain stocks for this reason, look at the Socially Responsible funds that are out there. There are also funds that are targeted to certain religions and avoid alcohol and tobacco. The other choice is to invest in individual stocks which for the small investor is very tough and expensive. You'll spend more money to avoid the shares than these very shares are worth. Your proposal is interesting but impractical. In a portfolio of say $100K in the S&P, the bottom 400 stocks are disproportionately smaller amounts of money in those shares than the top 100. So we're talking $100 or less. You'd need to short 2 or 3 shares. Even at $1M in that fund, 20-30 shares shorted is pretty silly, no offense. Why not 'do the math' and during the year you purchase the fund, donate the amount you own in the \"\"bad\"\" companies to charity. And what littleadv said - that too.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e769761effd1d77533856624ea79940", "text": "If you have 100% of your money in one security that is inherently more risky than splitting your money 50/50 between two securities, regardless of the purported riskiness of the two securities. The calculations people use to justify their particular breed of diversification may carry some assumptions related risk/reward calculations. But these particular justifications don't change the fact that spreading your money across different assets protects your money from value variances of the individual assets. Splitting your $100 between Apple and Microsoft stock is probably less valuable (less well diversified) than splitting your money between Apple and Whole Foods stock but either way you're carrying less risk than putting all $100 in to Apple stock regardless of the assumed rates of return for any of these companies stock specifically. Edit: I'm sure the downvotes are because I didn't make a big deal about correlation and measuring correlation and standard deviations of returns and detailed portfolio theory. Measuring efficacy and justifying your particular allocations (that generally uses data from the past to project the future) is all well and good. Fact of the matter is, if you have 100% of your money in stock that's more stock risk than 25% in cash, 25% in bonds and 50% in stock would be because now you're in different asset classes. You can measure to your hearts delight the effects of splitting your money between different specific companies, or different industries, or different market capitalizations, or different countries or different fund managers or different whatever-metrics and doing any of those things will reduce your exposure to those specific allocations. It may be worth pointing out that currently the hot recommendation is a plain vanilla market tracking S&P 500 index fund (that just buys some of each of the 500 largest US companies without any consideration given to risk correlation) over standard deviation calculating actively managed funds. If you ask me that speaks volumes of the true efficacy of hyper analyzing the purported correlations of various securities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cacfa26102b736a50d8bc1bed41ad7c", "text": "\"Curious, are you asking about average, or the good numbers? The median family doesn't have $2500 to address an emergency. We are a nation of debtors, and spenders. A young couple at .8 is doing well. It means they saved 20% for a down payment, and just bought a house. Not too tough to buy with 5% down, have no other savings, and a student loan to put the debt to equity over 100%. Older people should be shooting for zero. I semi-retired at 50, and my mortgage is at about 8% of my net worth. 50% would be too high. Others 50+ should have at least 50% equity in their home and nearly half their \"\"number,\"\" the amount needed to retire. So, a target is 25% maximum. These numbers shouldn't impact you at all. You should plan wisely, spend frugally, and prioritize your goals. There are 'zero debt' people out there who make me look reckless, and others who invest in rentals with a goal of keeping them highly leveraged. Neither group is wrong, what's right for you is what lets you sleep at night.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d90fea8919eaee4e7a4053d3661257cb", "text": "You should have a separate business account. Mixing business and personal funds is a bad practice. Shop around, you should be able to find a bank that will let you open a free checking account, especially if you are going to have minimal activity (e.g. less than 20 of checks per month) and perhaps maintain a small balance (e.g. $100 or $500).", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
7935b6d2db03724aa9fbfc454b0d033a	A debt collector will not allow me to pay a debt, what steps should I take?	[ { "docid": "7e58afb664df28c7ccaa1640bc7d561a", "text": "This may not apply in your particular situation, but I think it's important to mention: When a debt collector doesn't act like a debt collector, it may be because they aren't actually a debt collector. It's certainly strange that someone called you to collect money from you, and when you asked for a simple document, they not only got off the phone quickly but they also told you the debt would be cancelled. That just doesn't make sense: Why would they cancel the debt? Why wouldn't they send you the document? My initial impression is that you were possibly being scammed. The scam can take on many forms: Whenever you are called by a debt collector (or someone pretending to be one), it's a good idea to verify their identity first. More info here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c76b97fce53688c272eebaeee2f0c8d", "text": "What you are describing here is the opposite of a problem: You're trying to contact a debt-collector to pay them money, but THEY'RE ignoring YOU and won't return your calls! LOL! All joking aside, having 'incidental' charges show up as negative marks on your credit history is an annoyance- thankfully you're not the first to deal with such problems, and there are processes in place to remedy the situation. Contact the credit bureau(s) on which the debt is listed, and file a petition to have it removed from your history. If everything that you say here is true, then it should be relatively easy. Edit: See here for Equifax's dispute resolution process- it sounds like you've already completed the first two steps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa9d259510819cd62f0e479e8728860b", "text": "\"You say your primary goal is to clean up your credit report, and you're willing to spend some cash to do it. OK. But beware: the law in this area is a funhouse mirror, everything works upside down and backwards. To start, let's be clear: Credit reports are not extortion to force you into paying. They are a historical record of your creditworthiness, and almost impossible to fix without altering history. Paying on this debt will affirm the old data was correct, and glue it to your report. Here's how credit reporting works for R-9 (sent to collections) amounts. The data is on your credit report for 7 years. The danger is in this clock being restarted. What will not restart the clock? Ignoring the debt, talking casusally to collectors, and the debt being sold from one collector to another. What will restart the clock? Acknowledging the debt formally, court judgment, paying the debt, or paying on the debt (obviously, paying acknowledges the debt.) Crazy! You could have a debt that's over 7 years old, pay it because you're a decent person, and BOOM! Clock restarts and 7 more years of bad luck. Even worse-- if they write-off or forgive any part of the debt, that's income and you'll need to pay income tax on it. Ugh! Like I say, the only way to remove a bad mark is to alter history. Simple fact: The collector doesn't care about your bad credit mark; he wants money. And it costs a lot of money, time and/or stress for both of you to demand they research it, negotiate, play phone-tag, and ultimately go to court. So this works very well (this is just the guts, you have to add all the who, what, where, signature block, formalities etc.): 1 Company and Customer absolutely disagree as to whether Customer owes Company this debt: (explicitly named debt with numbers and amount) 2 But Company and Customer both eagerly agree that the expense, time, and stress of research, negotiation, and litigation is burdensome for both of us. We both strongly desire a quick, final and no-fault solution. Therefore: 3 Parties agree Customer shall pay Company (acceptable fraction here). Payment within 30 days. To be acknowledged in writing by Company. 4 This shall be absolute and final resolution. 5 NO-FAULT. Parties agree this settlement resolves the matter in good faith. Parties agree this settlement is done for practical reasons, this bill has not been established as a valid debt, and any difference between billed and settled amount is not a canceled nor forgiven debt. 6 Neither party nor its assigns will make any adverse statements to third parties relating to this bill or agreement. Parties agree they have a continuous duty to remove adverse statements, and agree to do so within seven days of request. 7 Parties specifically agree no adverse mark nor any mark of any kind shall be placed on Customer's credit report; and in the event such a mark appears, Parties will disavow it continuously. Parties agree that a good credit report has a monetary value and specific impacts on a customer's life. 8 Jurisdiction of law shall be where the effects are felt, and that shall be (place of service) regarding the amounts of the bill proper. Severable, inseparable, counterparts, witness, signature lines blah blah. A collector is gonna sign this because it's free money and it's not tricky. What does this do? 1, 2 and 5 alter history to make the debt never have existed in the first place. To do this, it must formally answer the question of why the heck would you pay a debt that isn't real and you don't owe: out of sheer practicality; it's cheaper than Rogaine. This is your \"\"get out of jail free\"\" card both with the credit bureaus and the IRS. Of course, 3 gives the creditor motivation to go along with it. 6 says they can't burn your credit. 7 says it again and they're agreeing you can sue for cash money. 8 lets you pick the court. The collector won't get hung up on any of these since he can easily remove the bad mark. (don't be mad that they won't do it \"\"for free\"\", that's what 3 is for.) The key to getting them to take a settlement is to be reasonable and fair. Make sure the agreement works for them too. 6 says you can't badmouth them on social media. 4 and 5 says it can't be used against them. 8 throws them a bone by letting them sue in their home court for the bill they just settled (a right they already had). If it's medical, add \"\"HIPAA does not apply to this document\"\" to save them a ton of paperwork. Make it easy for them. You want the collector to take it to his boss and say \"\"this is pretty good. Do it.\"\" Don't send the money until their signed copy is in your hands. Then send promptly with an SASE for the receipt. Make it easy for them. This is on you. As far as \"\"getting them to send you an offer\"\", creditors are reluctant to mail things especially to people they don't think will pay, because it costs them money to write and send. So you may need to be proactive about running them down with your offer. Like I say, it's a funhouse mirror.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e18a6ca79cdbe05daed214257d18350c", "text": "\"This is somewhat unbelievable. I mean if you had a business of collecting debts, wouldn't you want to collect said debts? Rather than attempting to browbeat people with these delinquent debts into paying, you have someone volunteering to pay. Would you want to service that client? This would not happen in just about any other industry, but such is the lunacy of debt collecting. The big question is why do you need this cleared off your credit? If it is just for a credit score, it probably is not as important as your more recent entries. I would just wait it out, until 7 years has passed, and you can then write the reporting agencies to remove it from your credit. If you are attempting to buy a home or similarly large purpose and the mortgage company is insisting that you deal with this, then I would do the following: Write the company to address the issue. This has to be certified/return receipt requested. If they respond, pay it and insist that it be marked as paid in full on your credit. I would do this with a money order or cashiers check. Done. Dispute the charge with the credit reporting agencies, providing the documentation of no response. This should remove the item from your credit. Provide this documentation to the mortgage broker. This should remove any hangup they might have. Optional: Sue the company in small claims court. This will take a bit of time and money, but it should yield a profit. There was a post on here a few days ago about how to do this. Make part of any settlement to have your name cleared of the debt. It is counterproductive to fall into the trap of the pursuit of a perfect credit score. A person with a 750 often receives the same rate options as a person with 850. Also your relationship with a particular lender could trump your credit score. Currently I am \"\"enjoying\"\" the highest credit score of my life, over 820. Do you know how I did it? I got out of debt (including paying off the mortgage) and I have no intentions of ever going into debt for anything. So why does it matter? It is a bit ridiculous.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00bd09a0e1ad8996b87e451d0b0c0dd5", "text": "This doesn't seem to explain the odd behavior of the collector, but I wanted to point out that the debt collector might not actually own the debt. If this is the case then your creditor is still the original institution, and the collector may or may not be allowed to actually collect. Contact the original creditor and ask how you can pay off the debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e04a6a482c4d33b7cb0fdf8682ac7c1c", "text": "Send a well-documented payment to the original creditor. Do it in such a way that you would have the ability to prove that you sent a payment if they reject it. Should they reject it, demonstrate that to the credit reporting bureaus.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b4c8a00c2ccd550325c09cc501ffa17f", "text": "You can either write it off or pursue it. If you write it off I wouldn't do business with the client again, until they bring their balance owed to you back to zero. If you pursue it, try to reach out to the client and find out why they are not paying what they owe you and try to work out a deal with them if they seem negotiable. If they aren't negotiable then you could take the issue to court, but you'll only be proving a point by then.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aeb0c9abfaa7920728c48c36ff87c571", "text": "According to LegalZoom: If your debtor is unwilling to pay and you know they have the means, it's time to use your local sheriff. You have three options to collect: a bank levy, wage garnishment, or a real estate lien. It sounds like you'll need to reach out to your local police/sheriff's department and they can further help you out and get you your money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d2cba2470a3995bf4629d10ac0cb853", "text": "It looks like your visa being refused is entirely irrelevant. What happens in bankruptcy is that all the assets of the bankrupt entity are taken over, liquidated, and the proceeds are distributed to the creditors. You're one of the creditors, and as you've been told - the proceeds are not enough to pay all the creditors in full. This is quite common in bankruptcies. What you can do is sue in court and demand priority over other creditors, but... a. You're exactly the same as many other creditors (rest of the students), so why would you get a priority? b. Suing costs money and even if you get more, you'll pay way more for legal fees and expenses. What else can you do? If you paid with a credit card - your credit card company may be able to reverse charges. Sometimes that works, depending on how fast you move. If you paid with a check - your bank may similarly be able to stop payment on the check. This provided it hasn't been settled yet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "935727f455dbdcdac5aa776580a95ca5", "text": "The bank will sell your debt to a collection agency, that will then follow you everywhere you go and demand payment. They will put a negative notice on your credit report preventing you from getting any new credit, and might sue you in court and take over some or all of your assets through court judgement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "072994dbe625e6a32f9f58bd362b5233", "text": "There is no law requiring someone to return a refused check. You need to clarify whether this payment is to establish a retainer, or to pay for services rendered. Either way you should stop payment on the check and send them a certified letter explaining that you are stopping payment on the check because they refused it. If the payment is to establish a retainer, then the issue is simple: the lawyer requires $10,000 as a retainer before you can engage them and until then you have no relationship with them. If that is the amount they want, then less than that is not accepted. If the payment is for services rendered already and you owe them money, then it is a completely different situation. Refusing partial payment means they are getting ready to sue you. In a collection suit, the larger the amount is, the better. Normally, someone owed money will only refuse a partial payment if they anticipate having to sue the debtor and they want to maximize their leverage in case of a court judgement in their favor. A creditor has the right to refuse a partial payment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "add38ca7424072cd6aa0226650874a23", "text": "\"I had about $16k in student loans. I defaulted on the loans, and they got > passed to a collection type agency (OSCEOLA). These guys are as legitimate as a collection agency can be. One thing that I feel is very sketchy is when they were verifying my identity they said \"\"Does your Social Security Number end in ####. Is your Birthday Month/Day/Year.\"\" That is not sketchy. It would be sketchy for a caller to ask you to give that information; that's a common scheme for identity theft. OSCEOLA are following the rules on this one. My mom suggested I should consider applying for bankruptcy Won't help. Student loans can't be discharged in bankruptcy. You have the bankruptcy \"\"reform\"\" act passed during the Bush 43 regime for that. The loan itself is from school. What school? Contact them and ask for help. They may have washed their hands of your case when they turned over your file to OSCEOLA. Then again, they may not. It's worth finding out. Also, name and shame the school. Future applicants should be warned that they will do this. What can I do to aid in my negotiations with this company? Don't negotiate on the phone. You've discovered that they won't honor such negotiations. Ask for written communications sent by postal mail. Keep copies of everything, including both sides of the canceled checks you use to make payments (during the six months and in the future). Keep making the payments you agreed to in the conversation six months ago. Do not, EVER, ignore a letter from them. Do not, EVER, skip going to court if they send you a summons to appear. They count on people doing this. They can get a default judgement if you don't show up. Then you're well and truly screwed. What do you want? You want the $4K fee removed. If you want something else, figure out what it is. Here's what to do: Write them a polite letter explaining what you said here. Recount the conversation you had with their telephone agent where they said they would remove the $4K fee if you made payments. Recount the later conversation. If possible give the dates of both conversations and the names of the both agents. Explain the situation completely. Don't assume the recipient of your letter knows anything about your case. Include evidence that you made payments as agreed during the six months. If you were late or something, don't withhold that. Ask them to remove the extra $4K from your account, and ask for whatever else you want. Send the letter to them with a return receipt requested, or even registered mail. That will prevent them from claiming they didn't get it. And it will show them you're serious. Write a cover letter admitting your default, saying you relied on their negotiation to set things straight, and saying you're dismayed they aren't sticking to their word. The cover letter should ask for help sorting this out. Send copies of the letter with the cover letter to: Be sure to mark your letter to OSCEOLA \"\"cc\"\" all these folks, so they know you are asking for help. It can't hurt to call your congressional representative's office and ask to whom you should send the letter, and then address it by name. This is called Constituent Service, and they take pride in it. If you send this letter with copies you're letting them know you intend to fight. The collection agency may decide it's not worth the fight to get the $4K and decide to let it go. Again, if they call to pressure you, say you'd rather communicate in writing, and that they are not to call you by telephone. Then hang up. Should I hire a lawyer? Yes, but only if you get a court summons or if you don't get anywhere with this. You can give the lawyer all this paperwork I've suggested here, and it will help her come up to speed on your case. This is the kind of stuff the lawyer would do for you at well over $100 per hour. Is bankruptcy really an option Certainly not, unfortunately. Never forget that student lenders and their collection agencies are dangerous and clever predators. You are their lawful prey. They look at you, lick their chops, and think, \"\"food.\"\" Watch John Oliver's takedown of that industry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxUAntt1z2c Good luck and stay safe.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f1831a82af5d517f86b946c720d2d22", "text": "One issue is whether it is a scam or the collector has a right to collect. Another issue is the statute of limitations period on the debt. If it has expired, the creditor cannot get a court judgement against the borrower (if the borrower contests it). However, if the borrower makes a payment, or promises to pay, the time resets to zero, starting a new period subject to valid court action. In the U.S. the length of this period varies by state. (This period is different from the amount of time a debt can be listed on a credit report.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "959924b2f01c7bf14d53a264a04fd2ef", "text": "If you're reasonably sure that the client isn't acting in good faith and you have no intention of doing business with them again, you can still make back some of the money. Sell the debt to a collections agency if you don't want to go through the hassle of suing. Make sure they're actually ignoring you though. A friendly, non-confrontational phone call might jiggle something loose. Especially if you give them the option to set up some sort of payment plan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9de70bcd9812008c3cdf3d20cee28ba", "text": "I had a similar situation, except the debtor had no connection to us whatsoever, other than holding our phone number previously. We tried going through channels to deal with it, and had no success. At the end of the day, I was very abusive to the people calling, and forwarded the number to a very irritating destination.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe99b41d907d9b288aded1f73ee0df29", "text": "In month 9 you still owe $7,954.25. You need to pay that, plus the $250. At that line, you haven't made the payment, the rest of the line with next month's payment due. So you haven't paid the $242.47 in col 4.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8dd39c134b021fc7a9cdd1e9649d9123", "text": "\"Whether or not PayPal itself reports to the credit bureaus, the collector will. That said, you can demand the collector \"\"validate\"\" the debt, which if you were scammed could make for an interesting scenario - PayPal doesn't normally play the role of a creditor, so the very fact that you \"\"owe\"\" them money is an unusual situation in and of itself. I'm not entirely sure how they would go about validating that debt - They haven't provided you any goods or services, you don't have any form of loan outstanding with them... The legitimacy of the \"\"debt\"\" consists entirely of them siding with the other party in a he-said-she-said dispute. I'd be interested to hear what the collector replies with when you demand validation of the debt!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e24b171d757ef9cc138878484923fbde", "text": "\"You promised to pay the loan if he didn't. That was a commitment, and I recommend \"\"owning\"\" your choice and following it through to its conclusion, even if you never do that again. TLDR: You made a mistake: own it, keep your word, and embrace the lesson. Why? Because you keep your promises. (Nevermind that this is a rare time where your answer will be directly recorded, in your credit report.) This isn't moralism. I see this as a \"\"defining moment\"\" in a long game: 10 years down the road I'd like you to be wise, confident and unafraid in financial matters, with a healthy (if distant) relationship with our somewhat corrupt financial system. I know austerity stinks, but having a strong financial life will bring you a lot more money in the long run. Many are leaping to the conclusions that this is an \"\"EX-friend\"\" who did this deliberately. Don't assume this. For instance, it's quite possible your friend sold the (car?) at a dealer, who failed to pay off this note, or did and the lender botched the paperwork. And when the collector called, he told them that, thinking the collector would fix it, which they don't do. The point is, you don't know: your friend may be an innocent party here. Creditors generally don't report late payments to the credit bureaus until they're 30 days late. But as a co-signer, you're in a bad spot: you're liable for the payments, but they don't send you a bill. So when you hear about it, it's already nearly 30 days late. You don't get any extra grace period as a co-signer. So you need to make a payment right away to keep that from going 30 late, or if it's already 30 late, to keep it from going any later. If it is later determined that it was not necessary for you to make those payments, the lender should give them back to you. A less reputable lender may resist, and you may have to threaten small claims court, which is a great expense to them. Cheaper to pay you. They say France is the nation of love. They say America is the nation of commerce. So it's not surprising that here, people are quick to burn a lasting friendship over a temporary financial issue. Just saying, that isn't necessarily the right answer. I don't know about you, but my friends all have warts. Nobody's perfect. Financial issues are just another kind of wart. And financial life in America is hard, because we let commerce run amok. And because our obsession with it makes it a \"\"loaded\"\" issue and thus hard to talk about. Perhaps your friend is in trouble but the actual villain is a predatory lender. Point is, the friendship may be more important than this temporary adversity. The right answer may be to come together and figure out how to make it work. Yes, it's also possible he's a human leech who hops from person to person, charming them into cosigning for him. But to assume that right out of the gate is a bit silly. The first question I'd ask is \"\"where's the car?\"\" (If it's a car). Many lenders, especially those who loan to poor credit risks, put trackers in the car. They can tell you where it is, or at least, where it was last seen when the tracker stopped working. If that is a car dealer's lot, for instance, that would be very informative. Simply reaching out to the lender may get things moving, if there's just a paperwork issue behind this. Many people deal with life troubles by fleeing: they dread picking up the phone, they fearfully throw summons in the trash. This is a terrifying and miserable way to deal with such a situation. They learn nothing, and it's pure suffering. I prefer and recommend the opposite: turn into it, deal with it head-on, get ahead of it. Ask questions, google things, read, become an expert on the thing. Be the one calling the lender, not the other way round. This way it becomes a technical learning experience that's interesting and fun for you, and the lender is dreading your calls instead of the other way 'round. I've been sued. It sucked. But I took it on boldly, and and actually led the fight and strategy (albeit with counsel). And turned it around so he wound up paying my legal bills. HA! With that precious experience, I know exactly what to do... I don't fear being sued, or if absolutely necessary, suing. You might as well get the best financial education. You're paying the tuition!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a63d03786cd064808fb119a8a7f559e", "text": "\"You should hire a lawyer. The fact that they told you your personal information shows that they actually had it, and are not imposters, which is a good thing. The fact that they mislead you means that their intentions are not pure (which is not surprising coming from a collection agency of course). When dealing with collections (or any matter of significance for that matter), don't rely on their recording of the call, because they can always conveniently lose it. Make sure to write down every single detail discussed, including the date and time of the call, and the ID/name of the person on the other side. If possible - make your own recording (notifying them of it of course). It's too late to record the calls now, but do try to reconstruct as much information as possible to provide to your lawyer to deal with it. In the end of the day they will either provide you with the recording (and then you might be surprised to hear that what they said was not in fact what you thought they said, and it was just your wishful thinking, it is very possible to be indeed the case), or claim \"\"we lost it\"\" and then it will be a problem to either of you to prove who said what, but they'll have the better hand (having better lawyers) in convincing the court that you're the one trying to avoid paying your debts. That is why proper representation at all stages is important. As to the bankruptcy - it won't help for student loans, student loans is one of the very few types of debts you can't really run away from. You have to solve this, the sooner the better. Get a professional advice. For the future (and for the other readers) - you should have gotten the professional advice before defaulting on these loans, and certainly after the first call.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f835241b80adbd4d0bfb3452405ec9a", "text": "\"Time-Barred Debts and STATE STATUTES OF LIMITATION ON COLLECTING DEBTS are good places to start on the issues of what can be collected and for how long. What seems to be at issue is bankruptcy vs. time-barred debts vs. what creditors (original debt owners, not collection agencies or those who buy debt) can do. You should also check out The Fair Credit Reporting Act which governs some of the question. The Fair Credit Reporting Act and the section on time-barred debts applies to collection agencies, etc. (so-called debt owners as pointed out by @littleadv, since they buy debt from the creditors) not actual creditors (those the debt is/was originally owed to). Creditors (those to whom the debt was originally owed) have different rules than debt collectors and can do things debt collectors can't. State law generally governs what creditors, as original owners of the debt, can do legally and for how long. Bankruptcy Bankruptcy is a legal action that frees someone from paying all or part of debt owed (they are crying \"\"Uncle!\"\" and stating they don't have enough money to pay their creditors). On a credit report, accounts will generally be updated to show “included in bankruptcy\"\" or similar. Debt that is determined to still be owed often will be reduced in amount/payments. Time-barred Debts Time-barred debts are debts that are still owed, but cannot be collected through direct legal action (suing). Each state has its own statute of limitations on how long different types of debt can be collected by suing after initial default before being considered time-barred. This period is typically 3-6 years but a few states such as Kentucky allow much longer time periods (up to 15 years). Being a time-barred debt does NOT prevent a collector from contacting someone about a debt. Collectors can still try to collect a debt forever -- and probably will -- but they can't normally sue and collect payment once the statute of limitations period has passed. There are gotchas with time-barred debts regarding collection, however, which can make them still legally actionable. Making any payment, no matter how small, making a verbal commitment to pay or even acknowledging the time-barred debt is often enough to make the debt legally collectable, even if it would normally be past the statute of limitations for collection. This is again state-dependent, but it is a pitfall for many people. The process of making a debt collectable again is often called \"\"re-aging\"\". Re-aging essentially means the clock starts anew on the statute of limitations, extending the time that a creditor may use the courts to collect that debt. If someone is taken to court over a time-barred debt that is legally noncollectable (has not been legally re-aged), nothing happens to them. However, being time-barred does not prevent legal action in the sense that you still have to prove the debt is time-barred and noncollectable in court if your sued over it. Being time-barred does not mean the debt \"\"dissolves\"\". A debt is always owed unless the debt has been forgiven or discharged in bankruptcy court. This means that, combined with the ability of debt collectors to contact someone about out of statute debt and the pitfalls of re-aging, it is entirely possible for a debt collector to get a 20 year old debt actionable again. Also note that while someone is trying to dodge a debt to make it time-barred (e.g. by not paying anything), creditors and debt collectors can still take legal action to sue over the debt, and if they get a judgment against someone, this can extend the debt indefinitely. Judgements will eventually lapse, but often only after 10 years or more, and many states allow dormant judgements to be \"\"revived\"\" within that time period. Credit Reports Regarding credit reports, whether someone owes a debt and whether it appears on a credit report are two separate things. As previously stated, no debt \"\"dissolves\"\" or goes away unless some sort of legal action makes it so. As far as reporting is concerned, however, most \"\"bad\"\" credit stops being reported after seven years (by federal law). That is, accounts on a credit report will be deleted seven years from the original delinquency dates of the accounts regardless of being included in bankruptcy or as time-barred debt. This assumes no legal process allows the account to continue being reported (as is often the case with re-aging). As an FYI, a bankruptcy discharge date has nothing to do with when account information will be removed from your credit report. Note that some debts, such as tax liens, can be reported indefinitely. Should bankruptcy be considered? The decision to do bankruptcy is mostly a matter of how severe the debt is. If it is an extremely large amount and assets are very small, bankruptcy is a good route in so far as it will legally take care of a lot of loose ends and likely relieve most or all of the burden of actually owing the money. Credit-wise, 10 years is the maximum a bankruptcy (specifically) will appear on a credit report. Accounts may drop off a credit report before bankruptcy because they are past the seven years they can be legally reported. Debts owed to the state such as child support, student loans, income tax, etc. generally cannot be written off and aren't subject normal debt statute of limitations on collection. Finally, bad credit is bad credit -- there is likely to be little difference in terms of ability to get loans between bankruptcy and attempting to dodge legal action to make debts time-barred. If the debt is significant, bankruptcy may be the only sensible option.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1c688dafd3e05264c49cdd68c65874d", "text": "\"These agencies consolidate your debt and make it an easy monthly instalment for you. They also try to negotiate with credit cards. They do so for a fee. Other option is to not pay the debt. During this time , expect credit cards to keep sending you bills and reminders and ways to contact you. Once it is not paid for a significant amount of time ( 18 months ) , the lender will \"\"sell\"\" your debt to a collection agency. You will start getting bills from collection agencies. Collection agencies can settle for up to 40 % of the actual debt. So if you had 5 credit cards , you would have 5 different collection agencies trying to get in touch with you. You can call them and tell them that you cannot pay the full amount. They will offer you settlements which you can accept or decline. The longer the unpaid debt , the more the discount they will offer. One very important thing to remember is that the unpaid amount will be sent to you on a 1099-c form . This means you have to recognize this as income. It is applicable to the year when the debt is settled. In a nut shell , you owe 120,000. You don't pay. Credit cards keeps calling you. You don't pay. After 12-18 months , they handover your debt to collection agencies. Collection agencies will try to get in touch with you. Send you lawsuit letters. You call and settle for say 50,000. You pay off 50,000 in 2016. Your debt is settled. But wait you will get 1099-C forms from different agencies totaling 70,000 ( unpaid debt ). You will have to declare that as income and you will owe tax on that. Assuming say 30 % tax you will have to pay up 21,000 as tax to IRS assuming no other income for simplicity. SO what you did was pay up 50 + 21 = 71,000 and settled the debt of 120,000. Your credit score will be much better than if you never paid at all.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
a5ef1ce3e1b9adcf43a4ea4e8678c06a	At what point do index funds become unreliable?	[ { "docid": "54d8c9482978200445c2f0e391f4b6af", "text": "\"A great deal of analysis on this question relies on misunderstandings of the market or noticing trends that happened at the same time but were not caused by each other. Without knowing your view, I'll just give the basic idea. The amount of active management is self-correcting. The reason people have moved out of actively managed funds is that the funds have not been performing well. Their objective is to beat their benchmarks by profiting as they correct mispricing. They are performing poorly because there is too much money chasing too few mispricings. That is why the actively managed industry is shrinking. If it gets small enough, presumably those opportunities will become more abundant and mispricing correction will become more profitable. Then money will flow back into active funds. Relevant active management may not be what a lay person is thinking of. At the retail level, we are observing a shift to passive funds, but there is still plenty of money in other places. For example, pension and endowment funds normally have an objective of beating a market benchmark like the Russell 3000. As a result they are constantly trying to find opportunities to invest in active management that really can outperform. They represent a great deal of money and are nothing like the \"\"buy and forget\"\" stereotype we sometimes imagine. Moreover, hedge funds and propreitary trading shops explicitly and solely try to correct mispricings. They represent a very, very large bucket of money that is not shrinking. Active retail mutual funds and individual investors are not as relevant for pricing as we might think. More trading volume is not necessarily a good thing, nor is it the measure of market quality. One argument against passive funds is that passive funds don't trade much. Yet the volume of trading in the markets has risen dramatically over time as a result of technological improvements (algorithmic traders, mostly). They have out-competed certain market makers who used to make money on inefficiencies of the market. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Well, prices are more efficient now and it appears that these computers are more responsive to price-relevant information than people used to be. So even if trading volume does decrease, I see no reason to worry that prices will become less efficient. That's not the direction things have gone, even as passive investing has boomed. Overall, worries about passive investing rely on an assumption that there is not enough interest in and resources for making arbitrage profits to keep prices efficient. This is highly counterfactual and always will be. As long as people and institutions want money and have access to the markets, there will be plenty of resources allocated to price correction.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f5425400aa00739f218859eaffbd248", "text": "\"The argument you are making here is similar to the problem I have with the stronger forms of the efficient market hypothesis. That is if the market already has incorporated all of the information about the correct prices, then there's no reason to question any prices and then the prices never change. However, the mechanism through which the market incorporates this information is via the actors buying an selling based on what they see as the market being incorrect. The most basic concept of this problem (I think) starts with the idea that every investor is passive and they simply buy the market as one basket. So every paycheck, the index fund buys some more stock in the market in a completely static way. This means the demand for each stock is the same. No one is paying attention to the actual companies' performance so a poor performer's stock price never moves. The same for the high performer. The only thing moving prices is demand but that's always up at a more or less constant rate. This is a topic that has a lot of discussion lately in financial circles. Here are two articles about this topic but I'm not convinced the author is completely serious hence the \"\"worst-case scenario\"\" title. These are interesting reads but again, take this with a grain of salt. You should follow the links in the articles because they give a more nuanced understanding of each potential issue. One thing that's important is that the reality is nothing like what I outline above. One of the links in these articles that is interesting is the one that talks about how we now have more indexes than stocks on the US markets. The writer points to this as a problem in the first article, but think for a moment why that is. There are many different types of strategies that active managers follow in how they determine what goes in a fund based on different stock metrics. If a stocks P/E ratio drops below a critical level, for example, a number of indexes are going to sell it. Some might buy it. It's up to the investors (you and me) to pick which of these strategies we believe in. Another thing to consider is that active managers are losing their clients to the passive funds. They have a vested interest in attacking passive management.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e54e0f1c7850927cf99c179d785dde21", "text": "\"As more actively managed funds are driven out of the market, the pricing of individual stocks should become less rational. I.e. more stocks will become underpriced relative to their peers. As stock prices become less rational, the reward for active investing will increase, since it will become easier to \"\"pick a winner\"\". Eventually, the market will reach a new equilibrium where only active investors who are good enough to turn a profit will remain. Even then, passive investment will still do roughly as well as \"\"the market\"\" since it has low overhead and minimal investment lag. There is no reason to expect the system to collapse, since it is characterized primarily by negative feedback loops rather than positive feedback. The last few decades have seen a shift from active to passive investment because increased market transparency and efficiency have reduced the labor required to keep pricing rational. Basically, as people have gotten better at predicting stock performance, less active investment has been required to keep prices rational.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e683e94cf2644484ac1676cade3c202", "text": "\"private investors that don't have the time or expertise for active investment. This may be known as every private investor. An index fund ensures average returns. The bulk of active trading is done by private institutions with bucketloads of experts studying the markets and AI scraping every bit of data it can get (from the news, stock market, the weather reports, etc...). Because of that, to get above average returns an average percent of the time, singular private investors have to drastically beat the average large team of individuals/software. Now that index ETF are becoming so fashionable, could there be a tipping point at which the market signals that active investors send become so diluted that this \"\"index ETF parasitism\"\" collapses? How would this look like and would it affect only those who invest in index ETF or would it affect the stock market more generally? To make this question perhaps more on-topic: Is the fact (or presumption) that index ETF rely indirectly on active investment decisions by other market participants, as explained above, a known source of concern for personal investment? This is a well-covered topic. Some people think this will be an issue. Others point out that it is a hard issue to bootstrap. I gravitate to this view. A small active market can support a large number of passive investors. If the number of active investors ever got too low, the gains & likelihood of gains that could be made from being an active investor would rise and generate more active investors. Private investing makes sense in a few cases. One example is ethics. Some people may not want to be invested, even indirectly, in certain companies.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25ecfa8f3c795681212ee83de19234fc", "text": "Private investors as mutual funds are a minority of the market. Institutional investors make up a substantial portion of the long term holdings. These include pension funds, insurance companies, and even corporations managing their money, as well as individuals rich enough to actively manage their own investments. From Business Insider, with some aggregation: Numbers don't add to 100% because of rounding. Also, I pulled insurance out of household because it's not household managed. Another source is the Tax Policy Center, which shows that about 50% of corporate stock is owned by individuals (25%) and individually managed retirement accounts (25%). Another issue is that household can be a bit confusing. While some of these may be people choosing stocks and investing their money, this also includes Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP) and company founders. For example, Jeff Bezos owns about 17% of Amazon.com according to Wikipedia. That would show up under household even though that is not an investment account. Jeff Bezos is not going to sell his company and buy equity in an index fund. Anyway, the most generous description puts individuals as controlling about half of all stocks. Even if they switched all of that to index funds, the other half of stocks are still owned by others. In particular, about 26% is owned by institutional investors that actively manage their portfolios. In addition, day traders buy and sell stocks on a daily basis, not appearing in these numbers. Both active institutional investors and day traders would hop on misvalued stocks, either shorting the overvalued or buying the undervalued. It doesn't take that much of the market to control prices, so long as it is the active trading market. The passive market doesn't make frequent trades. They usually only need to buy or sell as money is invested or withdrawn. So while they dominate the ownership stake numbers, they are much lower on the trading volume numbers. TL;DR: there is more than enough active investment by organizations or individuals who would not switch to index funds to offset those that do. Unless that changes, this is not a big issue.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1f844c3721d14b0eb0bbbb2963e0852d", "text": "I researched quite a bit around this topic, and it seems that this is indeed false. Long ter asset growth does not converge to the compound interest rate of expected return. While it is true that standard deviations of annualized return decrease over time, because the asset value itself changes over time, the standard deviations of the total return actually increases. Thus, it is wrong to say that you can take increased risk because you have a longer time horizon. Source", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e16bf72b7e84e7aac3a2eb57a804450", "text": "\"This falls under value investing, and value investing has only recently picked up study by academia, say, at the turn of the millennium; therefore, there isn't much rigorous on value investing in academia, but it has started. However, we can describe valuations: In short, valuations are randomly distributed in a log-Variance Gamma fashion with some reason & nonsense mixed in. You can check for yourself on finviz. You can basically download the entire US market and then some, with many financial and technical characteristics all in one spreadsheet. Re Fisher: He was tied for the best monetary economist of the 20th century and created the best price index, but as for stocks, he said this famous quote 12 days before the 1929 crash: \"\"Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau. I do not feel there will be soon if ever a 50 or 60 point break from present levels, such as (bears) have predicted. I expect to see the stock market a good deal higher within a few months.\"\" - Irving Fisher, Ph.D. in economics, Oct. 17, 1929 EDIT Value investing has almost always been ignored by academia. Irving Fisher and other proponents of it before it was codified by Graham in the mid 20th century certainly didn't help with comments like the above. It was almost always believed that it was a sucker's game, \"\"the bigger sucker\"\" game to be more precise because value investors get destroyed during recession/collapses. So even though a recessionless economy would allow value investors and everyone never to suffer spontaneous collapses, value investors are looked down upon by academia because of the inevitable yet nearly always transitory collapse. This expresses that sentiment perfectly. It didn't help that Benjamin Graham didn't care about money so never reached the heights of Buffett who frequently alternates with Bill Gates as the richest person on the planet. Buffett has given much credibility, and academia finally caught on around in 2000 or so after he was proven right about a pending tech collapse that nearly no one believed would happen; at least, that's where I begin seeing papers being published delving into value concepts. If one looks harder, academia's even taken the torch and discovered some very useful tools. Yes, investment firms and fellow value investors kept up the information publishing, but they are not academics. The days of professors throwing darts at the stock listings and beating active managers despite most active managers losing to the market anyways really held back this side of academia until Buffett entered the fray and embarrassed them all with his club's performance, culminating in the Superinvestors article which is still relatively ignored. Before that, it was the obsession with beta, the ratio of a security's variance to its covariance to the market, a now abandoned theory because it has been utterly discredited; the popularizers of beta have humorously embraced the P/B, not giving the satisfaction to Buffet by spurning the P/E. Tiny technology firms receive ridiculous valuations because a long-surviving tiny tech firm usually doesn't stay small for long thus will grow at huge rates. This is why any solvent and many insolvent tech firms receive large valuations: risk-adjusted, they should pay out huge on average. Still, most fall by the wayside dead, and those 100 P/S valuations quickly crumble. Valuations are influenced by growth. One can see this expressed more easily with a growing perpetuity: Where P is price, i is income, r is the rate of return, and g is the growth rate of i. Rearranging, r looks like: Here, one can see that a higher P relative to i will dull the expected rate of return while a higher g will boost it. It's fun for us value investor/traders to say that the market is totally inefficient. That's a stretch. It's not perfectly inefficient, but it's efficient. Valuations are clustered very tightly around the median, but there are mistakes that even us little guys can exploit and teach the smart money a lesson or two. If one were to look at a distribution of rs, one'd see that they're even more tightly packed. So while it looks like P/Es are all over the place industry to industry, rs are much more well clustered. Tech, finance, and discretionaries frequently have higher growth rates so higher P/Es yet average rs. Utilities and non-discretionaries have lower growth rates so lower P/Es yet average rs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ff85e09a474f0d9e101faea6f81b394", "text": "If you throw up a 20 year chart on the 10 year you can see it isn't fluctuating around 2%. It happens to be at 2% now but it has been relentlessly driving lower for at least 20 years. My own personal biased opinion is that it is a market infested with ultra-wealthy people who aren't looking for returns. They just basically want to maintain what they already sucked out of the system.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fe88507bbc13e2adef09b375816123b", "text": "\"Being long the S&P Index ETF you can expect to make money. The index itself will never \"\"crash\"\" because the individual stocks in it are simply removed when they begin performing badly. This is not to say that the S&P Index won't lose 80% of its value in an instant (or over a few trading sessions if circuit breakers are considered), but even in the 2008 correction, the S&P still traded far above book value. With this in mind, you have to realize, that despite common sentiment, the indexes are hardly representative of \"\"the market\"\". They are just a derivative, and as you might be aware, derivatives can enable financial tricks far removed from reality. Regarding index funds, if a small group of people decide that 401k's are performing badly, then they will simply rebalance the components of the indexes with companies that are doing well. The headline will be \"\"S&P makes ANOTHER record high today\"\" So although panic selling can disrupt the order book, especially during periods of illiquidity, with the current structure \"\"the stock market\"\" being based off of three composite indexes, can never crash, because there will always exist a company that is not exposed to broad market fluctuations and will be performing better by fundamentals and share price. Similarly, you collect dividends from the index ETFs. You can also sell covered calls on your holdings. The CBOE has a chart through the 2008 crisis showing your theoretical profit and loss if you sold calls 2 standard deviations out of the money, at every monthly interval. If you are going to be holding an index ETF for a long time, then you shouldn't be concerned about its share price at all, since the returns would be pretty abysmal either way, but it should suffice for hedging inflation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22901303846ca60835b18ec9e5f5cbc3", "text": "By all measures, the U.S. stock market is currently frothy. The apparent stability of the world financial system is superficial – financial asset prices are not real, the equilibrium is temporary, the lack of volatility is a trap, and when the whole thing goes haywire, there will truly be hell to pay.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "247dfb2dc3b33e6a52abd129f07abd93", "text": "The volatility of an index fund should usually be a lot lower than that of an individual stock. However even with a broad index fund you should consider the fact that being down by 10% in the time frame you refer to is quite possible! So is being up by 10% of course. A corporate bond might be a better choice if you can find one you trust.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37fe0e231579670b8da116d8a164aff4", "text": "great example of levered tracking error is any 2x/3x VIX etf. during periods of high volatility (like last week) you will be able to realize much higher returns on the underlying index as the levered and inverse ETFs are unable to replicate their intended performance using market securities. it is not uncommon to see the VIX up ~30% with levered ETFs only netting ~10-12% as opposed to the intended 60 or 90%, for example", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bae2ad702ebc1440fa3a7f006e568fe8", "text": "\"The problem with the proposed plan is the word \"\"inevitable\"\". There is no such thing as a recovery that is guaranteed (though we may wish it to be so), and even if there was there is no telling how long it will take for a recovery to occur to a sufficient degree. There are also no foolproof ways to determine when you have hit the bottom. For historical examples, consider the Nikkei. In 2000 the value fell from 20000 to 15000 in a single year. Had you bought then, you would have found the market still fell and didn't get back to 15k until 2005...where it went up and down for years, when in 2008 it fell again and would not get back to that level again until 2014. Lest you think this was an isolated international incident, the same issues happened to the S&P in 2002, where things went up until they fell even lower in 2009 before finally climbing again. Will there be another recession at some point? Surely. Will there be a single, double, or triple dip, and at what point is the true bottom - and will it take 5, 10, or 20+ years for things to get back above when you bought? No one really knows, and we can only guess. So if you want to double down after a recession, you can, but it's important you not fool yourself into thinking you aren't greatly increasing your risk exposure, because you are.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f721f620e679c516aabc50115b8c3d77", "text": "If you are investing for 10 years, then you just keep buying at whatever price the fund is at. This is called dollar-cost averaging. If the fund is declining in value from when you first bought it, then when you buy more, the AVERAGE price you bought in at is now lower. So therefore your losses are lower AND when it goes back up you will make more. Even if it continues to decline in value then you keep adding more money in periodically, eventually your position will be so large that on the first uptick you will have a huge percent gain. Anyway this is only suggested because you are in it for 10 years. Other people's investment goals vary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c2dde5217bba8832a2d722576b1c794", "text": "\"Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. How about Enron? GM? WorldCom? Lehman Brothers? Those are just a few of the many stocks that went to 0. Even stock in solvent companies have an \"\"all-time high\"\" that it will never reach again. Please explain to my why my thought is [in]correct. It is based on flawed assumptions, specifically that stock always regain any losses from any point in time. This is not true. Stocks go up and down - sometimes that have losses that are never made up, even if they don't go bankrupt. If your argument is that you should cash out any gains regardless of size, and you will \"\"never lose\"\", I would argue that you might have very small gains in most cases, but there are still times where you are going to lose value and never regain it, and those losses can easily wipe out any gains you've made. Never bought stocks and if I try something stupid I'll lose my money, so why not ask the professionals first..? If you really believe that you \"\"can't lose\"\" in the stock market then do NOT buy individual stocks. You may as well buy a lottery ticket (not really, those are actually worthless). Stick to index funds or other stable investments that don't rely on the performance of a single company and its management. Yes, diversification reduces (not eliminates) risk of losses. Yes, chasing unreasonable gains can cause you to lose. But what is a \"\"reasonable gain\"\"? Why is your \"\"guaranteed\"\" X% gain better than the \"\"unreasonable\"\" Y% gain? How do you know what a \"\"reasonable\"\" gain for an individual stock is?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d9810fb83e7253b932c4b16a16d9e55", "text": "\"Yes, many hedge funds (for example) did not survive 2008-2009. But hedge funds were failing both before and after that period, and other hedge funds thrived. Those types of funds are particularly risky because they depend so much on leverage (i.e. on money that isn't actually theirs). More publically-visible funds (like those of the big-name index fund companies) tended not to close because they are not leveraged. You say that \"\"a great many companies\"\" failed during the recession, but that's not actually true. I can't think of more than a handful of publically-traded companies that went bankrupt. So, since the vast majority of publically-traded companies stayed in business, their stocks kept some/most of their value, and the funds that owned those stocks stayed afloat. I personally did not see a single index fund that went out of business due to the recession.\"", "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": "6241d19ae4f4a34d2000f940bf82e549", "text": "The issue is the time frame. With a one year investment horizon the only way for a fund manager to be confident that they are not going to lose their shirt is to invest your money in ultra conservative low volatility investments. Otherwise a year like 2008 in the US stock market would break them. Note if you are willing to expand your payback time period to multiple years then you are essentially looking at an annuity and it's market loss rider. Of course those contacts are always structured such that the insurance company is extremely confident that they will be able to make more in the market than they are promising to pay back (multiple decade time horizons).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7129104fb2ab770f186c5882f2e6074c", "text": "\"when the index is altered to include new players/exclude old ones, the fund also adjusts The largest and (I would say) most important index funds are whole-market funds, like \"\"all-world-ex-US\"\", or VT \"\"Total World Stock\"\", or \"\"All Japan\"\". (And similarly for bonds, REITS, etc.) So companies don't leave or enter these indexes very often, and when they do (by an initial offering or bankruptcy) it is often at a pretty small value. Some older indices like the DJIA are a bit more arbitrary but these are generally not things that index funds would try to match. More narrow sector or country indices can have more of this effect, and I believe some investors have made a living from index arbitrage. However well run index funds don't need to just blindly play along with this. You need to remember that an index fund doesn't need to hold precisely every company in the index, they just need to sample such that they will perform very similarly to the index. The 500th-largest company in the S&P 500 is not likely to have all that much of an effect on the overall performance of the index, and it's likely to be fairly correlated to other companies in similar sectors, which are also covered by the index. So if there is a bit of churn around the bottom of the index, it doesn't necessarily mean the fund needs to be buying and selling on each transition. If I recall correctly it's been shown that holding about 250 stocks gives you a very good match with the entire US stock market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88df300e6b133556974c6289f78c352f", "text": "The only way for a mutual fund to default is if it inflated the NAV. I.e.: it reports that its investments worth more than they really are. Then, in case of a run on the fund, it may end up defaulting since it won't have the money to redeem shares at the NAV it published. When does it happen? When the fund is mismanaged or is a scam. This happened, for example, to the fund Madoff was managing. This is generally a sign of a Ponzi scheme or embezzlement. How can you ensure the funds you invest in are not affected by this? You'll have to read the fund reports, check the independent auditors' reports and check for clues. Generally, this is the job of the SEC - that's what they do as regulators. But for smaller funds, and private (i.e.: not public) investment companies, SEC may not be posing too much regulations.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
e96f68a42cb149716460e4f0894a1aaa	Should I finance a new home theater at 0% even though I have the cash for it?	[ { "docid": "b04cf8e1ff7f2441173d8a4de3017461", "text": "\"Be very careful with this. When we tried this with furniture, they charged an \"\"administrative\"\" fee to setup the account. I believe it was about $75. So if you defer interest for one year on a $1000 purchase and pay a $75 administrative fee, it's 7.5% interest. Also, they don't always send you a bill when it's due, they just let you go over the date when you could have paid it without paying interest, and then you owe interest from the date of purchase. These plans are slimy. Be careful.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4d9b4643ff543beead589bc07cf7501", "text": "\"I think so. I am doing this with our furniture. It doesn't cost me any more money to pay right now than it will to pay over the course of 3 years, and I can earn interest on the money I didn't spend. But know this: they aren't offering 0%, they are deferring interest for 3 years. If you pay it off before then great, if you don't you will owe all the accumulated interest. The key with these is that you always pay it, and on time. Miss a payment and you get hosed. If you don't pay on time you will owe the interest that is being deferred. They will also be financing this through a third party (like a major bank) and that company is now \"\"doing business with you\"\" which means in the US they can call you and solicit new services. I am willing to deal with those trade offs though, plus, as you say, you can always pay it off. WHY THEY DO IT (what is in it for them...) A friend of mine works for a major bank that often finances these deals here is how they work. Basically, banks do this to generate leads for their divisions that do cold calls. If you are a high credit, high income customer you go to a classic bank and request cash, if you are building credit or have bad credit, you go to a \"\"financial services\"\" branch. If you tend to finance things like cars and furniture, you get more cold calls.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7523c0c096626ffb0b416e5d7207a48", "text": "Debt creates risk. The more debt you take on, the higher your risk. What happens if you lose your job, miss a payment, or forget to write the final payment check for the exact amount needed, and are left with a balance of $1 (meaning the back-dated interest would be applied)? There is too much risk for little reward? If you paid monthly at 0% and put your money in your savings account like you mentioned, how much interest would you really accrue? Probably not much, since savings account rates suck right now. If you can pay cash for it now, do it. So pay cash now and own it outright. Why prolong it? Is there something looming in the future that you think will require your money? If so, I would put off the purchase. No one can predict the future. Why not pay cash for it now, and pay yourself what would have been the monthly payment? In three years, you have your money back. And there is no risk at all. Also, when making large purchases with cash, you can sometimes get better discounts if you ask.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7891742e951e44da311b3790f34793ac", "text": "\"You should look at the opportunity cost for your money (i.e. what kind of return it could generate otherwise). We took advantage of these types of offer (zero interest for x months) in the past with the goal to redirect the money to the mortgage (it was 7.5% back then) and we made sure we don't get hosed by the surprisingly high interest rate by having a big reminder in the bulletin board in the kitchen to make sure we pay off the money before the interest rate kicks in. So we basically reduced our interest on the mortgage during that period. Oh - we use an all-in-one account (Manulife One) so that was real nice. I would stay away from those \"\"interest-deferred\"\" offers - it's totally not worth it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41fdc304172ec2f72ca589e47eb4acf4", "text": "I think most people have already answered this one pretty well. (It's usually worth it, as long as you pay it off before the interest kicks in, and you don't get hit with any fees.) I just wanted to add one thing that no one else has pointed out: Applying for the loan usually counts as a hard pull on your credit history. It also changes your Debt-to-income ratio (DTI). This can negatively impact your credit score. Usually, the credit score impact for these (relatively) small loans isn't that much. And your score will rebound over time. However, if it makes your score drop below a certain threshold, (e.g. FICO dips below 700), it could trip you up if you are also applying for other sources of credit in the immediate future. Not a big deal, but it is something to keep in mind.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d443125db4c2e83b1348b20603f284f", "text": "I have abused 0% interest programs time and time again, but only because my wife and I are assiduous about paying our bills on time. We've mostly taken advantage of it with bigger purchases that we've done through Lowe's or Home Depot (eg - washing machines, carpeting, stove, fridge), but its been well worth it. There are two rules that we set for ourselves whenever we do a 0% interest program -- 1) We have the money already in savings so that we can easily pay it off at any time 2) We agree to pay our monthly bill on time There's nothing quite like using another person's money to buy your things, while keeping your money to gain interest in a savings account.", "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": "" }, { "docid": "fc8424217a86294ba50e8a485dea0f79", "text": "\"Pay cash. You have the cash to pay for it now, but God forbid something happen to you or your wife that requires you to dip into that cash in the future. In such an event, you could end up paying a lot more for your home theater than you planned. The best way to keep your consumer credit card debt at zero (and protect your already-excellent credit) is to not add to the number of credit cards you already have. At least in the U.S., interest rates on saving accounts of any sort are so low, I don't think it's worthwhile to include as a deciding factor in whether not you \"\"borrow\"\" at 0% instead of buying in cash.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45a2171ad40bfae8c434faf68c330c3b", "text": "I won't repeat what's already been said, but I agree that it's a good move to take advantage of the free financing so long as you read the fine print carefully, keep the money designated to pay off this debt and not use it for anything else, and make sure to pay it off before you get smacked with some bad interest. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that this kind of offer can help build credit. You mentioned that you already have excellent credit, but for someone who has good credit, this could be an account that, if used carefully, could give their credit a boost by adding to their history of on-time payments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "072ab5a8527fb892849afb4c791d89f7", "text": "\"If you do it, be sure to read what you sign. They'll sign you up on some type of \"\"credit insurance\"\" and not tell you about it. It costs like $10 a month. If you don't sign up for that, you should be fine. I bought my HDTV this way, though I wish I would have saved and paid up front. I'm moving more towards the \"\"cash only\"\" mindset.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "970b5d548b673f4ad36ee20744f1f246", "text": "I bought a Thinkpad in Dec 2007 using BillMeLater, which was working with IBM/Lenovo at that time. I was getting the notebook at the lowest price available, from the manufacturer. I had the money to pay for it -- around $1400. But I went ahead and took the offer from BillMeLater. It was essentially a 12-month zero-interest credit card balance transfer loan. Sketchy bit its very nature. They spammed my inbox with solicitations, which was annoying. But I set my bank to pay the monthly amount (or slightly over, since it decreases each month) and to make the final payoff -- all at the time of purchase. This worked just fine -- but I still had spam from BillMeLater for quite a while. I still ran a slight risk that something would go wrong, at which point I'd face interest charges -- but I would then have paid off the item plus those interest charges. Luckily I avoided that. I'm not sure I'd bother doing this again, but if the sticker price was high enough, I might be tempted....", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4587dc621c938b566c4374e77c0e9888", "text": "Zero percent interest may sound great, but those deals often have extra margin built into the price to make up for it. If you see 0%, find it cheaper somewhere else and avoid the cloud over your head.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0e8debfc203f22a12d590298baf6ce5", "text": "I would never consider such an offer. As has already been mentioned, there are likely to be hidden costs and the future is never certain. If you feel that you are missing out, then negociate a lower purchase price now. People often forget that something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. With any significant purchase it's always worth bargaining.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7bea73bdc586c06b219ff1563f511dc", "text": "Read the fine print and you will be fine. The big caveat is that if you miss a payment for any reason, you will be in default as far as the promotional financing is concerned and will typically owe ALL of the accrued interest, which is usually computed at 20-25% per year. Personally, I use these sorts of offers all of the time at places like Home Depot for stuff that doesn't generally need warranty service. (Wood, tools, etc) Usually I pay the thing off over time as CDs mature. If I'm buying a TV, computer, etc. I always use my AMEX, because I get an extra year of warranty service and points for free.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "12262c326568149698533a3c185be27c", "text": "If a shop offers 0% interest for purchase, someone is paying for it. e.g., If you buy a $X item at 0% interest for 12 months, you should be able to negotiate a lower cash price for that purchase. If the store is paying 3% to the lender, then techincally, you should be able to bring the price down by at least 2% to 3% if you pay cash upfront. I'm not sure how it works in other countries or other purchases, but I negotiated my car purchase for the dealer's low interest rate deal, and then re-negotiated with my preapproved loan. Saved a good chunk on that final price!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f582e0ac48d6814598329f1322f4530", "text": "I'm going to be buying a house / car / home theater system in the next few months, and this loan would show up on my credit report and negatively impact my score, making me unable to get the financing that I'll need.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "990df5d54f35fc76dac95ac6c32c752c", "text": "\"Another problem with this plan (assuming you get past Rocky's answer somehow) is that you assume that $50K in construction costs will translate to $50K in increased value. That's not always true; the ROI on home improvements is usually a lot less than 100%. You'd also owe more property taxes on your improvements, which would cut into your plan somewhat. But you also can't keep doing this forever. Soon enough, you'd run out of physical and/or legal space to keep adding additions to the house (zoning tends to limit how much you can build, unless you're in the middle of nowhere, and eventually you'd fill the lot), even if you did manage to keep obtaining more and more loans. And you'd quickly reach the point of diminishing returns on your expansions. Many homebuyers might be prepared to pay more for a third or fourth bedroom, but vanishingly few in most markets will pay substantially more for a second billiards room or a third home theater. At some point, your house isn't a mansion, it's \"\"that ridiculous castle\"\" only an eccentric would want, and the pool of potential buyers (and the price they'll pay for it) diminishes. And the lender, not being stupid, isn't going to go on financing your creation of a monstrosity, because they are the ones who will be stuck with the place if you default.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd508c9d6eff76049f2b5331cef55715", "text": "Two cases: You take the credit and reinvest the cash equivalent (be it a savings account or otherwise), yielding you the x% at virtually zero risk. Unless of course you consider possibility of your own negligence a risk (in case of missed payments, etc.). You pay by cash and have the peace of mind at the cost of that x%. The ultimate decision depends on which you value more - the $ you get from x%, or the peace of mind.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e042485852dc24651d7e8ebc3a6289e4", "text": "\"Yes, a HELOC is great for that. I just had my roof done last month (~$15K, \"\"ugh\"\") and pretty much every major contractor in my area had a 0% same-as-cash for at least 12 months. So that helps - any balance that I don't bank by 11/15/2015 will be on the HELOC.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d917c533e1f467fdc043cc786853554", "text": "The ROI percentage becomes a meaningless figure at that point and would either be infinite or a very large number if you assume an equity investment of $1 or $0.01. At that point it's obviously a lucrative deal as long as it works out so the bigger question is what are the risks of it not working out and what's the ROIC.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1c518e8ea450af1759d301a37bb17aa", "text": "This bit of marketing, like the zero-percent introductory rates some banks offer, is intended to make you more willing to carry a balance, and they're hoping you'll continue that bad habit after the rate goes back up. If you don't think you'll be tempted by the lower rate, yhere's no reason not to accept (unless there's something in the fine print that changes your agreement in other ways; read carefully). But as you say, there's no reason to accept ir either. I'd ignore it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9360d30fe1116cbfbd238ffdb702853f", "text": "\"When you refinance, there is cost (guess: around $2000-$3000) to cover lawyers, paperwork, surveys, deed insurance, etc. etc. etc. Someone has to pay that cost, and in the end it will be you. Even if you get a \"\"no points no cost\"\" loan, the cost is going to be hidden in the interest rate. That's the way transactions with knowledgeable companies works: they do business because they benefit (profit) from it. The expectation is that what they need is different from what you need, so that each of you benefits. But, when it's a primarily cash transaction, you can't both end up with more money. So, unless value will be created somewhere else from the process (and don't include the +cash, because that ends up tacked onto the principle), this seems like paying for financial entertainment, and there are better ways to do that.\"", "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": "37eefec0f97bf0090dbd8ec66afcbf52", "text": "\"A bank may not like loaning money to you for this. That is one snag. You listed 500,000-600,000$ for a monster of a house (3000 sqft is over three times the average size of homes a hundred years ago). Add in the price of the land at 60K (600K divided ten ways). Where I live, there is a 15% VAT tax on new homes. I can't find out if California imposes a VAT tax on new homes. Anyway, returning back to the topic, because of the risk of loaning you 660K for a piece of land and construction, the bank may only let you borrow half or less of the final expected cost (not value). Another huge snag is that you say in a comment to quid \"\"I came up with this conclusion after talking to someone who had his property built in early 2000s in bay area for that average price\"\". Let's apply 3% inflation over 15 years to that number of 200$/sqft. That brings the range for construction costs to 780K-930K. Even at 2% inflation 670K-810K. Edit: OP later expanded the question making it an inquiry on why people don't collaborate to buy a plot of land and build their homes. \"\"Back in the day\"\" this wasn't all that atypical! For example, my pastor's parents did just this when he was a young lad. Apart from the individual issues mentioned above, there are sociological challenges that arrive. Examples: These are the easy questions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2afc463c2de196296f20f632d9d0fe12", "text": "If you're getting 0% on the financing, it's not costing you anything to borrow that money. So its basically free money. If you are comfortable with the monthly payments, consider going with no downpayment at all. Keep that money aside for a rainy day, or invest it somewhere so that you get some return on it. If you need to lower the payments later you can always use that money to pay down part of the loan later (check with the dealer that it is an open loan). If you're not comfortable with the payments at 0 down, put enough down to bring the monthly payment to a level where you are comfortable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "086c40bd3fcff9179d9481f38223059b", "text": "The crucial question not addressed by other answers is your ability to repay the debt. Borrowing is always about leverage, and leverage is always about risk. In the home improvement loan case, default comes with dire consequences-- to extinguish the debt you might have to sell your home. With a stable job, reliable income, and sufficient cash flow (and, of course, comfort that the project will yield benefits you're happy to pay for), then the clear answer is, go ahead and borrow. But if you work in a highly cyclical industry, have very little cash saved, or for whatever other reason are uncertain about your future ability to pay, then don't borrow. Save until you are more comfortable you can handle the loan. That doesn't necessarily mean save ALL the money; just save enough that you are highly confident in your ability to pay whatever you borrow.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5de97a1bc0bbdec7f2e311fbfba9d0bd", "text": "\"Be careful that pride is not getting in the way of making a good decision. As it stands now what difference does it make to have 200K worth of debt and a 200K house or 225K of debt and a 250K house? Sure you would have a 25K higher net worth, but is that really important? Some may even argue that such an increase is not real as equity in primary residence might not be a good indication of wealth. While there is nothing wrong with sitting down with a banker, most are likely to see your scheme as dubious. Home improvements rarely have a 100% ROI and almost never have a 200% ROI, I'd say you'd be pretty lucky to get a 65% ROI. That is not to say they will deny you. The banks are in the business of lending money, and have the goal of taking as much of your hard earned paycheck as possible. They are always looking to \"\"sheer the sheep\"\". Why not take a more systematic approach to improving your home? Save up and pay cash as these don't seem to cause significant discomfort. With that size budget and some elbow grease you can probably get these all done in three years. So in three years you'll have about 192K in debt and a home worth 250K or more.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eeac29631c2021c0a70d03a09c16d73b", "text": "Most 0% interest loans have quite high interest rates that are deferred. If you are late on a payment you are hit with all the deferred interest. They're banking on a percentage of customers missing a payment. Also, this is popular in furniture/car sales because it's a way to get people to buy who otherwise wouldn't, they made money on the item sale, so the loan doesn't have to earn them money (even though some will). Traditional banks/lenders do make money from interest and rely on that, they would have to rely on fees if interest were not permitted.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "454af89ce64a4b4e0a6d5a9c8c1f8ea5", "text": "\"I'd put more money down and avoid financing. I personally don't think car debt is good debt and if you can't afford the car, you are better off with a cheaper car. Also, you should read up on the 0% offer before deciding to commit. Here's one article that is slightly dated, but discusses some pros and cons of 0% financing. My main point though is that 0% financing is not \"\"free\"\" and you need to consider the cost of that financing before making the purchase. Aside from the normal loan costs of having a monthly payment, possibly buying too much car by looking at monthly cost, etc., a 0% financing offer usually forces you to give the dealer/financing company any rebates that are due to you, in essence making the car cost more.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
80a4b83db9333b7055867fcbdf99002e	Is it common in the US not to pay medical bills?	[ { "docid": "dab361e12b44fd47f3a4e7acd01692be", "text": "\"Is it common in the US not to pay medical bills? Certainly not. What some might do, however, is not pay them immediately, with the intent to negotiate them down or get them written off. You can also see if there's a discount for paying immediately - I've had moderate success with this, but it was during a time where we couldn't pay them all immediately, so I was more trying to figure out which ones to pay first rather than just haggling. The obvious risk is that they go to a collections agency and get reported as unpaid debt to your credit. I'm with you, however - it's a service that you received and it should be paid. I must precise that they are wealthy upscale members, who can afford paying these bills. Are you certain that they have large medical bills? I suppose it's possible that they have resources that can negotiate these on their behalf, or they don't care about the impact to their credit score. But to say \"\"no one is doing it here\"\" seems ludicrous.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc143d63cb8050b104d6cce96934297c", "text": "\"In addition to the good answers already provided, I want to point out that many (most?) providers will handle filing your health insurance claim for you even though it's really your responsibility. So here's how medical bills \"\"you don't have to pay\"\" might come about: * It's possible that your balance is $4, or $20, or $65, or even still $100 depending on your particular insurance plan. Whatever is left at this step is what you pay.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50914a59da2034bf9a541068c753dbb8", "text": "There are some uniquely American issues in this question (and answer), but some general principles as well. Regarding the comment that you quoted, the context (some of which you excluded) needs some clarification.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7dc49b86aa304001fc0f24f29ec4a013", "text": "\"Is it common in the US not to pay medical bills? Or do I misunderstood what had been said? I would feel comfortable saying that most people who face medical bills don't pay them. They are unable. If they were able, they would have gotten medical insurance. In America, something like 55% of individuals do not have even $500 of savings, so when a big medical bill rolls in especially on top of lost work hours, they don't have a lot of options. Hospitals charge reasonable prices to insurance companies and Medicare. These fees are negotiated in advance and reflect the hospital's actual costs. This is called \"\"usual, reasonable and customary\"\". Hospitals charge a wildly inflated, criminally outrageous \"\"cash price\"\" to the uninsured. For instance back when Medicare paid about $175 for an ambulance ride, a friend was billed $1100 for the exact same thing. The hospital aims to scare the living daylights out of the patient (caring nothing about what that does to their health!) Perfect world, the patient pays them the $1100 instead of paying their rent. If the patient puts up a fight, they hope to haggle them down to something like $400, remember it really costs $175. This tactic is a huge profit-center for hospitals, even the \"\"charity\"\" hospitals, and they feel justified because so many uninsured don't pay at all (the hospital considers them \"\"deadbeats\"\".) Well, patients don't pay because cash prices are unreachable, so they just give up. Anyway, your friends are correct, don't even think of paying those cash billing amounts. Research and find out what Medicare pays, offer 60% of that, and haggle it to 100%. And sleep well knowing you paid what is fair. Not all services are as overpriced as my example, but most are at least 50% too high. The hospital does send you all the bills as a formality, even while they submit them to your insurance company. And then the insurance company usually pays them, so it is correct to \"\"not pay that bill\"\". A lot of medical offices will check with your insurance company even before you leave the office, and ask you to immediately pay anything the insurance won't cover. For instance they often have \"\"co-pays\"\" where you pay $20 and they pay the rest. To be clear: if your insurance company negotiates a rate with the hospital, say $185 for the ambulance ride, that is your price, which you are entitled to as a member of that insurance system. A lot of people get their livelihood from the inefficiency in medical insurance and billing. Their political power is why it's so hard for America to install a simpler system (or even replace Obamacare in an ideal political environment). It is also a big part of why America spends 18% of GDP on healthcare instead of 7-11% like our European peers who do not have to account for every gauze or rebill multiple insurers. Sorting out \"\"who pays\"\" would be expensive even if everyone did pay.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae9847620f3213addf4eb0a430052e7a", "text": "Is it common in the US not to pay medical bills? Or do I misunderstood what had been said? There has definitely been a misunderstanding as it is not that common for people to not pay medical bills. Yes, there are those that cannot afford to pay them, and that does contribute to increasing prices, but overall people do pay. I think there is an aspect to this that has not been covered by the other two answers. What is common, at least in my experience, is that medical providers (i.e. doctors, hospitals, radiology, etc) are much more likely to work with you on establishing a payment plan than utilities, credit card companies, banks, etc are. This is different than holding off payment in the hopes of negotiating a reduction in payment. I am speaking of paying the total amount, but over multiple payments, and without a penalty for paying over multiple payments. And usually they will ask you what you can afford. If you can pay $50 per month, likely that will work. And even what I do that and call to pay the monthly amount, they will ask if I will pay that or some other (including lesser) amount. Also, if I skip a month (usually from forgetting, not intentionally) there is again no additional fee. This doesn't cover ALL providers, but so far has been consistent across all of the ones I have used. I suspect this is what your colleagues were referring to.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "168aedc76748a869f5c5ba50a55620df", "text": "\"What you have here is an interesting argument. Right now, this is totally complicated by the state of \"\"forced insurance\"\" that is currently in such hot debate right now. As a general rule of thumb though, most Americans pay their medical bills in one way or another. Though It is also accurate to say that most Americans have avoided paying a medical bill at one point or another. I will give an example that will help clarify. My wife gets a Iron infusion shot one every year or so. We choose not to have insurance. The cost to us is around $275. We know this upfront and have always paid it up front. Except for one year. One year we had insurance. The facility that does the infusions charged us $23,500 to do the infusion that year. The insurance paid $275 to them. We refused to pay the remaining $23,225. This is a real example using real numbers. SO while we are more then able to pay the \"\"normal\"\" amount, and we could, in theory, pay the inflated amount, We out right refuse to. The medical facility tried to negotiated the amount down to $11,000 but we refused. They then tried to talk us into a credit plan. We refused. Then they negotiated the entire thing down to $500. We refused. Finally, after 2 years of fighting they agreed that the service had been pair for by the insurance. And sent us a $0 bill. The entire time, that facility was more then willing to keep doing this annual service for $275.At no time were we denied care. We did have a dent in our credit for a while, but honestly it didn't matter to us. Wrap Up It is fair to say that most Americans do pay their medical bills, but it is also fair to say that most Americans do not pay all their medical bills. The situation is complicated, and made more so by recent changes. Heath insurance is the U.S. is nearly criminal and while some changes have been made in recent years the same overriding truth exists. Sometimes, a medical bill, when going through insurance, is just plain silly, and the only recourse you have as a customer is to not pay it, for a while, till you get it sorted out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6b09a1c18842ba3d64088cabe20f311", "text": "Personal story here: I ended up at the Santa Monica hospital without insurance and left with a bill of $30k-$35k. They really helped me, so I felt like I had a duty to pay them. However, close inspection revealed ridiculous markups on some items which I would have disputed, but I noticed that I had been billed for a few thousands of services not rendered. I got very mad at them for this, they apologized, told me they'd fix it. I never heard back from them and they never put it in collection either. I'm assuming they (rightfully) got scared that I'd go to court and this would be bad publicity. Sometimes I feel guilty I didn't pay them anything, sometimes I feel like they tried to screw me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80f78b61371b67030b05546eb0107e15", "text": "\"My answer might be out of date due to the Affordable Health Care law. I will answer for the way things were prior to that law taking effect. In my experience, hospitals have a financial assistance program you can apply for. If you can show a financial need, the hospital will only charge you a certain percentage of your bill. A person with a very low income will likely only be charged 5 or 10% of the theoretical balance. That would be assuming the person is at or near the poverty level (which has an official definition -- but to give you an idea, your cashier at McDonald's is probably at or near the poverty level). Also note that sometimes it takes a while for hospital charges to be submitted to insurance, and to be approved and paid. Thus, many people have learned through experience to ignore the first bill that comes in from a hospital, and wait a month before paying. There can be a dramatic drop in the \"\"What you owe\"\" line after the insurance company responds, and the billing office adjusts the bill to the negotiated amount and subtracts off what the insurance company covered.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30a180cd9b818c590b14f79075c6a368", "text": "\"While it is not common, it is also not \"\"uncommon.\"\" A subtle distinction. If you are poor, you almost certainly get some kind of government assistance (not even talking about Obamacare or Trumpcare, but just general assistance.) If you are middle class or rich, that is where you get hit the most. They seem to realize you \"\"can't get blood from a stone\"\" and don't try to get payment out of poor people. But middle class and rich people, yes it just takes longer but they do hang in there with billing. My own experience is that years and years ago (way before Obamacare) I had a time in the hospital with a lot of tests, but I was poor and sleeping on a relatives floor at the time. I got all the tests I needed, and they took great care of me, and the hospital wrote it off as \"\"charity care.\"\"\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "0f3cc07afc72563ecf7740e84bc54c8f", "text": "Well, if someone who owes me money defaults, I lose the money he promised to pay me. To me that would be a huge moral obstacle for declaring myself bankrupt. I was raised in believing that you keep your promises.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6fcb9ea19ac55019088f4ce94c9dc824", "text": "So how does that work when you're past retirement age? Do you just keep paying huger and huger sums for insurance, or are you covered by your pension plan (if you have one)? Or do Medicare and Medicaid cover everything (i.e. you don't have to pay)? In which case if you move to Latin America, you could get stuck with a big medical bill, but not if you stay in the States?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bfc26e9f5a92aec93619af2006865fbd", "text": "The chronically ill should be seeking out charities not insurance companes. Since companies are into making profit and paying thier employees. While someone who is already fucked is a hugely bad bet for a new client. I'ts nothing personal just the way things are. Your rights end where someone else's rights begin. Meaning you can't force other people to pay your way through life. As much as being able to breath is an achievement for some it does't entitle people to a free ride at someone else's expense.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6767c66274c2315423cadd3711bfb23c", "text": "I would say generally, the answer is No. There might be some short term relief to people in certain situations, but generally speaking you sign a contract to borrow money and you are responsible to pay. This is why home loans offer better terms then auto loans, and auto loans better than credit cards or things like furniture. The better terms offer less risk to the lender because there are assets that can be repossessed. Homes retain values better than autos, autos better than furniture, and credit cards are not secured at all. People are not as helpless as your question suggests. Sure a person might lose their high paying job, but could they still make a mortgage payment if they worked really hard at it? This might mean taking several part time jobs. Now if a person buys a home that has a very large mortgage payment this might not be possible. However, wise people don't buy every bit of house they can afford. People should also be wise about the kinds of mortgages they use to buy a home. Many people lost their homes due to missing a payment on their interest only loan. Penalty rates and fees jacked up their payment, that was way beyond their means. If they had a fixed rate loan the chance to catch up would have not been impossible. Perhaps an injury might prevent a person from working. This is why long term disability insurance is a must for most people. You can buy quite a bit of coverage for not very much money. Typical US households have quite a bit of debt. Car payments, phone payments, and either a mortgage or rent, and of course credit cards. If income is drastically reduced making all of those payments becomes next to impossible. Which one gets paid first. Just this last week, I attempted to help a client in just this situation. They foolishly chose to pay the credit card first, and were going to pay the house payment last (if there was anything left over). There wasn't, and they are risking eviction (renters). People finding themselves in crisis, generally do a poor job of paying the most important things first. Basic food first, housing and utilities second, etc... Let the credit card slip if need be no matter how often one is threatened by creditors. They do this to maintain their credit score, how foolish. I feel like you have a sense of bondage associated with debt. It is there and real despite many people noticing it. There is also the fact that compounding interest is working against you and with your labor you are enriching the bank. This is a great reason to have the goal of living a debt free life. I can tell you it is quite liberating.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "946ea126eae0ed43396aa7a733be9258", "text": "From accounting perspective, an unpaid bill for internet services, according to the Accruals Concept, is recorded as a liability under 'Current Liabilities' section of the Balance Sheet. Also as an expense on the Income Statement. So to answer your question it is both: a debt and an expense, however this is only the case at the end of the period. If you manage to pay it before the financial period ends this is simply an expense that is financed by cash or other liquid Asset on the Balance Sheet such as prepayment for example. For private persons you are generally given some time to pay the bill so it is technically a debt (Internet Provider would list you as a debtor on their accounts), but this is not something to worry about unless you are not considering to pay this bill. In which case your account may be sold as part of a factoring and you will then have a debt affecting your credit rating.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "002bc0e97dc0f7a08d8664f78cb9936f", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-third-of-american-households-cant-afford-food-shelter-or-medical-care-2017-09-27) reduced by 63%. (I'm a bot) *** > Nearly half of Americans have a tough time paying their bills, and over one-third have faced hardships such as running out of food, not being able to afford a place to live, or not having enough money to pay for medical treatment. > The State of the American Wallet shows how Americans are saddled with mounting car loan and credit card debt and not saving enough money - even enough to cover emergency expenses. > The survey included questions on whether respondents could &quot;Enjoy life&quot; because of the way they managed their money, and how often respondents had money left over at the end of the month. * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/75tq9p/onethird_of_american_households_cant_afford_food/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~226611 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: survey^#1 American^#2 respondent^#3 money^#4 how^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e54da946f158dff2b3beccc869d2131", "text": "It's not that they don't want to pay it, it is that there is now an economic incentive to do it. People can no longer be turned down because of a preexisting condition. That means that I should wait until I break my arm to sign up for insurance. Then once it's better I should cancel it again. That is simply what makes sense economically. Only people who are sick need insurance if sick people cannot be turned down", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba805d1ca972d3c0cdcb02b3c855c3da", "text": "Sorta. Though it's not every American - just the ones needing healthcare (don't know what percentage that is, but I have not seen a doctor in ten years). It IS enough to bribe the hell out of congress, though, and maintain the current system of keeping insurers between doctors and patients as parasitic gatekeepers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57e1115d5f30efd13813bb51c89ac504", "text": "Hey, I was thinking back to that X-Ray you got done at the hospital, that you said was cheaper than 90% of the population. I am wondering if maybe that hospital wasn't one of the many that qualify for DSH reimbursement payments. What could have happened is that they saw that you are uninsured, and made a decision that they would only charge you for the portion that they didn't think Medicare / Medicaid would reimburse. If that happened, it wouldn't even show up on your credit report, as the hospital is the one that would file a credit claim. Likely, if they have to go through this a lot, they wouldn't even waste time filing a credit claim, they would just go after a reimbursement through Medicare / Medicaid. And thus, to you, it would just look like a very small bill, but in reality it would only represent a smaller portion of the true bill. I would also wonder, if they do a lot of these, if they aren't also one of the hospitals that article I linked to showed was super-inflating the prices of uninsured in the hopes of getting a larger portion reimbursed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18d9cbc00c698170d9acdf0c488dd88c", "text": "If you read all that paperwork they made you fill out at the emergency room, there is probably something in there explicitly stating that you owe any bills you rack up regardless of what happens with the insurance company. They generally have a disclaimer that filing for you with your insurance company is a courtesy service they offer, but they are not obliged to do it. Ultimately, you are responsible for your bills even if the provider slow-billed you. Sorry.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4eb5438cf48776641168740d3aaf6ac", "text": "The main points shine a very bright light on the need for healthcare policy reform, FIR EVERYONE, not just the poor. - Using a conservative deﬁnition, 62.1% of all US bankruptcies in 2007 were medical. - Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. - Three-quarters had health insurance. - Illness and medical bills contribute to a large and increasing share of US bankruptcies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0639d406a8990b39b5ae168d9ebf638", "text": "There no legal framework that allows states like the US or countries in Europe to default on their debt. Should congress pass a law to default the US supreme court is likely to nullify the law.", "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": "9a5895bc8c4b6bd307eaeb467bf56f4e", "text": "You're not missing anything. Consumer protection in the US is very basic and limited, if at all. So if someone claims you owe them something, it would be really hard for you to prove otherwise unless you actually drag them to court. Especially if there actually was a relationship, and there probably is some paperwork to substantiate the claim. I suggest talking to a consumer issues attorney.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98f5a5c3112a53413b677af2502ccf97", "text": "In short, no, or not retroactively. There really are multiple companies involved, each of which bills you separately for the services they provided. This can be partly avoided by selecting either a high-end health plan with lower out-of-pocket maximum, (costs more up front, of course) or by selecting a genuine Health Management Organization (not a PPO) which gathers more of the services into a single business. Either of these would result in fewer cash payments needing to be sent. But I don't know of any way to simplify things after the fact. Even if there was a consolidation service, you would have to forward the bills to them, which really wouldn't be any easier than just paying the bills. (I'm assuming you are in the US, where we have a health insurance system rather than a health system. Other countries may handle this differently.)", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3e0561bc9a8237aea297eaa57169fa57	How to deal with the credit card debt from family member that has passed away?	[ { "docid": "c104b39b8f6f4d822c4c5adb1b61e36b", "text": "Don't pay it, see a lawyer. Given your comment, it will depend on the jurisdiction on the passing of the house and the presence of a will or lack thereof. In some states all the assets will be inherited by your mom. Debts cannot be inherited; however, assets can be made to stand for debts. This is a tricky situation that is state dependent. In the end, with few assets and large credit card debt, the credit card companies are often left without payment. I would not pay the debt unless your lawyer specifically told you to do so. Sorry for your loss.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0c395884f356a9dbf7e2bb8583a555c", "text": "\"First, when a debt collector says, \"\"It's to your advantage to give me money now\"\", I'd take that with a grain of salt. My ex-wife declared bankruptcy and when debt collectors couldn't find her, they somehow tracked me down and told me that I should tell her that it would be to her advantage to pay off this debt before the bankruptcy went through. That was total nonsense of course. The whole point of bankruptcy is to not have to pay the debt. Why would you pay it just before it was wiped off the books? (Now that I think of it, I'm surprised that they didn't tell me that I should pay her debts.) As others have noted, this would be controlled by state law. But in general, when someone dies any debts are payed from the assets of the estate, and then whatever is left goes to the heirs. If nothing is left or the debts exceed the assets, then the heirs get nothing, but they don't have to pay somebody else's debts. I don't see how you could \"\"put the house under your name\"\". If he left the house to you in his will, then after any debts are settled in accordance with state law, the house would transfer to you. But you can't just decide to put the house in your name outside of the legal inheritance process. If you could, then people could undermine a will at any time by just deciding to take an asset left to someone else and \"\"put it in their name\"\". Or as in this case, people could undermine the rights of creditors by transferring all assets to themselves before debts were paid. Even if there's some provision in your state for changing the name on a deed prior to probate to facilitate getting mortgages and taxes paid or whatever, I would be quite surprised if this allowed you to shelter assets from legitimate creditors. It would be a gaping loophole in inheritance law. Frankly, if your father's debts are more than the value of his assets, including the value of the house, I suspect you will not be able to keep the house. It will be sold to pay off the creditors. I would certainly talk to a lawyer about this as there might be some provision in the law that you can take advantage of. I'll gladly yield on this point to anyone with specific knowledge of New Jersey inheritance law.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d64fccb218aa1e292f71b6e3c843f606", "text": "\"Debts do not inherit to the children. You are absolutely not liable for your parent's debt, in any way whatsoever. Collection agents will lie about this; tricking you is their job, and your job is to tell them Heck no, do I look like an idiot? When a person dies, all their personal assets (and debts) go to a fictitious entity called the Estate. This is a holder for the person's assets until they can be dispositioned finally. The estate is managed by a living person, sometimes a company (law firm), called an Executor. Similar to a corporation which is shutting down business, the Executor's job is to act on behalf of the Estate, and in the Estate's best interest (not his own). For instance he can't decide, in his capacity as executor, to give all the estate's money to himself. He has to loyally and selflessly follow state law and any living-trust or wills that may be in place. This role is not for everyone. You can't just decide \"\"la la la, I'm going to live in their house now\"\", that is squatting. The house is an asset and someone inherited that, as dictated by will, trust or state law. That has to be worked out legally. Once they inherit the house, you have to negotiate with them about living there. If you want to live there now, negotiate to rent the house from the estate. This is an efficient way to funnel money into the estate for what I discuss later. The Estate has assets, and it has debts. Some debts extinguish on the death of the natural person, e.g. student loans, depending on the contract and state law. Did you know corporations are considered a \"\"person\"\"? (that's what Citizens United was all about.) So are estates - both are fictitious persons. The executor can act like a person in that sense. If you have unsecured debt, how can a creditor motivate you to pay? They can annoy and harass you. They can burn your credit rating. Or they can sue you and try to take your assets - but suing is also expensive for them. This is not widely understood, but anyone at any time can go to their creditors and say \"\"Hey creditor, I'm not gonna pay you $10,000. Tough buffaloes. You can sue me, good luck with that. Or, I'll make you a deal. I'll offer you $2000 to settle this debt. What say you? And you'll get one of two answers. Either \"\"OK\"\" or \"\"Nice try, let's try $7000.\"\" If the latter, you start into the cycle of haggling, \"\"3000.\"\" \"\"6000.\"\" \"\"4000.\"\" \"\"5000. \"\"Split the difference, $4500.\"\" \"\"OK.\"\" This is always a one-time, lump sum, one-shot payoff, never partial payments. Creditors will try to convince you to make partial payments. Don't do it. Anyone can do that at any time. Why don't living people do this every day? How about an Estate? Estates are fictitious persons, they don't have a \"\"morality\"\", they have a fiduciary duty. Do they plan on borrowing any more money? Nope. Their credit rating is already 0. They owe no loyalty to USBank. Actually, the executor's fiduciary duty is to get the most possible money for the assets, and settle the debts for the least. So I argue it's unethical to fail to haggle down this debt. If an executor is \"\"not a haggler\"\" or has a moral issue with shortchanging creditors, he is shortchanging the heirs, and he can be sued for that personally - because he has a fiduciary duty to the heirs, not Chase Bank. Like I say, the job is not for everyone. The estate should also make sure to check the paperwork for any other way to escape the debt: does it extinguish on death? Is the debt time-barred? Can they really prove it's valid? Etc. It's not personal, it's business. The estate should not make monthly payments (no credit rating to protect) and should not pay one dime to a creditor except for a one-shot final settlement. Is it secured debt? Let them take the asset. (unless an heir really wants it). When a person dies with a lot of unsecured debt, it's often the case that they don't have a lot of cash lying around. The estate must sell off assets to raise the cash to settle with the creditors. Now here's where things get ugly with the house. ** The estate should try to raise money any other way, but it may have to sell the house to pay the creditors. For the people who would otherwise inherit the house, it may be in their best interest to pay off that debt. Check with lawyers in your area, but it may also be possible for the estate to take a mortgage on the house, use the mortgage cash to pay off the estate's debts (still haggle!), and then bequeath the house-and-mortgage to the heirs. The mortgage lender would have to be on-board with all of this. Then, the heirs would owe the mortgage. Good chance it would be a small mortgage on a big equity, e.g. a $20,000 mortgage on a $100,000 house. Banks love those.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8779fa6f4f4629539801c5890127344b", "text": "Sorry for your loss. Like others have said Debts cannot be inherited period (in the US). However, assets sometimes can be made to stand for debts. In most cases, credit card debt has no collateral and thus the credit card companies will often either sell the debt to a debt collector or collections agency, sue you for it, or write it off. Collecting often takes a lot of time and money, thus usually the credit card companies just sell the debt, to a debt collector who tries to get you to pay up before the statute of limitations runs out. That said, some credit card companies will sue the debtor to obtain a judgement, but many don't. In your case, I wouldn't tell them of your loss, let em do their homework, and waste time. Don't give them any info,and consult with a lawyer regarding your father's estate and whether his credit card will even matter. Often, unscrupulous debt collectors will say illegal things (per the FDCPA) to pressure anyone related to the debtor to pay. Don't cave in. Make sure you know your rights, and record all interactions/calls you have with them. You can sue them back for any FDCPA infractions, some attorneys might even take up such a case on contingency, i.e they get a portion of the FDCPA damages you collect. Don't pay even a penny. This often will extend or reset the statute of limitations time for the debt to be collectable. i.e Ex: If in your state, the statute of limitations for credit card debt is 3 years, and you pay them $0.01 on year 2, you just bought them 3 more years to be able to collect. TL;DR: IANAL, most credit card debt has no collateral so don't pay or give any info to the debt collectors. Anytime you pay it extends the statute of limitations. Consult an attorney for the estate matters, and if the debt collectors get too aggressive, and record their calls, and sue them back!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e96c600cf2bbbd3c7bced22af642a19d", "text": "First off, very sorry for your loss. I lost my father a few years ago and I know it can be tough. My father also had a lot of credit card debt. They attempted to collect the debt from my mother, who was no longer on the account (for over a decade). It was just an attempt to recoup as much money as they could before dealing with a probate court. As others have said, it depends on your state law. You will want to talk to a lawyer, figure out who is going to be the executor of the estate, and determine the next steps in starting to settle debts that your father had. If you want to take possession of the house, then you will likely need to work with the executor and perhaps purchase the house from the estate (which would then use the money to pay off debts).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cded02e6d7454ede7d1263fc7d42a885", "text": "Sorry for your loss. I am not a lawyer and this isn;t legal advice -- which I am not licensed to give. But I've had to deal with some debt situations of my own. I think the worst case scenario is the creditor can get a judgment, but that won't be against you unless you were a co-signor. The collectors are going to prey on your decency to make you feel like you should pay it, but you are under no legal obligation to do so. If they file in court and then win a judgment, they may be able to collect on the assets of the estate. You mention no money but you mention a house. That is an asset with value, and putting it in your name isn't going to do much. You should see a lawyer on this, because it seems logical that they could collect on the value of the house at the time of the death, and even if it was willed to you it can still be attacked to pay the debt. Here is a good write-up on NJ death and debt and whether it can be inherited by the adult children: https://www.atrbklaw.com/bankruptcy-resources/83-articles/103-can-you-inherit-your-dead-parent-s-debts", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df92b37b680f3e6b31e7f3a3039562c0", "text": "You also might want to see what sort of documentation the credit card company has. Companies can get pretty lazy sometimes about recordkeeping; there have been cases where banks tried to foreclose on a property but weren't able to produce documents establishing the mortgage. With your father dead, is there anything other than the credit card company's word that the debt is valid?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71cb1f4eec4321653132887e08de1218", "text": "First, if it is in any way a joint account, the debt usually goes to the surviving person. Assets in joint accounts usually have their own instructions on how to disperse the assets; for example, full joint bank accounts usually immediately go to the other name on the account and never become part of the estate. Non-cash assets will likely need to be converted to cash and a fair market valuation shown to the probate court, unless the debts can be paid without using them and they can be transferred to next of kin. If, after that, the deceased has any assets at all, there is usually (varies by state) a legally defined order in which debtor types must be paid. This is handled by probating the estate. There is a period during which you publish a death notice and then wait for debt claims and bills to arrive. Then pay as many as possible based on the priority, and inform the others the holder is deceased and the estate is empty. This sometimes needs to be approved by a judge if the assets are less than the debts. Then disperse remaining assets to next of kin. If there are no assets held by just the deceased, as you get bills you just send a certified copy of the death certificate, tell them there is no estate, then forget about them. A lawyer can really help in determining which need to be paid and to work through probate, which is not simple or cheap. But also note that you can negotiate and sometimes get them to accept less, if there are assets. When my mother died, the doctors treating her zeroed her accounts; the hospitals accepted a much reduced total, but the credit cards wanted 100%.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "e286a4b4698d26d497f4deb62bf8b825", "text": "The implied intent is that balance transfers are for your balances, not someone else's. However, I bet it would be not only allowed but also encouraged. Why? Because the goal of a teaser rate is to get you to borrow. Typically there is a balance transfer fee that allows the offering company to break even. In the unlikely event that a person does pay off the balance in the specified time frame the account and is then closed, then nothing really lost. Its hard to find past articles I've read as all the search engines are trying to get me to enroll in a balance transfer. However, about 75% of 0% balance xfers result in converting to a interest being accrued. If you are familiar with the amount of household credit card debt we carry, as a nation, that figure is very believable. To answer your question, I would assume they would allow it. However I would call and check and get their answer in writing. Why? Because if they change their mind or the representative tells you incorrectly, and they find out, they will convert your 0% credit card to an 18% or higher interest rate for violating the terms. Same as if a payment was missed. From the credit card company's perspective they would be really smart to allow you to do this. The likelihood that your family member will pay the bill beyond two months is close to zero. The likelihood that a payment will be missed or late allowing them to convert to a higher rate is very high. This then might lead to you being overextended which would mean just more interest rates and fees. Credit card company wins! I would not be surprised if they beg you to follow through on your plan. From your perspective it would be a really dumb idea, but as you said you knew that. Faced with the same situation I would just pay off one or more of the debts for the family member if I thought it would actually help them. I would also require them to have some financial accountability. Its funny that once you require financial accountability for handouts, most of those seeking a donation go elsewhere.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb21a97ee6426ddc9847c796e9371b2b", "text": "\"Without knowing what the balances are, I associate \"\"uncomfortable\"\" with high, as in tens of thousands. What I would do: is 1) cut up the cards and stop using them, and 2) have some balance transfer offers in hand the next time you call to negotiate with the companies. Essentially, you will have to convince them that they will have to explain one of two things to their boss: why they lowered your rate or why you left. They can collect less interest from you or no interest from you. It's up to them. If they don't offer you something that's in the ballpark of your balance transfer offer, then bid them goodbye and complete the balance transfer. As far as paying them off, the top two modes of repayment are lowest balance first (aka snowball) or high interest rate first. Both methods are similar in that you pay minimums on all but the method's focus point. Whether it is lowest balance or highest interest rate, you pay ALL of your extra money on the lowest balance or the highest interest debt until it is gone and then you move onto the next one in the list. For what it's worth, I prefer the lowest balance method, you see progress faster.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e79d13cec6a0277e23d61b915ae2a5a", "text": "If you know the amounts that were combined ($5,000 and $7,500 in your example) -- NOT the original loan amounts necessarily -- then you can calculate a payment schedule (in Excel, Google Sheets, online, etc.) using that amount and the interest rate. You can then apply your payments ($100) to that payment schedule, making sure to either accrue interest if your $100 didn't cover the monthly payment, or pay down extra principal if your $100 more than covered the payment. The outstanding principal is the amount left or remaining balance. A program like GnuCash or Quicken makes doing the payment schedule, and applying payments relatively easy to handle. Spreadsheets will require you to have 36 lines (3 years x 12 months) of payment and recalculation detail, but that shouldn't be too much work. To be fair to your mother, make sure you include any partially accrued interest on the full balance when paying it off. Or even better, include a full month's interest in the pay-off amount.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f4c9b8ab65f563b1d82e2d953c91b2e", "text": "\"I started a business a few years ago. At one point it wasn't going so well and my father \"\"loaned\"\" me an amount not too dissimilar to what you've done. From a personal perspective, the moment I took that loan there was a strain the relationship. Especially when I was sometimes late on the interest payments... Unfortunately thoughts like \"\"he doesn't need this right now, but if I don't pay the car loan then that is taken away\"\" came up a few times and paying the interest fell to the bottom of the monthly bill payment stack. At some point my wife and I finally took a hard look at my finances and goals. We got rid of things that simply weren't necessary (car payment, cable tv, etc) and focused on the things we needed to. Doing the same with the business helped out as well, as it helped focus me to to turn things around. Things are now going great. That said, two of my siblings ran into their own financial trouble that our parents helped them on. When this happened my father called us together and basically forgave everyone's debt by an equal amount which covered everything plus wrote a check to the one that was doing fine. This \"\"cleared the air\"\" with regards to future inheritance, questions about how much one sibling was being helped vs another, etc. Honestly, it made family gatherings more enjoyable as all that underlying tension was now gone. I've since helped one of my children. Although I went about it an entirely different way. Rather than loan them money, I gave it to them. We also had a few discussions on how I think they ought to manage their finances and a set of goals to work towards which we co-developed. Bearing in mind that they are an individual and sometimes you can lead a horse... Given the current state of things I consider it money well \"\"spent\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd3db7ba67b69b0a6bb9b5ed64bdbf5b", "text": "I am sorry for your loss, this person blessed you greatly. For now I would put it in a savings account. I'd use a high yield account like EverBank or Personal Savings from Amex. There are others it is pretty easy to do your own research. Expect to earn around 2200 if you keep it there a year. As you grieve, I'd ask myself what this person would want me to do with the money. I'd arrive at a plan that involved me investing some, giving some, and spending some. I have a feeling, knowing that you have done pretty well for yourself financially, that this person would want you to spend some money on yourself. It is important to honor their memory. Giving is an important part of building wealth, and so is investing. Perhaps you can give/purchase a bench or part of a walkway at one of your favorite locations like a zoo. This will help you remember this person fondly. For the investing part, I would recommend contacting a company like Fidelity or Vanguard. The can guide you into mutual funds that suit your needs and will help you understand the workings of them. As far as Fidelity, they will tend to guide you toward their company funds, but they are no load. Once you learn how to use the website, it is pretty easy to pick your own funds. And always, you can come back here with more questions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "103910ac8dd3b76e41e68a79b1d5874f", "text": "My grandmother passed away earlier this year. When I got my car 3 years ago, I did not have good enough credit to do it on my own or have her as a co-signer. We had arranged so that my grandmother was buying the car and I was co-signing. A similar situation was happening and I went to my bank and took out a re-finance loan prior to her passing. I explained to them that my grandmother was sick and on her death bed. They never once requested a power of attorney or required her signature. I am now the sole owner of the vehicle.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62d5c32ad49fc3189ebd8b98819ce212", "text": "Your relative in the US could buy a pre-paid Visa (aka Visa gift card) and give you the numbers on that to pay. They're available for purchase at many grocery/convenience stores. In most (all??) cases there'll be a fee of a several dollars charged in addition to the face value of the card. The biggest headache I can think of would be that pre-paid cards are generally only available in $25/50/100 increments; unless the current SAT price matches one of the standard increments they'll have to buy the next card size up and then get the remaining money off it in a separate transaction. A grocery store would be one of the easier places for your relative to do this because cashiers there are used to splitting transactions across multiple payment sources (something not true at most other types of business) due to regularly processing transactions partially paid for via welfare benefits.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c41b9a53c96d790c841c235e6ad05cd0", "text": "\"Tough spot. I'm guessing the credit cards are a personal line of credit in their name and not the company's (the fact that the business can be liquidated separately from your parents means they did at least set up an LLC or similar business entity). Using personal debt to save a company that could have just been dissolved at little cost to their personal credit and finances was, indeed, a very bad move. The best possible end to this scenario for you and your parents would be if your parents could get the debt transferred to the LLC before dissolving it. At this point, with the company in such a long-standing negative situation, I would doubt that any creditor would give the business a loan (which was probably why your parents threw their own good money after bad with personal CCs). They might, in the right circumstances, be able to convince a judge to effectively transfer the debt to the corporate entity before liquidating it. That puts the debt where it should have been in the first place, and the CC companies will have to get in line. That means, in turn, that the card issuers will fight any such motion or decision tooth and nail, as long as there's any other option that gives them more hope of recovering their money. Your parents' only prayer for this to happen is if the CCs were used for the sole purpose of business expenses. If they were living off the CCs as well as using them to pay business debts, a judge, best-case, would only relieve the debts directly related to keeping the business afloat, and they'd be on the hook for what they had been living on. Bankruptcy is definitely an option. They will \"\"re-affirm\"\" their commitment to paying the mortgage and any other debts they can, and under a Chapter 13 the judge will then remand negotiations over what total portion of each card's balance is paid, over what time, and at what rate, to a mediator. Chapter 13 bankruptcy is the less damaging form to your parent's credit; they are at least attempting to make good on the debt. A Chapter 7 would wipe it away completely, but your parents would have to prove that they cannot pay the debt, by any means, and have no hope of ever paying the debt by any means. If they have any retirement savings, anything in their name for grandchildren's college funds, etc, the judge and CC issuers will point to it like a bird dog. Apart from that, their house is safe due to Florida's \"\"homestead\"\" laws, but furniture, appliances, clothing, jewelry, cars and other vehicles, pretty much anything of value that your parents cannot defend as being necessary for life, health, or the performance of whatever jobs they end up taking to dig themselves out of this, are all subject to seizure and auction. They may end up just selling the house anyway because it's too big for what they have left (or will ever have again). I do not, under any circumstance, recommend you putting your own finances at risk in this. You may gift money to help, or provide them a place to live while they get back on their feet, but do not \"\"give till it hurts\"\" for this. It sounds heartless, but if you remove your safety net to save your parents, then what happens if you need it? Your parents aren't going to be able to bail you out, and as a contractor, if you're effectively \"\"doing business as\"\" Reverend Gonzo Contracting, you don't have the debt shield your parents had. It looks like housing's faltering again due to the news that the Fed's going to start backing off; you could need that money to weather a \"\"double-dip\"\" in the housing sector over the next few months, and you may need it soon.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ab9b37bdbe052e063bd26366e07b5e9", "text": "You were approved for the offer based on your current credit, just like any other offer of credit. The offering bank knows you'll likely use their offer if you accept it. If you accept the offer and load up the new card to the max with your (or your relative's) debt and your score will then change. Depending on the other factors that impact your score this could carry some negative consequences related to your own ability to obtain debt. Also, consequently, this will have a tremendously positive effect on your relative's ability to obtain debt. I understand that you trust this person enough to be asking this question. No amount of trust protects from the unforeseen. Ultimately while this debt resides in your name, in the eyes of the creditor it is yours. While you could seek legal remedy from your relative if they don't or can't pay, you will be on the hook to the bank. Again, there are unforeseen events, a car accident, a death, etc. If this person passes, that's your debt. IF (and I can't emphasize the IF enough) I was ever in a position to be considering what you're considering I would do this: I mentioned in a comment under your question. This feels like it would carry a tax consequence (or maybe benefit) to one or both of you. I have no idea of the legalities, or whether or not any of this violates a cardmember agreement, but as other answers have pointed out, I doubt there is a balance transfer police.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6620011e11946352b7885b765e5b2f4", "text": "\"Assuming by your username that you are Dutch and this concerns invoices under Dutch law, there are a couple of ways to go about it. First of all, we don't have \"\"small claims court\"\" the way the US does. That would make life a lot easier, but we don't. You can go all legal on him and go through court procedures. The first step would probably be the [\"\"kantongerecht\"\"](http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantongerecht) though there are some limitations to what you can do there. You don't need to have a lawyer at the kantongerecht, but chances of fucking up are high if you don't have experience or some experienced help. It's also likely to eat up more of your time than it's worth. And even if you get a favorable judgement there's still the matter of collecting. The second option, which nearly all companies in the Netherlands use, is to turn it over to an \"\"incassoburo\"\" (collections agency). For either a fee or a percentage they'll go after the miscreant, usually tacking that fee onto the money owed so it shouldn't cost you too much. The downside is that, again, they're not always successful if the non-paying person is either extraordinarily obstinate, already in a lot of debt, or if you're looking at him/her/it going bankrupt or being in \"\"schuldhulpverlening\"\" (debt counseling, which in some cases comes with legal protections). The third way, if it's a viable debt but you're willing to take a loss in exchange for money now, is to sell off the debt to a factoring agency. They'll assess it and pay out the open invoice to you, minus costs and/or a percentage depending on how they view their odds of collecting on it. It's then their debt, and they'll go after the original debtor without you ever needing to bother with it again. It's a tough position to be in. I've had to write off some invoices over time, some only a couple'hundred, some in the 5-figure range when a major customer of mine went tits-up. And I just happened to have an interesting conversation yesterday with someone who's more into the commercial side of my line of work. I learned that some relatively big name potential clients are looking more and more like a debt-ridden empty shell, so they went on the list of companies to keep a sharp eye on in case I do business with them. In future cases, keep on top of payment t&c, start reminding (\"\"aanmaning\"\") as soon as they miss their pay-by date as the first documented step towards taking action against them, and if it's a common problem try looking at factoring companies or insurance against non payment. It will cost you some margin, but increase your security.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18f63457e8334538d77a5766629da7ed", "text": "If this isn't a case where you would be willing to forgive the debt if they can't pay, it's a business transaction, not a friend transaction. Establish exactly what the interest rate will be, what the term of the loan is, whether periodic payments are required, how much is covered by those payments vs. being due at the end of the term as a balloon payment, whether they can make additional payments to reduce the principal early... Get it all in writing and signed by all concerned before any money changes hands. Consider having a lawyer review the language before signing. If the loan is large enough that it might incur gift taxes, then you may want to go the extra distance to make it a real, properly documented, intra-family loan. To do this you must charge (of at least pay taxes on) at least a certain minimal interest rate, and they have to make regular payments (or you can gift them the payments but you still won't up paying tax on the interest income). In this case you definitely want a lawyer to draw up the papers, I think. There are services on the web Antioch specialize in helping to set this up properly, and which offer services such as bookkeeping and monthly billing (aT extra cost) to make it less hassle for the lender. If the loan will be structured as a mortgage on the borrower's house -- making the interest deductible for the borrower in the US -- there are additional forms that need to be filled. The services can help with that too, for appropriate fees. Again, this probably wants experts writing the agreement, to make sure it's properly written for where you and the borrower live. Caveat: all the above is assuming USA. Rules may be very different elsewhere. I've done a formal intractability mortgage -- mostly to avoid gift tax -- and it wasn't too awful a hassle. Your mileage will vary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "147d3f1cc3989a3f208c573d1303da36", "text": "I recently lent some money to my sister. While I generally agree with Phillip that lending to family and friends should be avoided, I felt I needed to make an exception. She really needed the cash, and my husband and I agreed that we would be ok without it. Here are some guidelines I used that may be helpful to others: In the end, I think lending to family and friends should be avoided, and certainly should not be done lightly, but by communicating clearly and directly, and keeping careful records, I think you can help someone out and still avoid the lingering awkwardness at future Thanksgivings when one person is convinced that the other owes one more payment, and the other swears it was paid in full.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "679dd002de68db29b51e24052c1384c2", "text": "Don't worry about it. One of the big banks who like to whine a lot about defaulting borrowers is sending credit cards to a former resident of my home. The guy died in the late 90s.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b21083a4db2e80d235303fafe596388", "text": "Generally speaking the bank accounts and credit card accounts remain open. Banks and the credit card companies don't monitor public records on a daily basis. Instead, whoever is handling your estate will need to obtain copies of your death certificate and they will then search your paper records to identify all accounts (reason to get your act together - there are books on the subject). The executor will work with the banks and card companies to make sure all your charges and payments clear (common to have them open for months or even a year) and to make close or transfer autopays. They will make sure to notify the credit agencies to flag your accounts so no new accounts can be created. MANY copies of the death certicates are needed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62f39baa2450b442da29dd911a7f77dc", "text": "I think you've made a perfectly valid suggestion, and, if your son is struggling somewhat financially now, one that may be very welcome. If you agree to forgive the debt at this time in lieu of a similar amount forgone in future inheritance, it will eliminate the never ending interest-only payments, free up $200+ a month for you son on a tight budget, and improve your own credit score once you pay off the credit line. It's also, in my opinion, a good idea to be open about this in advance with your other children heirs so that everyone will understand what is expected during the eventual probate. My paternal grandfather was the recipient of a great deal of financial largess from his wealthy mother during her life, and it was fully understood by him, her, and his siblings, that in exchange he would not share in her estate when she passed. He didn't, there were no problems, and he and his siblings stayed close for the rest of their lives.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
217dcf370ce07345bdabcddb26fe7e91	Equation to determine if a stock is oversold and by how much?	[ { "docid": "3acf275d77964f6b617beee49dcc0d64", "text": "There are those who would suggest that due to the Efficient Market Hypothesis, stocks are always fairly valued. Consider, if non-professional posters on SE (here) had a method that worked beyond random chance, everyone seeking such a method would soon know it. If everyone used that method, it would lose its advantage. In theory, this is how stocks' values remain rational. That said, Williams %R is one such indicator. It can be seen in action on Yahoo finance - In the end, I find such indicators far less useful than the news itself. BP oil spill - Did anyone believe that such a huge oil company wouldn't recover from that disaster? It recovered by nearly doubling from its bottom after that news. A chart of NFLX (Netflix) offers a similar news disaster, and recovery. Both of these examples are not quantifiable, in my opinion, just gut reactions. A quick look at the company and answer to one question - Do I feel this company will recover? To be candid - in the 08/09 crash, I felt that way about Ford and GM. Ford returned 10X from the bottom, GM went through bankruptcy. That observation suggests another question, i.e. where is the line drawn between 'investing' and 'gambling'? My answer is that buying one stock hoping for its recovery is gambling. Being able to do this for 5-10 stocks, or one every few months, is investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0fabf85cd931ba89b9c27fcb7b04bb9b", "text": "\"To my knowledge, there's no universal equation, so this could vary by individual/company. The equation I use (outside of sentiment measurement) is the below - which carries its own risks: This equations assumes two key points: Anything over 1.2 is considered oversold if those two conditions apply. The reason for the bear market is that that's the time stocks generally go on \"\"sale\"\" and if a company has a solid balance sheet, even in a downturn, while their profit may decrease some, a value over 1.2 could indicate the company is oversold. An example of this is Warren Buffett's investment in Wells Fargo in 2009 (around March) when WFC hit approximately 7-9 a share. Although the banking world was experiencing a crisis, Buffett saw that WFC still had a solid balance sheet, even with a decrease in profit. The missing logic with many investors was a decrease in profits - if you look at the per capita income figures, Americans lost some income, but not near enough to justify the stock falling 50%+ from its high when evaluating its business and balance sheet. The market quickly caught this too - within two months, WFC was almost at $30 a share. As an interesting side note on this, WFC now pays $1.20 dividend a year. A person who bought it at $7 a share is receiving a yield of 17%+ on their $7 a share investment. Still, this equation is not without its risks. A company may have a solid balance sheet, but end up borrowing more money while losing a ton of profit, which the investor finds out about ad-hoc (seen this happen several times). Suddenly, what \"\"appeared\"\" to be a good sale, turns into a person buying a penny with a dollar. This is why, to my knowledge, no universal equation applies, as if one did exist, every hedge fund, mutual fund, etc would be using it. One final note: with robotraders becoming more common, I'm not sure we'll see this type of opportunity again. 2009 offered some great deals, but a robotrader could easily be built with the above equation (or a similar one), meaning that as soon as we had that type of environment, all stocks fitting that scenario would be bought, pushing up their PEs. Some companies might be willing to take an \"\"all risk\"\" if they assess that this equation works for more than n% of companies (especially if that n% returns an m% that outweighs the loss). The only advantage that a small investor might have is that these large companies with robotraders are over-leveraged in bad investments and with a decline, they can't make the good investments until its too late. Remember, the equation ultimately assumes a person/company has free cash to use it (this was also a problem for many large investment firms in 2009 - they were over-leveraged in bad debt).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d9a087db7ac36a435de1783db63916d", "text": "\"What you are seeking is termed \"\"Alpha\"\", the mispricing in the market. Specifically, Alpha is the price error when compared to the market return and beta of the stock. Modern portfolio theory suggests that a portfolio with good Alpha will maximize profits for a given risk tolerance. The efficient market hypotheses suggests that Alpha is always zero. The EMH also suggests that taxes, human effort and information propagation delays don't exist (i.e. it is wrong). For someone who is right, the best specific answer to your question is presented Ben Graham's book \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" (starting on page 280). And even still, that book is better summarized by Warren Buffet (see Berkshire Hathaway Letters to Shareholders). In a great disservice to the geniuses above it can be summarized much further: closely follow the company to estimate its true earnings potential... and ignore the prices the market is quoting. ADDENDUM: And when you have earnings potential, calculate value with: NPV = sum(each income piece/(1+cost of capital)^time) Update: See http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/02/24/warren-buffett-berkshire-letter/ \"\"When Charlie Munger and I buy stocks...\"\" for these same ideas right from the horse's mouth\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "534fa7a6f128ce1e85bca4fec12e70b0", "text": "(12 * 100) * 1.01 = 1212 Assuming the $12 ask can absorb your whole 100 share order.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e3f98e37300ff02c60507a576ce78a9", "text": "I see this same argument with Amazon who's P/E is also through the roof. Valuation is way more complicated than looking at income statement ratios. There are some pretty solid reasons for its valuation. I'm inclined to agree it is overvalued, but not as much as you think.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c7e2492482cabf5a89816370180c36c", "text": "The only recommendation I have is to try the stock screener from Google Finance : https://www.google.com/finance?ei=oJz9VenXD8OxmAHR263YBg#stockscreener", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f8ec0cc6cf3c726041c5ae43fb00288a", "text": "I'm going to have to take you to task for this post. If someone is incapable of determining the implied current P/E in the IPO price then they should not be buying stocks. You cannot blame Wall Street for the greed and stupidity of the public.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2dba0da4bed1302a7eeab9c8127906e2", "text": "\"Yes, the price of a stock is what investors think the value of a stock is, which is not tied to profits or dividends by any rigid formula. But to say that therefore the price could be high even though the company is doing very poorly is hypothetically true, but unlikely in practice. Consider any other product. There is no fixed formula for the value of a used car, either. If everyone agreed that a rusting, 20-year old car that doesn't run is worth $100,000, then that's what it would sell for. But that's a pretty big \"\"if\"\" at the beginning of that sentence. If the car had been used in some hit TV show 20 years ago, or if it was owned by a celebrity, or some such special case, maybe a rusting old car really would sell for $100,000. Likewise, a stock might have a price higher than what one would predict from its dividends if some rich person wanted to buy that company because the brand name brings back nostalgic memories from his youth and so he drives the price up, etc. But the normal case is that, in the long term, the price of a stock tends to settle on a value proportional to the dividends that it pays. Or rather, and this is a big caveat, the dividends that investors expect it to pay in the future. And then adjusted for all sorts of other factors and special situations, like the value of the company if it was to be liquidated, etc.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad583b8150b66387306f405e29f9831a", "text": "The average price would be $125 which would be used to compute your basis. You paid $12,500 for the stock that is now worth $4,500 which is a loss of $8,000 overall if you sell at this point.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e8e98abf9a17744f9ee0c6dbedd0dad", "text": "where A1 is the number of trades. you may have to change the number 100 to 99 depending on how the 100th trade is charged. The idea is to use the if statement to determine the price of the trades. Once you are over the threshold the price is 14number over threshold.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "306e4dbc38dd9989c1d6bd8e12f8a6bc", "text": "\"What you need to do is go to yahoo finance and look at different stock's P/E ratios. You'll quickly see that the stocks can be sorted by this number. It would be an interesting exercise to get an idea of why P/E isn't a fixed number, how certain industries cluster around a certain number, but even this isn't precise. But, it will give you an idea as to why your question has no answer. \"\"Annual earnings are $1. What is the share price?\"\" \"\"Question has no answer\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20d25eb66d23c393eb8804674b95aa13", "text": "\"The sentence is mathematically wrong and verbally unclear. Mathematically, you calculate the downwards percentage by So, it should be Verbally, the reporter should have written \"\"The stock is down by 25%\"\", not \"\"down by -25%\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ee820eda84b17c1564e86100cc24e34", "text": "Securities change in prices. You can buy ten 10'000 share of a stock for $1 each one day on release and sell it for $40 each if you're lucky in the future for a gross profit of 4010000 = 400'0000", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41d16faa39889d7deb9d94d194aa8873", "text": "It helps to put the numbers in terms of an asset. Say a bottle of wine costs 10 dollars, but the price rises to 20 dollars a year later. The price has risen 100%, and your dollars have lost value. Whereas your ten used to be worth 100% of the price of bottle of wine, they now are worth 50% of the risen price of a bottle of wine so they've lost around 50% of their value. Divide the old price by the new inflated price to measure proportionally how much the old price is of the new price. 10 divided by 20 is 1/2 or .50 or 50%. You can then subtract the old price from the new in proportional terms to find how much value you've lost. 1 minus 1/2 or 1.00 minus .50 or 100% minus 50%.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d863afc1f40687e69f4b62e8bf9066d", "text": "\"From my recollection of Warren Buffett's book \"\"Warren Buffett and the Art of Arbitrage\"\", the following factors determine the difference between the market price of a stock and the future expected price of an acquisition or merger: Time: Assuming the deal will close, the market price should approach the offer price as the closing date approaches. The fact that there is a 14% spread partially reflects the time value of money. Probability: Things could happen between now and closing date which could derail the deal. The higher the spread the more likely the market thinks the deal will not occur. For example, LO shareholders could reject the offer saying it is too low, or anti-trust regulators could say the deal is anti-competitive. Part of this 14% spread indicates the probability of the deal completing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "593f6298656a2b96117729003a4e30dd", "text": "You bought 1 share of Google at $67.05 while it has a current trading price of $1204.11. Now, if you bought a widget for under $70 and it currently sells for over $1200 that is quite the increase, no? Be careful of what prices you enter into a portfolio tool as some people may be able to use options to have a strike price different than the current trading price by a sizable difference. Take the gain of $1122.06 on an initial cost of $82.05 for seeing where the 1367% is coming. User error on the portfolio will lead to misleading statistics I think as you meant to put in something else, right?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04ec120e0fd5643d3973311263ebe429", "text": "\"Often you are right, and the current information is \"\"priced in\"\", but I would say in times of market boom like this that the market can definitely overprice. Price is driven by trades/last trade. Someone may be willing to pay X, and do so, making the price now X, but that does not mean it is worth X. You could very well be paying a premium for it's perceived desirability. This is why investors/analysts spend time and energy on valuations, they want to compare the markets current price to what the price theoretically should/would be if it were purely driven by the data, in effect trying to remove sentiment from the equation to gain a more realistic idea of what a company is worth. Side note adding on that, don't mistake this as saying one should pay a lot of attention to analysts or their price targets, though analysts do have insightful things to say.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73143af4a4f1f0f7a3f85b82cb901a9f", "text": "\"Their algorithm may be different (and proprietary), but how I would to it is to assume that daily changes in the stock are distributed normally (meaning the probability distribution is a \"\"bell curve\"\" - the green area in your chart). I would then calculate the average and standard deviation (volatility) of historical returns to determine the center and width of the bell curve (calibrating it to expected returns and implied volaility based on option prices), then use standard formulas for lognormal distributions to calculate the probability of the price exceeding the strike price. So there are many assumptions involved, and in the end it's just a probability, so there's no way to know if it's right or wrong - either the stock will cross the strike or it won't.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
5ec4a8a6f7f5535762c02bba318838e6	Is house swapping possible?	[ { "docid": "074c8aaf0bf362575925d5dffb0edf9c", "text": "You would have to find someone in the other state who wanted to swap. This is conceivable but difficult if you want the houses to be the same value. How do you find the one person who lives in the right place now and wants to move to the right area? The normal way this situation is handled is to simply put your house on the market. At the same time, you find a new house in the new location. You arrange for a new mortgage for the new house and make purchase contingent on selling the old house. Your buyer pays off your mortgage and gives you a bit left over that you use as a downpayment on the new house. Note that you take a loss on closing costs when you do this. This is why if you are in the position where you move frequently, you may be better off renting. Sometimes an employer will help with this, paying for a long term hotel or short term rental. This can give you more room to sell and buy the houses. If you have to move right now, immediately, not in a few months when your housing situation is fixed, consider double renting. You rent out your mortgaged house to someone and pay rent on a new place. You may put some of your stuff in storage until you get into your permanent place. The downside is that it can be harder to sell a house with a tenant until you are close to the end of the lease. And of course, you are probably not in the best position to get or pay good rent. Your situation restricts your options. You might get stuck in this situation for a year so as to get the time that you need to line up a buyer. Of course, you may get lucky and find someone who wants your old house as an investment property. Such a person won't be bothered by a tenant. But they usually want a good price. After all, they want to make money off it. There are those operations that advertise that they buy ugly houses. They want a good deal. You'll probably take a bath. But they can buy quickly, so you can move on quickly. No waiting until they find a buyer. And I'm not saying that you can't do a swap like you want. I'm just saying that you may find it difficult to find a swapping partner. Perhaps an investment person would be up for it. They take your house in trade for their house, letting you stay in their house until they can fix up your old house and either rent it or sell it. The problem is that it may be hard to find such an investor who can handle a house where you are and has a house where you need to be. I don't have a good suggestion for finding a swapping partner other than calling a lot of realtors and asking for suggestions. Maybe a bit of online checking for properties where the owner's business is managing the sale.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b40d3c25c4e2d223fb43e81d965ba7fd", "text": "Another possibility that you might consider is to find a renter for your current place and move to your destination. If you have a lease for your renter, your mortgage company can consider that as income for approving the purchase of a new house. I did something similar when I purchased my current home, but I was also able to get approved without selling or renting the old place. There's no reason that someone couldn't create a house swapping site for longer-term than a week. It may not initially have as much demand as a 1 week swap, but there are no such existing services that I am aware of.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "72c6294a241bea25d2691f469ed674e1", "text": "What you are describing is called a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). While the strategy you are describing is not impossible it would raise the amount of debt in your name and reduce your borrowing potential. A recent HELOC used to finance the down payment on a second property risks sending a signal of bad financial position to credit analysts and may further reduce your chances to obtain the credit approval.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea582ead73b55789e8dd68ef14643254", "text": "I don't believe you can do that. From the IRS: Finally, certain types of property are specifically excluded from Section 1031 treatment. Section 1031 does not apply to exchanges of: I highlighted the relevant items for emphasis.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7dac3bea905e716cc1763cc0cedb785b", "text": "I could be wrong, but I doubt you're going to be able to roll the current mortgage into a new one. The problem is that the bank is going to require that the new loan is fully collateralized by the new house. So the only way that you can ensure that is if you can construct the house cheaply enough that the difference between the construction cost and the end market value is enough to cover the current loan AND keep the loan-to-value (LTV) low enough that the bank is secured. So say you currently owe $40k on your mortgage, and you want to build a house that will be worth $200k. In order to avoid PMI, you're going to have to have an LTV of 80% or less, which means that you can spend no more than $160k to build the house. If you want to roll the existing loan in, now you have to build for less than $120k, and there's no way that you can build a $200k house for $120k unless you live in an area with very high land value and hire the builders directly (and even then it may not be possible). Otherwise you're going to have to make up the difference in cash. When you tear down a house, you are essentially throwing away the value of the house - when you have a mortgage on the house, you throw away that value plus you still owe the money, which is a difficult hole to climb out of. A better solution might be to try and sell the house as-is, perhaps to someone else who can tear down the house and rebuild with cash. If that is not a viable option (or you don't want to move) then you might consider a home equity loan to renovate parts of the house, provided that they increase the market value enough to justify the cost (e.g. modernize the kitchen, add on a room, remodel bathrooms, etc. So it all depends on what the house is worth today as-is, how much it will cost you to rebuild, and what the value of the new house will be.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9ad0656b5ebff9bb89342abd2b89beb", "text": "Wrong way round. Transitional arrangements are non-binding guidelines that the lenders can observe if they choose to. The borrower - like your friend - doesn't get to choose whether to use them or not. Your friend obviously can't afford the property, so if you do this, all I can say is congratulations on buying your new house, and I hope you got a deal on the mortgage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62434a140f0cfd64e57c57b6ba1b6a0a", "text": "\"I have a friend who had went on a seminar with FortuneBuilders (the company that has Than Merrill as CEO). He told me that one of the things taught in that seminar was how to find funding for the property that you want to flip. One of the things he mentioned was that there are so-called \"\"hard money\"\" lenders who are willing to lend you the money for the property in exchange for getting their name on the property title. Last time I checked it looked like here in Florida we had at least Bridgewell Capital and Fairview Commercial Lending that were in that business. These hard money lenders get their investment back when the house is sold. So there is some underlying expectation that the house can be sold with some profit (to reimburse both the lender and you for your work). That friend of mine did tell me that he had flipped a house once but that he did not receive the funding to that from a lender but from an in-law, however it was through a similar arrangement.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3acb1cbcc9c7dace0639501451082d1", "text": "Technically, no. Only if used for improvement or expansion to the original property.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "115d9f93108304b8f81873e0aa4bca23", "text": "I converted my downstairs of my house to a suite with an eye to AirBNBing. But I also make money renting it out (I live in a resort town with ridiculously high rents). So far, I haven't tried AirBNB because renting it out on yearly contracts seems like less total effort and I make 1100 gross per month (net is probably closer to ~800) I have no idea if I could make more on AirBNB. Maybe one of these years I'll try it for a few months.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce454d430bb2b09d8cd5bf04a2243067", "text": "This is of course a perfectly normal thing to happen. People trade up to a bigger house every day. When you've found a bigger house you want to move to and a buyer for your existing one, you arrange 'closing dates' for both i.e. the date on which the sale actually happens. Usually you make them very close, either on the same day or with an overlap of a few weeks. You use the equity (i.e. the difference between the house value and the mortgage) in the old house as the down payment on the new house. You can't of course use the part of the old house that is mortgaged. If the day you buy the new and sell the old is the same, your banks and lawyers do everything for you on that day. If there is an overlap then you need something called 'bridge financing' to cover the period when you own two houses. Banks are used to doing this, and it's not really that expensive when you take into account all the other costs of moving house. Talk to them for details. As a side note, it is generally reckoned not to be worth buying a house if you only intended to live there one or two years. The costs involved in the process of buying, selling and moving usually outweigh any gains in house value. You may find yourself with a higher down payment if you rent for a year or two and save up a down payment for your 'bigger' house instead.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2a85df48c7080ccf28624e2a28e3cb6", "text": "Maybe a larger house/apartment", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d422c12af9dd3cdf0b821af637c0fe7", "text": "Your only option might be finding a seller-financed property with a motivated seller who is willing to take the risk of loaning you money. However, be prepared to pay a hefty rate on that loan if you can even pull it off.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "febd8fd807124b45ff926beb8203609a", "text": "You're talking about porting your mortgage, which may be possible if your mortgage was portable to start with, or if your bank subsequently allows it. Note that although porting a mortgage involves keeping most of the original terms and conditions, the process is still much like applying for a new mortgage, including any lending requirements. Here's an article on the subject. EDIT: In response to OP's comment below: What will happen to the first property if I don't sell it? Because porting a mortgage is treated as if you were closing one mortgage and opening a new one, this means that you would need to pay off the first mortgage. Typically this would be done by selling the first property at the same time that you buy the second one. However, if you're not doing this, you'll need to raise funds another way, which could include opening a new mortgage on the first property (of course, if you're doing that, then there would have to be a good reason for porting the original mortgage; otherwise you might as well leave it where it is, and open a new mortgage on the second property instead). Does the article apply the to USA too? That article (and indeed this answer) are based on the situation in the UK. However, they appear to exist in the US too, though are rarer than in the UK.", "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": "419c2cebfdf3fcf5bc0590e713494556", "text": "I have a CPA. They said that it isn't possible. However, I've seen on message boards that it indeed IS possible, multiple times. I'll likely reach out to another CPA. However, I am interested to hear from somebody who has done this before, so that I at least have a name or defined process for what I'm attempting to do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3365e1c66ba9713fb7072cd51522b0cd", "text": "It would depend on how those banks behaved in the market. Seven can own all.the houses and there would be no problem, it only becomes illegal if those banks then collude to fix prices (or some other monopolostic practice). It's important to remember that monopolies are not illegal per se.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "685c019870334a5ff27af03d3dc4d69e", "text": "Very rarely would an investor be happy with a 4% yield independent of anything else that might happen in the future. For example, if in 3 years for some reason or other inflation explodes and 30 year bond yields go up to 15% across the board, they would be kicking themselves for having locked it up for 30 years at 4%. However, if instead of doing that the investor put their money in a 3 year bond at 3% say, they would have the opportunity to reinvest in the new rate environment, which might offer higher or lower yields. This eventually leads fixed income investors to have a bond portfolio in which they manage the average maturity of their bond portfolio to be somewhere between the two extremes of investing it all in super short term/ low yield money market rates vs. super long term bonds. As they constantly monitor and manage their maturing investments, it inevitably leads them to managing interest rate risk as they decide where to reinvest their incremental coupons by looking at the shape of the yield curve at the time and determining what kind of risk/reward tradeoffs they would have to make.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d0eea67fe2108b2e5558e46e014ed1d0	Received an unexpected cashiers check for over $2K from another state - is this some scam?	[ { "docid": "26df5f84fc25ddd998b843eefed72589", "text": "\"It is likely a scam. In fact the whole mystery shopping \"\"job\"\" may be a scam. There is a Snopes page about cashier's check scams, as well as a US government page which specifically mentions mystery shopping as a scam angle. As for how the scam works, from the occ.gov site I just linked: However, cashier’s checks lately have become an attractive vehicle for fraud when used for payments to consumers. Although, the amount of a cashier’s check quickly becomes \"\"available\"\" for withdrawal by the consumer after the consumer deposits the check, these funds do not belong to the consumer if the check proves to be fraudulent. It may take weeks to discover that a cashier’s check is fraudulent. In the meantime, the consumer may have irrevocably wired the funds to a scam artist or otherwise used the funds—only to find out later, when the fraud is detected—that the consumer owes the bank the full amount of the cashier’s check that had been deposited. It is somewhat unusual in that, from what you say, there has been no attempt thus far to get money back. However, your sister-in-law may have received that info separately, or received it as part of her mystery shopping job but didn't mention it to you with regard to this check. Typically the scam involves telling the recipient to transfer money to a third party (e.g., by buying goods as a mystery shopper, or via wire transfer to \"\"reimburse\"\" someone associated with a sham operation). By the time the cashier's check is revealed as fraudulent, the victim has already transferred away his/her own real money. It's probably worth taking the check to your or her bank and asking them about it. They may have more info. Also, banks usually want to know about scams like this because, in the long run, they accumulate data on them and share that with law enforcement and can eventually catch some of the scammers. Edit: Just to help anyone who may be reading this later. The letter you added confirms it is absolutely a scam. My boss was once contacted via a scam operation very similar to this. The huge red flag (in addition to others already mentioned) is that you are being \"\"given\"\" a check for over $2000, of which only $25 is purportedly for actual mystery shopping and $285 is payment for you, the mystery shopper. The whole rest of the $2000+ amount is for you to wire to \"\"another Mystery/Secret Shopper in order for them to complete their assignment\"\". They are giving you $2000 to give to someone else who is supposedly another one of their own employees/contractors. Ask yourself what sane business would conduct their operations in this way. If you work at a law office, or a hamburger stand, or a school, or anything you like, does your boss ever say \"\"Here is your paycheck for $5000. I know you only earned $1000, but I'm just going to give you the whole $5000, and you're supposed to use $4000 of it to pay your coworker Joe his wages.\"\" No. There is no reason to do that except that the \"\"other mystery shopper\"\" is actually the scammer.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f44bebd232498c8619b1df1a8beae71", "text": "This is a variation of a very common scam. The principle of the scam is this: I give you a check for a huge amount of money which you pay in your account. Then I ask you to pay some money from your account into a third account. Two months later the bank detects that my check was forged / stolen / cancelled / whatever and takes the huge amount of money away from your account. But you paid the money from your account, and that money is gone from your account and irrevocably ended up in my account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71dd227a1b8cfb5e02657bcf1c74a81b", "text": "This is so very much a scam. The accepted answer already tells you the basics of it. In addition to the cheque being fake, there is also the possibility that the cheque is a legitimate cheque but has been stolen (or swindled off) from somebody else. In that case, the delay with which the cashing of the cheque will blow up can be considerably longer than the accepted answer states since it depends on the other victim noticing and reporting the fraudulent transfer. The end result is the same: you are not going to be allowed to keep the money. Report this to both your sister's bank as well as her local police. Nothing good can come off this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7b20c173c89a9774da13c26997b9ba7", "text": "Some of these answers are actually wrong. Basically if you were to cash this cheque, you are committing bank fraud. The cheque is usually fake and ends up with them cashing it off your account--this is how cheques work, when you cash a cheque, you are the one ultimately responsible for the validity of what you're cashing. This is why large cheques are balanced against your active account--so what happens is they essentially just take money from you and leave you red handed.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c027ca3c29bb64ce40f09546520706ce", "text": "I would go to the bank and just express the concern that the check sent to you might not fully clear. You don't want to spend it until you're sure it cleared. I'd ask for a manager to tell you when it will clear, then confirm after that date that it's cleared, with the same guy. Perhaps someone in the industry can explain how long the bank has before deciding the check is bad. 10 days? 2 weeks? Really, it should either clear or bounce by the second night. I'd not risk doing this for anyone. Anyone I know personally can cash their own check, and I'd not get involved with anyone I don't know on a financial matter like this. EDIT - See Littleadv comment below. Good checks clear fast, a forged check has time for the victim to go to the bank and challenge the signature and cashing of the check. The victim can have 60 days to do this. That's the issue, I am wrong, the bank manager couldn't confirm the check was good so soon.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a1e6c5dee1dc728561808bbff5abb42", "text": "\"The answer probably varies with local law, and you haven't said where you're located. In most or all US states, it appears that after some statutory length of time, the bank would transfer the money to the state government, where it would be held indefinitely as \"\"unclaimed property\"\" in the name of the recipient (technically, the payee, the person to whom the check is made payable). This process is called escheatment. Most states publish a list of all unclaimed property, so at some later date the payee could find their name on this list, and realize they were entitled to the funds. There would then be a process by which the payee could claim the funds from the state. Usually the state keeps any interest earned on the money. As far as I know, there typically wouldn't be any way for you, the person who originated the payment, to collect the money after escheatment. (Before escheatment, if you have the uncashed check in your possession, you can usually return it to the bank and have it refunded to you.) I had trouble finding an authoritative source explaining this, but a number of informal sources (found by Googling \"\"cashier check escheatment\"\") seem to agree that this is generally how it works. Here is the web site for a law firm, saying that in California an uncashed cashier's check escheats to the state after 3 years. Until escheatment occurs, the recipient can cash the check at any time. I don't think that cashier's checks become \"\"stale\"\" like personal checks do, and there isn't any situation in which the funds would automatically revert to you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ef100bc0d7e435fdc5fbb103eef4366", "text": "\"It's a scam. The cashier's check will be forged. Craigslist has a warning about it here (item #3). What kind of payment do you think is not fakable? Or at least not likely to be used in scams? When on craigslist - deal only locally and in person. You can ask to see the person's ID if you're being paid by check When being paid by check, how can seeing his/her ID help? In case the check isn't cashable, I can find that person by keeping record of his/her ID? If you're paid by check, the payers details should be printed on the check. By checking the ID you can verify that the details match (name/address), so you can find the payer later. Of course the ID can be faked too, but there's so much you can do to protect yourself. You'll get better protection (including verified escrow service) by selling on eBay. Is being paid by cash the safest way currently, although cash can be faked too, but it is the least common thing that is faked currently? Do you recommend to first deposit the cash into a bank (so that let the bank verify if the cash is faked), before delivering the good? For Craigslist, use cash and meet locally. That rules out most scams as a seller. What payment methods do you think are relatively safe currently? Then getting checks must be the least favorite way of being paid. Do you think cash is better than money order or cashier order? You should only accept cash. If it is a large transaction, you can meet them at your bank, have them get cash, and you receive the cash from the bank. Back to the quoted scam, how will they later manipulate me? Are they interested in my stuffs on moving sale, or in my money? They will probably \"\"accidentally\"\" overpay you and ask for a refund of some portion of the overpayment. In that case you will be out the entire amount that you send back to them and possibly some fees from your bank for cashing a bad check.\"", "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": "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": "611f556014f621935d518b8122f06244", "text": "The check is from your credit card company. Whose ever the money is, it is certainly not the credit card company's, and they know that. This is why they cut the check to you. You should definitely cash the check (or deposit it into your bank account). You've tried to contact the mattress store multiple times, and they aren't responding. At some point, you've got to say that you've done everything that you could to do the right thing. Now, keep in mind that at some point in the future, the mattress store may come back to you and ask for the money back. If I were you, I would not spend this money for quite some time. Put it away in a savings account (maybe add it to your emergency fund). Then if they come back in the future looking for money, you can easily write them a check. You probably also want to keep some documentation on what you've done already to try to give the money back to them, just in case for some reason they try to claim that you owe them some interest or something like that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "944f3a35fe9aee89e71d1f28ddc67cd3", "text": "This sounds like a scam. Did they email you out of the blue to offer you this 'job', by any chance, and you'd never heard of them before? That's an incredibly large red flag in and of itself. While I don't know quite what the scam is likely to be, here's how I would suggest it might work: Other variants are possible - say using a cheque rather than PayPal, or having Person A be the scammer as well. But this being a legitimate transaction is very unlikely.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0bbc0508b93a37b85d8f6b39652161d", "text": "\"Money has to come from somewhere. It can't just appear. So if there is really an aunt at an agency, and she is sending checks, then she is writing checks from that company, and stealing from that company. If that is the case, then the person with whom you are in contact would be using you to launder money (hide its illegal origin) and when the aunt was caught, you would be also. If it is really being done between countries, then it might be more difficult for them to find you, but it is still illegal. However, it is also likely that your contact may be using a common scam, as described by another answerer, that of asking for money in return for a cashier's check. Although cashier's checks were designed to be \"\"safer\"\" than regular checks, in that they won't bounce, if it is a fake cashier's check, it was never worth anything in the first place. When the bank tries to claim the cash from the other bank, and finds it doesn't exist, or there is no record of that check, then the effect is similar to that of a personal check bouncing: the bank will want the money back. If you have already given a portion of that money to your contact, chances are, when your find this out, he will be long gone. I would not have anything further to do with this person. Good luck.\"", "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": "3a3d0ad2e7daf5b3cdf82e6e29bff831", "text": "\"Yes, you should contact the bank and report it. They will eventually \"\"find\"\" that money if it's not yours. You better get it over with rather than having more surprises later.\"", "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": "a604457a8b2691dc2a260e9b318da026", "text": "\"In general, a lack of endorsement (meaning nothing written by the receiver on the back of the check) is equivalent to it being endorsed \"\"as deposit only\"\" to a bank that the depositor has an account with. (See Uniform Commercial Code §4-205.) That is, the bank that receives a deposit without any endorsement promises to the banks that process the check along the line all the way back to your bank, that they properly deposited the money into the account of the entity that the check was made out to. With checks being processed with more and more automation, it's getting fairly common for there to be little writing needed on the check itself, as the digital copy gets submitted to the banking system for clearing. If you're concerned about there being some sort of fraud, that perhaps the entity that you're sending money to isn't the ones that should be getting it, or that they're not actually getting the money, or something like that, that's really an entirely different concern. I would expect that if you were saying that you paid something, and the payee said that you hadn't, that you would dispute the transaction with your bank. They should be able to follow the electronic trail to where the money went, but I suspect they only do so as part of an investigation (and possibly only in an investigation that involved law enforcement of some type). If you're just curious about what bank account number your deposit went into, then it just looks like you're the one trying to commit some sort of fraud (even if you're just being curious), and they don't have much incentive to try to help you out there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "042f3105060491ad0d34cfcd506c6e69", "text": "\"Can you get a cashier's check from your bank, made out in the charity's name, and mail it to the charity? From what I recall of the last few times I've gotten a cashier's check from the bank, it didn't have anything on it that identified me. A determined person could probably trace it back to you, but you're not really looking for strong anonymity. Another possibility would be a postal money order, but I'm not sure whether you can leave the \"\"From\"\" section blank. The money order would have a fee, but the cashier's check should be free. (It is at both my local bank and my CU.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee7d29d8d03cac74c46e680675b027e5", "text": "These unclaimed wages were presumably yours for the taking in Year X when employer paid your other wages. Maybe this is just about uncashed paychecks. In that case, they would have appeared on your W-2 for that year. If you filed your return including that W-2 income, then this is likely not new income. This would be a constructive receipt evaluation. Income occurs when you have the right to income, whether or not you have actual receipt of it. For example, if you are paid via cash drops into a piggy bank but you wait a week (for the start of a new tax period) to withdraw your cash from the piggy bank, then the money was constructively received on the day it went into the piggy bank. This prevents taxpayers from structuring their actual receipt of income, for tax purposes or otherwise, in ways at odds with their true economic position. You can't delay taxable income that is legally yours simply by refusing to accept it when you have the right to it. The wages were income at the time your employer proffered the paycheck. You did not cash it, but I suspect that you filed it on that year's taxes. There's a slight wrinkle that when the check went stale your ability to access the money was not so straightforward. However, you still had the legal right to the money, so my perspective is that the analysis did not change when the check went stale.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec456909c2d1c75c5820e40e811a5ee4", "text": "\"The answers here are all correct. This is 100% scam, beyond any reasonable doubt. Don't fall for it. However, I felt it valuable to explain what would happen were you to fall for this. It's not all that hard to understand, but it involves understanding some of the time delays that exist in modern banking today. The most important thing to understand is that depositing a check does not actually put dollars in your account, even though it appears to. A check is not legal tender for debts public and private. It's a piece of paper known as a \"\"bill of exchange.\"\" It's an authorization for a payee (you), to request that their bank pay you the amount on the check. A transaction made with a check does not actually draw to a close until your bank and their bank communicate and cause the actual transfer of funds to take place. This process is called \"\"clearing\"\" the check. Despite living in the modern times, this process is slow. It can take 7-10 days to clear a check (especially if it is an international bank). This is not good for the banking business. You can imagine how difficult it would be to tell a poor client, who is living paycheck to paycheck, that he can't have his pay until the check clears a week later. Banks have an interest in hiding this annoying feature of the modern banking system, so they do. When you deposit a check, the bank will typically advance you the money (an interest free loan, in effect) while the check \"\"floats\"\" (i.e. until it clears). This creates the illusion that the money is actually in your account for most intents and purposes. (presumably a bank would distinguish between the floating check and a cleared check if you tried to close out your account, but otherwise it looks and feels like the money is in your hands). Of course, if the check is dishonored (because the payer had insufficient funds, or the account simply did not exist), your bank will not get the money. At this moment, they will cancel any advances you received and notify you that the check bounced. Again, this happens 7-10 days later. The general pattern of this scam is that they will pay you by a method which clears slowly, like a check. They will then ask you to withdraw the money using a faster clearing method (like a wire transfer or withdrawing the cash). Typically they will be encouraging you to move quickly (they are on a timetable... when their check bounces, the game is up!) At this time, it will appear as though the account has a positive balance, but in fact it has a negative balance plus an advance on the check. This looks great until 7-10 days later, when the check bounces. At that time, the bank will cancel the advance, and reality will set in. You will now have an open bank account, legally opened by you in your own name, which is deeply in debt. Meanwhile, the scammer walks away with all the money that you sent them (which cleared quickly). There are many variants which can hide the details. Some can play games with check kiting to try to make your first check clear (then try to rope you in for a more painful hit). Some will change the instruments they use (checks are the easy ones, so they're simply most common). Don't try to think \"\"maybe this one is legit.\"\" These scammers literally make a living off of making shady transactions look legit. Things I would recommend looking out for:\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
cd90d795e053f3c6b9a1b127d4873615	How can I help others plan their finances, without being a “conventional” financial planner?	[ { "docid": "5bf12bcfb70c606a3519467ff450d9e2", "text": "\"In the UK there is a non-profit called the Citizen's Advice Bureau which provides free advice to people on a wide range of subjects, but including debt and budgeting. Consumer Credit Counselling Service provides explicit help but again, in the UK. A search for \"\"volunteer debt counsellor\"\" reveals a whole host of organizations that do that, but almost all based in the UK or Canada or Australia. The US seems not to be well provided with such organizations. This page advises people to volunteer as a debt counsellor, but gives no specifics of organizations, just \"\"Volunteer at local county community centers, churches and agencies. Your local faith-based organization might be a good place to start, even if you are not a member. Regrettably a search for \"\"free debt counselling\"\" produced a similar list of non-profits in UK and Canada, but mainly companies peddling consolidation loans in the US.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c58492dd9413627a4abacef19e9b0799", "text": "If you personally make any money from it then you need a Series 65, or a Series 63 license. It is a private industry/SEC regulation. The license itself basically spells out your duties and ethical standards for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4d050f3138b8eea336811a2c79352fd", "text": "I am a Certified Financial Planner and provide tactical advice on everything from budgeting to saving for retirement. You do not have to have any series exams or a CFP to do this work, although it helps give you credibility. As long as you DO NOT provide investment advice, you likely do not need to register as an investment advisor or need any certification.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "747228de68d50eeb53a114dfcfce24a9", "text": "\"I think it's great that you want to contribute. Course Instructor You may want to take a look at becoming an instructor for a course like Dave Ramsey's Financial Peace University. These are commonly offered through churches and other community venues for a fee. This may be a good fit if you want to focus on basic financial literacy, setting up and sticking to a budget, and getting their financial \"\"house\"\" in order. It may not be a good fit if you don't want to teach an existing curriculum, or if you find the tenets of the course too unpalatable. A significant number of the people in Dave's audience are close to or in the middle of a financial meltdown, and so his advice includes controversial ideas such as avoiding credit altogether, often because that's how they got into their current mess. Counselor If you want to run your own show, I know of several people who have built their own practice that is run along the lines of a counselor charging hourly rates, and they work with couples who are having money problems. Building a reputation and a network of referring counselors and professionals is key here, and definitely seems like it would require a full-time commitment. I would avoid \"\"credit counseling\"\" and the like. Most of these organizations are focused on restructuring credit card debt, not spending signficant time on behavioral change. You don't need a series 7, 63, 65 etc. or even a CFA. I've previously acquired a number of these and can confirm that they are investment credentials that are intended to help you get a job and/or get more business as a broker or conventional financial planner, i.e. salesperson of securities. The licensure process is necessary to protect consumers from advice that serves the investment sales force but is bad for the consumer, and because you must be licensed to provide investment advice. There is a class of fee-only financial planners, but they primarily deal with complex issues that allow them to make money, and often give away basic personal finance advice for free in the form of articles, podcasts, etc. Charity For part-time or free work, in my area there are also several charity organizations that help people do their taxes and provide basic budgeting and personal finance instruction, but this is very localized and may vary quite a bit depending on where you live. However, if there are none near you, you can always start one! Journalism If you have an interest in writing, there are also people who work as journalists and write columns, books, or newsletters, and it is much easier now to publish and build a network online, either on your own, through a blog or contributing to a website. Speaker at Community events There are also many opportunities to speak to a specific community such as a church or social organization. For example, where I live there are local organizations for Spanish speaking, Polish speaking, elderly, young professional, young mother and retiree groups for example, all of who might be interested in your advice on issues that specifically address their needs. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b421bf39dbf510998ce2aa2bc6ce6f7", "text": "You know there is a small group of individuals who focus on strictly planning without implementation. They are not securities licensed (no 7,6,66,63 license) so they cannot sell or discuss securities, but they do put together financial plans to help individuals recover from debt and rework spending/saving strategies. They also usually work hand in hand with a CFP or ChFc to do the implementation process. The hard part is making money at it. Financial Planners make most of their income on high net worth clients. You would be targeting low income or troubles income clients that would have a hard time paying money for the service. I am not saying it cannot be done, you just have your work cut out for you. But it is a noble career and you would be helping idividuals have a better life. That speaks volumes!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a09d423d5138871550a7696acd6bc97", "text": "\"You need a license/registration to be a \"\"conventional\"\" financial planner. But as long as your work is limited to budgets, and cash flow analysis, it may be more like accounting. In your shoes, I would consult the local CPA association about what you need (if anything) to do what you're doing.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "816947f3eceb4fe3417ce1673e77d6ea", "text": "\"If you want a Do-It-Yourself solution, look to a Vanguard account with their total market index funds. There's a lot of research that's been done recently in the financial independence community. Basically, there's not many money managers who can outperform the market index (either S&P 500 or a total market index). Actually, no mutual funds have been identified that outperform the market, after fees, consistently. So there's not much sense in paying someone to earn you less than a low fee index fund could do. And some of the numbers show that you can actually lose value on your 401k due to high fees. That's where Vanguard comes in. They offer some of the lowest fees (if not the lowest) and a selection of index funds that will let you balance your portfolio the way you want. Whether you want to go 100% total stock market index fund or a balance between total stock market index fund and total bond index fund, or a \"\"lazy 3 fund portfolio\"\", Vanguard gives you the tools to do it yourself. Rebalancing would require about an hour every quarter. (Or time span you declare yourself). jlcollinsnh A Simple Path to Wealth is my favorite blog about financial independence. Also, Warren Buffet recommended that the trustees for his wife's inheritance when he passes invest her trust in one investment. Vanguard's S&P500 index fund. The same fund he chose in a 10 year $1M bet vs. hedge fund managers. (proceeds go to charity). That was about 9 years ago. So far, Buffet's S&P500 is beating the hedge funds. Investopedia Article\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6302399f615b121a3add9a0f0edf061", "text": "\"There are several types of financial advisors. Some are associated with brokerages and insurance companies and the like. Their services are often free. On the other hand, the advice they give you will generally be strongly biased toward their own company's products, and may be biased toward their own profits rather than your gains. (Remember, anything free is being paid for by someone, and if you don't know who it's generally going to be you.) There are some who are good, but I couldn't give you any advice on finding them. Others are not associated with any of the above, and serve entirely as experts who can suggest ways of distributing your money based on your own needs versus resources versus risk-tolerance, without any affiliation to any particular company. Consulting these folks does cost you (or, if it's offered as a benefit, your employer) some money, but their fiduciary responsibility is clearly to you rather than to someone else. They aren't likely to suggest you try anything very sexy, but when it comes to your primary long-term savings \"\"exciting\"\" is usually not a good thing. The folks I spoke to were of the latter type. They looked at my savings and my plans, talked to me about my risk tolerance and my goals, picked a fairly \"\"standard\"\" strategy from their files, ran simulations against it to sanity-check it, and gave me a suggested mix of low-overhead index fund types that takes almost zero effort to maintain (rebalance occasionally between funds), has acceptable levels of risk, and (I admit I've been lucky) has been delivering more than acceptable returns. Nothing exciting, but even though I'm relatively risk-tolerant I'd say excitement is the last thing I need in my long-term savings. I should actually talk to them again some time soon to sanity-check a few things; they can also offer advice on other financial decisions (whether/when I might want to talk to charities about gift annuity plans, whether Roth versus traditional 401(k) makes any difference at all at this point in my career, and so on).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b683b5c56dadebd966fea31964fadf1", "text": "\"One alternative to bogleheadism is the permanent portfolio concept (do NOT buy the mutual fund behind this idea as you can easily obtain access to a low cost money market fund, stock index fund, and bond fund and significantly reduce the overall cost). It doesn't have the huge booms that stock plans do, but it also doesn't have the crushing blows either. One thing some advisers mention is success is more about what you can stick to than what \"\"traditionally\"\" makes sense, as you may not be able to stick to what traditionally makes sense (all people differ). This is an excellent pro and con critique of the permanent portfolio (read the whole thing) that does highlight some of the concerns with it, especially the big one: how well will it do in a world of high interest rates? Assuming we ever see a world of high interest rates, it may not provide a great return. The authors make the assumption that interest rates will be rising in the future, thus the permanent portfolio is riskier than a traditional 60/40. As we're seeing in Europe, I think we're headed for a world of negative interest rates - something in the past most advisers have thought was very unlikely. I don't know if we'll see interest rates above 6% in my lifetime and if I live as long as my father, that's a good 60+ years ahead. (I realize people will think this is crazy to write, but consider that people are willing to pay governments money to hold their cash - that's how crazy our world is and I don't see this changing.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39fac01405b61176cd3e961c7a2eb120", "text": "\"Legally ok? Sure. Friends frequently discuss financial matters, and share advice. This is quite far from taking money from them and managing it, where at some point you need to be licensed for such things. If you're concerned about giving bad advice, just stay generic. The best advice has no risk. If I offer a friend a stock tip, of course there's the chance the stock goes south, but when I tell a friend who asks about the difference between Mutual Funds and ETFs, and we discuss the expenses each might have, I'm still leaving the decision as to which ETF to him. When I offer the 'fortune cookie' soundbites like \"\"If you are going to make a large purchase, delay it a week for each $100 of value. e.g. if you really want a $1000 TV, sleep on it for a few months\"\" no one can mis-apply this. I like those two sites you mentioned, but the one-on-one is good for the friend and for you. You can always learn more, and teaching helps you hone your skills.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d77ecf24ade6171a4838084eeac4a212", "text": "\"I have always found that the \"\"free\"\" planners are just salesmen pointing you in their best interests. Not that it won't get you a good deal in the processes, but, in my experience, they usually just recommend products that give them the best commission, finders fee, kickback, whatever. Flat fee financial planners are not really to my liking either. This is a taste thing, but generally, I feel like now that they have my fee, what interest do they have in taking care of me. That doesn't mean that they don't give good advise however. They may be a good first step. Percentage based financial planners, those that charge a percentage of assets under management, are my recommendation. The more money they make me the more money they make. This seems to work out quite well. Whatever you do, you need to be aware that financial planners are not just about recommending products, or saving money. That's part of it, but a good planner will also help you look at monthly budgets, current costs, liabilities, and investments. You want to look for someone that you can basically tell your goal to - \"\"I want to have x amount of money saved for y date,\"\" for example, or \"\"I want to reduce my bills by z amount in x months\"\". Run from any planner that looks only at the large sum as the \"\"solution\"\" or only source of money. You want a planner that will look at your first house mortgage(s), care loans, income, other investments, etc. and come up with a full plan for everything. If you're only trying to invest the new house money, and that's it, you're better off just sticking with Google and some research on your own.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a719f612b1a74511964bf3c048865f8c", "text": "Considering a CFP will likely use the same planning software as any other advisor...just hire an advisor with a clean broker check and solid educational background that doesn't come off as a sleazy sales person. Not to say that a CFP doesn't say ANYTHING about qualifications, but really it's just a marketing ploy from a business perspective.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46e0e568437fd3adfcb00ecc1a0b2e53", "text": "Most people I talk with don't even know the difference on a simple level between the Dow, S&P, Russell, Nasdaq, etc. I tell my friends and family that they know more than they realize. I help them use their knowledge and what they see when they want to invest. Or if they prefer not to, just buy index funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7219d71fd61c6f8af682888a0c103c22", "text": "\"First, I applaud you for caring. Most people don't! In fact, I was in that category. You bring up several issues and I'll try to address them separately. (1) Getting a financial planner to talk with you. I had the same experience! My belief is that they don't want to admit that they don't know how things work. I even asked if I could pay them an hourly fee to ask questions and review stocks with them. Most declined. You'll find that very few people actually take the time to get trained to evaluate stocks and the stock market as a whole. (See later Investools.com). After looking, however, I did find people who would spend an hour or two with me when we met once a quarter to review my \"\"portfolio\"\"/investments. I later found training that companies offered. I would attend any free training I could get because they actually wanted to spend time and talk and teach investors. Bottom line is: Talking to their clients is the job of a financial planner. If he (or she) is not willing to take this time, it is in your best interest to find someone who will spend that time. (2) Learning about investing! I'm not affiliated with anyone. I'm a software developer and I do my own trading/investments. The opinions I share are my own. When I was 20 years away from retirement, I started learning about the stock market so that I would know how it worked before I retired so that (a) I could influence a change if one was needed, and (b) so I wouldn't have to blindly accept the advice of the \"\"experts\"\" even when the stock market is crashing. I have used Investools.com, and TDAmeritrade's Think-or-Swim platform. I've learned a tremendous amount from the Investools training. I recommend them. But don't expect to learn how to get rich from them or any training you take. The TDA Think-or-swim platform I highly recommend BECAUSE it has a feature called \"\"Paper Money\"\". It lets you trade using the real market but with play money. I highly recommend ANY platform that you can use to trade IN PAPER money! The think-or-swim platform would allow you to invest $30,000 in paper money (you can have as much as you want) into any stock. This would let you see if you can make more money than your current investment advisor. You could invest $10K in one SPY, $10K in DIA and $10K in IWM (these are symbols for the S&P 500, Dow 30, and Small Cap stocks). This is just an example, I'm not suggesting any investment advise! It's important that you actually do this not just write down on a piece of paper or Excel spreadsheet what you were going to do because it's common to \"\"cheat\"\" and change the dates to meet your needs. I have found it incredibly helpful to understand how the market works by trying to do my own paper and now real money investing. I was and you will be surprised to find that many trades lose money during the initial start part of the trade because it's very difficult to buy at the exact right time. An important part of managing your own investments is learning to trade with rules and not get \"\"emotionally involved\"\" in your trades. (3) Return on investment. You were not happy with $12 return. Low returns are a byproduct of the way most investment firms (financial planners) take (diversification). They diversify to take a \"\"hands off\"\" approach toward investment because that approach has been the only approach that they have found that works relatively well in all market conditions. It's not (necessarily) a bad approach. It avoids large losses in down markets (most riskier approaches lose more than the market). The downside is it also avoids the high returns. If the market goes up 15% the investment might only go up 5%. 30K is enough to give to multiple investment firms a try. I gave two different firms $25K each to see how they would invest. The direction was to accept LOTS of risk (with the potential for large losses or large gains). In a year that the market did very well, one lost money, and one made a small gain. It was a learning experience. I, now, have taken the money back and invest it myself. NOTE: I would be happy with a guy who made me 10-15% year over year (in good times and bad) and didn't talk with me, but I haven't found someone who can do that. :-) NOTE 2: Don't believe what you hear from the news about the stock market being up 5% year to date. Do your own analysis. NOTE 3: Investing in \"\"the market\"\" (S&P 500 for example) is a great way to go if you're just starting. Few investment firms can beat \"\"the market\"\" although many try to do so. I too have found it's easier to do that than other approaches I've learned. So, it might be a good long term approach as well. Best wishes to you in your learning about the market and desires to make money with your money. That is what is all about.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6435f24f13a0fde33b0d612aa3ee4b3d", "text": "Firstly, make sure annual income exceeds annual expenses. The difference is what you have available for saving. Secondly, you should have tiers of savings. From most to least liquid (and least to most rewarding): The core of personal finance is managing the flow of money between these tiers to balance maximizing return on savings with budget constraints. For example, insurance effectively allows society to move money from savings to stocks and bonds. And a savings account lets the bank loan out a bit of your money to people buying assets like homes. Note that the above set of accounts is just a template from which you should customize. You might want to add in an FSA or HSA, extra loan payments, or taxable brokerage accounts, depending on your cash flow, debt, and tax situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43b3828038e246be1a8a086d1e9172df", "text": "\"The key for your friends is a robust and detailed form of budgeting. There are plenty of website resources to help them through that process and you should steer them there rather than go through it with them yourself. Of course you should show willing to answer questions and help if asked. The budgeting exercise will require quite some effort and diligence to track historical and current actual expenditure (keeping a detailed spending diary is an excellent way to start). This must be coupled with a lot thought about ways to trim at various degrees of severity. For example it means analysing all utilities deals to make sure they're on the most suitable package. It is also an ongoing, iterative process - not a one-off. The only way in which you giving money to them would be of help is if they have borrowings and the cost of servicing that debt via interest is what's tipping their budget from positive to negative. Only if they are averaging a cash surplus each month can they make headway. Otherwise, the underlying causes of their woes are not being addressed, existing spending habits continue and they are merely deferring the changes they need to make. Your friends have to adopt LBYM - Living Below Your Means. That's simply a modern version of Mr Micawber's famous, and oft-quoted, recipe for happiness: \"\"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.\"\" Discussion forums like this make interesting reading: http://boards.fool.com/living-below-your-means-100158.aspx?mid=30971651&sort=collapsed\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e43f9d61bad87cff37e8eca0c342c31e", "text": "I find that when I have to justify why I want something to someone else, I eliminate impulse buys because I have to think about it enough to explain to someone else why it is desirable. Simply going through that process in my own head in advance of a conversation to justify it I talk myself out of a lot of purchases. I'm married, so I have these conversations with my wife. She is very supportive of me buying things that I want if they will bring value. If I wasn't married and couldn't control my spending, I'd find a good friend or relative that I trust, and I would create a trust with me as the primary beneficiary, and I would appoint a trustee who was willing to sign off on any purchase that I wanted to make after justifying it to them. If I had no friends or relatives that I trusted in that role, I'd hire a financial adviser to fill the same role. Contractually I would want to be able to terminate the arrangement if it was not working, but that would mean sacrificing the legal fees to alter the trust and appoint a new trustee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3752027275a54f8d477ceff2be25b5e8", "text": "\"Technically, anyone who advises how you should spend or proportion your money is a financial adviser. A person that does it for money is a Financial Advisor (difference in spelling). Financial Advisors are people that basically build, manage, or advise on your portfolio. They have a little more institutional knowledge on how/where to invest, given your goals, since they do it on a daily basis. They may know a little more than you since, they deal with many different assets: stocks, ETFs, mutual funds, bonds, insurances (home/health/life), REITs, options, futures, LEAPS, etc. There is risk in everything you do, which is why what they propose is generally according to the risk-level you want to assume. Since you're younger, your risk level could be a little higher, as you approach retirement, your risk level will be lower. Risk level should be associated with how likely you're able to reacquire your assets if you lose it all as well as, your likelihood to enjoy the fruits from your investments. Financial Advisors are great, however, be careful about them. Some are payed on commissions, which are given money for investing in packages that they support. Basically, they could get paid $$ for putting you in a losing situation. Also be careful because some announce that they are fee-based - these advisers often receive fees as well as commissions. Basically, associate the term \"\"commission\"\" with \"\"conflict-of-interest\"\", so you want a fee-only Advisor, which isn't persuaded to steer you wrong. Another thing worth noting is that some trading companies (like e*trade) has financial services that may be free, depending how much money you have with them. Generally, $50K is on the lower end to get a Financial Advisors. There has been corruption in the past, where Financial Advisors are only given a limited number of accounts to manage, that means they took the lower-valued ones and basically ran them into the ground, so they could get newer ones from the lot that were hopefully worth more - the larger their portfolio, the more $$ they could make (higher fees or more commissions) and subjectively less work (less accounts to have to deal with), that's subjective, since the spread of the wealth was accross many markets.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab5edd271f5b25ac7c596587f7e13ac2", "text": "If you use a financial planner not only should they be a fiduciary but you should just pay them an hourly rate once a year instead of a percentage unless the percentage is cheaper at this time. To find a good one, go to the National Association of Personal Financial Advisers website, NAPFA.org. Another good resource is Garrett Planning Network: GarrettPlanningNetwork.com.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fda5f5c4f7c382202bb5fab7941277f4", "text": "\"The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) has a page specifically about working with a financial planner or advisor. It's a good starting point if you are thinking about getting a financial professional to help you plan and manage your investments. In the \"\"Where To Look\"\" section on that page, FCAC refers to a handful of industry associations. I'll specifically highlight the Financial Planning Standards Council's \"\"Find a planner\"\" page, which can help you locate a Certified Financial Planner (CFP). Choose financial advice carefully. Prefer certified professionals who charge a set fee for service over advisors who work on commission to push investment products. Commission-based advice is seldom unbiased. MoneySense magazine published a listing last year for where to find a fee-only financial planner, calling it \"\"The most comprehensive listing of Canadian fee-only financial planners on the web\"\" — but do note the caveat (near the bottom of the page) that the individuals & firms have not been screened. Do your own due diligence and check references.\"", "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": "" } ]	fiqa
2610b3e155af92e861d3f1b7d3805fef	How does one value Facebook stock as a potential investment?	[ { "docid": "f842bd669390984b235833aa573c6614", "text": "In the long term, a P/E of 15-25 is the more 'normal' range. With a 90 P/E, Facebook has to quadruple its earnings to get to normal. It this possible? Yes. Likely? I don't know. I am not a stock analyst, but I love numbers and try to get to logical conclusions. I've seen data that worldwide advertising is about $400B, and US about $100B. If Facebook's profit runs 25% or so and I want a P/E of 20, it needs profit of $5B on sales of $20B (to reconcile its current $100B market cap). No matter what FB growth in sales is, the advertising spent worldwide will not rise or fall by much more than the economy. So with a focus on ads, they would need about 5% of the world market to grow into a comfortable P/E. Flipping this around, if all advertising were 25% profit (a crazy assumption), there are $100B in profit to be had world wide each year, and the value of the companies might total $2T in aggregate. The above is a rambling sharing of the reasonable bounds one might expect in analyzing a stock. It can be used for any otherwise finite market, such as soft drinks. There are only so many people on the planet, and in aggregate, the total soft drink consumption can't exceed, say 6 billion gallons per day. The pie may grow a bit, but it's considered fixed as an order of magnitude. Edit - for what it's worth, as of 8/3/12, the price has dropped significantly, currently $20, and the P/E is showing as 70X. I'm not making any predictions, but the stock needs a combined higher earnings or lower valuation to still approach 'normal.'", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2898cbcad650524273c571ea685cf014", "text": "\"You could try this experiment: pay for an Ad/banner on Facebook for 1 month. The Ad/banner should link to your ecommerce site. Then see if the Ad/banner does or does not convert into ecommerce orders (\"\"converting\"\" means that people coming to your eccomerce site from Facebook after having clicked on your Ad/banner really buy something on your site). If it does convert, you will go on paying for Ads/banners and other people will do the same for their sites, so FB might make cash in next years. But if it does NOT convert you and everybody else will soon discover and stop paying for Ads/banners, thus it will be hard for Facebook to make money with Advertising, thus Facebook might be just a big bubble (unless they find other ways of making money). I did the experiment I suggested above and the conversion rate was an absoulte ZERO!!! (Instead Google Adwords converted well for the same site). So IMHO I would stay away from FB. But remember that stock market is emotional (at least on short periods of time), so it might be that even if FB wil never become a cash cow, for the 1st few months people (expecially small investors tempeted by the brand) might go crazy for the stocks and buy buy buy, making the price go up up up. EDIT in reply to some comments below arguing that my answer was boiled down to one single experiment: General Motors said Tuesday that it will stop paid advertising on Facebook...the social media paid ads simply weren't delivering the hoped-for buyers... (CNN May/15/2012) A donkey can not fly either when it's me (with a single experiment) trying to make it fly or the entire GM workforce.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f63cceb091fed668aefa3680076af07f", "text": "\"To know if a stock is undervalued is not something that can be easily assessed (else, everybody would know which stock is undervalued and everybody will buy it until it reaches its \"\"true\"\" value). But there are methods to assess the value of a company, I think that the 3 most known methods are: If the assets of the company were to be sold right now and that all its debts were to be paid back right now, how much will be left? This remaining amount would be the fundamental value of your company. That method could work well on real estate company whose value is more or less the buildings that they own minus of much they borrowed to acquire them. It's not really usefull in the case of Facebook, as most of its business is immaterial. I know the value of several companies of the same sector, so if I want to assess the value of another company of this sector I just have to compare it to the others. For example, you find out that simiral internet companies are being traded at a price that is 15 times their projected dividends (its called a Price Earning Ratio). Then, if you see that Facebook, all else being equal, is trading at 10 times its projected dividends, you could say that buying it would be at a discount. A company is worth as much as the cash flow that it will give me in the future If you think that facebook will give some dividends for a certain period of time, then you compute their present value (this means finding how much you should put in a bank account today to have the same amount in the future, this can be done by dividing the amount by some interest rates). So, if you think that holding a share of a Facebook for a long period of time would give you (at present value) 100 and that the share of the Facebook is being traded at 70, then buy it. There is another well known method, a more quantitative one, this is the Capital Asset Pricing Model. I won't go into the details of this one, but its about looking at how a company should be priced relatively to a benchmark of other companies. Also there are a lot's of factor that could affect the price of a company and make it strays away from its fundamental value: crisis, interest rates, regulation, price of oil, bad management, ..... And even by applying the previous methods, the fundemantal value itself will remain speculative and you can never be sure of it. And saying that you are buying at a discount will remain an opinion. After that, to price companies, you are likely to understand financial analysis, corporate finance and a bit of macroeconomy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c292006ff02210387d9df2e28d2437bb", "text": "\"The amount of hype and uneducated investors/speculators driving its prices up. Just by that I would say its prices are inflated. Bear in mind that Facebook don't sell anything tangible. They can go down as fast as they went up. Most of their income is ad based and single-product oriented, and as such highly dependent on usage and trends (remember MySpace?). Having said that, all the other \"\"classic\"\" valuation techniques are still valid and you should utilize them.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "fe61fe6dda1ebeb516ecc9824dd2d930", "text": "Even people who did think it was a good didn't really get screwed. If you are an investor who thinks Facebook is a good buy then fucking hold it. The company hasn't even released its first quarter of earnings yet. If the people who bought Facebook are right about it it will be worth it in five years. The fact is we cannot say whether or not that is going to happen right now. The only people who really got screwed are the ones who wanted to flip it. If you wanted to flip it you lost a lot of money, but the retail investors who figured that Facebook long-term was worth the money, didn't get screwed. They might be wrong and might lose all their money five years from now, but they didn't get screwed yet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dcf6b3771ad03916adfe08e2982cd346", "text": "\"An answer can be found in my book, \"\"A Modern Approach to Graham and Dodd Investing,\"\" p. 89 http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Approach-Graham-Investing-Finance/dp/0471584150/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321628992&sr=1-1 \"\"If a company has no sustained cash flow over time, it has no value...If a company has positive cash flow but economic earnings are zero or less, it has a value less than book value and is a wasting asset. There is enough cash to pay interim dividends, bu the net present value of the dividend stream is less than book value.\"\" A company with a stock trading below book value is believed to be \"\"impaired,\"\" perhaps because assets are overstated. Depending on the situation, it may or may not be a bankruptcy candidate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0656add052a98a8db4a16389833068c", "text": "Source, see if you have access to it Convertible notes are often used by angel investors who wish to fund businesses without establishing an explicit valuation of the company in which they are investing. When an investor purchases equity in a startup, the purchase price of the equity implies a company valuation. For example, if an investor purchases a 10 per cent ownership stake in a company, and pay $1m for that stake, this implies that the company is worth $10m. Some early stage investors may wish to avoid placing a value on the company in this way, because this in turn will affect the terms under which later-stage investors will invest in the company. Convertible notes are structured as loans at the time the investment is made. The outstanding balance of the loan is automatically converted to equity when a later equity investor appears, under terms that are governed by the terms set by the later-stage equity investor. An equity investor is someone who purchases equity in a company. Example:- Suppose an angel investor invests $100,000 using a convertible note. Later, an equity investor invests $1m and receives 10% of the company's shares. In the simplest possible case, the initial angel investor's convertible note would convert to 1/10th of the equity investor's claim. Depending on the exact structure of the convertible note, however, the angel investor may also receive extra shares to compensate them for the additional risk associated with being an earlier investor The worst-case scenario would be if the issuing company initially performed well, meaning that the debt would be converted into shares, and subsequently went bankrupt. The converted shares would become worthless, but the holder of the note would no longer have any recourse. Will twitter have to sell their offices and liquidate staff to close this debt? This depends on the seniority(priority) of the debt. Debt is serviced according to seniority. The higher seniority debts will be paid off first and then only the lower seniority debts be serviced. This will all be in the agreements when you enter into a transaction. When you say liquidate staff you mean sell off their assets and not sell their staff into slavery.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5332ab4fcf9969669a3adebdc5e92194", "text": "\"Bloomberg suggests that two Fidelity funds hold preferred shares of Snapchat Inc.. Preferred shares hold more in common with bonds than with ordinary stock as they pay a fixed dividend, have lower liquidity, and don't have voting rights. Because of this lower liquidity they are not usually offered for sale on the market. Whether these funds are allowed to hold such illiquid assets is more a question for their strategy document than the law; it is completely legal for a company to hold a non-marketable interest in another, even if the company is privately held as Snapchat is. The strategy documents governing what the fund is permitted to hold, however, may restrict ownership either banning non-market holdings or restricting the percentage of assets held in illiquid instruments. Since IPO is very costly, funds like these who look to invest in new companies who have not been through IPO yet are a very good way of taking a diversified position in start-ups. Since they look to invest directly rather than through the market they are an attractive, low cost way for start-ups to generate funds to grow. The fund deals directly with the owners of the company to buy its shares. The markdown of the stock value reflects the accounting principle of marking to market (MTM) financial assets that do not have a trade price so as to reflect their fair value. This markdown implies that Fidelity believe that the total NPV of the company's net assets is lower than they had previously calculated. This probably reflects a lack of revenue streams coming into the business in the case of Snapchat. edit: by the way, since there is no market for start-up \"\"stocks\"\" pre-IPO my heart sinks a little every time I read the title of this question. I'm going to be sad all day now :(.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5ad9cc5c56afd2f812810cd5f15af08", "text": "One of the problems is that its being marketed at a growth stock. When Facebook has 900 million users, there isn't exactly a lot of growth left. The only thing they can do is try to squeeze more money out of their existing user base, which won't be easy to do for people not generally interested in clicking ads or paying for things. Facebook as a company will continue to do well for a long long time. It's good they aren't really dependent on the money their stock brings them. I wouldn't be surprised to see the stock settle around $18-$22ish, even though it probably should technically settle in the $13-15 range.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8b88198916d748a47f9a1efedca2ada", "text": "Yeah from what I've read, Facebook is pilling up the profits so they could be in very good position to do the RA as well. Its crazy if you think about the Google one.. At least $100m more went to the shareholders due to the different fee structure. Why wouldn't you do that if you had the option?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee8a6f97c97ef7941969a41f0081da28", "text": "\"What littleadv said is correct. His worth is based on the presumed worth of the total company value (which is much greater than all investment dollars combined because of valuation growth). In other words, his \"\"worth\"\" is based on the potential return for his share of ownership at a rate based on the latest valuation of the company. He is worth $17.5 billion today, but the total funding for Facebook is only $2.4 billion? I don't understand this. In private companies, valuations typically come from either speculation/analysts or from investments. Investment valuations are the better gauge, because actual money traded hands for a percentage ownership. However, just as with public companies on the stock market, there are (at least) two caveats. Just because someone else sold their shares at a given rate, doesn't mean that rate... In both cases, it's possible the value may be much lower or much higher. Some high-value purchases surprise for how high they are, such as Microsoft's acquisition of Skype for $8.5 billion. The formula for one owner's \"\"worth\"\" based on a given acquisition is: Valuation = Acquisition amount / Acquisition percent Worth = Owner's percent × Valuation According to Wikipedia Zuckerberg owns 24%. In January, Goldman Sach's invested $500 million at a $50 billion valuation. That is the latest investment and puts Zuckerberg's worth at $12 billion. However, some speculation places a Facebook IPO at a much higher valuation, such as as $100 billion. I don't know what your reference is for $17 billion, but it puts their valuation at $70.8 billion, between the January Goldman valuation and current IPO speculation. For instance, Eduardo Saverin originally invested $10,000, which, at his estimated 5% ownership, would now be worth $3-5 billion.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "443ed933186e8032726e0e1c7ace6636", "text": "\"> Wall St ripped off retail investors pretty good \"\"Ripped off\"\" ? How about \"\"retail investors did not sufficiently research and think about the company, invested poorly\"\" Seriously, a 20 minute thought experiment pre-IPO of \"\"is Facebook worth $100bn, and does it have growth prospects?\"\" ought to immediately discount the stock. The smart money was always on \"\"short it as soon as you can\"\" If you're making investment decisions like \"\"Hey, I know what that company is. I use facebook!\"\" you deserve to lose money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "effdb8dcc335751c858d9ba889630d68", "text": "FB's IPO was at exactly the right price. The intent all along was to allow insiders to sell to retail bagholders, hence the large support by JPM to hold the line at $38.0000000, the absolutely legendary hype, and the unusual step of allowing retail in on it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "575ea962df2310a80f53c4f8f5e81c12", "text": "DCF only works with stable cash flows, a new tech company that does not have stable cash flows or even cash flows that are easy to ACCURATELY forecast is a poor candidate for DCF. Comparables don't really work well in this space as the closest thing they would have is skype and other messager products. The honest and true value of the acquisition is the value captured/saved by facebook from the decrease in competition and as facebook is in the advertising business, this gives them a way to stay in the lives of their users. Facebook could argue, the core rationale for the acquisition was to stay current with their users keeping their core product attractive to their customers (advertisers).", "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": "af2e38ba5d717fc1e30e479aeb76faec", "text": "There are two very large negative factors that affect Yahoo's valuation. The first is that their search business is in decline and continues to lose ground to Google and even Bing. There's no sign that they have any plan or product in the works to offset this decline, so there's tremendous uncertainty about the company's forward-looking revenues. The second is that the company can't seem to decide what to do with its stake in Alibaba, clearly the company's most valuable asset. It they sell it, the question then becomes what they plan to do with the proceeds. Will they do share buybacks or offer a special dividend to reward investors? Will they use some or all of the money to make strategic acquisitions that are revenue-enhancing? Will they use it to develop new products/services? Keep in mind one other thing here, too. There's a world of difference between what something is valued at and what someone's willing to actually pay for it. A patent portfolio is great and perhaps holds good value, assuming the buyer can find a way to monetize it. How exactly was the valuation of the patents arrived at, and are they worthwhile enough for someone to pay anywhere close to that valuation? There's more to this than meets the eye by using a first-blush look at asset valuation, and that's where the professionals come in. My bet is that they have it right and there's something the rest of the market doesn't see or understand about it, hence questions like yours. I hope this helps. Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4319ebd4f62eadb63d61aa3c1f162649", "text": "The Facebook IPO wasn't a debacle. Facebook got maximum value for their shares. That's precisely what you want at IPO. If you sell your stock initially for $25, and next week it's at $35, you've left a hell of a lot of money on the table.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ad8c31cf38ded9ae11e02d78b881164", "text": "\"Thank you for the in-depth, detailed explanation; it's refreshing to see a concise, non verbose explanation on reddit. I have a couple of questions, if that's alright. Firstly, concerning mezzanine investors. Based on my understanding from Google, these people invest after a venture has been partially financed (can I use venture like that in a financial context, or does it refer specifically to venture capital?) so they would receive a smaller return, yes? Is mezzanine investing particularly profitable? It sounds like you'd need a wide portfolio. Secondly, why is dilution so important further down the road? Is it to do with valuation? Finally, at what point would a company aim to meet an IPO? Is it case specific, or is there a general understanding of the \"\"best time\"\"? Thank you so much for answering my questions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ffe077ce7109494b884f009cd2cac25f", "text": "\"People treat an emergency fund as some kind of ace-in-the-hole when it comes to financial difficulty, but it is only one of many sources of money that you can utilize. What is an emergency? First, you have to define what an emergency is. Is it a lost job? Is it an unplanned event (pregnancy, perhaps)? Is it a medical emergency? Is it the death of you or your spouse? Also, what does it mean to be unplanned? Is being so unhappy with your job that you give a 2-week notice an emergency? Is one month of planning an emergency? Two? Only you can answer these questions for yourself, but they significantly shape your financial strategy. Planning is highly dependent on your cashflow, and, for some people, it may take them a year to build enough savings to enable them to take 3 months off work. For others, they may be able to change their spending to build up enough for 3 months in 1 month. Also, you have to consider the length of the emergency. Job-loss is rarely permanent, but it's rarely short as well. The current average is 30.7 weeks: that's 7 months! Money in an Emergency There are six main places that people get money during a financial emergency: A good emergency strategy takes all six of these into account. Some emergencies may lean more on one source than the other. However, some of these are correlated. For example, in 2008, three things happened: the stock market crashed, unsecured debt dried up, and people faced financial emergency (lost jobs, cut wages). If you were dependent on a stock portfolio and/or a line of credit, you'd be up a creek, because the value of your investments suddenly decreased, and you can't really tap your now significantly limited line of credit. However, if you had a one or more of cash savings, unemployment income, and unemployment insurance, you would probably have been OK. Budgeting for an emergency When you say \"\"financial emergency\"\", most people think job loss. However, the most common cause of bankruptcy in the US is medical debt. Depending on your insurance situation, this could be a serious risk, or it may not be. People say you should have 3x-6x of your monthly income in savings because it's an easy, back-of-the-envelope way to handle most financial emergency risk, but it's not necessarily the most prudent strategy for you. To properly budget for an emergency, you need to fully take into account what emergencies you are likely to face, and what sources of financing you would have access to given the likely factors that led to that emergency. Generally, having a savings account with some amount of liquid cash is an important part of a risk-mitigation strategy. But it's not a panacea for every kind of emergency.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
a58c163a345574222f881c19ddc6033e	I cosigned for a friend who is not paying the payment	[ { "docid": "9a838469fa155163c0b924eaa6f44b0e", "text": "\"Cosigning is explicitly a promise that you will make the payments if the primary signer can not. Don't do it unless you are able to handle the cost and trust the other party will \"\"make you whole\"\" when they can... which means don't do it for anyone you would not lend your money to, since it comes out to about the same level of risk. Having agreed, you're sorta stuck with your ex-friend's problem. I recommend talking to a lawyer about the safest way get out of this. It isn't clear you can even sue the ex-friend at this point.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "170f30bfa452e1d4d4dc1b3e35bba2df", "text": "\"I'm sorry you are going through this, but what you are dealing with is exactly is how cosigning works. It is among other reasons why you should never cosign a loan for someone unless you are 100% prepared to pay the loan on their behalf. Unfortunately, the main \"\"benefit\"\" to cosigning a loan is to the bank - they don't care who makes payments, only that someone does. It is not in their interest to educate purchasers who can easily get themselves into the situation you are in. What your options are depends a fair bit on the type of loan it is. The biggest problem is that normally as cosigner you cannot force your friend to do anything. If it is for a car, your best bet is to convince them to sell the car and hopefully recoup more than the cost of the loan. Many workplaces have some sort of free service to provide counseling/guidance on this sort of thing. Look into your employee benefits as you may have some free services there. You can sue your friend in small claims court, but keep in mind: It also depends on how big the loan is relative to your income. While it might feel good to sue your friend in small claims court, if it's for $500 it probably isn't worthwhile - but if your friend just stopped paying off their $30k vehicle assuming you will pay for it, even though they can pay for it themselves?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47f824d42ed7ff0928853fa65f72d426", "text": "\"I am not sure how anyone is answering this unless they know what the loan was for. For instance if it is for a house you can put a lien on the house. If it is for the car in most states you can take over ownership of it. Point being is that you need to go after the asset. If there is no asset you need to go after you \"\"friend\"\". Again we need more specifics to determine the best course of action which could range from you suing and garnishing wages from your friend to going to small claims court. Part of this process is also getting a hold of the lending institution. By letting them know what is going on they may be able to help you - they are good at tracking people down for free. Also the lender may be able to give you options. For example if it is for a car a bank may help you clear this out if you get the car back plus penalty. If a car is not in the red on the loan and it is in good condition the bank turns a profit on the default. If they can recover it for free they will be willing to work with you. I worked in repo when younger and on more than a few occasions we had the cosigner helping. It went down like this... Co-signer gets pissed like you and calls bank, bank works out a plan and tells cosigner to default, cosigner defaults, banks gives cosigner rights to repo vehicle, cosigner helps or actually repos vehicle, bank gets car back, bank inspects car, bank asks cosigner for X amount (sometimes nothing but not usually), cosigner pays X, bank does not hit cosigners credit, bank releases loan and sells car. I am writing this like it is easy but it really requires that asset is still in good condition, that cosigner can get to the asset, and that the \"\"friend\"\" still is around and trusts cosigner. I have seen more than a few cosigners promise to deliver and come up short and couple conspiring with the \"\"friend\"\". I basically think most of the advice you have gotten so far is crap and you haven't provided enough info to give perfect advice. Seeking a lawyer is a joke. Going after a fleeing party could eat up 40-50 billable hours. It isn't like you are suing a business or something. The lawyer could cost as much as repaying the loan - and most lawyers will act like it is a snap of their fingers until they have bled you dry - just really unsound advice. For the most part I would suggest talking to the bank and defaulting but again need 100% of the details. The other part is cosigning the loan. Why the hell would you cosign a loan for a friend? Most parents won't cosign a loan for their own kids. And if you are cosigning a loan, you write up a simple contract and make the non-payment penalties extremely costly for your friend. I have seen simple contracts that include 30% interests rates that were upheld by courts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae66c980c607a24baad826a1aaa2be90", "text": "The point of co-signing for a friend is that they're your friend. You signed for them in the belief that your friendship would ensure they didn't burn you. If your friend has hung you out to dry, basically they aren't your friend any more. Before you lawyer up, how's about talking to your friend as a friend? Sure he may have moved away from the area, but Facebook is still a thing, right? It's possible he doesn't even realise you're taking the fall for him. And presumably you have mutual friends too. If he's blanking you then he does know you're taking the fall and doesn't care. So call/message them too and let them know the situation. Chances are he doesn't want all his other friends cutting him off because they can see he'd treat them the same way he's treating you. And chances are they'll give you his number and new address, because they don't want to be in the middle. If this fails, look at the loan. If it's a loan secured against something of his (e.g. a car), let it go. The bank will repossess it, and that's job done. Of course it will look bad on your credit for a while, but you're basically stuck with that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e24b171d757ef9cc138878484923fbde", "text": "\"You promised to pay the loan if he didn't. That was a commitment, and I recommend \"\"owning\"\" your choice and following it through to its conclusion, even if you never do that again. TLDR: You made a mistake: own it, keep your word, and embrace the lesson. Why? Because you keep your promises. (Nevermind that this is a rare time where your answer will be directly recorded, in your credit report.) This isn't moralism. I see this as a \"\"defining moment\"\" in a long game: 10 years down the road I'd like you to be wise, confident and unafraid in financial matters, with a healthy (if distant) relationship with our somewhat corrupt financial system. I know austerity stinks, but having a strong financial life will bring you a lot more money in the long run. Many are leaping to the conclusions that this is an \"\"EX-friend\"\" who did this deliberately. Don't assume this. For instance, it's quite possible your friend sold the (car?) at a dealer, who failed to pay off this note, or did and the lender botched the paperwork. And when the collector called, he told them that, thinking the collector would fix it, which they don't do. The point is, you don't know: your friend may be an innocent party here. Creditors generally don't report late payments to the credit bureaus until they're 30 days late. But as a co-signer, you're in a bad spot: you're liable for the payments, but they don't send you a bill. So when you hear about it, it's already nearly 30 days late. You don't get any extra grace period as a co-signer. So you need to make a payment right away to keep that from going 30 late, or if it's already 30 late, to keep it from going any later. If it is later determined that it was not necessary for you to make those payments, the lender should give them back to you. A less reputable lender may resist, and you may have to threaten small claims court, which is a great expense to them. Cheaper to pay you. They say France is the nation of love. They say America is the nation of commerce. So it's not surprising that here, people are quick to burn a lasting friendship over a temporary financial issue. Just saying, that isn't necessarily the right answer. I don't know about you, but my friends all have warts. Nobody's perfect. Financial issues are just another kind of wart. And financial life in America is hard, because we let commerce run amok. And because our obsession with it makes it a \"\"loaded\"\" issue and thus hard to talk about. Perhaps your friend is in trouble but the actual villain is a predatory lender. Point is, the friendship may be more important than this temporary adversity. The right answer may be to come together and figure out how to make it work. Yes, it's also possible he's a human leech who hops from person to person, charming them into cosigning for him. But to assume that right out of the gate is a bit silly. The first question I'd ask is \"\"where's the car?\"\" (If it's a car). Many lenders, especially those who loan to poor credit risks, put trackers in the car. They can tell you where it is, or at least, where it was last seen when the tracker stopped working. If that is a car dealer's lot, for instance, that would be very informative. Simply reaching out to the lender may get things moving, if there's just a paperwork issue behind this. Many people deal with life troubles by fleeing: they dread picking up the phone, they fearfully throw summons in the trash. This is a terrifying and miserable way to deal with such a situation. They learn nothing, and it's pure suffering. I prefer and recommend the opposite: turn into it, deal with it head-on, get ahead of it. Ask questions, google things, read, become an expert on the thing. Be the one calling the lender, not the other way round. This way it becomes a technical learning experience that's interesting and fun for you, and the lender is dreading your calls instead of the other way 'round. I've been sued. It sucked. But I took it on boldly, and and actually led the fight and strategy (albeit with counsel). And turned it around so he wound up paying my legal bills. HA! With that precious experience, I know exactly what to do... I don't fear being sued, or if absolutely necessary, suing. You might as well get the best financial education. You're paying the tuition!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "090598b25ad86dc8c42f5c2246085762", "text": "Another option, not yet discussed here, is to allow the loan to go into default and let the loaning agency repossess the property the loan was used for, after which they sell it and that sale should discharge some significant portion of the loan. Knowing where the friend and property is, you may be able to help them carry out the repossession by providing them information. Meanwhile, your credit will take a significant hit, but unless your name is on the deed/title of the property then you have little claim that the property is yours just because you're paying the loan. The contract you signed for the loan is not going to be easily bypassed with a lawsuit of any sort, so unless you can produce another contract between you and your friend it's unlikely that you can even sue them. In short, you have no claim to the property, but the loaning agency does - perhaps that's the only way to avoid paying most of the debt, but you do trade some of your credit for it. Hopefully you understand that what you loaned wasn't money, but your credit score and earning potential, and that you will be more careful who you choose to lend this to in the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0cab331721d5895425e6eb5ca2f0c24b", "text": "I would like to add one minor point for clarity: Cosigning means that you, alongside your friend, enter into a contract with the bank. It does not necessarily mean that you now have a contract with your friend, although that could implicitly be concluded. If the bank makes use of their contracted right to make you pay your friend's debts with them, this has no effect on your legal relationship with your friend. Of course, you can hold him or her liable for your damages he or she has caused. It is another question whether this would help you in practice, but that has been discussed before.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "148f0f976110c67e4db7052db46b5637", "text": "\"Without all the details it's hard to tell what options you may have, but none of them are good. When you cosign you are saying that, you believe the primary signer will make good on the loan, but that if he doesn't you will. You are 100% responsible for this debt. As such, there are some actions you can take. First, really try to stress to your friend, that they need to get you outta this loan. Urge them to re-finance with out you if they can. Next look for \"\"better\"\" ways of defaulting on the loan and take them. Depending on what the loan is for you could deed-in-lue or short sale. You may just have to admit default. If you work with the bank, and try not to drag out the process, you will likely end up in a better place down the line. Also of importance is ownership. If you pay the loan, do you get ownership of the thing the loan was secured against? Usually not, but working with an attorney and the bank, maybe. For example, if it's a car, can the \"\"friend\"\" sign over the car to you, then you sell it, and reduce your debt. Basically as a cosigner, you have some rights, but you have all the responsibilities. You need to talk to an attorney and possibly the bank, and see what your options are. At this point, if you think the friend is not that much of a friend anymore, it's time to make sure that any conversation you have with them is recorded in email, or on paper.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b7bcce1e6caa6671c2cf0e7ffc9fd8a", "text": "\"Sue the friend. When you win, garnish his wages. It does not have to be by so much that it makes him quit his job, but get 75.00 per pay period to come to you. This may require the use of a private investigator but, if you want to make this \"\"friend\"\" face consequences, this is your only option. Otherwise, let it go and keep paying his bill.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5620c024950487dff9344ee03c171ec5", "text": "I came across such a situation and I am still facing it. My friend borrowed my credit card for his expenses as he had misplaced his debit card and for the time being had asked for my credit card to handle the expenses he does. He paid for initial 2 months and then was not able to make payments, mainly due to not being able to arrange money or if it was a contri party, he would collect cash from friends but again spend the same. Months passes by... the bill had come upto 65k and calls from bank and other respective organizations Finally my dad came into picture and slowly the issue is resolving he has paid 50K remaining is still pending. So basically, the reason I shared this part of story was he is my Best friend and in order to not spoil our friendship I did not want to take any such step which would later on affect our friendship. This completely depends on the individuals how they react to the situation. Keeping Ego, superiority, favour sort of feelings and words apart things can be resolved between friends. You do not know what is the situation on the other side. Probably you can connect with him ask him to explain you why is not able to pay the debts and take action accordingly. If he is not able to provide a proper reason then you may take some actions like mentioned in initial answers, run after the assets he own or anything else.Stay Calm and patient. Do not take any such step which you would regret later on...!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2551584505861e4c97a7fe6477e8276", "text": "I think I'm reading that you cosigned a loan with a friend, and they've stopped paying on their loan. Not a whole lot of options here. You'll have to pay the loan off by yourself or allow the loan to go into collections in hopes that you'll get more money later and pay it off then. Small claims court is definitely an option at that point. Next time, perhaps try not to cosign loans with friends unless you really trust them and are confident that you can pay the loan off if they cannot.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95c99fdba044993b8b9314c59ca5831c", "text": "If the bank is calling your employer, the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) limits where and when debt collectors can contact consumer debtors. In many cases, debt collectors that contact debtors at work are violating the FDCPA. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/a-debt-collector-calling-me-work-is-allowed.html", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "92aab8cb766f94c1910be0643c85211c", "text": "From your viewpoint you paying the dealer directly is better. You know that the check went to the dealer, and was used to purchase a car. If you give the check to your friend they may say I can't find the car I want this week, so I will purchase it next week but first let me by groceries and a new suit. I will replace the funds after my next paycheck. Next thing you know they are still short of funds. This might not happen, but it could. From your friends viewpoint getting a check from you allows them to potentially keep your part of the transaction out of view of the dealer/lender. In a mortgage situation the lender will take a look at your bank account to make sure there isn't a hidden loan, but I am not sure they do when they are approving a car loan. What you want to avoid is being a co-signer for the loan. As a co-signer you will be responsible for all payments; and missed payments will hurt your credit score.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3c707c379924f7a5f0f0ce1687b79a4", "text": "You may have a few options if the company continues to ignore your communication. Even if none of these works out, the debt should still probably be paid out by the estate of your friend.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "326da0a0c278ca89edbf77cc0da4b4ac", "text": "Something else to consider, even if your friend is on the up and up and never misses a payment: Until the house is paid off, any time you apply for credit banks will count the mortgage payment on your friends house against your ability to pay all your existing debts in addition to whatever new loan you're applying for. If you're renting a home now, this will likely mean that you'll be unable to buy one until your friends house is paid off.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e04a6a482c4d33b7cb0fdf8682ac7c1c", "text": "Send a well-documented payment to the original creditor. Do it in such a way that you would have the ability to prove that you sent a payment if they reject it. Should they reject it, demonstrate that to the credit reporting bureaus.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb68642a73cf83fa8b727e24c41e3068", "text": "\"I'll take an alternate route: honesty + humor. Say something like this with a smile and a laugh, like you know they're crazy, but they maybe don't know it yet. \"\"Are you crazy? Co-signing a loan can put us both in a lot of potential danger. First, you shouldn't get a loan that you can't afford/attain on your own, and second, I'd be crazy to agree to be liable for a loan that someone else can't get on their own. You want something bad enough, you get your credit rating in order, or you save up the money - that's how I bought (my car/house/trip to Geneva). I'd be happy to point you in the right direction if you want to put a plan together.\"\" You're offering help, but not the kind that puts you in danger. Declining to co-sign a loan can't damage your relationship with this person as much as failure to pay will.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "394bc28a2c7d606a83f44eb928d11e84", "text": "Are there any risks you're overlooking? I think if you're considering this at all you're overlooking all of the risks... namely, if you think the issue with him not paying on the loan is the procedure involved with initiating collections or taking him to court for a judgement you're severely underestimating actually collecting after you're awarded a judgement. Typically when people stop paying a debt, its because they don't have money. A judgement doesn't change that. Now you could include in the promissory note a lien on some piece of his property, if he has one. Even with the lien and a judgement against him you can't do much. There are laws related to lending by individuals, related to debt collection, maximum/minimum interest rates; there may even be a law that mandating individuals may only assess simple interest. I doubt you'll be able to find a formal institution that will take over as nothing more than an administrator, though you might as well start researching how to sell the debt once your colleague defaults. IF you can legally amortize the loan at 4% and $450 per month, you're not made whole until about month 78. Months 79 through about 90 will be your profit zone. At this rate of return I'd just buy a muni... If you're willing to kiss this money good bye, and lending it generates more amusement to you than setting it on fire, go for it!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "570ac0090e1be889f6f2c7fedd9e6ef7", "text": "Without knowledge of the special provisions of your loan contract, the one with the highest interest rate should be paid first. Or, if one's fixed payment is much larger than the other, and it is a burden, then it should be paid first, but refinancing may be an option. Socially speaking and possibly even economically since it could affect your reputation, it is probably best to either refinance the cosigned loan or pay that off as rapidly as possible. Economically speaking, I would recommend no prepayment since the asset that is leveraged is your mind which will last many decades, probably exceeding the term of the loan, but some caveats must be handled first: Many would disagree, but I finance the way I play poker: tight-aggressive.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a44496c2bd1e2232797a0e4fd167338", "text": "\"Definitely consult a lawyer. Mortgages are highly regulated now, and regardless of how familiar borrower & lender are, the standard contract will be extremely long. (at least in the US) There are no \"\"friends and/or family\"\" exceptions. If the contract does not conform to regulations, it may be invalid, and all the money you lent could simply evaporate since it was the borrower who actually bought the house, and it's the loan contract that's rendered null & void; in that case, it may be better to simply donate the money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "068fdfe3d42820b093505efed1501d8e", "text": "In the event that payment is not made by the due date on the invoice then the transaction is essentially null and void and you can sell the work to another client. For your particular situation I would strongly suggest that you implement a sales contract and agreement of original transfer of work of art for any and all future sales of your original works of art. In this contract you need to either enforce payment in full at time of signing or a deposit at signing with payment in full within (X) amount of days and upon delivery of item. In your sales contract you will want to stipulate a late fee in the event that the client does not pay the balance by the date specified, and a clause that stipulates how long after the due date that you will hold the artwork before the client forfeiting deposit and losing rights to the work. You will also want to specify an amount of time that you provide as a grace period in the event client changes their mind about the purchase, and you can make it zero grace period, making all sales final and upon signing of the agreement the client agrees to the terms and is locked into the sale. In which point if they back out they forfeit all deposits paid. I own a custom web design business and we implement a similar agreement for all works that we create for a client, requiring a 50% deposit in advance of work being started, an additional 25% at time of client accepting the design/layout and the final 25% at delivery of finished product. In the event that a client fails to meet the requirements of the contract for the second or final installment payments the client forfeits all money paid and actually owes us 70% of total quoted project price for wasting our time. We have only had to enforce these stipulations on one client in 5 years! The benefit to you for requiring a deposit if payment is not made in full is that it ensures that the client is serious about purchasing the work because they have put money in the game rather than just their word of wanting to purchase. Think of it like putting earnest money down when you make an offer to buy a house. Hope this helps!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "952ca1d90bac05577db80d5258d82c06", "text": "\"Never forget that student lenders and their collection agencies are dangerous and clever predators, and you, the student borrower, are their legal prey. They look at you and think, \"\"food.\"\" My friend said she never pays her student loans and nothing has happened. She's wrong. Something has happened. She just doesn't know about it yet. Each unpaid bill, with penalties, has been added to the balance of her loan. Now she owes that money also. And she owes interest on it. That balance is probably building up very fast indeed. She's playing right into the hands of her student lender. They are smiling about this. When the balance gets large enough to make it worthwhile, her student lender will retain an aggressive collection agency to recover the entire balance. The agency will come after her in court, and they are likely to win. If your friend lives in the US, she'll discover that she can't declare bankruptcy to escape this. She has the bankruptcy \"\"reform\"\" act of 2006, passed during the Bush 43 regime, to thank for this. A court judgement against her will make it harder for her to find a job and even a spouse. I'm not saying this is right or just. I believe it is wrong and unjust to make university graduates into debt slaves. But it is true. As for being paid under the table, I hope your friend intends on dying rather than retiring when she no longer can work due to age. If she's paid under the table she will not be eligible for social security payments. You need sixteen calendar quarters of social security credit to be eligible for payments. I know somebody like this. It's a hell of a way to live, especially on weekends when the local church feeding programs don't operate. Paying people under the table ought to be a felony for the business owner.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a46e30f4bc33d0e7cd964393fe909451", "text": "Beg, plead, whimper, and hope they take pity on you. Sorry, but there's no way to force someone to take less than you legitimately owe them except to declare bankrupty, and even that may not do it. If they aren't interested in throwing away $3000, your best bet really is to try to arrange a payment plan, or to get a loan from somewhere and pay that back over time. Of course either of those options is likely to cost you interest, but that's what happens... I wish I could say something else, but there really isn't any good news here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "64fb7a323214f50afbc01fecc4753d61", "text": "Your first step is to talk to the current lender and ask about refinancing in the other person's name. The lender is free to say no, and if they think the other person is unlikely to pay it back, they won't refinance. If you're in this situation because the other person didn't qualify for a loan in the first place, the lender probably won't change their mind, but it's still worth asking. From the lender's point of view, you'll be selling the other person the car. If they qualify for a loan, it's as simple as getting the loan from a bank, then doing whatever is required by your state to sell a car between either private parties or between relatives (depending on who the other person is). The bank might help you with this, or your state's DMV website. Here are a few options that don't involve changing who is on the loan: Taking out a loan for another person is always a big risk. Banks have entire departments devoted to determining who is a good credit risk, and who isn't, so if a person can't get a loan from a bank, it's usually for a good reason. One good thing about your situation: you actually bought the car, and are the listed owner. Had you co-signed on a loan in the other person's name, you'd owe the money, but wouldn't even have the car's value to fall back on when they stopped paying.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a9a715a99e75fda4a54ce531c8a5a61", "text": "'If i co-sign that makes me 100% liable if for any reason you can't or won't pay. Also this shows up on a credit report just like it's my debt. This limits the amount i can borrow for any reason. I don't want to take on your debt, that's your business and i don't want to make it mine'.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8be4b8c3196627390ff6bf2365f30916", "text": "\"My thoughts on loaning money to friends or family are outlined pretty extensively here, but cosigning on a loan is a different matter. It is almost never a good idea to do this (I say \"\"almost\"\" only because I dislike absolutes). Here are the reasons why: Now, all that said, if my sister or parents were dying of cancer and cosigning a loan was the only way to cure them, I might consider cosigning on a loan with them, if that was the only option. But, I would bet that 99.9% of such cases are not so dire, and your would-be co-borrower will survive with out the co-signing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a0994d1ec45dc7b1639e3b353e740fc7", "text": "Don't forget job. That's one of the things people in the lower classes lost. I was trying to figure out why there weren't mass firings at trading and accounting firms until the numbers started popping up. They had basically just liquidated what they had, bought at lower numbers, and are now reaping the profits. Too bad most people earning under $250k a year can't do that.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
af920854fcb3276da86ccd27c4974ff5	Why don't more people run up their credit cards and skip the country?	[ { "docid": "0d4aa993cd8b7d0073c74d02c62e2577", "text": "It's harder than you think. Once card companies start seeing your debt to credit line ratios climb, they will slash your credit lines quickly. Also, cash credit lines are always much smaller, so in reality, such a scheme would require you to buy goods that can be converted to cash, which dilutes your gains and makes it more likely that you're going to get detected and busted. Think of the other problems. Where do you store your ill-gotten gains? How do you get the money out of the country? How will your actions affect your family and friends? Also, most people are basically good people -- the prospect of defrauding $100k, leaving family and friends behind and living some anonymous life in a third world country isn't an appealing one. If you are criminally inclined, building up a great credit history is not very practical -- most criminals are by nature reactive and want quick results.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46ac2f0aa2eaf6f949b4a2039ebc6484", "text": "Because most people aren't willing to sacrifice their ability to live in the US for 100k. Remember that you can't pull this off multiple times easily. So as a one and done kind of deal, 100k isn't a great trade for the right to live in tthe US or whatever country you have roots in, particularly once you factor in:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1303b3ef48e60c5cbb8b049b93abd32", "text": "Even if you could get it with no major hassle, $100,000 is just not that much money. In a cheap third world country, as an expat you're looking at spending about $800-$2000/month, plus unexpected expenses. Locals live on less, but very few of us would be happy with the lifestyle of a Honduran or Thai farmer. Your 100k will last 4-10 years. This is hardly a great deal considering you're cutting off ties back home and almost becoming a fugitive. With USD going down the drain (e.g. in Thailand it went down 25% in 3 years), this period would probably be even shorter. Of course, you could work in the new country, but if you do then you don't need 100k to start with. The initial amount may improve your security, but from that standpoint being able to go back and work in your home country is worth more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db3fe131c638bf9737403e717c635377", "text": "I take it the premise of the question is that we're assuming the person isn't worried about the morals. He's a criminal out for a quick buck. And I guess we're assuming that wherever you go, they wouldn't arrest you and extradite you back to the U.S. As others have noted, you can't just walk into a bank the day you graduate high school or get out of prison or whatever and get a credit line of $100,000. You have to build up to that with an income and a pattern of responsible behavior over a period of many years. I don't have the statistics handy but I'd guess most people never reach a credit limit on credit cards of $100,000. Maybe many people could get that on a home equity line of credit, but again, you'd have to build up that equity in your house first, and that would take many years. Then, while $100,000 sounds like a lot of money, how long could you really live on that? Even in a country with low cost of living, it's not like you could live in luxury for the rest of your life. If you can get that kind of credit limit, you probably are used to living on a healthy income. Sure, you could get a similar lifestyle for less in some other countries, but not for THAT much less. If you know a place where for $10,000 a year you can live a life that would cost $100,000 per year in the U.S., I'd like to know about it. Even living a relatively frugal life, I doubt the money would last more than 4 or 5 years. And then what are you going to do? If you come back to the U.S. you'd presumably be promptly arrested. You could get a job in your new country, but you could have done that without first stealing $100,000. Frankly, if you're the sort of person who can get a $100,000 credit limit, you probably can live a lot better in the U.S. by continuing to work and play by the rules than you could by stealing $100,000 and fleeing to Haiti or Eritrea. You might say, okay, $100,000 isn't really enough. What if I could get a $1 million credit limit? But if you have the income and credit rating to get a $1 million credit limit, you probably are making at least several hundred thousand per year, probably a million or more, and again, you're better off to continue to play by the rules. The only way that I see that a scam like this would really work is if you could get a credit limit way out of proportion to any income you could earn legitimately. Like somehow if you could convince the bank to give you a credit limit of $1 million even though you only make $15,000 a year. But that would be a scam in itself. That's why I think the only time you do hear of people trying something like this is when they USED to make a lot of money but have lost it. Like someone has a multi-million dollar business that goes broke, he now has nothing, so before the bank figures it out he maxes out all his credit and runs off.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea4f6d41989081ee98b66fcdd1343613", "text": "Quality of life, success and happiness are three factors that are self define by each individual. Most of the time all three factors go hand by hand with your ability to generate wealth and save. Actually, a recent study showed that there were more happy families with savings than with expensive products (car, jewelry and others). These 3 factors, will be very difficult to maintain after someone commit such action. First, because you will fear every interaction with the origin of the money. Second, because every individual has a notion of wrong doing. Third, for the reasons that Jaydles express. Also, most cards, will call you and stop the cards ability to give money, if they see an abusive pattern. Ether, skipping your country has some adverse psychological impact in the family and individual that most of the time 100K is not enough to motivate such change. Thanks for reading. Geo", "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": "31fa6913dcce1b5d529f2d45eb778025", "text": "What sort of amount are we talking about here, and what countries are you travelling to? As long as it's not cash, most countries will neither know or care how much money is in your bank account or on your credit card limit, and can't even check if they wanted to. Even if they can, there are very few countries where they would check without already suspecting you of a crime. I think you're worrying over nothing. Even if it's cash, most countries have no border control anyway, and those who do (UK, Ireland) allow up to £10,000 or so cash without even having to declare it... Just open a second bank account and don't take the card (or cut the card up). Use online banking to transfer money in smaller chunks to your main account. Alternately (or additionally) take a credit card or two with a smaller limit (enough to make sure you're comfortably able to deal with one month plus emergency money). Then set up your regular bank account to pay this credit card off in full every month. If I was really concerned, I'd open a second bank account and add a sensible amount of money to it (enough to cover costs of my stay and avoid questions about whether I can afford my stay, but not so much it would raise question). Then I'd open two credit cards with a limit of perhaps $1000-2000: one covers the costs of living wherever I'm going, the other is for emergencies or if I misjudge and go over my amount per month. Set up your bank to pay these off each month, and you're sorted Honestly, I think you're worrying over nothing. People travel inside Europe every day with millions in the bank and raise no questions. You're legally allowed to have money!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2ecf361875bddae8e68e43c43660b57", "text": "\"Because the value of distressed assets is close to what they are selling for. When you lend money, you know there is a risk of default. You gamble on that risk, and you take the responsibility if you lose because the person taking the money can't pay. People who buy distressed debt on the idea that they can make more money off of it are only able to do that in two ways: not giving a shit what the impacts of wringing more money out create, figuring out a legal way to make someone else pay for it through ripple blackmail effects (other people also are impacted when a country can't function.) If you back Klarman, you may say the point is you are \"\"teaching\"\" Puerto Rico and everyone else that they shouldn't take on debt they can't afford. But when has that ever worked? The pensioners who are bankrupt are the ones actually getting the pain of the lesson. Another lesson could be to investors not to lend to people who can't pay them back. The people lending the money are the ones who now don't have it because they made a bad choice. Seth Klarman could also learn a lesson about taking on distressed debt being a non-lucrative pastime. Or we can all learn a lesson that taking on distressed debt is very lucrative. A big change America implemented was getting rid of debtor's prisons. This looks a lot like getting excited about debtor's prison to me. EDIT: I should note I am thinking of the Algerian version of making a ton of money off of distressed national debt. As opposed to making a bit more money off of distressed debt because you were willing to let the collapse figure itself out. Though I'm not so sure about that either.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec09dc872a11a9632bf93028640f0f72", "text": "While the US hosts most of the world's innovative startups, its own financial and banking systems are very slow to change. The infrastructure exists, however the ACH transfers are not wide-spread between individuals. Banks much prefer the option of bill-pay (i.e.: as you said, mailing a check, something in other countries people wouldn't even think of), than letting you do it yourself. Why? Because they can. There's no real competition over consumers, and the consumers themselves are not educated or sophisticated. Thus, the banks are comfortable with the lack of innovation - since as long as they are all lacking innovation - consumers won't demand it because they won't even know things are possible. And it is definitely cheaper for the banks not to innovate and keep your money for a week while the bill-pay check is en route, than try and develop new things. In other countries, the regulator would step up and force banks to develop new infrastructure and widen the options, but in the US regulation is considered a bad thing, and people are easily swayed, being uneducated and uninformed, by the corporations to support politicians who act against their (people's) best interest in protecting the corporations and reducing and limiting the regulators even further.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d327f6f54ca772c49710eccf4c905d53", "text": "They are not as good of an option when compared to a card you open chosen based on features and rates. Get a card with a lower rate that can be used anywhere.", "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": "29e5364098ed267e8d58e3f0f938a9e2", "text": "People with credit cards tend to have better credit than those who only have debit cards. People with better credit tend to not abuse such things as car rentals. It costs money for any company to run your credit. It doesn't cost a rental company any outflow of money to reject debit cards. So the possession of a credit card becomes a stand-in for running your credit before you rent a car.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fcbf762f2bd16440bc83a5320a6dfc65", "text": "Lots of places in the US do it. Although the way that they usually phrase it is 'prices reflect a x.x% discount for cash' since most of the credit card companies have an agreement that says you cannot charge a surcharge if someone is using a credit card. So they get around it by giving a discount for cash. effect is the same, but it skirts the letter of the agreement", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7832dedd1fee46484365b4dc17bf4aa4", "text": "There are several reasons why credit cards are popular in the US: On the other hand, debit cards do not have any of these going for them. A debit card doesn't make much money for the bank unless you overdraw or something, so banks don't have incentive to push you to use them as much. As a result they don't offer rewards other benefits. Some people say the ability to spend more than you have is a downside of a credit card. But it's really an upside. The behavior of doing that when it isn't needed is bad, but that's not the card's fault, it's the users'. You can get a credit card with a very small limit if this is an issue for you. The question I find interesting is why debit cards are more popular in your home country. I can't think of any advantage they offer besides free cash back. But most people in the US don't use cash much either. I have to think in your home country the banks have a different revenue model or perhaps your country isn't as eager to offer tons of easy credit to everyone as the US is.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb85de0b7686d07f00729fa1f49c9002", "text": "The U.S. bankruptcy laws no longer make it simple to discharge credit card debt, so you can't simply run up a massive tab on credit cards and then just walk away from them anymore. That used to be the case, but that particular loophole no longer exists the way it once did. Further, you could face fraud charges if it can be proven you acted deliberately with the intent to commit fraud. Finally, you won't be able to rack up a ton of new cards as quickly as you might think, so your ability to amass enough to make your plan worth the risk is not as great as you seem to believe. As a closing note, don't do it. All you do is make it more expensive for the rest of us to carry credit cards. After all, the banks aren't going to eat the losses. They'll just pass them along in the form of higher fees and rates to the rest of us.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41be16162f9c8fab361ef64f24f0ab6f", "text": "That might happen if this incident leads to a deflationary demand for consumer credit instruments in the US to approaching Third World penetration levels. Ironic, as the consumer credit industry is spending gigadollars trying to spark the same consumer credit frenzy in those countries. The demographics are already primed for turning away from consumer credit, as the Millennials are already increasingly predisposed against credit as they age.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dbd62be03bb002ae46dc41aa9b2276eb", "text": "I've been hearing storied from Germans that this is happening in Germany, too, but at the bank level. All anecdotal, people I've met telling me their personal stories, but they follow the same pattern. Go to the bank, try to take out a few grand for a vacation or large purchase, bank tells them they can't have that much and that they just have to do with less, even if the account balance covers the withdrawal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f55e29b5b419a1fa47ae9f6fc7d40bd7", "text": "Nice idea. When I started my IRAs, I considered this as well, and the answer from the broker was that this was not permitted. And, aside from transfers from other IRAs or retirement accounts, you can't 'deposit' shares to the IRA, only cash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68ca8ce246d0e966543105f3cfd308d4", "text": "Yes, it is unreasonable and unsustainable. We all want returns in excess of 15% but even the best and richest investors do not sustain those kinds of returns. You should not invest more than a fraction of your net worth in individual stocks in any case. You should diversify using index funds or ETFs.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
415b073d2f887f9c25f6869577755db4	How to get rid of someone else's debt collector?	[ { "docid": "c15816a0b00f6eee6143953eeca0884a", "text": "\"Sue the debt collectors in small claims court. There are several example stories around the internet, but this is a well written one from the consumerist. If your phone is a cell phone: \"\"it is against the law for a company to leave a pre-recorded message on your cell phone.\"\" In fact, the call frequency increased once they realized they had reached a live person. I called each of these companies multiple times, and though I was given assurances each time that my number would be taken off of their lists, the calls continued, morning, noon and night. At my wits end, I decided the only way to have the harassing calls stop was to file suits against the collection companies. It's very important to understand that it is against the law for a company to leave a pre-recorded message on your cell phone. Armed with this knowledge, I filed suit against several of the collection companies. I filed in small claims court so I did not need to hire an attorney, and the process was as simple as completing a paragraph on a complaint form. For evidence, I had over a hundred Google Voicemail transcripts showing the times the companies called and the text of the pre-recorded messages. Mysteriously, the calls all stopped immediately on the same date the collection companies received the certified letters stating they were being sued. Then a new flurry of calls began pouring in. This time it was their attorneys. The attorneys representing these out of state collection companies were all desperate to settle out of court. hey did not want to incur the expense of traveling for court or hiring a local law firm who wasn't on retainer. They also understood they had no justifiable defense for the calls. To make a long story short, so far I have successfully sued 3 of these collection companies and settled for more than $5,000 out of court. All it cost me was $35 and 20 minutes per suit. Making these companies pay is the only incentive for them to stop their illegal and harassing practices. If more consumers knew their rights and actually took a few minutes to stand up for them, it would become less profitable for these companies to conduct business the way they do now. -Source And whether you have a cell phone or land line, It is illegal for the debt collectors to tell you they are calling to collect a debt for someone else under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (wikipedia, ftc docs). What Remedies Are Available If The Debt Collector Violates The Law Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, you have the right to sue a debt collector in state or federal court within one year from the date of the violation. If you win, you may recover damages in the amount of any losses you suffered as a result of the violation, plus an additional amount of up to $1,000.00. You may also be able to recover court costs and attorney fees. If the same debt collector has engaged in unlawful conduct with a number of consumers, it may be possible to find a lawyer who will file a class action lawsuit. -Source With regard to whether you can sue under FDCPA if you are not the debtor, one FDCPA lawyer (take with grain of salt) says yes: Did you know that it doesn't matter if you owe the account the debt collector is calling you about or not? If a debt collector violates the FDCPA (the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692 et. seq.) that debt collector could be liable to pay you statutory damages, actual damages, attorney's fees, and court costs. -Source\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3aa73616af3f7a1e40c6ed37c63ab375", "text": "\"As a former debt collector myself, I can tell you that we did occasionally get someone claiming that they weren't who they really were. However, it was pretty obvious who was telling the truth after a while. Above all else, just be calm and polite. Technically, you can also say \"\"do not call this number again\"\" and they have to stop calling, but I wouldn't do this right off the bat. Its best if they are convinced that you aren't the guy they're looking for. Calmness and politeness are traits that debtors usually lack, sometimes because they are just normal people overwhelmed with their situation, and sometimes because they are irrational loser (sorry, but its true). Either way, if you are consistently calm and unconcerned about their threats, they will either give up or realize you aren't the guy. Eventually they will stop calling you (or at least I know I would have stopped calling you).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9520bf26d6485a6f3ddee445a98cb94a", "text": "Suing is a legitimate option as well as screening your calls but here's another idea which has personally worked and relates to the collections I did for awhile. Talk with the collector. Outstanding debt gets sold many times and each time a new collector gets their hands on an account they do their due diligence which means calling every single number multiple times. Collectors a looking for consumers who actively evade collections calls for years. My recommendation is to use logic and explain the situation. Give your first name and describe when you received the phone number and then ask a simple question. When in the last 3 1/2 years have you or any collector had a successful hit from this number. They'll respond never in 3 1/2 years. The collector notes the account for themselves and future collectors. Debt collectors are about about making money, not wasting time and they do review all notes pertaining to an account. Will it work? Maybe not but hopefully it will stop the calls with a short conversation. Good luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f8e0f5aa9201d430285f1d60f079b89", "text": "I have been in a similar position for quite a while now and the only thing that seems to help is screening phone calls. I have a long list of collector numbers set to not ring on my phone. They can still leave a voice mail but they never do. As far as I know there aren't any laws that protect you from nuisance phone calls. FDCPA letters only apply to the debtor and the collector it is sent to it doesn't protect an unrelated third party from getting annoying phone calls. I have a feeling that sending FDCPA letters is just confirming that you probably are the debtor and prolong the collection calls.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8edad472ccf151ee0ee506b18eda838", "text": "Step 1)I answer the phone saying it is illegal to call my cell phone and I want all further communications in writing. Put this number on the do not call list and reverse search the number they dialed. Step 2) I say that whoever changed their number and how long I have owned the number and I call forward when they don't stop. I forward calls through google voice and mark them as spam. They get a sorry number was disconnected recording. Step 3) REALLY HARSH. I say the person passed away only if they aren't deterred enough by the previous efforts or they get cross into extreme harassment. Usually Step 1 is enough to stop the calls no matter who they ask for.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "5ba4e9b75cd4469b202c5d4dbf60ec8c", "text": "Get it in writing from the debt collector first that there will be a pay for deletion. This is the most fail safe way that I know to get a collections debt completely removed from a credit report, and also without the chance of it being put back on the report by another agency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00bd09a0e1ad8996b87e451d0b0c0dd5", "text": "This doesn't seem to explain the odd behavior of the collector, but I wanted to point out that the debt collector might not actually own the debt. If this is the case then your creditor is still the original institution, and the collector may or may not be allowed to actually collect. Contact the original creditor and ask how you can pay off the debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6e21401fe58d768d763e0c093cfcf13", "text": "First things first, its always good to set the records straight. When you are trying to clear your debt do them one by one and ask the collection agent that you would pay in full only if the records would be deleted from your credit history and most of the collection agencies are happy to take it off your credit report as they are getting the money. This would work generally only when you pay the full amount. I can guarantee you this because I have tried it myself after hearing about it from my friends. If you have already paid whole amount already then records of your payments generally will not be available after 2 years with any banks even the big ones like Bank of America or Wells Fargo. That means if they don't have the records no body else would because its a burden as your payment is written off. You can file a dispute to credit bureaus for your payment history and if they couldn't provide you the history they have to take your record off your history even they know that you have delinquent history because they don't have enough proof to confirm that. And when you file a dispute its always good to file it by paper as they have to write back and you can ask hard copies of the proofs which are very difficult to get. One more thing if you want to dispute it might take couple of months atleast and you need to have patience because you already might have known how important credit history is.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ef47bc6e77a08529092f461b85d993b", "text": "\"The lead story here is you owe $12,000 on a car worth $6000!! That is an appalling situation and worth a lot to get out of it. ($6000, or a great deal more if the car is out of warranty and you are at risk of a major repair too.) I'm sorry if it feels like the payments you've made so far are wasted; often the numbers do work out like this, and you did get use of the car for that time period. Now comes an \"\"adversary\"\", who is threatening to snatch the car away from you. I have to imagine they are emotionally motivated. How convenient :) Let them take it. But it's important to fully understand their motivations here. Because financially speaking, the smart play is to manage the situation so they take the car. Preferably unbeknownst that the car is upside down. Whatever their motivation is, give them enough of a fight; keep them wrapped up in emotions while your eye is on the numbers. Let them win the battle; you win the war: make sure the legal details put you in the clear of it. Ideally, do this with consent with the grandfather \"\"in response to his direct family's wishes\"\", but keep up the theater of being really mad about it. Don't tell anyone for 7 years, until the statute of limitations has passed and you can't be sued for it. Eventually they'll figure out they took a $6000 loss taking the car from you, and want to talk with you about that. Stay with blind rage at how they took my car. If they try to explain what \"\"upside down\"\" is, feign ignorance and get even madder, say they're lying and they won, why don't they let it go? If they ask for money, say they're swindling. \"\"You forced me, I didn't have a choice\"\". (which happens to be a good defense. They wanted it so bad; they shoulda done their homework. Since they were coercive it's not your job to disclose, nor your job to even know.) If they want you to take the car back, say \"\"can't, you forced me to buy another and I have to make payments on that one now.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "935727f455dbdcdac5aa776580a95ca5", "text": "The bank will sell your debt to a collection agency, that will then follow you everywhere you go and demand payment. They will put a negative notice on your credit report preventing you from getting any new credit, and might sue you in court and take over some or all of your assets through court judgement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46129c258ecb12f5a85af074100f5744", "text": "\"This will probably require asking the SO to sign a quitclaim and/or to \"\"sell\"\" him her share of the vehicle's ownership and getting it re-titled in his own name alone, which is the question you actually asked. To cancel the cosigner arrangement, he has to pay off the loan. If he can't or doesn't want to do that in cash, he'd have to qualify for a new loan to refinasnce in his name only, or get someone else (such as yourself) to co-sign. Alternatively, he might sell the car (or something else) to pay what he still owes on it. As noted in other answers, this kind of mess is why you shouldn't get into either cosigning or joint ownership without a written agreement spelling out exactly what happens should one of the parties wish to end this arrangement. Doing business with friends is still doing business.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e93e2ae3614116bb408f1dff585a5e2", "text": "\"The debt collection agency needs to see a copy of the notice from the bank that the $300 charge is a disputed and fraudulent charge. Also require them to provide proof. To reduce your stress, you should contact a lawyer to handle the debt collection agency. Disputing the information on your credit report is exactly the way to \"\"fix\"\" that issue. All they need to see is the bank letter stating that the charges were fraudulent. The credit reports should show that item as disputed for at least a month if not remove it entirely. The bank should be able to provide with copies although you may have to pay a research charge if the information is old enough. I recommend talking to your local branch manager to get what you need.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3214ebb04e28fd0dda794aa50304dcb3", "text": "There are a number of ways to get out of debt. First, stop spending on that card. You could apply for a 0% APR credit card and if you qualify with a credit limit equal (or higher) than what you have now, then you could transfer the balance and start on paying that down. You could also work out a payment plan with Chase - they would rather have some of the money vs. none of it. But you need to reach out sooner rather than later to avoid having it sent to collections. Since your cash flow is terrible, you could also pick up a second or third part time job - deliver pizzas, work at the mall, whatever, to help increase your cash flow and use that money to pay down your debts. The Federal Trade Commission has some resources on how to cope with debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edd337c752d17dd13f30fed364e2a553", "text": "@littleadv has said most of what I'd say if they had not gotten here first. I'd add this much, it's important to understand what debt collectors can and cannot do, because a lot of them will use intimidation and any other technique you can think of to get away with as much as you will let them. I'd start with this PDF file from the FTC and then start googling for info on your state's regulations. Also it would be a very very good idea to review the documents you signed (or get a copy) when you took out the loan to see what sort of additional penalties etc you may have already agreed to in the event you default. The fee's the collector is adding in could be of their own creation (making them highly negotiable), or it might be something you already agreed to in advance(leaving you little recourse but to pay them). Do keep in mind that in many cases debt collectors are ausually llowed at the very least to charge you simple interest of around 10%. On a debt of your size, paid off over several years, that might amount to more than the $4K they are adding. OTOH you can pretty much expect them to try both, tacking on 'fees' and then trying to add interest if the fees are not paid. Another source of assistance may be the Department of Education Ombudsman: If you need help with a defaulted student loan, contact the Department of Education's Ombudsman at 877-557-2575 or visit its website at www.fsahelp.ed.gov. But first you must take steps to resolve your loan problem on your own (there is a checklist of required steps on the website), or the Ombudsman will not assist you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "958adefe530f3b14d55e5dd7a5537ad3", "text": "If one does pay, one should only pay after they get a letter stating such a payment fully satisfies the debt. Then, one should only pay via money order or cashiers check. Never pay by personal check or credit card. Send such a payment via certified mail to ensure delivery. As stated in other answers: There might be an issue of honoring your debts, but that doesn't come into play here. You already didn't pay your debt, and the original owner of the note already took money. Paying this debt is only money in pocket of the debt collector. The scammier they are, and the worse they treat you would factor in.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd157acb0e9dec2b7b4343d6a0a95b9d", "text": "Maybe you know something I don't, but as far as I'm aware, you can't get rid of it. Student loans are with you for life. You will be sent to collections, but it doesn't disappear after 7 years. Settlements are incredibly rare unless your loan is ballooning... in which case, a settlement doesn't change all that much. You will lose tax benefits, the government will garnish 15% of your wages, and you will be a debt slave until it's paid off. Defaulting on student loans is much, much more painful than defaulting on private loans. The only exception to this is if you've made 120 months of repayments while employed at a qualifying non-profit or governmental organization. And even then, it only applies to federal loans and there are exceptions (better not refinance or the clock resets, for example). Also, if you default, you will no longer be eligible. Private student loans have no escape hatch and are equally unforgiving. Thank your elected representatives.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de6d817069222c9fc39f519b322d65f8", "text": "\"Step one: Contact the collection agency. Tell them that they have the wrong person, and the same name is just a coincidence. I would NOT give them my correct social security number, birth date, or other identifying information. This could be a total scam for the purpose of getting you to give them such personal identifying information so they can perform an identity theft. Even if it is a legitimate debt collection agency, if they are overzealous and/or incompetent, they may enter your identifying information into their records. \"\"Oh, you say your social security number isn't 123-45-6789, but 234-56-7890. Thank you, let me update our records. Now, sir, I see that the social security number in our records matches your social security number ...\"\" Step two: If they don't back off, contact a lawyer. Collection agencies work by -- call it \"\"intimidation\"\" or \"\"moral persuasion\"\", depending on your viewpoint. Years after my wife left me, she went bankrupt. A collection agency called me demanding payment of her debts before the bankruptcy went through. I noticed two things about this: One, We were divorced and I had no responsibility for her debts. Somehow they tracked down my new address and phone number, a place where she had never even lived. Why should I pay her debts? I had no legal obligation, nor did I see any moral obligation. Two, Their pitch was that she/I should pay off this debt before the bankruptcy was final. Why would anyone do that? The whole point of declaring bankruptcy is so you don't have to pay these debts. They were hoping to intimidate her into paying even though she wouldn't be legally obligated to pay. If you don't owe the money, of course there's no reason why you should pay it. If they continue to pursue you for somebody else's debt, in the U.S. you can sue them for harassment. There are all sorts of legal limits on what collection agencies are allowed to do. Actually even if they do back off, it might be worth contacting a lawyer. I suspect that asking your employer to garnish your wages without a court order, without even proof that you are responsible for this debt, is a tort that you could sue them for.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bcc928967afec28bfb27fe29d9bdec82", "text": "\"Step 1. Log onto chase.com Step 2. Click on the account in question Step 3. Add \"\"Outstanding balance\"\" to \"\"Pending charges\"\" Step 4. Pay said total amount With all the energy you spent trying to find out if they're doing something illegal, you could've resolved the original issue yourself and be done with it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f364aab021845547452178a44d83fa4", "text": "The issue is that the lender used two peoples income, debts, and credit history to loan both of you money to purchase a house. The only way to get a person off the loan, is to get a new loan via refinancing. The new loan will then be based on the income, debt, and credit history of one person. There is no paperwork you can sign, or the ex-spouse can sign, that will force the original lender to remove somebody from the loan. There is one way that a exchange of money between the two of you could work: The ex-spouse will have to sign paperwork to prove that it is not a loan that you will have to payback. I picked the number 20K for a reason. If the amount of the payment is above 14K they will have to document for the IRS that this is a gift, and the amount above 14K will be counted as part of their estate when they die. If the amount of the payment is less than 14K they don't even have to tell the IRS. If the ex-souse has remarried or you have remarried the multiple payments can be constructed to exceed the 14K limit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5825b7937a3c46f4dad210d283bc7aa", "text": "Also see who has the authority to delete bills or items on bills. This was a huge scam with some servers I've worked with. If you can delete an entire bill that was paid in cash then that's money in your pocket.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
ae8757cb4b52e6c71805b1c811186142	What should I do with the change in my change-jar?	[ { "docid": "9abb9c67f5d9b752d21d6be9d5cd17f1", "text": "Every now and then I fill a pocket with a handful of coins and spend it on a very small shop on my way home, i.e. a loaf of bread (£1.50), a pint of milk (50p) by using the self-check out (Tesco/Sainsbury's) which has a coin slot or even better the little bowl where you put coins down. I find this pretty straightforward. There's no point having a jar at home worth £50.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7b16d8fd53d30ebcc15ef950ddf947f", "text": "I don't like paying the percentage on the supermarket coin counters, and don't feel like buying a coin counter so I have my own solution. I keep higher value coins for vending machines, parking meters etc, and lower value coins I put in charity boxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93f36ea4cc5f8bfbaeb82ff0e07742a1", "text": "Are you in an occupation that regularly collects change or is this change left in your pocket at the end of the day? Here in the US it is typically worth it to invest in some automatic coin counters if you are in an occupation that regularly collects coins. In your case you can collect the little baggies from the bank, use your coin counters and then make a deposit. Here is an example of US coin counters. If it is just pocket change then in the morning, make it a habit of taking some with you. This way you are less likely to break larger bills. Also if you are making a deposit at the bank, add some change to the deposit without making it to annoying.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "008bb5e59816da765e0c8664641db52a", "text": "\"In the U.S. at least, a lot of these CoinStar machines are now owned and operated by the store or other venue in which they're placed, as a convenience to customers, and the fee for using it is waived. These machines, even without a fee attached, are still beneficial to the store, for two reasons. First, they bring in potential customers; the machine usually spits out a ticket that you take to the cashier, meaning you pass by all the impulse items they put in the checkout lines, and someone using the change catcher will invariably pick up a pack of gum or a magazine to spend your newfound wealth. The fact that one store has a change machine while another doesn't can also be the difference between choosing that store over the other for a planned shopping trip. Second, and less obvious, a store that owns a CoinStar machine has full access to the change people put in it (hey, they own the machine and are paying out cash on the receipts it spits out). During normal use of a cash drawer or register to take in money, large bills ($20/20€ or larger) are accumulated to be \"\"broken\"\", small to medium bills (1-10 units) stay roughly static in number as payments are made and larger bills are broken, and coins are invariably depleted as change is paid out. This means the average retail store needs a constant incoming supply of coinage, and that generally happens either through armored car service or similar commercial banking (which costs the store money), or through \"\"change catchers\"\" like gumball machines (which usually can't supply all the needed denominations). The Coinstar machine effectively reverses at least a portion of this attrition of coins and accumulation of large bills; the store can now receive coins and pay out large bills as a part of its day to day business, reducing or even eliminating the need to have a bank or armored car perform this service. Anyway, check and see whether the CoinStar machine you last used is still operating on a percentage-fee basis; it might be the case that the store has purchased the machine outright and is offering its services free of charge. If not, look around; other stores may be waiving the CoinStar fee where this one isn't (or they may have similar, non-CoinStar branded machines). Lastly, as other answers have mentioned, if you cash out in the form of a gift card, there's no fee, so you can pick a gift card to a store you're likely to visit anyway; in the U.S. there are a lot of good choices, like home improvement stores, Starbucks, major department stores/clothing retailers, and even an airline.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a9ba9d1b4bcc1164a90d43eebcb8187", "text": "\"I don't know if those machines work this way in the UK too, but here in the US you can often avoid the coin-counting fee if you opt to convert the money into a gift certificate instead of cash. I routinely convert my coins to Amazon gift certificate money with no charge. Individual machines differ in which particular gift cards they use, but at the least, almost all of them offer the option for a no-fee conversion to a voucher/gift certificate to the store where the machine is. So it's likely you'd be able to use the machine to convert the cash to \"\"money\"\" you can use to buy groceries.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "fbd6c2dfd00266e39e2432389d038f40", "text": "The money NEVER becomes your money. It has been paid to you in error. Your best response is to write to the company who has paid you in error and tell them that for the responsibilty and subsequent stress caused to you by them putting you in a position of looking after their money you hereby give notice that you are charging them $50 per week until such time as they request the repayment of their money. Keep a dated copy of your letter and if they fail to respond then in 12 weeks they will have to pay you $600 to retrieve their $600. If they come back to you anytime after that they will OWE YOU money - but I wouldn't push for payment on that one. I have successfully used this approach with companies who send unsolicited goods and expect me to mess about returning them if I don't want them. I tell them the weekly fee I am charging them for storage and they quickly make arrangements to either take their goods back or (in one case) told me to keep them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41d16faa39889d7deb9d94d194aa8873", "text": "It helps to put the numbers in terms of an asset. Say a bottle of wine costs 10 dollars, but the price rises to 20 dollars a year later. The price has risen 100%, and your dollars have lost value. Whereas your ten used to be worth 100% of the price of bottle of wine, they now are worth 50% of the risen price of a bottle of wine so they've lost around 50% of their value. Divide the old price by the new inflated price to measure proportionally how much the old price is of the new price. 10 divided by 20 is 1/2 or .50 or 50%. You can then subtract the old price from the new in proportional terms to find how much value you've lost. 1 minus 1/2 or 1.00 minus .50 or 100% minus 50%.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "adbd26a148ea4692bd89917533e0a3ab", "text": "\"First of all, it's quite common-place in GnuCash (and in accounting in general, I believe) to have \"\"accounts\"\" that represent concepts or ideas rather than actual accounts at some institution. For example, my personal GnuCash book has a plethora of expense accounts, just made up by me to categorize my spending, but all of the transactions are really just entries in my checking account. As to your actual question, I'd probably do this by tracking such savings as \"\"negative expenses,\"\" using an expense account and entering negative numbers. You could track grocery savings in your grocery expense account, or if you want to easily analyze the savings data, for example seeing savings over a certain time period, you would probably want a separate Grocery Savings expense account. EDIT: Regarding putting that money aside, here's an idea: Let's say you bought a $20 item that was on sale for $15. You could have a single transaction in GnuCash that includes four splits, one for each of the following actions: decrease your checking account by $20, increase your expense account by $20, decrease your \"\"discount savings\"\" expense account by $5, and increase your savings account (where you're putting that money aside) by $5.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3643d7beeb720ccb8b716a16c50eaae2", "text": "\"The best I could come up with would be to simply ask for the amount of \"\"notes\"\" and \"\"coins\"\" you would like, and specify denominations thereof. The different currency labels exist for the reason that not all of them are valued the same, so USD 100 is not the same as EUR 100. To generalize would mean some form of uniformity in the values, that just isn't there.\"", "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": "4f836cd217d6541bbfe6c08fcca1719a", "text": "The question is about the US but to add the European perspective: The rule over here (I only know German law, but assume it's the same for all of the Euro area) is that you need more than half of the bill or you have to be able to prove that more than half of the bill was destroyed (good luck) in order to get it replaced. Deformed coins can also be replaced. But all only as long as you didn't break it on purpose. So giving half of the bill to the cab driver would be on purpose and (if the central bank knows about it) make the bill (or coin) invalid. German information: https://www.bundesbank.de/Navigation/DE/Aufgaben/Bargeld/Beschaedigtes_Geld/beschaedigtes_geld.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb31aa53139708b7c3827e7e98a67dc2", "text": "\"As others have noted, US law says that if you have over half the bill, it's worth the full value, under half is worth nothing. I presume if it is very close to half, if even careful measurements show that you have 50.5%, you'll have difficulty cashing it in, precisely because the government and the banking system aren't going to allow themselves to be easily fooled by someone cutting bills in half and then trying to redeem both halves. I've seen several comments on here about how you'd explain to the bank how so many bills were cut in half. What if you just told them the truth? Not the part about killing someone, of course, but tell them that you made a deal, neither of you wanted to bother with complex contracts and having to go to court if the other side didn't pay up, so your buddy cut all the bills in half, etc. As you now have both halves and they clearly have the same serial number, this no real evidence of fraud. Okay, this is technically illegal -- 18 US Code Section 333, \"\"Whoever mutilates, CUTS, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.\"\" But you didn't do it, the other guy did. I presume the point of this law is to say that you can't get a hold of currency belonging to someone else and mutilate it so as to make it worthless. As he's now given you both halves, I doubt anyone would bother to track him down and prosecute him. Just BTW, while checking up on the details of the law, I stumbled across 18 USC 336, which says that it's illegal to write a check for less than $1, with penalties of 6 months in prison. I just got a check from AT&T for 15 cents for one of those class action suits where the lawyers get $100 million and the victims get 15 cents each. Apparently that was illegal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fc6ec273abd1bf196aef714bfe04e1d", "text": "A pencil and a small notepad really work here, but if you have a smartphone then some way of using it makes sense as well. Try: Transcribe all of these onto a better record at the end of each day. Also record the amount of money in your wallet/purse/pocket every day, and check to see if the amounts you've recorded add up to the amount you've spent. It'll be easier to remember that newspaper you bought at the end of the day, rather than a week later. Or just record the difference as 'miscellaneous'.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3fbc8def7c62a89fdfaa00e3e20db01", "text": "\"As others have mentioned, it's important that there is a fair assessment of the market value of the items being donated. Joel's point about the government not looking kindly upon overvalued donations also applies in Canada: the CRA doesn't look kindly upon donation schemes such as \"\"buy-low, donate-high arrangements.\"\" Since nobody has offered up authoritative information for Canada yet, here's something to look at: Excerpts: 3) Gifts in kind of a taxpayer include capital property, depreciable property, personal-use property ... [...] 6) The fair market value of a gift in kind as of the date of the donation (the date on which beneficial ownership is transferred from the donor to the donee) must be determined before an amount can be recorded on a receipt for tax purposes. [...] The person who determines the fair market value of the property must be competent and qualified to evaluate the particular property being transferred by way of a gift. Property of little or only nominal value to the donor will not qualify as a gift in kind. Used clothing of little value would be an example of a non-qualifying contribution. You will need to find a charity that would both value the books you would be donating and be willing to issue you a receipt for your charitable donation. Whatever receipt they issue should be in line with fair market value of the goods donated. Assume your donation receipt will be challenged, and keep both: Finally, reasonable comparables might be prices for similar used goods, not a percentage of new. Though, if you can't find a price for a particular title in the used market, an estimate consistent with other valuations in the lot would be better than nothing, perhaps.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c35140524ccf9b513b1f488b10cb16a", "text": "\"of course if you asked me to give you $24.4955 I can't. No, but if I asked you to give me $24.4955 and you gave me a piece of paper saying \"\"I O U $24.4955\"\", and then this happened repeatedly until I had collected 100 of these pieces of paper from you, then I could give them back to you in exchange for $2449.55 of currency. There's nothing magical about the fact that there doesn't happen to be a $0.001 coin in current circulation. This question has some further information.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f938294b1e5fa886e3ab9505c06a4245", "text": "\"The question I think is not: \"\"What is a certain material worth in a coin\"\" but \"\"What is a certain material worth in a coin and how much does it cost to get it out of there\"\". Just because something contains a certain element doesn't mean that you can get to it cheaply. Also as George Marian said: I don't think that it is legal to melt coins. So if the time comes you would first have to find a company willing to process the coins etc. Also you should not only compare what it is worth now and at a later time but also what that money would be worth if you put it into a high yielding savings account or something like that.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f223389ac294be1c02dff830429e81dd", "text": "First question: Any, probably all, of the above. Second question: The risk is that the currency will become worth less, or even worthless. Most will resort to the printing press (inflation) which will tank the currency's purchasing power. A different currency will have the same problem, but possibly less so than yours. Real estate is a good deal. So are eggs, if you were to ask a Weimar Germany farmer. People will always need food and shelter.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3a3089e2ce15824c40e5d7da0c02e29", "text": "Is this even legal? How can a bank refuse to deposit legal tender in the United States? Legal for all debts, public or private, doesn't mean quite what I used to think, either. Per The Fed: This statute means that all United States money as identified above is 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 payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law which says otherwise. Yes, they can refuse loose change. Also, they aren't refusing your deposit, just requiring that it be rolled. What do I do with my change? I do not want to spend the time rolling it, and I am not going to pay a fee to cash my change. There aren't many other options, change is a nuisance. I believe Coinstar machines reduce/remove their fee if you exchange coins for gift cards, so that might be the best option for convenience and retaining value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ab1ec05f4e7fd0f7cefbed8358144d4", "text": "Shred it all. You might want to keep a record going back at most a year, just in case. But just in case of what? What is a good idea is to have an electronic record. It's a good practice to know how your spending changes over time. Beyond that, it's just a fire hazard. The thing is, I know I'm right in the above paragraph, but I'm a hypocrite: I have years' worth of paper records of all kinds. I need to get rid of it. But I have grown attached. I have trucked this stuff around in move after move. I have a skill at taking good care of useless things. I've even thought of hiring somebody to scan it all in for me, so that I can feel safe shredding all this paper without losing any of the data. But that's insane!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abcb1b0b0dcb18fd1442e0ce54d706b1", "text": "So your dollar never leaves America until it leaves for an investment - which would be FDI. If you sent the dollar home to Mexico, that’s a remittance current account flow. Then later, you want to use that dollar for a housing investment in Mexico, it’s just domestic investment. If you move to the US, I believe that’s another remittance flow (though it might even be a service flow because the bank is the one moving the dollar!). Then to invest in Mexico you need to go through an FDI channel.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
fe29c70b2f4d72a6c62c42aeadc9410f	Employer skipped payments, should I allow them to defer payment until Jan 2017?	[ { "docid": "8670fe180d96963e64f7335cd3d86721", "text": "\"First, let's look at the tax brackets for single taxpayers in 2016: The cutoff between the 25% and 28% tax bracket is $91,150. You said that your gross is $87,780. This will be reduced by deductions and exemptions (at least $10,350). Your rental income will increase your income, but it is offset in part by your rental business expenses. For this year, you will almost certainly be in the 25% bracket, whether or not you receive your backpay this year. Next year, if you receive your backpay then and your salary is $11k higher, I'm guessing you'll be close to the edge. It is important to remember that the tax brackets are marginal. This means that when you move up to the next tax bracket, it is only the amount of income that puts you over the top that is taxed at the higher rate. (You can see this in the chart above.) So if, for example, your taxable income ends up being $91,160, you'll be in the 28% tax bracket, but only $10 of your income will be taxed at 28%. The rest will be taxed at 25% or lower. As a result, this probably isn't worth worrying about too much. A bit more explanation, requested by the OP: Here is how to understand the numbers in the tax bracket chart. Let's take a look at the second line, $9,276-$37,650. The tax rate is explained as \"\"$927.50 plus 15% of the amount over $9,275.\"\" The first $9,275 of your taxable income is taxed at a 10% rate. So if your total taxable income falls between $9,276 and $37,650, the first $9,275 is taxed at 10% (a tax of $927.50) and the amount over $9,275 is taxed at 15%. On each line of the chart, the amount of tax from all the previous brackets is carried down, so you don't have to calculate it. When I said that you have at least $10,350 in deductions and exemptions, I got that number from the standard deduction and the personal exemption amount. For 2016, the standard deduction for single taxpayers is $6,300. (If you itemize your deductions, you might be able to deduct more.) Personal exemptions for 2016 are at $4,050 per person. That means you get to reduce your taxable income by $4,050 for each person in your household. Since you are single with no dependents, your standard deduction plus the personal exemption for yourself will result in a reduction of at least $10,350 on your taxable income.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2bc2c214b9eb7e002d1e82a7014e0c8", "text": "TL;DR: The difference is $230. Just for fun, and to illustrate how brackets work, let's look at the differences you could see from changing when you're paid based on the tax bracket information that Ben Miller provided. If you're paid $87,780 each year, then each year you'll pay $17,716 for a total of $35,432: $5,183 + $12,532 (25% of $50,130 (the amount over $37,650)) If you were paid nothing one year and then double salary ($175,560) the next, you'd pay $0 the first year and $42,193 the next: $18,558 + $23,634 (28% of $84,410 (the amount over $91,150)) So the maximum difference you'd see from shifting when you're paid is $6,761 total, $3,380 per year, or about 4% of your average annual salary. In your particular case, you'd either be paying $35,432 total, or $14,948 followed by $20,714 for $35,662 total, a difference of $230 total, $115 per year, less than 1% of average annual salary: $5,183 + $9,765 (25% of $39,060 (the amount $87,780 - $11,070 is over $37,650)) $18,558 + $2,156 (28% of $7,700 (the amount $87,780 + $11,070 is over $91,150))", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "d7885cbddc73d702df6c3ddfae17ec64", "text": "\"See Publication 505, specifically the section on \"\"Annualized Income Installment Method\"\", which says: If you do not receive your income evenly throughout the year (for example, your income from a repair shop you operate is much larger in the summer than it is during the rest of the year), your required estimated tax payment for one or more periods may be less than the amount figured using the regular installment method. The publication includes a worksheet and explanation of how to calculate the estimated tax due for each period when you have unequal income. If you had no freelance income during a period, you shouldn't owe any estimated tax for that period. However, the process for calculating the estimated tax using this method is a good bit more complex and confusing than using the \"\"short\"\" method (in which you just estimate how much tax you will owe for the year and divide it into four equal pieces). Therefore, in future years you might want to still use the equal-payments method if you can swing it. (It's too late for this year since you missed the April deadline for the first payment.) If you can estimate the total amount of freelance income you'll receive (even though you might not be able to estimate when you'll receive it), you can probably still use the simpler method. If you really have no idea how much money you'll make over the year, you could either use the more complex computation, or you could use a very high estimate to ensure you pay enough tax, and you'll get a refund if you pay too much.\"", "title": "" }, { "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": "72444a1e64993e7ab98a68200e75d954", "text": "Your total salary deferral cannot exceed $18K (as of 2016). You can split it between your different jobs as you want, to maximize the matching. You can contribute non-elective contribution on top of that, which means that your self-proprietorship will commit to paying you that portion regardless of your deferral. That would be on top of the $18K. You cannot contribute more than 20% of your earnings, though. So if you earn $2K, you can add $400 on top of the $18K limit (ignoring the SE tax for a second here). Keep in mind that if you ever have employees, the non-elective contribution will apply to them as well. Also, the total contribution limit from all sources (deferral, matching, non-elective) cannot exceed $53K (for 2016).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52eaf6d964328f4903cdb42885603788", "text": "It's my understanding that deferred revenue will be included as income as the services are rendered. In this way, gains originating from deferred revenue are not recognized until they are actually earned. It's a formality so the accounting adheres to the matching principle. It may help to view a DR as an advance payment (say like what an airline may do with ticket purchases that occur before the flight). It sounds like you're wanting to penalize the business for having to eventually provide a service. But I don't know if that would be accurate, I mean, from the business's perspective, isn't it always preferable to be paid in advance? Are you concerned the company may not have any recourse should the customer try to back out or something? I don't think I'm understanding your question, could you come at it from another angle to explain it?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f34ae6731ec7e2a6fc4ab50ff0ac7e1e", "text": "\"It has been reported in consumer media (for example Clark Howard's radio program) that the \"\"no interest for 12 months\"\" contracts could trick you with the terms and the dates on the contract. Just as an example: You borrow $1000 on 12/1/2013, same as cash for 12 months. The contract will state the due date very clearly as 12/1/2014. BUT they statements you get will take payment on the 15th of each month. So you will dutifully pay your statements as they come in, but when you pay the final statement on 12/15/2014, you are actually 14 days late, have violated the terms, and you now owe all the interest that accumulated (and it wasn't a favorable rate). That doesn't happen all the time. Not all contracts are written that way. But you better read your agreement. Some companies use the same as cash deal because they want to move product. Some do it because they want to trick you with financing. Bottom line is, you better read the contract.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed29c570eae7fb018586b19dfcde1b80", "text": "\"This is really unfortunate. In general you can't back date individual policies. You could have (if it was available to you) elected to extend your employer's coverage via COBRA for the month of May, and possibly June depending on when your application was submitted, then let the individual coverage take over when it became effective. Groups have some latitude to retroactively cover and terminate employees but that's not an option in the world of individual coverage, the carriers are very strict about submission deadlines for specific effective dates. This is one of the very few ways that carriers are able to say \"\"no\"\" within the bounds of the ACA. You submit an application, you are assigned an effective date based on the date your application was received and subsequently approved. It has nothing to do with how much money you send them or whether or not you told them to back date your application. If someone at the New York exchange told you you could have a retroactive effective date they shouldn't have. Many providers have financial hardship programs. You should talk to the ER hospital and see what might be available to you. The insurer is likely out of the equation though if the dates of service occurred before your policy was effective. Regarding your 6th paragraph regarding having paid the premium. In this day and age carriers can only say \"\"no\"\" via administrative means. They set extremely rigid effective dates based on your application date. They will absolutely cancel you if you miss a payment. If you get money to them but it was after the grace period date (even by one minute) they will not reinstate you. If you're cancelled you must submit a new application which will create a new coverage gap. You pay a few hundred dollars each month to insure infinity risk, you absolutely have to cover your administrative bases because it's the only way a carrier can say \"\"no\"\" anymore so they cling to it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e51a65eb4d4db5998634f1c89bd9d272", "text": "\"If you file the long-form Form 2210 in which you have to figure out exactly how much you should have had withheld (or paid via quarterly payments of estimated tax), you might be able to reduce the underpayment penalty somewhat, or possibly eliminate it entirely. This often happens because some of your income comes late in the year (e.g. dividend and capital gain distributions from stock mutual funds) and possibly because some of your itemized deductions come early (e.g. real estate tax bills due April 1, charitable deductions early in the year because of New Year resolutions to be more philanthropic) etc. It takes a fair amount of effort to gather up the information you need for this (money management programs help), and it is easy to make mistakes while filling out the form. I strongly recommend use of a \"\"deluxe\"\" or \"\"premier\"\" version of a tax program - basic versions might not include Form 2210 or have only the short version of it. I also seem to remember something to the effect that the long form 2210 must be filed with the tax return and cannot be filed as part of an amended return, and if so, the above advice would be applicable to future years only. But you might be able to fill out the form and appeal to the IRS that you owe a reduced penalty, or don't owe a penalty at all, and that your only mistake was not filing the long form 2210 with your tax return and so please can you be forgiven this once? In any case, I strongly recommend paying the underpayment penalty ASAP because it is increasing day by day due to interest being charged. If the IRS agrees to your eloquent appeal, they will refund the overpayment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "525b16126118a6a76b0ba4d2aed044bc", "text": "I think you're looking a step beyond the question being asked. This is a pretty simple accounting question that doesn't take into account any other activity, like earnings generated during the time period by the employee being paid. It's far more simple. Unpaid wages accrue to liabilities, assets remain constant because no cash leaves the door, this equity decreases equal to the change in liability. He's not deferring an expense, he accrued it at the time the work was done, he simply hasn't paid it. That's not the same as a DTA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "063b37e61a4683a727704eef73d1d360", "text": "\"Is there any practical reason... to hold off on making payments until I receive a billing statement? Yes, a few: As for a zero balance, FICO consumer affairs manager Barry Paperno says, \"\"The idea here is the lower, the better, in terms of the utilization percentage, but something is better than nothing....The score wants to see some kind of activity.\"\" How low should you go? In a recent interview, FICO spokesman Craig Watts said, \"\"If your utilization is 10 percent or lower, you're in great shape as far as utilization goes.\"\" That being said, there are downsides especially if you wind up forgetting to make a payment. The easiest thing to do (also from a time management perspective) is to get your billing statement once a month, verify the purchases on it, and at that time you receive the statement schedule an online bill payment so that it will be paid in full before the due date. As Aganju points out, you don't have to wait for a paper bill in hand or even an e-mail notification; you can go online after your statement date to get the statement. This makes sure you won't have extra costs related to unreliability of mail (if you still receive paper statements)/e-mail, though it does require remembering to check (and/or setting a recurring calendar reminder). Paying much in advance of that, as is your current practice, might be a good idea to free up available balance if you are planning a purchase that would take you over your credit limit, but this should be relatively rare (and some credit card companies will raise that limit if you have been paying well and ask nicely, though find out first if they do a \"\"hard pull\"\" of your credit report for that).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5b3bab0b93e6ec8c3de5d92d1996680", "text": "They gave advanced notice, so when the date is solidified, no one can say they didn't know anything. It's not as if the money is in limbo until then, it's still at fidelity. I am certain there will come time in '17 when you get a 30-60 day notice that the move will happen. There are rules that employers must deposit the money within X days of withholding from your check. But I don't believe there's anything against warning you too far in advance that a change in provider is planned.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4896f11a944f6d57641a6383c67637c", "text": "This is not your problem and you should not try to fix it. If your employer paid money into someone else's account instead of yours they should ask their bank to reverse it and should pay you your wages while they are waiting for this to be done. No bank will let you do anything about money paid by someone else into an account that is not yours, or give you details of someone else's account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96be169c2db8ab9588b647f3b54e964b", "text": "By definition, this is a payroll deduction. There's no mechanism for you to tell the 401(k) administrator that a Jan-15 deposit is to be credited for 2016 instead of 2017. (As is common for IRAs where you do have the 'until tax time' option) If you are paid weekly, semi-monthly, or monthly, 12/31 is a Saturday this year and should leave no ambiguity about the date of your last check. The only unknown for me if if one is paid bi-weekly, and has a check covering 12/25 - 1/7. Payroll/HR will need to answer whether that check is considered all in 2016, all in 2017 or split between the two.", "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": "c868a5a5da49707a69a0ddc035f9c7a4", "text": "\"This is fairly simple, actually. You should insist on payment for the rent payment you never received and stop accepting cash payments. If you want to be nice, and believe the story, allow the tenant additional time or payment in installments for the missing $750, but this is a textbook example of why it's a bad idea to transact with cash. Insist on cash equivalents that are traceable and verifiable - check, money order or cashier's check, made out to you or your company name. Also, for what it's worth, you are not out $750, unless you choose to be. Your tenant is. \"\"I put cash in your mailbox\"\" is not proof of payment, and doesn't fly as payment anywhere. If it did, I'd never pay any of my bills.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d528af1915fd76bb48ff938a339e435", "text": "Let's look at the two options. It sounds like, at this time, the company has enough cash to pay you a salary or pay your loan off, but not both at the same time. Ideally, in the future, there will be enough cash flow to be able to do both at the same time. If you start your salary now, when the cash flow increases to the point where the company can pay off your loan, you will continue to receive your salary while the loan is being repaid. So it is probably most advantageous to you to start the salary now and wait with the loan payments. (If you think that the company is not going to make it and there is a danger of not ever getting the loan repaid, this could change; however, you are probably optimistic about the company, or you wouldn't have made the loan and agreed to work for free in the first place.) With the other option, the company gets out of debt quicker and cheaper. I can totally understand your brother wanting to eliminate this debt ASAP. It looks like you and your brother had different expectations about what was going to happen. That's why it is so critical to put these kinds of agreements in writing. If you had had a payment schedule in your written loan agreement, this wouldn't be an issue. Of course, the issue of how long you would continue to work for free would still be there, but this could also have been decided ahead of time. As is, you have two different things going on that were left up in the air with no formal agreement. As to what is fair, that is something only you and he can work out. Perhaps you can propose a payment schedule for your loan that the company can afford now while paying your salary; that way, you will start getting paid for working, and the company will start moving toward eliminating the debt. I hope that you will be able to agree to a solution without ruining the relationship you have with your brother. Besides the fact that family relationships are important, a rift between the two of you would certainly be disastrous for the company and, as a result, your and his finances.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
24191377d73541a1aa2c53b7dac6d257	Recognizing the revenue on when virtual 'credits' are purchased as opposed to used	[ { "docid": "d76b0aa423ae2d10652b65376f7b65d4", "text": "\"I'll assume United States as the country; the answer may (probably does) vary somewhat if this is not correct. Also, I preface this with the caveat that I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant. However, this is my understanding: You must recognize the revenue at the time the credits are purchased (when money changes hands), and charge sales tax on the full amount at that time. This is because the customer has pre-paid and purchased a service (i.e. the \"\"credits\"\", which are units of time available in the application). This is clearly a complete transaction. The use of the credits is irrelevant. This is equivalent to a customer purchasing a box of widgets for future delivery; the payment is made and the widgets are available but have simply not been shipped (and therefore used). This mirrors many online service providers (say, NetFlix) in business model. This is different from the case in which a customer purchases a \"\"gift card\"\" or \"\"reloadable debit card\"\". In this case, sales tax is NOT collected (because this is technically not a purchase). Revenue is also not booked at this time. Instead, the revenue is booked when the gift card's balance is used to pay for a good or service, and at that time the tax is collected (usually from the funds on the card). To do otherwise would greatly complicate the tax basis (suppose the gift card is used in a different state or county, where sales tax is charged differently? Suppose the gift card is used to purchase a tax-exempt item?) For justification, see bankruptcy consideration of the two cases. In the former, the customer has \"\"ownership\"\" of an asset (the credits), which cannot be taken from him (although it might be unusable). In the latter, the holder of the debit card is technically an unsecured creditor of the company - and is last in line if the company's assets are liquidated for repayment. Consider also the case where the cost of the \"\"credits\"\" is increased part-way through the year (say, from $10 per credit to $20 per credit) or if a discount promotion is applied (buy 5 credits, get one free). The customer has a \"\"tangible\"\" item (one credit) which gets the same functionality regardless of price. This would be different if instead of \"\"credits\"\" you instead maintain an \"\"account\"\" where the user deposited $1000 and was billed for usage; in this case you fall back to the \"\"gift card\"\" scenario (but usage is charged at the current rate) and revenue is booked when the usage is purchased; similarly, tax is collected on the purchase of the service. For this model to work, the \"\"credit\"\" would likely have to be refundable, and could not expire (see gift cards, above), and must be usable on a variety of \"\"services\"\". You may have particular responsibility in the handling of this \"\"deposit\"\" as well.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "cfc6a71d87f7cc84ff75401a7965d421", "text": "I look at the following ratios and how these ratios developed over time, for instance how did valuation come down in a recession, what was the trough multiple during the Lehman crisis in 2008, how did a recession or good economy affect profitability of the company. Valuation metrics: Enterprise value / EBIT (EBIT = operating income) Enterprise value / sales (for fast growing companies as their operating profit is expected to be realized later in time) and P/E Profitability: Operating margin, which is EBIT / sales Cashflow / sales Business model stability and news flow", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4fe4886ea6863bd792a7277924d2b8b", "text": "Purchase accounting requires that you mark assets, including PP&E to fair value. So let's say you bought a machine 5 years ago for $1,000 - you might have depreciated it to $250 on your balance sheet but it might actually be worth $900.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d1e91dd9b70da76f6ad1b4bb1a86ab0", "text": "Personally I solve this by saving enough liquid capital (aka checking and savings) to cover pretty much everything for six months. But this is a bad habit. A better approach is to use budget tracking software to make virtual savings accounts and place payments every paycheck into them, in step with your budget. The biggest challenge you'll likely face is the initial implementation; if you're saving up for a semi-annual car insurance premium and you've got two months left, that's gonna make things difficult. In the best case scenario you already have a savings account, which you reapportion among your various lumpy expenses. This does mean you need to plan when it is you will actually buy that shiny new Macbook Pro, and stick to it for a number of months. Much more difficult than buying on credit. Especially since these retailers hate dealing in cash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dbc54297aa25d0a851d8421cd7854b7c", "text": "\"In the Income Statement that you've linked to, look for the line labeled \"\"Net Income\"\". That's followed by a line labeled \"\"Preferred Dividends\"\", which is followed by \"\"Income Available to Common Excl. Extra Items\"\" and \"\"Income Available to Common Incl. Extra Items\"\". Those last two are the ones to look at. The key is that these lines reflect income minus dividends paid to preferred stockholders (of which there are none here), and that's income that's available to ordinary shareholders, i.e., \"\"earnings for the common stock\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c84f0f572bfc3e7a3e4c9442340d5088", "text": "Given that the laws on consumer liability for unauthorized transactions mean no cost in most cases, the CVV is there to protect the merchant. Typically a merchant will receive a lower cost from their bank to process the transaction with the CVV code versus without. As far as the Netflix case goes, (or any other recurring billing for that matter) they wouldn't care as much about it because Visa/MC/Amex regulations prohibit storage of the CVV. So if they collect it then it's only used for the first transaction and renewals just use the rest of the card info (name, expiration date, address). Does the presence of CVV indicate the merchant has better security? Maybe, maybe not. It probably means they care about their costs and want to pay the bank as little as possible to process the transaction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e5b4f091f7a0e9f2328d42e944873bc", "text": "I don't believe you would be able to with only Net Sales and COGS. Are you talking about trying to estimate them? Because then I could probably come up with an idea based on industry averages, etc. I think you would need to know the average days outstanding, inventory turnover and the terms they're getting from their vendors to calculate actuals. There may be other ways to solve the problem you're asking but thats my thoughts on it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74025b05eba2366bf975acf56e3717e6", "text": "\"It depends on the definition of earnings. A company could have revenue that nets in excess of expenses, so from that perspective a good cash flow or EBITDA, but have debt servicing costs, taxes, depreciation, amortization, that alters that perspective. So if a company is carrying a large debt load, then the bondholders are in the position to capture any excess revenues through debt service payments and the company is in a negative equity positions (no equity or dividends payable to shareholders) and has not produced earnings. If a company has valuable preferred shares issued and outstanding, then depending on the earnings definition, there may be no earnings (for the common stock) until the preferences are satisfied by the returns. So while the venture itself (revenues minus costs) could be cash flow positive, this may not be sufficient to produce \"\"earnings\"\" for shareholders, whose claim on the company still entitles them to zero current liquidation value (i.e. they get nothing if the company dissolves immediately - all value goes to bondholders or preferred). It could also be that taxes are eating into revenue, or the depreciation of key assets is greater than the excess of revenues over costs (e.g. a bike rental company by the beach makes money on a weekly basis but is rusting out half its stock every 3 months and replacement costs will overwhelm the operating revenues).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57fb897c059fe117bf76781c5306adb8", "text": "\"Thanks for the response. I am using WRDS database and we are currently filtering through various variables like operating income, free cash flow etc. Main issue right now is that the database seems to only go up to 2015...is there a similar database that has 2016 info? filtering out the \"\"recent equity issuance or M&A activity exceeding 10% of total assets\"\" is another story, namely, how can I identify M&A activity? I suppose we can filter it with algorithm stating if company's equity suddenly jumps 10% or more, it get's flagged\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac94b3f7bd6bc33bd797644d875a4365", "text": "\"One thing to keep in mind is that Prime day takes away sales from other days (maybe the two days leading up to and two days after). It would be interesting to see sales numbers by day around Prime Day and compare them to \"\"average\"\" days and see if customers bought less. Also, I assume the $1bn is Net Sales and not Gross Merchandise Volume.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e1634b86dc0379488255eb75820baf2", "text": "\"I recently needed to compute a better balance that let us pick and choose what to include in the computed sum without losing information, so I revisited this topic and I'm pleased to say that I've found a solution that works (at least for our data - you may have transactions that this code doesn't recognize, but you can always modify it to match). My solution was written natively for MS SQL Server 2008 or later, it uses a scalar UDF, a VIEW, and a windowed aggregate (SUM OVER (ORDER BY ...) which means it should be almost-syntax compatible with PostgreSQL. MySQL does not support OVER but you can perform a running-sum using a variable with arithmetic addition directly in the SELECT clause. Create a database table with this schema (feel free to exclude columns you're not interested in, such as Option1Name): Create a UNIQUE index on TxnId - you could use it as a primary-key, I suppose. You might be tempted to create a Foreign-Key relationship between ReferenceTxnId and TxnId, however this will fail if you enforce it: we have many transactions where ReferenceTxnId points to a Transaction that doesn't exist. This is usually in the case of [Type] = 'Web Accept Payment Received' AND [Status] = 'Canceled'. We also have some TransactionId values longer than 17 characters: some TransactionIds start with \"\"U-\"\" - all pending money requests, I suspect this indicates the transaction is \"\"unfinished\"\". Re-download your entire PayPal History CSV files so that you have the latest retroactive updates. Import these CSV files into this PayPalHistory table. Do a simple test to see how bad PayPal's default data is: To find out where the differences are coming from, run this query: (The ORDER BY (...), RowId is to ensure consistent ordering when multiple transactions share the same timestamp) As you scroll through the results, you'll see how the naive SUM is thrown-off from the official PayPal-computed Balance column. So as you can see, the Net column value cannot always be trusted - what we need is to generate our own \"\"EffectiveNet\"\" value which is accurate - that is, the value is 0.00 for rows which do not affect the balance, instead of being what they are right now. The problem is, given a single row of data (such as any single row from the example table in my original Question) we have no way of inherently knowing what its \"\"EffectiveNet\"\" is. I have devised two functions to help solve this problem, the first function only looks at the ReferenceTxnId, Type and Status column values and generates accurate values for the vast majority of rows - indeed, in our dataset we only had one row for which this approach did not work. I recommend you try this one first and compare the running-sum value to ensure it works for your data: You can use this function in the query like so below, hopefully it should give you an accurate running-sum and balance figure at the end: 8. And here's the view that ties it all together: Used like so: I hope this helps anyone else wanting to do accurate bookkeeping with PayPal Transaction History files!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dba4f638e967cf689e1b735cc9daed10", "text": "No, it would not show up on the income statement as it isn't income. It would show up in the cash flow statement as a result of financing activities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4250ef625b8db4e0671d6671878c66e2", "text": "\"Debits' and \"\"Credits\"\" are terms used in double-entry bookkeeping. Each transaction is entered in two different places to be able to double-check accuracy. The total debits and total credits being equal is what makes the balance sheet balance. For explaining debits and credits, wikiversity has a good example using eggs that I found helpful as a student. Debits and Credits When a financial transaction is recorded, the Debits (Dr) and Credits (Cr) need to balance in order to keep the accounts in balance. An easy rule to remember is, \"\"Debit the Asset that Increases\"\" For example, if you want to practice accounting for cooking a simple breakfast, you might proceed as follows: To record breaking the eggs and putting the eggs in the frying pan In this transaction, an asset, (the egg) is split into parts and some of the asset goes in the pan and some in the trash. A Debit (Dr) is used to show that the assets in the pan and the trash both increase. A balancing Credit (Cr) is used to show that the amount of assets (whole eggs) in the egg carton has decreased. This transaction is in balance because the total Credits equal the total Debits. Everything that is covered by the Debits (yolk, white and shell) is also covered by the Credits (one whole egg)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e30ca5efd5d21101a2e6d781d8bcf48", "text": "Some personal finance packages can track basis cost of individual purchase lots or fractions thereof. I believe Quicken does, for example. And the mutual funds I'm invested in tell me this when I redeem shares. I can't vouch for who/what would make this visible at times other than sale; I've never had that need. For that matter I'm not sure what value the info would have unless you're going to try to explicitly sell specific lots rather than doing FIFO or Average accounting.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7f4767308966ca2738264c9fce47c28", "text": "Lets say Debit is what you pay and Credit is what somebody else pays for you. A Debit card will charge your bank account directly. A Credit card will charge your bank account some time later. In both cases the shop owner has the money available directly. It's called Credit because somebody believes you will be able to pay your debt on time (or later with an interest). As for purchase and sales. A customer buys = makes a purchase. A shopkeeper sells = makes a sale. Note from a bar: I made an agreement with the bank. They don't sell beer, I don't give Credit.", "title": "" }, { "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": "" } ]	fiqa
2846d37d3928156057787e492e220610	How much would it cost me to buy one gold futures contract on Comex?	[ { "docid": "0d2e0573d0cc917b52c7b308c9e9f620", "text": "When you buy a futures contract you are entering into an agreement to buy gold, in the future (usually a 3 month settlement date). this is not an OPTION, but a contract, so each party is taking risk, the seller that the price will rise, the buyer that the price will fall. Unlike an option which you can simply choose not to exercise if the price goes down, with futures you are obligated to follow through. (or sell the contract to someone else, or buy it back) The price you pay depends on the margin, which is related to how far away the settlement date is, but you can expect around 5% , so the minimum you could get into is 100 troy ounces, at todays price, times 5%. Since we're talking about 100 troy ounces, that means the margin required to buy the smallest sized future contract would be about the same as buying 5 ounces of gold. roughly $9K at current prices. If you are working through a broker they will generally require you to sell or buy back the contract before the settlement date as they don't want to deal with actually following through on the purchase and having to take delivery of the gold. How much do you make or lose? Lets deal with a smaller change in the price, to be a bit more realistic since we are talking typically about a settlement date that is 3 months out. And to make the math easy lets bump the price of gold to $2000/ounce. That means the price of a futures contract is going to be $10K Lets say the price goes up 10%, Well you have basically a 20:1 leverage since you only paid 5%, so you stand to gain $20,000. Sounds great right? WRONG.. because as good as the upside is, the downside is just as bad. If the price went down 10% you would be down $20000, which means you would not only have to cough up the 10K you committed but you would be expected to 'top up the margin' and throw in ANOTHER $10,000 as well. And if you can't pay that up your broker might close out your position for you. oh and if the price hasn't changed, you are mostly just out the fees and commissions you paid to buy and sell the contract. With futures contracts you can lose MORE than your original investment. NOT for the faint of heart or the casual investor. NOT for folks without large reserves who can afford to take big losses if things go against them. I'll close this answer with a quote from the site I'm linking below The large majority of people who trade futures lose their money. That's a fact. They lose even when they are right in the medium term, because futures are fatal to your wealth on an unpredicted and temporary price blip. Now consider that, especially the bit about 'price blip' and then look at the current volatility of most markets right now, and I think you can see how futures trading can be as they say 'Fatal to your Wealth' (man, I love that phrase, what a great way of putting it) This Site has a pretty decent primer on the whole thing. their view is perhaps a bit biased due to the nature of their business, but on the whole their description of how things work is pretty decent. Investopedia has a more detailed (and perhaps more objective) tutorial on the futures thing. Well worth your time if you think you want to do anything related to the futures market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6798b2dc3f9c4a3f181e781dc794fc76", "text": "Brokers usually have this kind of information, you can take a look at interactive brokers for instance: http://www.interactivebrokers.co.uk/contract_info/v3.6/index.php?action=Details&site=GEN&conid=90384435 You are interested in the initial margin which in this case is $6,075. So you need that amount to buy/sell 1 future. In the contract specification you see the contract is made for 100 ounces. At the current price ($1,800/oz), that would be a total of $180,000. It is equivalent to saying you are getting 30x leverage. If you buy 1 future and the price goes from $1,800 to $1,850, the contract would go from $180,000 to $185,000. You make $5,000 or a 82% return. I am pretty sure you can imagine what happens if the market goes against you. Futures are great! (when your timing is perfect).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b61a93a2cdc0652ecf72d577d67b3b63", "text": "The lot size is 100 troy ounce. See the contract specification at the same site; http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/metals/precious/gold_contract_specifications.html So with the current price of around $1785, one lot would cost you around 178,500. There may be other sites that offer smaller lots you would need to check with your broker. if the price moves up by $500, you gain $50,000 for a lot. The margin required changes from time to time: Currently it's $3666, with a maintenance of $3332, so a drop of $3.34 per oz of gold will cause a margin call. You make or lose 100 times the per oz movement as there are 100oz in the contract you cited. There's also a broker fee analogous to the commission on a stock trade. The other option would be to buy a fund that invests in Gold, this will be more easier to buy and the lot sizes will be much less. I hope you jumped into this great opportunity. At the time, experts said gold would have a straight run to $5000.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9dad31ba2c5fb4acb8693713bdfde500", "text": "In order to understand how much you might gain or lose from participating in the futures markets, it is important to first understand the different ways in which the slope of the futures markets can be described. In many of the futures markets there is a possibility of somebody buying a commodity at the spot price and selling a futures contract on it. In order to do this they need to hold the commodity in storage. Most commodities cost money to hold in storage, so the futures price will tend to be above the spot price for these commodities. In the case of stock index futures, the holder receives a potential benefit from holding the stocks in an index. If the futures market is upward sloping compared to the spot price, then it can be called normal. If the futures market is usually downward sloping compared to the spot price then it can be called inverted. If the futures market is high enough above the spot price so that more of the commodity gets stored for the future, then the market can be called in contango. If the futures market is below the point where the commodity can be profitably stored for the future, and the market can be called in backwardation. In many of these cases, there is an implicit cost that the buyer of a future pays in order to hold the contract for certainly time. Your question is how much money you make if the price of gold goes up by a specific amount, or how much money you lose if the price of gold goes down by the same specific amount. The problem is, you do not say whether it is the spot price or the futures price which goes up or down. In most cases it is assumed that the change in the futures price will be similar to the change in the spot price of gold. If the spot price of gold goes up by a small amount, then the futures price of gold will go up by a small amount as well. If the futures price of gold goes up by a small amount, this will also drive the spot price of gold up. Even for these small price changes, the expected futures price change in expected spot price change will not be exactly the same. For larger price changes, there will be more of a difference between the expected spot price change in expected future price change. If the price eventually goes up, then the cost of holding the contract will be subtracted from any future gains. If the price eventually goes down, then this holding cost should be added to the losses. If you bought the contract when it was above the spot price, the price will slowly drift toward the spot price, causing you this holding cost. If the price of gold does not change any from the current spot price, then all you are left with is this holding cost.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "aa44f765e5a2f38704d6cc8e004c6e7c", "text": "Most of the gold prices at international markets are USD denominated. Hence the prices would be same in international markets where large players are buying and selling. However this does not mean that the prices to the individuals in local markets is same. The difference is due to multiple things like cost of physical delivery, warehousing, local taxation, conversion of Local currency to USD etc. So in essence the price of Gold is similar to price of Crude Oil. The price of Oil is more or less same on all the markets exchanges, though there is small difference this is because of the cost of delivery/shipment which is borne by the buyer. However the cost of Oil to retail individual varies from country to country.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ce1cee0983831c85823c1166a154b4e", "text": "\"In layman's terms, oil on the commodities market has a \"\"spot price\"\" and a \"\"future price\"\". The spot price is what the last guy paid to buy a barrel of oil right now (and thus a pretty good indicator of what you'll have to pay). The futures price is what the last guy paid for a \"\"futures contract\"\", where they agreed to buy a barrel of oil for $X at some point in the future. Futures contracts are a form of hedging; a futures contract is usually sold at a price somewhere between the current spot price and the true expected future spot price; the buyer saves money versus paying the spot price, while the seller still makes a profit. But, the buyer of a futures contract is basically betting that the spot price as of delivery will be higher, while the seller is betting it will be lower. Futures contracts are available for a wide variety of acceptable future dates, and form a curve when plotted on a graph that will trend in one direction or the other. Now, as Chad said, oil companies basically get their cut no matter what. Oil stocks are generally a good long-term bet. As far as the best short-term time to buy in to an oil stock, look for very short windows when the spot and near-future price of gasoline is trending downward but oil is still on the uptick. During those times, the oil companies are paying their existing (high) contracts for oil, but when the spot price is low it affects futures prices, which will affect the oil companies' margins. Day traders will see that, squawk \"\"the sky is falling\"\" and sell off, driving the price down temporarily. That's when you buy in. Pretty much the only other time an oil stock is a guaranteed win is when the entire market takes a swan dive and then bottoms out. Oil has such a built-in demand, for the foreseeable future, that regardless of how bad it gets you WILL make money on an oil stock. So, when the entire market's in a panic and everyone's heading for gold, T-debt etc, buy the major oil stocks across the spectrum. Even if one stock tanks, chances are really good that another company will see that and offer a buyout, jacking the bought company's stock (which you then sell and reinvest the cash into the buying company, which will have taken a hit on the news due to the huge drop in working capital). Of course, the one thing to watch for in the headlines is any news that renewables have become much more attractive than oil. You wait; in the next few decades some enterprising individual will invent a super-efficient solar cell that provides all the power a real, practical car will ever need, and that is simultaneously integrated into wind farms making oil/gas plants passe. When that happens oil will be a thing of the past.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74828bede8859a500467a1ed38b291cd", "text": "December, 8, 2011 ( 01:30 pm) :- Gold & Silver good support by the investors who are keep maintaining their buy position in MCX & Comex. But spot traders has sold 1000 kg Silver on Wednesday. Apart from this Silver maintaining their support above $ 32 & but also facing some resistance at $ 33.20. If today $ 33.20, Silver able to trade above that level than we can fore see their prices up to $ 34 - 35 in short term but if all problems are sowed after the today meet. Gold trend today totally bullish, If they trade above $ 1740 & Rs 29250 in MCX, We can for see Gold prices up to $ 1760 - $ 1780 in Comex & Rs 29500 - Rs 29700 in MCX.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea6800045e771f331e32666416c65c19", "text": "Unless you have the storage and transportation facilities for it, or can come up with the money needed to rent or build those, no -- or not in any significant quantity. Buying oil futures is essentially an on-paper version of the same bet. Futures prices are already taking into account both expectations about price changes and the fact that there's cash tied up until they come due, but storage costs also adjust to follow those expectations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab6cc8d9826ecf75e8add750017c25d1", "text": "\"Don't put all your eggs in one basket and don't assume that you know more than the market does. The probability of gold prices rising again in the near future is already \"\"priced in\"\" as it were. Unless you are privy to some reliable information that no one else knows (given that you are asking here, I'm guessing not), stay away. Invest in a globally diversified low cost portfolio of primarily stocks and bonds and don't try to predict the future. Also I would kill for a 4.5% interest rate on my savings. In the USA, 1% is on the high side of what you can get right now. What is inflation like over there?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37746c35a5215dfe0fce2b7fab17a074", "text": "I use futures options as a sort of hedge to an underwater position that I want to hold onto. If I am short at 3900 on /NQ and it moves up 3910 then I can sell a put against my position. For example, I sell this month's 3850 put for 15.00. If the NQ continues up to 3920, I can probably buy back that put for ~12.00 and sell the 3860 for 15.00. Rinse and repeat if it keeps moving up. If then the NQ moves down to 3900 then my futures position will be up +10 where my futures options put position will only be down about -3 for a net of +7. I suppose you could also trade a futures option by itself instead of the future's contract if you didn't want to risk as much $ in a day trade. Keep in mind that price you see for a future's options relates to the underlying. For /NQ 1 point = $20 so if a 3850 put costs 15.00 that is really $300. ES (Sp 500 futures) 1 point = $50 so a 1900 put that costs 15.00 would really be $750.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1036b5a2d57545cec61d53dda57b458c", "text": "On international stock exchanges, they trade Puts and Calls, typically also for currencies. If for example 1 NOK is worth 1 $ now, and you buy Calls for 10000 NOK at 1.05 $ each, and in a year the NOK is worth 1.20 $ (which is what you predict), you can execute the Call, meaning 'buying' the 10000 NOK for the contracted 1.05 $ and selling them for the market price of 1.20 $, netting you 12000 - 10500 = 1500 $. Converting those back to NOK would give you 1250 NOK. Considering that those Calls might cost you maybe 300 NOK, you made 950 NOK. Note that if your prediction is common knowledge, Calls will be appropriately priced (=expensive), and there is little to make on them. And note also that if you were wrong, your Calls are worth less than toilet paper, so you lost the complete 300 NOK you paid for them. [all numbers are completely made up, for illustration purposes] You can make the whole thing easier if you define the raise of the NOK against a specific currency, for example $ or EUR. If you can, you can instead buy Puts for that currency, and you save yourself converting the money twice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "184b192142a08e69ff99c90145a0ef1a", "text": "You're missing the cost-of-carry aspect: The cost of carry or carrying charge is the cost of storing a physical commodity, such as grain or metals, over a period of time. The carrying charge includes insurance, storage and interest on the invested funds as well as other incidental costs. In interest rate futures markets, it refers to the differential between the yield on a cash instrument and the cost of the funds necessary to buy the instrument. So in a nutshell, you'd have to store the gold (safely), invest your money now, i.e. you're missing out on interests the money could have earned until the futures delivery date. Well and on top of that you need to get the gold shipped to London or wherever the agreed delivery place is. Edit: Forgot to mention that of course there are arbitrageurs that make sure the futures and spot market prices don't diverge. So the idea isn't that bad as I might have made it sound but being in the arbitrage business myself I should disclaim that profits are small and arbitraging is highly automated, so before you spot a $1 profit somewhere between any two contracts, you can be quite sure it's been taken by an arbitrageur already.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37e4a50d30b9b0df113973cbb7a4e610", "text": "The other answer covers the mechanics of how to buy/sell a future contract. You seem however to be under the impression that you can buy the contract at 1,581.90 today and sell at 1,588.85 on expiry date if the index does not move. This is true but there are two important caveats: In other words, it is not the case that your chance of making money by buying that contract is more than 50%...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed60840adabb35f50fbe3ecac6904235", "text": "\"What you're looking for are either FX Forwards or FX Futures. These products are traded differently but they are basically the same thing -- agreements to deliver currency at a defined exchange rate at a future time. Almost every large venue or bank will transact forwards, when the counterparty (you or your broker) has sufficient trust and credit for the settlement risk, but the typical duration is less than a year though some will do a single-digit multi-year forward on a custom basis. Then again, all forwards are considered custom contracts. You'll also need to know that forwards are done on currency pairs, so you'll need to pick the currency to pair your NOK against. Most likely you'll want EUR/NOK simply for the larger liquidity of that pair over other possible pairs. A quote on a forward will usually just be known by the standard currency pair ticker with a settlement date different from spot. E.g. \"\"EUR/NOK 12M\"\" for the 12 month settlement. Futures, on the other hand, are exchange traded and more standardized. The vast majority through the CME (Chicago Mercantile Exchange). Your broker will need access to one of these exchanges and you simply need to \"\"qualify\"\" for futures trading (process depends on your broker). Futures generally have highest liquidity for the next \"\"IMM\"\" expiration (quarterly expiration on well known standard dates), but I believe they're defined for more years out than forwards. At one FX desk I've knowledge of, they had 6 years worth of quarterly expirations in their system at any one time. Futures are generally known by a ticker composed of a \"\"globex\"\" or \"\"cme\"\" code for the currency concatenated with another code representing the expiration. For example, \"\"NOKH6\"\" is 'NOK' for Norwegian Krone, 'H' for March, and '6' for the nearest future date's year that ends in '6' (i.e. 2016). Note that you'll be legally liable to deliver the contracted size of Krone if you hold through expiration! So the common trade is to hold the future, and net out just before expiration when the price more accurately reflects the current spot market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2865984a64db25a71c7b3f2c57f1afc5", "text": "\"Your plan already answers your own question in the best possible way: If you want to be able to make the most possible profit from a large downward move in a stock (in this case, a stock that tracks gold), with a limited, defined risk if there is an upward move, the optimal strategy is to buy a put option. There are a few Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that track the price of gold. think of them as stocks that behave like gold, essentially. Two good examples that have options are GLD and IAU. (When you talk about gold, you'll hear a lot about futures. Forget them, for now. They do the same essential thing for your purposes, but introduce more complexity than you need.) The way to profit from a downward move without protection against an upward move is by shorting the stock. Shorting stock is like the opposite of buying it. You make the amount of money the stock goes down by, or lose the amount it goes up by. But, since stocks can go up by an infinite amount, your possible loss is unlimited. If you want to profit on a large downward move without an unlimited loss if you're wrong and it goes up, you need something that makes money as the stock drops, but can only lose so much if it goes up. (If you want to be guaranteed to lose nothing, your best investment option is buying US Treasuries, and you're technically still exposed to the risk that US defaults on its debt, although if you're a US resident, you'll likely have bigger problems than your portfolio in that situation.) Buying a put option has the exact asymmetrical exposure you want. You pay a limited premium to buy it, and at expiration you essentially make the full amount that the stock has declined below the strike price, less what you paid for the option. That last part is important - because you pay a premium for the option, if it's down just a little, you might still lose some or all of what you paid for it, which is what you give up in exchange for it limiting your maximum loss. But wait, you might say. When I buy an option, I can lose all of my money, cant I? Yes, you can. Here's the key to understanding the way options limit risk as compared to the corresponding way to get \"\"normal\"\" exposure through getting long, or in your case, short, the stock: If you use the number of options that represent the number of shares you would have bought, you will have much, much less total money at risk. If you spend the same \"\"bag 'o cash\"\" on options as you would have spent on stock, you will have exposure to way more shares, and have the same amount of money at risk as if you bought the stock, but will be much more likely to lose it. The first way limits the total money at risk for a similar level of exposure; the second way gets you exposure to a much larger amount of the stock for the same money, increasing your risk. So the best answer to your described need is already in the question: Buy a put. I'd probably look at GLD to buy it on, simply because it's generally a little more liquid than IAU. And if you're new to options, consider the following: \"\"Paper trade\"\" first. Either just keep track of fake buys and sells on a spreadsheet, or use one of the many online services where you can track investments - they don't know or care if they're real or not. Check out www.888options.com. They are an excellent learning resource that isn't trying to sell you anything - their only reason to exist is to promote options education. If you do put on a trade, don't forget that the most frustrating pitfall with buying options is this: You can be basically right, and still lose some or all of what you invest. This happens two ways, so think about them both before you trade: If the stock goes in the direction you think, but not enough to make back your premium, you can still lose. So you need to make sure you know how far down the stock has to be to make back your premium. At expiration, it's simple: You need it to be below the strike price by more than what you paid for the option. With options, timing is everything. If the stock goes down a ton, or even to zero - free gold! - but only after your option expires, you were essentially right, but lose all your money. So, while you don't want to buy an option that's longer than you need, since the premium is higher, if you're not sure if an expiration is long enough out, it isn't - you need the next one. EDIT to address update: (I'm not sure \"\"not long enough\"\" was the problem here, but...) If the question is just how to ensure there is a limited, defined amount you can lose (even if you want the possible loss to be much less than you can potentially make, the put strategy described already does that - if the stock you use is at $100, and you buy a put with a 100 strike for $5, you can make up to $95. (This occurs if the stock goes to zero, meaning you could buy it for nothing, and sell it for $100, netting $95 after the $5 you paid). But you can only lose $5. So the put strategy covers you. If the goal is to have no real risk of loss, there's no way to have any real gain above what's sometimes called the \"\"risk-free-rate\"\". For simplicity's sake, think of that as what you'd get from US treasuries, as mentioned above. If the goal is to make money whether the stock (or gold) goes either up or down, that's possible, but note that you still have (a fairly high) risk of loss, which occurs if it fails to move either up or down by enough. That strategy, in its most common form, is called a straddle, which basically means you buy a call and a put with the same strike price. Using the same $100 example, you could buy the 100-strike calls for $5, and the 100-strike puts for $5. Now you've spent $10 total, and you make money if the stock is up or down by more than $10 at expiration (over 110, or under 90). But if it's between 90 and 100, you lose money, as one of your options will be worthless, and the other is worth less than the $10 total you paid for them both.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a43b96a974577a49b2762736aabffc13", "text": "\"As proposed: Buy 100 oz of gold at $1240 spot = -$124,000 Sell 1 Aug 2014 Future for $1256 = $125,600 Profit $1,600 Alternative Risk-Free Investment: 1 year CD @ 1% would earn $1240 on $124,000 investment. Rate from ads on www.bankrate.com \"\"Real\"\" Profit All you are really being paid for this trade is the difference between the profit $1,600 and the opportunity for $1240 in risk free earnings. That's only $360 or around 0.3%/year. Pitfalls of trying to do this: Many retail futures brokers are set up for speculative traders and do not want to deal with customers selling contracts against delivery, or buying for delivery. If you are a trader you have to keep margin money on deposit. This can be a T-note at some brokerages, but currently T-notes pay almost 0%. If the price of gold rises and you are short a future in gold, then you need to deposit more margin money. If gold went back up to $1500/oz, that could be $24,400. If you need to borrow this money, the interest will eat into a very slim profit margin over the risk free rate. Since you can't deliver, the trades have to be reversed. Although futures trades have cheap commissions ~$5/trade, the bid/ask spread, even at 1 grid, is not so minimal. Also there is often noisy jitter in the price. The spot market in physical gold may have a higher bid/ask spread. You might be able to eliminate some of these issues by trading as a hedger or for delivery. Good luck finding a broker to let you do this... but the issue here for gold is that you'd need to trade in depository receipts for gold that is acceptable for delivery, instead of trading physical gold. To deliver physical gold it would likely have to be tested and certified, which costs money. By the time you've researched this, you'll either discover some more costs associated with it or could have spent your time making more money elsewhere.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc1c0fc5cf69b8f5f14f16e716ab63a4", "text": "There are 2 schools of thought in determining the price of a future contract in a day prior to expiration. The cost of carry model, states that the price of a future contract today is the spot price plus the cost of carrying the underlying asset until expiration minus the return that can be obtained from carrying the underlying asset. FuturePrice = SpotPrice + (CarryCost - CarryReturn) The expectancy model, states that the price of the futures contract depends on the expectation about the spot market's price in the future. In this case, the price of the future contract will diverge from the spot price depending on how much the price is expected to rise or fall before expiration. A few glossary terms: cost of carry For physical commodities such as grains and metals, the cost of storage space, insurance, and finance charges incurred by holding a physical commodity. In interest rate futures markets, it refers to the differential between the yield on a cash instrument and the cost of funds necessary to buy the instrument. Also referred to as carrying charge. spot price The price at which a physical commodity for immediate delivery is selling at a given time and place. The cash price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9948929aaf617dfbf4968b14dc626dc", "text": "The papers you would need to buy are called 'futures', and they give you the right to buy (or sell) a certain amount of oil at a certain location (some large harbor typically), for a certain price, on a certain day. You can typically sell these futures anytime (if you find someone that buys them), and depending on the direction you bought, you will make or lose money according to oil rice changes - if you have the future to get oil for 50 $, and the market price is 60, this paper is obviously worth 10 $. Note that you will have to sell the future at some day before it runs out, or you get real oil in some harbor somewhere for it, which might not be very useful to you. As most traders don't want really any oil, that might happen automatically or by default, but you need to make sure of that. Note also that worst case you could lose a lot more money than you put in - if you buy a future to deliver oil for 50 $, and the oil price runs, you will have to procure the oil for new price, meaning pay the current price for it. There is no theoretical limit, so depending on what you trade, you could lose ten times or a thousand times what you invested. [I worded that without technical lingo so it is clear for beginners - this is the concept, not the full technical explanation]", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df7fcd1a81102f1a96ffe8c8bfdb0914", "text": "\"Ignoring the complexities of a standardised and regulated market, a futures contract is simply a contract that requires party A to buy a given amount of a commodity from party B at a specified price. The future can be over something tangible like pork bellies or oil, in which case there is a physical transfer of \"\"stuff\"\" or it can be over something intangible like shares. The purpose of the contract is to allow the seller to \"\"lock-in\"\" a price so that they are not subject to price fluctuations between the date the contract is entered and the date it is complete; this risk is transferred to the seller who will therefore generally pay a discounted rate from the spot price on the original day. In many cases, the buyer actually wants the \"\"stuff\"\"; futures contracts between farmers and manufacturers being one example. The farmer who is growing, say, wool will enter a contract to supply 3000kg at $10 per kg (of a given quality etc. there are generally price adjustments detailed for varying quality) with a textile manufacturer to be delivered in 6 months. The spot price today may be $11 - the farmer gives up $1 now to shift the risk of price fluctuations to the manufacturer. When the strike date rolls around the farmer delivers the 3000kg and takes the money - if he has failed to grow at least 3000kg then he must buy it from someone or trigger whatever the penalty clauses in the contract are. For futures over shares and other securities the principle is exactly the same. Say the contract is for 1000 shares of XYZ stock. Party A agrees to sell these for $10 each on a given day to party B. When that day rolls around party A transfers the shares and gets the money. Party A may have owned the shares all along, may have bought them before the settlement day or, if push comes to shove, must buy them on the day of settlement. Notwithstanding when they bought them, if they paid less than $10 they make a profit if they pay more they make a loss. Generally speaking, you can't settle a futures contract with another futures contract - you have to deliver up what you promised - be it wool or shares.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
eaa32a90cdd1d6af7d4be7a3b31e5668	How is it possible that a preauth sticks to a credit card for 30 days, even though the goods have already been delivered?	[ { "docid": "6af3c71153cd6f76bcfda075408eb03d", "text": "It is barely possible that this is Citi's fault, but it sounds more like it is on the Costco end. The way that this is supposed to work is that they preauthorize your card for the necessary amount. That reserves the payment, removing the money from your credit line. On delivery, they are supposed to capture the preauthorization. That causes the money to transfer to them. Until that point, they've reserved your payment but not actually received it. If you cancel, then they don't have to pay processing fees. The capture should allow for a larger sale so as to provide for tips, upsells, and unanticipated taxes and fees. In this case, instead of capturing the preauthorization, they seem to have simply generated a new transaction. Citi could be doing something wrong and processing the capture incorrectly. Or Costco could be doing a purchase when they should be doing a capture. From outside, we can't really say. The thirty days would seem to be how long Costco can schedule in advance. So the preauthorization can last that long for them. Costco should also have the ability to cancel a preauthorization. However, they may not know how to trigger that. With smaller merchants, they usually have an interface where they can view preauthorizations and capture or cancel them. Costco may have those messages sent automatically from their system. Note that a common use for this pattern is with things like gasoline or delivery purchases. If this has been Citi/Costco both times, I'd try ordering a pizza or some other delivery food and see if they do it correctly. If it was Citi both times and a different merchant the other time, then it's probably a Citi problem rather than a merchant problem.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ffd92d990a6b96092871ac822eef4a57", "text": "\"This is not a normal occurrence, and you have every right to be annoyed, but the technical way it usually happens goes like this: What can happen is when the merchant incorrectly completes the transaction without referencing the pre-authorization transaction. The bank effectively doesn't \"\"know\"\" this is the same transaction, so they process it the same way they process any other purchase, and it has no effect on the pre-authorization and related held/pending transaction. As far as the bank knows, you purchased a second set of blinds in the store for $200 and are still waiting on the first order to come in, they have no idea the store screwed up. The reason this is possible is the purpose of the pre-auth in the first place is that it is a contractual agreement between the bank (credit card) and the merchant that the funds are available, will be available except under rare special circumstances, and thus they can go ahead and process the order. This lets the merchant be secure in the knowledge that they can collect their payment, but you aren't paying interest or monthly payments on something you haven't even gotten yet! This system works reasonably well for everyone - right up until someone screws up and fails to properly release a hold, makes a second transaction instead of properly referencing the first one, or the bank screws up their system and fails to correctly match referenced pre-authorization codes to purchases. The problem is that this should not be a normal occurrence, and the people you are speaking with to try to sort out the issue often do not have the authority or knowledge necessary to properly fix the issue, or its such a hassle for them that they hope you just go away and time fixes the issue on its own. The only sure-fire solution to this is: make sure you have so much extra credit line that this doesn't effect you and you can safely let it time out on its own, or stop doing business with this combination of merchant/payment that creates the problem. Back when my credit limits were being pushed, I would never pay at gas pumps because their hold polices were so weird and unpredictable, and I would only pre-pay inside or with cash to avoid the holds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb458a8398ac271d53c61116ee276e29", "text": "The answer to your question is very simple: The preauth and the shipment of the goods have no connection within the credit card system. It is possible to process a payment that does not cancel a preauthorization. This is needed for the case where you place two orders and the one you placed second ships first. A preauth can remain active for some time unless it is captured or cancelled. So in your case a preauth was placed and remained active. That you were shipped and billed for some goods had no effect on the preauth because one side or the other failed to attach them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eba7a600f5227339c9c5afd60a5e7888", "text": "Open a dispute for the preauth. It is effectively a double charge, since you have already paid for the item. You can provide evidence of the other transaction. This forces them to go through some hassle and waste some time on the issue.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "9ef4f6cf01afc7d380a31da26055fea9", "text": "\"The only way to prevent it is to not use PayPal. The terms of usage are draconian, and by using the service you agree to them. I'm sure that when the case gets to a court of law, they will find where it is authorized. Paypal is not a bank, and the money there is basically \"\"entrusted\"\" with the company and is not insured by anyone. They don't need or have to be subject to the regulations on the banking industry, and they're no different than your neighbour carrying money for you to the grocery store when you're sick. Other options are wire transfer, services like Western Union or Moneygram, checks (better certified/cashier's checks), money orders or even cash. You can also charge via credit card, but you can get similar problems there (although it is still safer than PayPal because with credit card - the card owner must initiate the charge back, it doesn't appear on its own because they feel like it).\"", "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": "a33b7e79c798f5df57f893117b965db2", "text": "Thanks it is problem for class and I don't want to give the problem I just want to understand how to actually do it and the book hasn't been much help. Only additional information I can provide is In Inventory – 15 days Accounts Receivable outstanding – 35 days Vendor credit – 40 days Operating Cycle – 50 days", "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": "ccc83c20986bc4ce66ffc6f1c1bd529f", "text": "Most merchants (also in Europe) are reasonable, and typically are willing to work with you. credit card companies ask if you tried to work with the merchant first, so although they do not enforce it, it should be the first try. I recommend to give it a try and contact them first. If it doesn't work, you can always go to the credit card company and have the charge reversed. None of this has any effect on your credit score (except if you do nothing and then don't pay your credit card bill). For the future: when a transaction supposedly 'doesn't go through', have them write this on the receipt and give it to you. Only then pay cash. I am travelling 100+ days a year in Europe, using my US credit cards all the time, and there were never any issues - this is not a common problem.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "846cc8abedf02be2afab8ad9cbc9cfd9", "text": "You have paid the vendor (school?), etc, $75.75 too much, for whatever reason. They can send you back this money, or it can apply against a future bill. This is common when I pay my credit card in full, but also have a store return. The bill can show a credit, but it will quickly get used up by new purchases.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cf0b1b52698457ba4a239a9a4f9d22d", "text": "If Apple uses the customer's bank's prefix, then the bank gets the charge sent directly to themselves and Apple is not a payment intermediary Yes as part of adding a Card to Apple Pay, the details are sent over to issuing Bank along with device details and other info. Based on verification, the Bank sends a DAN[Device Account Number] and other codes. After you show your phone at Point of Sale, DAN gets transmitted. This is similar as Card Number getting transmitted, there is additional info encoded. Visa then sends this back to Issuing Bank and based on DAN the actual card is charged. So yes Apple doesn't know your Card Number once it gets the DAN. it's entirely possible that organized-criminals could devise even harder-to-find NFC skimmers Right now criminals have found the easy step ... as part of set-up Apple Pay sends info the Issuing Bank to Verify. If you are frequent user of iTunes and have used the same card for years, etc, its auto approved. Else they use alternative method, i.e. call the customer, etc. It is easy here to spawn. I get card details, no need to spend time in duplicating stuff [mag or chip]. Just try registering on Apply Pay, some one less experienced from Customer Service calls up and I am approved. Use this for few places and then just delete this card and add a new one. As Apply Pay doesn't store my card, they don't know new from old ...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a2ee7245fe5856128d2dcd81bec498e", "text": "Is there a point after which they legally unable to charge me? No. If you gave a check, then the bank may bounce it as stale after 6 months, but doesn't have to. With debit/credit transactions, they post as they're processed, and some merchants may not sync their terminals or deposit their manual slips often. As the world becomes more and more connected this becomes extremely rare, but still happens. Technically your promise to pay is a contract which never expires, and they can come after you years later to collect.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1245b875d4c560a9d50a0e41dd70425", "text": "Are you sure the payment has actually posted and isn't sitting in a pre-auth status? If it is, it'll fall off in a few days and they're probably telling the truth. If not, and it has fully posted to your account, I agree with the others. It's very appropriate to initiate a chargeback. You can provide documentation showing they confirmed a cancellation, further, you can show proof that they had no intent of charging you. Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b0c63f8ceefa08c9cd94e5324d84bd46", "text": "\"Having worked in the financial industry, I can say 9:10 times a card is blocked, it is not actually the financial industry, but a credit/credit card monitoring service like \"\"Falcon\"\" for VISA. If you have not added travel notes or similar, they will decline large, our of country purchases as a way to protect you, from what is most likely fraud. Imagine if you were living in Sweden and making regular steady purchases, then all of a sudden, without warning your card was used in Spain. This would look suspicious on paper, even it was obvious to you. This is less to do with your financial institution, and more to do with increased fraud prevention. Call your bank. They will help you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04ec40ba524d53671ccf2da3a8ecf9d8", "text": "Your bank will convert it (taking a fee for that, of course). It might be delayed some days so it can clear (2-3 days).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b13b0be848881f207f07f18d7f4d49e1", "text": "Your credit card company will send you funds, probably a paper check, if you have a negative balance. So this situation will not last long. I'd guess 3-6 months at most, depending on the company's procedures.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44eeacf3e01e8a9cfbae847a310f1752", "text": "So, my questions: Are payment cards provide sufficient security now? Yes. If so, how is that achieved? Depending on your country's laws, of course. In most places (The US and EU, notably), there's a statutory limit on liability for fraudulent charges. For transactions when the card is not present, proving that the charge is not fraudulent is merchants' task. Why do online services ask for all those CVV codes and expiration date information, if, whenever you poke the card out of your wallet, all of its information becomes visible to everyone in the close area? What can I do to secure myself? Is it? Try to copy someones credit card info next time you're in the line at the local grocery store. BTW, some of my friends tend to rub off the CVV code from the cards they get immediately after receiving; nevertheless, it could have already been written down by some unfair bank employee. Rubbish.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8071b4a036f2b53f735419ea2c7a99fc", "text": "They should not be able to tell the difference between a regular card and a secured card. The issue for a vendor is can they put a lock on the account equal to the transaction you are about to do. For a rental car company they don't have an exact idea of what your charges will be: it is based on many options some of which you don't decide until the day you return the car. Because a secured card generally is on the small end (max measured in hundreds or at most $1,000) they might not be able to put a lock of sufficient size on the card.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e987107dbb4125793c6317940aa88a4", "text": "\"It's anonymous/automated. They don't know who you are, just that customer x1a bought y. If your name isnt given to employees \"\"your\"\" privacy isnt being volated because the dont know its \"\"you.\"\" I imagine the government justifies their intrusions on our digital privacy the same way.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3215e67810b24236d08f521b0f815f05	What did John Templeton mean when he said that the four most dangerous words in investing are: ‘this time it’s different'?	[ { "docid": "5251f5c2cb3094dab1305d925471dd86", "text": "\"Essentially, he means \"\"one ignores history at their own peril\"\". We often hear people arguing that \"\"the old rules no longer apply\"\". Whether it be to valuations, borrowing, or any of the other common metrics, to ignore the lessons of the past is to invite disaster. History shows us that major crises in the markets usually occur when the old rules are ignored and people believe that current exceptional market conditions are justified by special circumstances.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8622b98765f45cfe577ed689ab53af2", "text": "\"This refers to the faulty idea that the stock market will behave differently than it has in the past. For example, in the late 1990s, internet stocks rose to ridiculous heights in price, to be followed soon after with the Dot-Com Bubble crash. In the future, it's likely that there will be another such bubble with another hot stock - we just don't know what kind. Saying that \"\"this time it will be different\"\" could mean that you expect this bubble not to burst when, historically, that is never the case.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e5330dace41924c1d1d905a21fb010e", "text": "\"It's a statement that seems to be true about our tendency to believe we won't make the same mistake twice, even though we do, and that somehow what's occurring in the present is completely different, even when the underlying fundamentals of the situation may be nearly identical. It's a form of self-delusion and, sometimes, mass-delusion, and it has been a major contributing factor to many of our worst financial disasters. If you look at every housing bubble, for instance, we examine the aftermath, put new regulations and procedures into place, theoretically to prevent it from happening again, and then move forward. When the cycle starts to repeat itself, we ignore the signals, telling ourselves, \"\"oh, that can't happen again -- this time it's different.\"\" When investors begin to ignore the warning signs because they think the current situation is somehow totally different and therefore there will be a different outcome than the last disaster, that's when things actually do go bad. The 2008 housing crisis was caused by the same essential forces that brought about similar (albeit smaller scale) housing disasters in the 80's and 90's -- greed caused banks and other participants in the housing sector to make loans they knew were no good (an oversimplification to be sure, but apt nonetheless), and eventually the roof caved in on the market. In 2008, the essential dynamics were the same, but everyone had convinced themselves that the markets were more sophisticated and could never allow things like that to happen again. So, everyone told themselves this was different, and they dove into the markets headlong, ignoring all of the warning signs along the way that clearly told the story of what was coming had anyone bothered to notice.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b8cc723454e494712174748761f537a", "text": "\"There's an elephant in the room that no one is addressing: Suckers. Usually when there's a bubble, many people are fully aware that its a bubble. \"\"This time its different\"\" is a sales pitch to the outsiders. It the dotcom boom for example a lot of people knew that the P/E was ridiculous but bought objectively valueless tech stocks with the idea of unloading them later to even bigger fools. People view it like the children's game musical chairs: as long as I'm not standing when the music ends some other sucker gets left holding the bag. But once you get that first hit of easy money, its sooo tempting to keep playing the game. Sometimes, if it lasts long enough, you start to drink your own kool-aid: gee maybe it really is different this time. The best way to win a crooked game is not to play. Just in case someone thinks I'm advising against the stock market in general, I'm not: I'm advocating not buying stocks that you know are worthless with the hope of unloading them on some other sucker.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6be9ede1c3f854caa8cfd3b0e63ec2b6", "text": "\"A brief review of the financial collapses in the last 30 years will show that the following events take place in a fairly typical cycle: Overuse of that innovation (resulting in inadequate supply to meet demand, in most cases) Inadequate capacity in regulatory oversight for the new volume of demand, resulting in significant unregulated activity, and non-observance of regulations to a greater extent than normal Confusion regarding shifting standards and regulations, leading to inadequate regulatory reviews and/or lenient sanctions for infractions, in turn resulting in a more aggressive industry \"\"Gaming\"\" of investment vehicles, markets and/or buyers to generate additional demand once the market is saturated \"\"Chickens coming home to roost\"\" - A breakdown in financial stability, operational accuracy, or legality of the actions of one or more significant players in the market, leading to one or more investigations A reduction in demand due to the tarnished reputation of the instrument and/or market players, leading to an anticipation of a glut of excess product in the market \"\"Cold feet\"\" - Existing customers seeking to dump assets, and refusing to buy additional product in the pipeline, resulting in a glut of excess product \"\"Wasteland\"\" - Illiquid markets of product at collapsed prices, cratering of associated portfolio values, retirees living below subsistence incomes Such investment bubbles are not limited to the last 30 years, of course; there was a bubble in silver prices (a 700% increase through one year, 1979) when the Hunt brothers attempted to corner the market, followed by a collapse on Silver Thursday in 1980. The \"\"poster child\"\" of investment bubbles is the Tulip Mania that gripped the Netherlands in the early 1600's, in which a single tulip bulb was reported to command a price 16 times the annual salary of a skilled worker. The same cycle of events took place in each of these bubbles as well. Templeton's caution is intended to alert new (especially younger) players in the market that these patterns are doomed to repeat, and that market cycles cannot be prevented or eradicated; they are an intrinsic effect of the cycles of supply and demand that are not in synch, and in which one or both are being influenced by intermediaries. Such influences have beneficial effects on short-term profits for the players, but adverse effects on the long-term viability of the market's profitability for investors who are ill-equipped to shed the investments before the trouble starts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "248b6a9cef27acb33e66c19d5dad5907", "text": "To play devil’s advocate to much of what has been written before, it's also worth noting that this is quite an important quote for a sort of reverse reason to what has been discussed before us, that of that fact that virtually every economic situation is different. As it's such a reflexive problem, each and every set of exact circumstances is always different from before. Technology radically changes, monetary policy and economic thinking shift, social needs and market expectations change and thus change the very fabric of markets as they do. It's only in its most basic miss projections of growth that economics repeats, and much like warfare, has constant shifts that radically change the core assumptions about it and do create completely new circumstances that we have to struggle to deal with predicting. People betting on the endless large scale mechanised warfare between western powers continuing post nuclear weapons would have been very, very wrong for example. That time it actually was different, and this actually happens with surprisingly often in finance in ways people quickly bury in the memories and adopt to the new norm. Remember when public ownership of stock wasn't a thing? When bonds didn't exist? No mortgages? Pre insurance? These are all inventions and changes that did change the world forever and were genuinely different and have been ever since, creating huge structural changes in economies, growth rates and societies interactions. As the endless aim of the game is predicting growth well, we often see people/groups over extend on one new thing, and/or under extend on another as they struggle to model these shifts and step changes. Talking as if the fact that people do this consistently as if it is some kind of obvious thing we can easily learn from (or easily take advantage of) in the context of such a vague and complex problem could be argued to be highly naïve and largely useless. This time it is different. Last time it was too.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "19225d0959de97f5bf2d6855eb77f19a", "text": ">At some point you can no longer take on more debt even if you wanted to. If global and domestic investors think you are going to be a risky investment then they cut you off. The issuer of a currency can't be cut off from spending in the currency they issue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77e3b89127f83c9de24b0f431df4cc89", "text": "This is why I am amazed that people are saying this time the market is different; it will only correct itself; we won't see another crash like '08. When in reality, all of the data is pointing to a bubble that is about to burst worst than '08.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60831e5ae1c8012fed7a865058b09965", "text": "One of the funnier parts of the finance crisis was seeing just how awful Morgenson could be. Every time she wrote something dumb, she'd manage to one-up herself the next time. It was impressive. (which made me remember that [Calculated Risk even had a tag](http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/search/label/Picking%20On%20Poor%20Gretchen) for posts about her awful stories.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9825521e8c224412f832211f9404e01c", "text": "> The stock market measures individual companies' ups and downs, right? Not precisely, no. If anything it measures... 1. Information 2. Risk and Riskiness 3. Market Sentiment > Perhaps it could even gain over my life. One would assume that this would be a relatively flat graph, with little if any trend, and occasional spikes upwards and downwards. It'd also be subject to caps and floors, unlike the market which is only floored (at 0). > I don't know if anyone could come up with a kind of standardised measurement we could use to do this. It'd be impossible. Happiness is subjective and relative. Getting a million bucks might make me happy, but Bill Gates bored. Having a child can be conflicting intensely. The death of a loved one could be both sad and a relief.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5647ff51faca34bb74459ad4f3d56779", "text": "\"fennec has a very good answer but i feel it provides too much information. So i'll just try to explain what that sentence says. Put option is the right to sell a stock. \"\"16 puts on Cisco at 71 cents\"\", means John comes to Jim and says, i'll give you 71 cent now, if you allow me to sell one share of Cisco to you at $16 at some point in the future ( on expiration date). NYT quote says 1000 puts that means 1000 contracts - he bought a right to sell 100,000 shares of Cisco on some day at $16/share. Call option - same idea: right to buy a stock.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "356a2e623de8568a36800b87f23611e0", "text": "\"There may well be several such graphs, I expect googling will turn them up; but the definition of risk is actually quite important here. My definition of risk might not be quite the same as yours, so the relative risk factors would be different. For example: in general, stocks are more risky than bonds. But owning common shares in a blue-chip company might well be less risky than owning bonds from a company teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, and no single risk number can really capture that. Another example: while I can put all my money in short-term deposits, and it is pretty \"\"safe\"\", if it grows at 1% so that my investment portfolio cannot fund my retirement, then I have a risk that I will run out of money before I shuffle off this mortal coil. How to capture that \"\"risk\"\" in a single number? So you will need to better define your parameters before you can prepare a visual aid. Good Luck\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0633a8f9a7f64459ddcbb18125935018", "text": "\"I think that \"\"memoryless\"\" in this context of a given stock's performance is not a term of art. IMO, it's an anecdotal concept or cliche used to make a point about holding a stock. Sometimes people get stuck... they buy a stock or fund at 50, it goes down to 30, then hold onto it so they can \"\"get back to even\"\". By holding the loser stock for emotional reasons, the person potentially misses out on gains elsewhere.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d2b124795bc36a1421cb615e4b3ab19", "text": "\"Can you easily stomach the risk of higher volatility that could come with smaller stocks? How certain are you that the funds wouldn't have any asset bloat that could cause them to become large-cap funds for holding to their winners? If having your 401(k) balance get chopped in half over a year doesn't give you any pause or hesitation, then you have greater risk tolerance than a lot of people but this is one of those things where living through it could be interesting. While I wouldn't be against the advice, I would consider caution on whether or not the next 40 years will be exactly like the averages of the past or not. In response to the comments: You didn't state the funds so I how I do know you meant index funds specifically? Look at \"\"Fidelity Low-Priced Stock\"\" for a fund that has bloated up in a sense. Could this happen with small-cap funds? Possibly but this is something to note. If you are just starting to invest now, it is easy to say, \"\"I'll stay the course,\"\" and then when things get choppy you may not be as strong as you thought. This is just a warning as I'm not sure you get my meaning here. Imagine that some women may think when having a child, \"\"I don't need any drugs,\"\" and then the pain comes and an epidural is demanded because of the different between the hypothetical and the real version. While you may think, \"\"I'll just turn the cheek if you punch me,\"\" if I actually just did it out of the blue, how sure are you of not swearing at me for doing it? Really stop and think about this for a moment rather than give an answer that may or may not what you'd really do when the fecal matter hits the oscillator. Couldn't you just look at what stocks did the best in the last 10 years and just buy those companies? Think carefully about what strategy are you using and why or else you could get tossed around as more than a few things were supposed to be the \"\"sure thing\"\" that turned out to be incorrect like the Dream Team of Long-term Capital Management, the banks that were too big to fail, the Japanese taking over in the late 1980s, etc. There are more than a few times where things started looking one way and ended up quite differently though I wonder if you are aware of this performance chasing that some will do.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2272958d9934c53d50c10223e989af33", "text": "I always thought high-risk investing is hit or miss, but this is working out very well with the stocks I've chosen High risk investing IS hit and miss. We are in an historic bull market. Do not pat yourself on the back too hard, the bear can be around any corner and your high risk strategy will then be put to the test.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6bf11b0627d73cbea9659cfedae9210", "text": "\"The calculation and theory are explained in the other answers, but it should be pointed out that the video is the equivalent of watching a magic trick. The secret is: \"\"Stock A and B are perfectly negatively correlated.\"\" The video glasses over that fact that without that fact the risk doesn't drop to zero. The rule is that true diversification does decrease risk. That is why you are advised to spread year investments across small-cap, large-cap, bonds, international, commodities, real estate. Getting two S&P 500 indexes isn't diversification. Your mix of investments will still have risk, because return and risk are backward calculations, not a guarantee of future performance. Changes that were not anticipated will change future performance. What kind of changes: technology, outsourcing, currency, political, scandal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "778c0d92d2a35ab391cb4a0481d8f181", "text": "no offense, but clicking through to that guys blog and fund page he seems like a charlatan and a snake oil salesman. It's not surprising that he doesn't like asset manager software because he himself is an asset manager. the software is trying to replace him. He doesn't make money by beating the market... he makes money by convincing others that he can... he is exactly the type of person that the original article is warning against investing with.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "844e727cb6711f204c235c018b8b8ca0", "text": "It's a phrase that has no meaning out of context. When I go to Las Vegas (I don't go, but if I did) I would treat what I took as money I plan to lose. When I trade stock options and buy puts or calls, I view it as a calculated risk, with a far greater than zero chance of having the trade show zero in time. A single company has a chance of going bankrupt. A mix of stocks has risk, the S&P was at less than half its high in the 2008 crash. The money I had in the S&P was not money I could afford to lose, but I could afford to wait it out. There's a difference. We're not back at the highs, but we're close. By the way, there are many people who would not sleep knowing that their statement shows a 50% loss from a prior high point. Those people should be in a mix more suited to their risk tolerance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02382e9730d0476bf5a1918851d312c7", "text": "\"Classic investing guru Benjamin Graham defines \"\"An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and an adequate return.\"\" He contrasts this with speculation which is anything else (no thorough analysis, no safety of principal, or no adequate return). The word \"\"adequate\"\" is important, since it contrasts adequate returns with those that are either lower than needed or higher than necessary to reach your goals.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3749bd9223d2080c026d8c67c9ac9201", "text": "\"Translation : Funds managers that use traditionnal methods to select stocks will have less success than those who use artificial intelligence and computer programs to select stocks. Meaning : The use of computer programs and artificial intelligence is THE way to go for hedge fund managers in the future because they give better results. \"\"No man is better than a machine, but no machine is better than a man with a machine.\"\" Alternative article : Hedge-fund firms, Wall Street Journal. A little humour : \"\"Whatever is well conceived is clearly said, And the words to say it flow with ease.\"\" wrote Nicolas Boileau in 1674.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2900a922d243bb2b0282f4fcec6579b", "text": "\"no way -- he suggests that if you don't have an edge, no one needs to play the game. He doesn't like the idea of a \"\"lesser bad\"\" way to invest (MPT). If you do decide to get involved in investing, then it's about absolute performance, not relative. He believes that the whole relative performance thing -- beating some arbitrary benchmark -- is just an artificial construct.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
df957d14f03a4955236c51e8189dc277	What prices are compared to decide a security is over-valued, fairly valued or under-valued?	[ { "docid": "242876aa631d68d5e2aa0e20a00e08bf", "text": "\"I was wondering how \"\"future cash flows of the asset\"\" are predicted? Are they also predicted using fundamental and/or technical analysis? There are a many ways to forecast the future cash flows of assets. For example, for companies: It seems like calculating expected/required rate using CAPM does not belong to either fundamental or technical analysis, does it? I would qualify the CAPM as quantitative analysis because it's mathematics and statistics. It's not really fundamental since its does not relies on economical data (except the prices). And as for technical analysis, the term is often used as a synonym for graphical analysis or chartism, but quantitative analysis can also be referred as technical analysis. the present value of future cash flows [...] (called intrinsic price/value, if I am correct?) Yes you are correct. I wonder when deciding whether an asset is over/fair/under-valued, ususally what kind of price is compared to what other kind of price? If it's only to compare with the price, usually, the Net asset value (which is the book value), the Discount Cash flows (the intrinsic value) and the price of comparable companies and the CAPM are used in comparison to current market price of the asset that you are studying. Why is it in the quote to compare the first two kinds of prices, instead of comparing the current real price on the markets to any of the other three kinds? Actually the last line of the quote says that the comparison is done on the observed price which is the market price (the other prices can't really be observed). But, think that the part: an asset is correctly priced when its estimated price is the same as the present value of future cash flows of the asset means that, since the CAPM gives you an expected rate of return, by using this rate to compute the present value of future cash flows of the asset, you should have the same predicted price. I wrote this post explaining some valuation strategies. Maybe you can find some more information by reading it.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "6bf6a14a1513d13c389d1123443d40fb", "text": "\"P/E is a useful tool for evaluating the price of a company, but only in comparison to companies in similar industries, especially for industries with well-defined cash flows. For example, if you compared Consolidated Edison (NYSE:ED) to Hawaiian Electric (NYSE:HE), you'll notice that HE has a significantly higher PE. All things being equal, that means that HE may be overpriced in comparison to ED. As an investor, you need to investigate further to determine whether that is true. HE is unique in that it is a utility that also operates a bank, so you need to take that into account. You need to think about what your goal is when you say that you are a \"\"conservative\"\" investor and look at the big picture, not a magic number. If conservative to you means capital preservation, you need to ensure that you are in investments that are diversified and appropriate. Given the interest rate situation in 2011, that means your bonds holding need to be in short-duration, high-quality securities. Equities should be weighted towards large cap, with smaller holdings of international or commodity-associated funds. Consider a target-date or blended fund like one of the Vanguard \"\"Life Strategy\"\" funds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1fec42beb84e2821dd90cd035446ea8d", "text": "Something like cost = a × avg_spreadb + c × volatilityd × (order_size/avg_volume)e. Different brokers have different formulas, and different trading patterns will have different coefficients.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a6e87ece5bda5dbb3720b8f90837b88", "text": "\"Here is how I would approach that problem: 1) Find the average ratios of the competitors: 2) Find the earnings and book value per share of Hawaiian 3) Multiply the EPB and BVPS by the average ratios. Note that you get two very different numbers. This illustrates why pricing from ratios is inexact. How you use those answers to estimate a \"\"price\"\" is up to you. You can take the higher of the two, the average, the P/E result since you have more data points, or whatever other method you feel you can justify. There is no \"\"right\"\" answer since no one can accurately predict the future price of any stock.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "351caceff65bf83be90d557d5c8a94f5", "text": "I stock is only worth what someone will pay for it. If you want to sell it you will get market price which is the bid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ede6a47dd7289c2b8990c723b09625da", "text": "A stock is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If it trades different values on different days, that means someone was willing to pay a higher price OR someone was willing to sell at a lower price. There is no rule to prevent a stock from trading at $10 and then $100 the very next trade... or $1 the very next trade. (Though exchanges or regulators may halt trading, cancel trades, or impose limits on large price movements as they deem necessary, but this is beside the point I'm trying to illustrate). Asking what happens from the close of one day to the open of the next is like asking what happens from one trade to the next trade... someone simply decided to sell or pay a different price. Nothing needs to have happened in between.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79d5438b0c557a93e7157a96506906bf", "text": "I work on a buy-side firm, so I know how these small data issues can drive us crazy. Hope my answer below can help you: Reason for price difference: 1. Vendor and data source Basically, data providers such as Google and Yahoo redistribute EOD data by aggregating data from their vendors. Although the raw data is taken from the same exchanges, different vendors tend to collect them through different trading platforms. For example, Yahoo, is getting stock data from Hemscott (which was acquired by Morningstar), which is not the most accurate source of EOD stocks. Google gets data from Deutsche Börse. To make the process more complicated, each vendor can choose to get EOD data from another EOD data provider or the exchange itself, or they can produce their own open, high, low, close and volume from the actual trade tick-data, and these data may come from any exchanges. 2. Price Adjustment For equities data, the re-distributor usually adjusts the raw data by applying certain customized procedures. This includes adjustment for corporate actions, such as dividends and splits. For futures data, rolling is required, and back-ward and for-warding rolling can be chosen. Different adjustment methods can lead to different price display. 3. Extended trading hours Along with the growth of electronic trading, many market tends to trade during extended hours, such as pre-open and post-close trading periods. Futures and FX markets even trade around the clock. This leads to another freedom in price reporting: whether to include the price movement during the extended trading hours. Conclusion To cross-verify the true price, we should always check the price from the Exchange where the asset is actually traded. Given the convenience of getting EOD data nowadays, this task should be easy to achieve. In fact, for professional traders and investors alike, they will never reply price on free providers such as Yahoo and Google, they will most likely choose Bloomberg, Reuters, etc. However, for personal use, Yahoo and Google should both be good choices, and the difference is small enough to ignore.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73143af4a4f1f0f7a3f85b82cb901a9f", "text": "\"Their algorithm may be different (and proprietary), but how I would to it is to assume that daily changes in the stock are distributed normally (meaning the probability distribution is a \"\"bell curve\"\" - the green area in your chart). I would then calculate the average and standard deviation (volatility) of historical returns to determine the center and width of the bell curve (calibrating it to expected returns and implied volaility based on option prices), then use standard formulas for lognormal distributions to calculate the probability of the price exceeding the strike price. So there are many assumptions involved, and in the end it's just a probability, so there's no way to know if it's right or wrong - either the stock will cross the strike or it won't.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e672e48be08da56391e77f6c10a69ca0", "text": "\"Investopedia's explanation of overbought: An asset that has experienced sharp upward movements over a very short period of time is often deemed to be overbought. Determining the degree in which an asset is overbought is very subjective and can differ between investors. Technicians use indicators such as the relative strength index, the stochastic oscillator or the money flow index to identify securities that are becoming overbought. An overbought security is the opposite of one that is oversold. Something to consider is the \"\"potential buyers\"\" and \"\"potential sellers\"\" of a stock. In the case of overbought, there are many more buyers that have appeared and driven the price to a point that may be seen as \"\"unsustainably high\"\" and thus may well come down soon if one looks at the first explanation. For oversold, consider the flip side of this. A real life scenario here would be to consider airline tickets where a flight may be \"\"overbooked\"\" that could also be seen as \"\"oversold\"\" in that more tickets were sold than seats that are available and thus people will be bumped as not all tickets can be honored in this case. For a stock scenario of \"\"oversold\"\" consider how IPOs work where several buyers have to exist to buy the shares so the investment bank isn't stuck holding them which sends up the price since the amount wanted by the buyers may be more than what can be sold. The price shifts in bringing out more of one side than the other is the point you are missing. In shifting the price up, this attracts more sellers to satisfy the buyers. However, if there is a surge of buyers that flood the market, then there could be a perception that the security is overbought in the sense that there may be few buyers left for the security and thus the price may fall in the near term. If the price is coming down, this attracts more buyers to achieve the other side. The potential part is what you don't see and I wonder if you can imagine this part of the market. The airline example I give as an example as you don't seem to think either side of buying or selling can be overloaded. In the case of an oversold flight, there were more seats sold than available so yes it is possible. Stocks exist in finite quantities as there are only X shares of a company trading at any one time if you look into the concept of a float.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bce49c9f14e16724303feccaa0b44cf", "text": "I disagree strongly with the other two answers posted thus far. HFT are not just liquidity providers (in fact that claim is completely bogus, considering liquidity evaporates whenever the market is falling). HFT are not just scalping for pennies, they are also trading based on trends and news releases. So you end up having imperfect algorithms, not humans, deciding the price of almost every security being traded. These algorithms data mine for news releases or they look for and make correlations, even when none exist. The result is that every asset traded using HFT is mispriced. This happens in a variety of ways. Algos will react to the same news event if it has multiple sources (Ive seen stocks soar when week old news was re-released), algos will react to fake news posted on Twitter, and algos will correlate S&P to other indexes such as VIX or currencies. About 2 years ago the S&P was strongly correlated with EURJPY. In other words, the American stock market was completely dependent on the exchange rate of two currencies on completely different continents. In other words, no one knows the true value of stocks anymore because the free market hasnt existed in over 5 years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd25863c896820977eca451e4ac7e6ae", "text": "It's done by Opening Auction (http://www.advfn.com/Help/the-opening-auction-68.html): The Opening Auction Between 07.50 and a random time between 08.00 and 08.00.30, there will be called an auction period during which time, limit and market orders are entered and deleted on the order book. No order execution takes place during this period so it is possible that the order book will become crossed. This means that some buy and sell orders may be at the same price and some buy orders may be at higher prices than some sell orders. At the end of the random start period, the order book is frozen temporarily and an order matching algorithm is run. This calculates the price at which the maximum volume of shares in each security can be traded. All orders that can be executed at this price will be filled automatically, subject to price and priorities. No additional orders can be added or deleted until the auction matching process has been completed. The opening price for each stock will be either a 'UT' price or, in the event that there are no transactions resulting form the auction, then the first 'AT' trade will be used.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fac9c2afeec9e875553e5d562890d340", "text": "You are right that every transaction involves a seller and a buyer. The difference is the level of willingness from both parties. Overbought and oversold, as I understand them (particularly in the context of stocks), describe prolonged price increase (overbought, people are more willing to buy than sell, driving price up) and price decrease (oversold, people are more willing to sell than buy, driving price down).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a7c42f12fa6bc8050d60398fd81742d", "text": "This is a tough question SFun28. Let's try and debug the metric. First, let's expand upon the notion share price is determined in an efficient market where prospective buyers and sellers have access to info on an enterprises' cash balance and they may weigh that into their decision making. Therefore, a desirable/undesirable cash balance may raise or lower the share price, to what extent, we do not know. We must ask How significant is cash/debt balance in determining the market price of a stock? As you noted, we have limited info, which may decrease the weight of these account balances in our decision process. Using a materiality level of 5% of net income of operations, cash/debt may be immaterial or not considered by an investor. investors oftentimes interpret the same information differently (e.g. Microsoft's large cash balance may show they no longer have innovative ideas worth investing in, or they are well positioned to acquire innovative companies, or weather a contraction in the sector) My guess is a math mind would ignore the affect of account balances on the equity portion of the enterprise value calculation because it may not be a factor, or because the affect is subjective.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5aa3f904bf8a057a8e5e4f1f7d9de354", "text": "There isn't a formula like that, there is only the greed of other market participants, and you can try to predict how greedy those participants will be. If someone decided to place a sell order of 100,000 shares at $5, then you can buy an additional 100,000 shares at $5. In reality, people can infer that they might be the only ones trying to sell 100,000 shares right then, and raise the price so that they make more money. They will raise their sell order to $5.01, $5.02 or as high as they want, until people stop trying to buy their shares. It is just a non-stop auction, just like on ebay.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "865734973d4b7c2127e0322bdd58ae69", "text": "Fair value can mean many different things depending on the context. And it has nothing to do with the price at which your market order would be executed. For example if you buy market, you could get executed below 101 if there are hidden orders, at 101 if that sell order is large enough and it is still there when your order reaches the market, or at a higher price otherwise.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "643e78b1c9d9d924611f22ae25d4853d", "text": "\"I would differentiate between pricing and valuation a bit more: Valuation is the result of investment analysis and the result of coming up with a fair value for a company and its shares; this is done usually by equity analysts. I have never heard about pricing a security in this context. Pricing would indicate that the price of a product or security is \"\"set\"\" by someone (i.e. a car manufacturer sets the prices of its new cars). The price of a security however is not set by an analyst or an institution, it is solely set by the stock market (perhaps based on the valuations of different analysts). There is only one exception to this: pricing an IPO before its shares are actually traded on an exchange. In this case the underwriting banks set the price (based on the valuation) at which the shares are distributed.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
7e344704d01b6bb6a6f91164b79404a1	Am I exposed to currency risk when I invest in shares of a foreign company that are listed domestically?	[ { "docid": "b7b84c856eb772803ebfa337eef126f3", "text": "\"Yes, you're still exposed to currency risk when you purchase the stock on company B's exchange. I'm assuming you're buying the shares on B's stock exchange through an ADR, GDR, or similar instrument. The risk occurs as a result of the process through which the ADR is created. In its simplest form, the process works like this: I'll illustrate this with an example. I've separated the conversion rate into the exchange rate and a generic \"\"ADR conversion rate\"\" which includes all other factors the bank takes into account when deciding how many ADR shares to sell. The fact that the units line up is a nice check to make sure the calculation is logically correct. My example starts with these assumptions: I made up the generic ADR conversion rate; it will remain constant throughout this example. This is the simplified version of the calculation of the ADR share price from the European share price: Let's assume that the euro appreciates against the US dollar, and is now worth 1.4 USD (this is a major appreciation, but it makes a good example): The currency appreciation alone raised the share price of the ADR, even though the price of the share on the European exchange was unchanged. Now let's look at what happens if the euro appreciates further to 1.5 USD/EUR, but the company's share price on the European exchange falls: Even though the euro appreciated, the decline in the share price on the European exchange offset the currency risk in this case, leaving the ADR's share price on the US exchange unchanged. Finally, what happens if the euro experiences a major depreciation and the company's share price decreases significantly in the European market? This is a realistic situation that has occurred several times during the European sovereign debt crisis. Assuming this occurred immediately after the first example, European shareholders in the company experienced a (43.50 - 50) / 50 = -13% return, but American holders of the ADR experienced a (15.95 - 21.5093) / 21.5093 = -25.9% return. The currency shock was the primary cause of this magnified loss. Another point to keep in mind is that the foreign company itself may be exposed to currency risk if it conducts a lot of business in market with different currencies. Ideally the company has hedged against this, but if you invest in a foreign company through an ADR (or a GDR or another similar instrument), you may take on whatever risk the company hasn't hedged in addition to the currency risk that's present in the ADR/GDR conversion process. Here are a few articles that discuss currency risk specifically in the context of ADR's: (1), (2). Nestle, a Swiss company that is traded on US exchanges through an ADR, even addresses this issue in their FAQ for investors. There are other risks associated with instruments like ADR's and cross-listed companies, but normally arbitrageurs will remove these discontinuities quickly. Especially for cross-listed companies, this should keep the prices of highly liquid securities relatively synchronized.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "e5edb2b7684003ea4f01ab69a4c02e39", "text": "why should I have any bias in favour of my local economy? The main reason is because your expenses are in the local currency. If you are planning on spending most of your money on foreign travel, that's one thing. But for most of us, the bulk of our expenses are incurred locally. So it makes sense for us to invest in things where the investment return is local. You might argue that you can always exchange foreign results into local currency, and that's true. But then you have two risks. One risk you'll have anywhere: your investments may go down. The other risk with a foreign investment is that the currency may lose value relative to your currency. If that happens, even a good performing investment can go down in terms of what it can return to you. That fund denominated in your currency is really doing these conversions behind the scenes. Unless the bulk of your purchases are from imports and have prices that fluctuate with your currency, you will probably be better off in local investments. As a rough rule of thumb, your country's import percentage is a good estimate of how much you should invest globally. That looks to be about 20% for Australia. So consider something like 50% local stocks, 20% local bonds, 15% foreign stocks, 5% foreign bonds, and 10% local cash. That will insulate you a bit from a weak local currency while not leaving you out to dry with a strong local currency. It's possible that your particular expenses might be more (or less) vulnerable to foreign price fluctuations than the typical. But hopefully this gives you a starting point until you can come up with a way of estimating your personal vulnerability.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f798d0f57514d3901fc2381a23d9913", "text": "If you are a US citizen, you need to very carefully research the US tax implications of investing in foreign stocks before you do so. The US tax rules have been set up in general to make this very unattractive.", "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": "e3e7ece285f3bda48d59461cff75e626", "text": "it looks like using an ADR is the way to go here. michelin has an ADR listed OTC as MGDDY. since it is an ADR it is technically a US company that just happens to be a shell company holding only shares of michelin. as such, there should not be any odd tax or currency implications. while it is an OTC stock, it should settle in the US just like any other US OTC. obviously, you are exposing yourself to exchange rate fluctuations, but since michelin derives much of it's income from the US, it should perform similarly to other multinational companies. notes on brokers: most US brokers should be able to sell you OTC stocks using their regular rates (e.g. etrade, tradeking). however, it looks like robinhood.com does not offer this option (yet). in particular, i confirmed directly from tradeking that the 75$ foreign settlement fee does not apply to MGDDY because it is an ADR, and not a (non-ADR) foreign security.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28409171ea6205d636f9f30e07fba1f0", "text": "\"Yes and no. There are two primary ways to do this. The first is known as \"\"cross listing\"\". Basically, this means that shares are listed in the home country are the primary shares, but are also traded on secondary markets using mechanisms like ADRs or Globally Registered Shares. Examples of this method include Vodafone and Research in Motion. The second is \"\"dual listing\"\". This is when two corporations that function as a single business are listed in multiple places. Examples of this include Royal Dutch Shell and Unilever. Usually companies choose this method for tax purposes when they merge or acquire an international company. Generally speaking, you can safely buy shares in whichever market makes sense to you.\"", "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": "2ebc7fc2fe6982e3c3c583336b0bc7fb", "text": "There's a possibility to lose money in exchange rate shifts, but just as much chance to gain money (Efficient Market Hypothesis and all that). If you're worried about it, you should buy a stock in Canada and short sell the US version at the same time. Then journal the Canadian stock over to the US stock exchange and use it to settle your short sell. Or you can use derivatives to accomplish the same thing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "941bc8c4d7501db47ebd7aab8979253a", "text": "Foreign stocks have two extra sources of risk attached to them; exchange rate and political. Exchange rate risk is obvious; if I buy a stock in a foreign currency and there is a currency movement that makes that investment worth less I lose money no matter what the stock does. This can be offset using exchange rate swaps. (This is ceteris paribus, of course; changes in exchange rate can give a comparative advantage to international and exporting companies that will improve the fundamentals and so increase the price of the stock relative to a local firm. The economics of the firms in particular are not explored in this answer as it would get too complicated and long if I did.) Political risk relates not only to the problems surrounding international politics such as a country deciding that foreign nationals may no longer own shares in their national industries or deciding to seize foreign nationals' assets as happens in some areas. Your home country may also decide to apply sanctions to the country in which you are invested thus making it impossible to get your money back even though the foreign country will allow you to redeem them or sell. Diplomatic relations and trade agreements tend to be difficult. There are further problems in lack of understanding of foreign countries' laws, tax code, customs etc. relating to investments and the necessity to find legal representation in a country you may never have visited if there are issues. There is also a hidden risk in that, as an individual investor, you are not likely to be reading the local financial news for that country regularly enough to spot company specific issues arising. By the time these issues get into international media its far too late as all of the local investors have sold out of their positions already. The risks are probably no different if you have the time to monitor international relations and the foreign country's news, and have FX swaps in place to counteract FX risk as the funds and investment banks do but as an individual investor the time required is not feasible.", "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": "db571656437f699d18b3d7941b386abd", "text": "Any large stockbroker will offer trading in US securities. As a foreign national you will be required to register with the US tax authorities (IRS) by completing and filing a W-8BEN form and pay US withholding taxes on any dividend income you receive. US dividends are paid net of withholding taxes, so you do not need to file a US tax return. Capital gains are not subject to US taxes. Also, each year you are holding US securities, you will receive a form from the IRS which you are required to complete and return. You will also be required to complete and file forms for each of the exchanges you wish to received market price data from. Trading will be restricted to US trading hours, which I believe is 6 hours ahead of Denmark for the New York markets. You will simply submit an order to the desired market using your broker's online trading software or your broker's telephone dealing service. You can expect to pay significantly higher commissions for trading US securities when compared to domestic securities. You will also face potentially large foreign exchange fees when exchaning your funds from EUR to USD. All in all, you will probably be better off using your local market to trade US index or sector ETFs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0614273d91d85965c4ba9eaaef0c1251", "text": "Adding international bonds to an individual investor's portfolio is a controversial subject. On top of the standard risks of bonds you are adding country specific risk, currency risk and diversifying your individual company risk. In theory many of these risks should be rewarded but the data are noisy at best and adding risk like developed currency risk may not be rewarded at all. Also, most of the risk and diversification mentioned above are already added by international stocks. Depending on your home country adding international or emerging market stock etfs only add a few extra bps of fees while international bond etfs can add 30-100bps of fees over their domestic versions. This is a fairly high bar for adding this type of diversification. US bonds for foreign investors are a possible exception to the high fees though the government's bonds yield little. If your home currency (or currency union) does not have a deep bond market and/or bonds make up most of your portfolio it is probably worth diversifying a chunk of your bond exposure internationally. Otherwise, you can get most of the diversification much more cheaply by just using international stocks.", "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": "d7c498aeb47a6ff89bd62f0388e5f896", "text": "Academic research into ADRs seems to suggest that pairs-trading ADRs and their underlying shares reveals that there certainly are arbitrage opportunities, but that in most (but not all cases) such opportunities are quickly taken care of by the market. (See this article for the mexican case, the introduction has a list of other articles you could read on the subject). In some cases parity doesn't seem to be reached, which may have to do with transaction costs, the risk of transacting in a foreign market, as well as administrative & legal concerns that can affect the direct holder of a foreign share but don't impact the ADR holder (since those risks and costs are borne by the institution, which presumably has a better idea of how to manage such risks and costs). It's also worth pointing out that there are almost always arbitrage opportunities that get snapped up quickly: the law of one price doesn't apply for very short time-frames, just that if you're not an expert in that particular domain of the market, it might as well be a law since you won't see the arbitrage opportunities fast enough. That is to say, there are always opportunities for arbitrage with ADRs but chances are YOU won't be able to take advantage of it (In the Mexican case, the price divergence seems to have an average half-life of ~3 days). Some price divergence might be expected: ADR holders shouldn't be expected to know as much about the foreign market as the typical foreign share holder, and that uncertainty may also cause some divergence. There does seem to be some opportunity for arbitrage doing what you suggest in markets where it is not legally possible to short shares, but that likely is the value added from being able to short a share that belongs to a market where you can't do that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89e762cfa1ea779ab51e8ebebce04405", "text": "There contracts called an FX Forwards where you can get a feel for what the market thinks an exchange rate will be in the future. Now exchange rates are notoriously uncertain, but it is worth noting that at current prices market believes your Krona will be worth only 0.0003 Euro less three years from now than it is worth now. So, if you are considering taking money out of your investments and converting it to Euro and missing out on three years of dividends and hopefully capital gains its certainly possible this may work out for you but this is unlikely. If you are at all uncertain that you will actually move this is an even worse idea as paying to convert money twice would be an additional expense on top of the missed returns. There are FX financial products (futures and forwards) where you can get exposure to FX without having to put the full amount down. This could help hedge your house value but this can be extremely expensive over time for individual investors and would almost certainly not work in your favor. Something that could help reduce your risk a bit would be to invest more heavily in European even Irish (and British?) stocks which will move along with the currency and economy. You can lose some diversification doing this, but it can help a little.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47ae96508ca08a01b1c2432172264fb7", "text": "I just decided to start using GnuCash today, and I was also stuck in this position for around an hour before I figured out what to do exactly. The answer by @jldugger pointed me partially on the right track, so this answer is intended to help people waste less time in the future. (Note: All numbers have been redacted for privacy issues, but I hope the images are sufficient to allow you to understand what is going on. ) Upon successfully importing your transactions, you should be able to see your transactions in the Checking Account and Savings Account (plus additional accounts you have imported). The Imbalance account (GBP in my case) will be negative of whatever you have imported. This is due to the double-entry accounting system that GnuCash uses. Now, you will have to open your Savings Account. Note that except for a few transactions, most of them are going to Imbalance. These are marked out with the red rectangles. What you have to do, now, is to click on them individually and sort them into the correct account. Unfortunately (I do not understand why they did this), you cannot move multiple transactions at once. See also this thread. Fortunately, you only have to do this once. This is what your account should look like after it is complete. After this is done, you should not have to move any more accounts, since you can directly enter the transactions in the Transfer box. At this point, your Accounts tab should look like this: Question solved!", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
95a1f22b671179de0ba64466d9583f42	Weekly budgets based on (a variable) monthly budget	[ { "docid": "948a4f5649ea7e6eff5c881e7c1a1db5", "text": "\"I think the real problem here is dealing with the variable income. The envelope solution suggests the problem is that your brother doesn't have the discipline to avoid spending all his money immediately, but maybe that's not it. Maybe he could regulate his expenses just fine, but with such a variable income, he can't settle into a \"\"normal\"\" spending pattern. Without any savings, any budget would have to be based on the worst possible income for a month. This isn't a great: it means a poor quality of life. And what do you do with the extra money in the better-than-worst months? While it's easy to say \"\"plan for the worst, then when it's better, save that money\"\", that's just not going to happen. No one will want to live at their worst-case standard of living all the time. Someone would have to be a real miser to have the discipline to not use that extra money for something. You can say to save it for emergencies or unexpected events, but there's always a way to rationalize spending it. \"\"I'm a musician, so this new guitar is a necessary business expense!\"\" Or maybe the car is broken. Surely this is a necessary expense! But, do you buy a $1000 car or a $20000 car? There's always a way to rationalize what's necessary, but it doesn't change financial reality. With a highly variable income, he will need some cash saved up to fill in the bad months, which is replenished in the good months. For success, you need a reasonable plan for making that happen: one that includes provisions for spending it other than \"\"please try not to spend it\"\". I would suggest tracking income accurately for several months. Then you will have a real number (not a guess) of what an average month is. Then, you can budget on that. You will also have real numbers that allow you to calculate how long the bad stretches are, and thus determine how much cash reserve is necessary to make the odds of going broke in a bad period unlikely. Having that, you can make a budget based on average income, which should have some allowance for enjoying life. Of course initially the cash reserve doesn't exist, but knowing exactly what will happen when it does provides a good motivation for building the reserve rather than spending it today. Knowing that the budget includes rules for spending the reserves reduces the incentive to cheat. Of course, the eventual budget should also include provisions for long term savings for retirement, medical expenses, car maintenance, etc. You can do the envelope thing if that's helpful. The point here is to solve the problem of the variable income, so you can have an average income that doesn't result in a budget that delivers a soul crushing decrease in quality of living.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d4ac022357a4aca725b570514b3b575", "text": "If you know, approximately, the minimum he would get in a month, his budget should be planned based on this amount. In months where he gets more than this, the excess should be put aside. In really bad months where the income drops below the expected minimum, he can use the money put aside. After a year of putting money aside, he can plan to use and budget this for any other expenses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "01c12f52eabb65786993b2aee93e5567", "text": "Try reading about budgeting. Make a list of all income coming in and all expenses going out. Eliminate any unnecessary expenses and try to increase income, which could include a part-time second job. Try to always put a portion of the income away as savings - try 10%, but if this is too hard to start with try saving at least 5% of the income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f3bf3bf914ef07a3f31eaca4d1b712b", "text": "Developing self-discipline in his spending habits is a prerequisite for dealing with a (sometimes low) variable income. While it might feel like a roller coaster ride going from boom to bust, develop steady frugal spending habits will ease a lot of that pressure.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "15106763fc0ec93b54fc5b81995eccb4", "text": "Honestly? Literally anything else. The same way budgets have been done since the dawn of time. If you have a mandatory expense (livable wage because we're prioritizing human life over discretionary spending because ethics) you trim the fat from other areas to make it work.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a43e5d9780dcffd4e67f0f7a5daccd3c", "text": "Plan all your needs and put priority based on need & urgency. New Habit: Rethink. Rethink. Rethink. whenever your going to buy something. rethink before going to buy. remember what is your priority one than that and will this affect on your plans. if that affect, than dont buy. Lets leave it to that habit, that will take care of your budget yar.............", "title": "" }, { "docid": "704b2bcb28d2999847a056b205a74490", "text": "Do you plan a monthly budget at the beginning of each month? This might seem counter-intuitive, but hear me out. Doing a budget is, of course, critically important for those who struggle with having enough money to last the month. Having this written spending plan allows people struggling with finances to control their spending and funnel money into debt reduction or saving goals. However, budgeting can also help those with the opposite problem. There are some, like you perhaps, that have enough income and live frugally enough that they don't have to budget. Their money comes in, and they spend so little that the bank account grows automatically. It sounds like a good problem to have, but your finances are still out of control, just in a different way. Perhaps you are underspending simply because you don't know if you will have enough money to last or not. By making a spending plan, you set aside money each month for various categories in three broad areas: Since you have plenty of money coming in, generously fund these spending categories. As long as you have money in the categories when you go to the store, you can feel comfortable splurging a little, because you know that your other categories are funded and the money is there to pay those other bills. Create other categories, such as technology or home improvement, and when you need an app or have a home improvement project, you can confidently spend this money, as it has already been allocated for those purposes. If you are new to budgeting, software such as YNAB can make it much easier.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9bd0d9b20ae218aed0f289bcf2344589", "text": "My wife and I meet in the first few days of each month to create a budget for the coming month. During that meeting we reconcile any spending for the previous month and make sure the amount money in our accounts matches the amount of money in our budget record to the penny. (We use an excel spreadsheet, how you track it matters less than the need to track it and see how much you spent in each category during the previous month.) After we have have reviewed the previous month's spending, we allocate money we made during that previous month to each of the categories. What categories you track and how granular you are is less important than regularly seeing how much you spend so that you can evaluate whether your spending is really matching your priorities. We keep a running total for each category so if we go over on groceries one month, then the following month we have to add more to bring the category back to black as well as enough for our anticipated needs in the coming month. If there is one category that we are consistently underestimating (or overestimating) we talk about why. If there are large purchases that we are planning in the coming month, or even in a few months, we talk about them, why we want them, and we talk about how much we're planning to spend. If we want a new TV or to go on a trip, we may start adding money to the category with no plans to spend in the coming month. The biggest benefit to this process has been that we don't make a lot of impulse purchases, or if we do, they are for small dollar amounts. The simple need to explain what I want and why means I have to put the thought into it myself, and I talk myself out of a lot of purchases during that train of thought. The time spent regularly evaluating what we get for our money has cut waste that wasn't really bringing much happiness. We still buy what we want, but we agree that we want it first.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4015a67ac8479112a93c6116fbb474bf", "text": "However, we would also like to include on our budget the actual cost of the furniture when we buy it. That would be double-counting. When it's time to buy the new kit, just pay for it directly from savings and then deduct that amount from the Furniture Cash asset that you'd been adding to every month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3666af20f9bb3570574b277a7faccb3", "text": "Unless you are getting the loan from a loan shark, it is the most common case that each payment is applied to the interest accrued to date and the rest is applied towards reducing the principal. So, assuming that fortnightly means 26 equally-spaced payments during the year, the interest accrued at the end of the first fortnight is $660,000 x (0.0575/26) = $1459.62 and so the principal is reduced by $2299.61 - $1459.62 = $839.99 For the next payment, the principal still owing at the beginning of that fortnight will be $660,000-$839.99 = $659,160.01 and the interest accrued will be $659,160.01 x (0.0575/26) = $1457.76 and so slightly more of the principal will be reduced than the $839.99 of the previous payment. Lather, rinse, repeat until the loan is paid off which should occur at the end of 17.5 years (or after 455 biweekly payments). If the loan rate changes during this time (since you say that this is a variable-rate loan), the numbers quoted above will change too. And no, it is not the case that just %5.75 of the $2300 is interest, and the rest comes off the principle (sic)? Interest is computed on the principal amount still owed ($660,000 for starters and then decreasing fortnightly). not the loan payment amount. Edit After playing around with a spreadsheet a bit, I found that if payments are made every two weeks (14 days apart) rather than 26 equally spaced payments in one year as I used above, interest accrues at the rate of 5.75 x (14/365)% for the 14 days rather than at the rate of (5.75/26)% for the time between payments as I used above each 14 days, $2299.56 is paid as the biweekly mortgage payment instead of the $2299.61 stated by the OP, then 455 payments (slightly less than 17.5 calendar years when leap years are taken into account) will pay off the loan. In fact, that 455-th payment should be reduced by 65 cents. In view of rounding of fractional cents and the like, I doubt that it would be possible to have the last equal payment reduce the balance to exactly 0.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce7bc2c2cd732782fe38fbe089359593", "text": "The exact percentages depend on many things, not just location. For example, everyone needs food. If you have a low income, the percentage of your income spent on food would be much higher than for someone that has a high income. Any budgeting guidelines that you find are just a starting point. You need to look at your own income and expenses and come up with your own spending plan. Start by listing all of the necessities that you have to spend on. For example, your basic necessities might be: Fund those categories, and any other fixed expenses that you have. Whatever you have left is available for other things, such as: and anything else that you can think of to spend money on. If you can save money on some of the necessities above, it will free up money on the discretionary categories below. Because your income and priorities are different than everyone else, your budget will be different than everyone else, too. If you are new to budgeting, you might find that the right budgeting software can make the task much easier. YNAB, EveryDollar, or Mvelopes are three popular choices.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9fc78a4a2264f71ee209de0eda2b0566", "text": "The easiest way to get started on a budget is just to track where you spend your money. If you have set bills each month I would make a category for each of those to make sure you have enough to pay. You can try and split up the remaining income into categories but the easiest way to start is just to track your spending for a month or two. This gives you a birds eye view of what is actually realistic. Start with that total as your preliminary budget and then adjust as you go along to meet other financial goals. We use neobudget.com for tracking our income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "314f94e4cf9b9440544bac407e08f26d", "text": "Gail Vaz-Oxlade has a budget calculator here that shows how much of your monthly net income should be allocated where. She recommends 35% for housing, 15% for transportation, 25% for life, 15% for debt repayment, and 10% for savings. Some people spend more then they make and her budget sheet helps get things under control for those people. For someone like yourself who seems to have things under control, this budget sheet can be a guideline for you. Play with the percentages if you like, and keep your spending under 100%.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3990625113d4d472df79a83f6d924025", "text": "I agree with the first poster- the first step is to measure your spending and put it down into raw numbers. Once you have the raw numbers, you will feel a natural inclination to improve on those numbers. Set yourself a daily target for cash / incidental expenses. It doesnt have to be a crazy target - just something you can achieve easily. Mark a 'tick' mark next to every day on the calendar that you meet that target (or spend less than the target). Gradually the momentum from the past few 'ticks' will automatically compel you to want to tick off the next day. At the end of each week, lower the target a little. You'll find that when you start measuring your expenditure, you become more aware of how you might be wasting money. All too often we just go out and buy stuff we don't need without really thinking about it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f25194adc202671a1e3417243c0e5329", "text": "Canada does not have a set date on which a (Federal) budget plan is unveiled. In 2011 it was June 6th. In 2012 it was March 29th and in 2013 it was 21st March.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "26ba80da4e6af8359740b2bc2fa78c78", "text": "Calculate a weekly budget for yourself for all incidentals (i.e. shopping, movies, eating out, etc...) and take that amount out in cash each week. For example, if your budget is $75 then try to spend only that $75 on all the extra stuff you do doing the week. It'll make you hyper-conscious of where your money is going and how fast. You'll be surprised at how quickly little things like grabbing coffee in the morning can chip away at your funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3174bd88a6eb03c2c32fcf1803446a5f", "text": "My guess: they are giving you a constant number of days between when the bill is sent and when it is due. Due dates are usually set either: same date each month IE the 3rd of each month. same day IE first thursday of the month. Note: due date might vary based on weekends. Number of days in the month - date on bill should be pretty constant if due date option #1 is being used. Note how Feb dates were usually earlier, since it is a shorter month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0efe2844118714ca1c92e0350393e1cb", "text": "You can take a shortcut and make a few cumulative transactions, maybe just estimate how much of your spending landed in each of your budget categories, but you will lose a lot of the value that you were building for yourself by tracking your spending during the earlier months. I reconcile my budget and categorize my spending on a monthly basis. It's always a chore to pull out the big stack of receipts and plow through them, but I've learned the value of having an accurate picture of where all my money went. There is no clean way to fake it. You can either take the time and reconcile your spending, or you can take a short cut. It probably renders your efforts to track everything from the beginning of the year invalid though. If you want to start over this month (as you did at the beginning of the year) that would probably be a cleaner way to reconcile things.", "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": "" } ]	fiqa
cd2e0d0c001f21464ba9660e81a2a677	1.4 million cash. What do I do?	[ { "docid": "ee7e0b768dc50030f75a45f00575c0a3", "text": "For now, park it in a mix of cash and short term bond funds like the Vanguard Short Term Investment Grade fund. The short term fund will help with the inflation issue. Make sure the cash positions are FDIC insured. Then either educate yourself about investing or start interviewing potential advisors. Look for referrals, and stay away from people peddling annuities or people who will not fully disclose how they get paid. Your goal should be to have a long-term plan within 6-12 months.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa9b83d82c951d0886a1830938e9b1d7", "text": "You can get an investment manager through firms like Fidelity or E*Trade to manage your account. It won't be someone dedicated exclusively to you, but you're in the range where they'd take you as a managed account customer. Another option would be to get a financial planner (CFP or something) help you to identify your needs and figure out what your investments portfolio should look like. This is not a whole lot of money, but is definitely enough to have an early retirement if managed and invested properly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "343d01b5f2726763ff0f0cd166d76d57", "text": "\"I'm still recommending that you go to a professional. However, I'm going to talk about what you should probably expect the professional to be telling you. These are generalities. It sounds like you're going to keep working for a while. (If nothing else, it'll stave off boredom.) If that's the case, and you don't touch that $1.4 million otherwise, you're pretty much set for retirement and never need to save another penny, and you can afford to treat your girl to a nice dinner on the rest of your income. If you're going to buy expensive things, though - like California real estate and boats and fancy cars and college educations and small businesses - you can dip into that money but things will get trickier. If not, then it's a question of \"\"how do I structure my savings?\"\". A typical structure: Anywho. If you can research general principles in advance, you'll be better prepared.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "972fa7231ce44ecafa6849051bacb000", "text": "First--congratulations! I certainly wish I could create something worth buying for $1.4 million. In addition to what @duffbeer703 recommended, consider putting some of the money in Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS). I second the advice on staying away from annuities as well. @littleadv is right about certified financial planners. A good one will put those funds in a mix of investments that minimize your potential tax exposure. They will also look at whether you're properly insured. Research what is FDIC-insured (and what isn't) here. Since you're still making a six-figure income in your salaried job, be sure not to neglect things like contributing to your 401(k)--especially if it's a matching one. At your salary level, I think you're still eligible to contribute to a Roth IRA (taxable income goes in, so withdrawals are tax-free). A good adviser will know which options are best.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3d5755430f9167132a38163dead6e60", "text": "At 1.4 Million, you can definately afford a professional advisor who would give you the best advice taking into account all your goals and risk appetite.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3651bb2af6000cf54640c7bce08638f", "text": "Have you considered investing in real estate? Property is cheap now and you have enough money for several properties. The income from tenants could be very helpful. If you find it's not for you, you can also sell your property and recover your initial investment, assuming house prices go up in the next few years.", "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": "c5372bf7b8d860f69f34fb9f8ec3e070", "text": "you should invest in a range of stock market indexes. Ex : Dow jones, S&P500, Nasdaq and keep it there until you are ready to retire. I'm invested half in SLYV and SLYG (S&P600 small cap value and S&P600 small cap growth; Respectively). It brings on average between 8-13% a year (since 1971). This is not investment advice. Talk to your broker before doing this.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "4450694f0f396cc189e3c9ca36ec6823", "text": "The capital gains is counted towards your income. If you cash out 1 Million dollars, you have a 1 Million dollar income for that year, which puts you at the 39.6% tax bracket. However, because that 1 Million dollars is all long term capital gains, you will only have to pay 20% of it in long term capital gains taxes. The best you can do is to cash the 1 Million dollars through several years instead of just all at once. This will put in a lower tax bracket and thus will pay lower capital gains tax.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c7dbf0512932aa995f8d4924466f134", "text": "\"Here's what I suggest... A few years ago, I got a chunk of change. Not from an inheritance, but stock options in a company that was taken private. We'd already been investing by that point. But what I did: 1. I took my time. 2. I set aside a chunk of it (maybe a quarter) for taxes. you shouldn't have this problem. 3. I set aside a chunk for home renovations. 4. I set aside a chunk for kids college fund 5. I set aside a chunk for paying off the house 6. I set aside a chunk to spend later 7. I invested a chunk. A small chunk directly in single stocks, a small chunk in muni bonds, but most just in Mutual Funds. I'm still spending that \"\"spend later\"\" chunk. It's about 10 years later, and this summer it's home maintenance and a new car... all, I figure it, coming out of some of that money I'd set aside for \"\"future spending.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1279c055dc6a2e7145425d6b25103af9", "text": "There are two or three issues here. One is, how quickly can you get cash out of your investments? If you had an unexpected expense, if you suddenly needed more cash than you have on hand, how long would it take to get money out of your Scott Trade account or wherever it is? I have a TD Ameritrade account which is pretty similar, and it just takes a couple of days to get money out. I'm hard pressed to think of a time when I literally needed a bunch of cash TODAY with no advance warning. What sudden bills is one likely to have? A medical bill, perhaps. But hey, just a few weeks ago I had to go to the emergency room with a medical problem, and it's not like they demanded cash on the table before they'd help me. I just got the bill, maybe 3 weeks after the event. I've never decided to move and then actually moved 2 days later. These things take SOME planning. Etc. Second, how much risk are you willing to tolerate? If you have your money in the stock market, the market could go down just as you need the cash. That's not even a worst case scenario, extreme scenario. After all, if the economy gets bad, the stock market could go down, and the same fact could result in your employer laying you off. That said, you could reduce this risk by keeping some of your money in a low-risk investment, like some high-quality bonds. Third, you want to have cash to cover the more modest, routine expenses. Like make sure you always have enough cash on hand to pay the rent or mortgage, buy food, and so on. And fourth, you want to keep a cushion against bookkeeping mistakes. I've had twice in my life that I've overdrawn a checking account, not because I was broke, but because I messed up my records and thought I had more money in the account than I really did. It's impossible to give exact numbers without knowing a lot about your income and expenses. But for myself: I keep a cushion of $1,000 to $1,5000 in my checking account, on top of all regular bills that I know I'll have to pay in the next month, to cover modest unexpected expenses and mistakes. I pay most of my bills by credit card for convenience --and pay the balance in full when I get the bill so I don't pay interest -- so I don't need a lot of cushion. I used to keep 2 to 3 months pay in an account invested in bonds and very safe stocks, something that wouldn't lose much value even in bad times. Since my daughter started college I've run this down to less than 1 months pay, and instead of replacing that money I'm instead putting my spare money into more general stocks, which is admittedly riskier. So between the two accounts I have a little over 2 months pay, which I think is low, but as I say, I'm trying to get my kids through college so I've run down my savings some. I think if I had more than 6 months pay in easily-liquidated assets, then unless I expected to need a bunch of cash for something, buying a new house or some such, I'd be transferring that to a retirement account with tax advantages.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9e33a468c248932449a65b23d02f4b5", "text": "I suppose it depends on how liquid you need, and if you're willing to put forth any risk whatsoever. The stock market can be dangerous, but there are strategies out there that will allow you to insure yourself against significant loss, while likely earning you a decent return. You can buy and sell options along with stocks so that if the stock drops, your loss is limited, and if it goes up or even stays where it's at, you make money (a lot more than 1% annually). Of course there's risk of loss, but if you plan ahead, you can cap that risk wherever you want, maybe 5%, maybe 10%, whatever suits your needs. And as far as liquidity goes, it should be no more than a week or so to close your positions and get your money if you really need it. But even so, I would only recommend this after putting aside at least a few thousand in a cash account for emergencies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "562199728b298b68e02ab2224814095c", "text": "\"Your only real alternative is something like T-Bills via your broker or TreasuryDirect or short-term bond funds like the Vanguard Short-Term Investment-Grade Fund. The problem with this strategy is that these options are different animals than a money market. You're either going to subject yourself to principal risk or lose the flexibility of withdrawing the money. A better strategy IMO is to look at your overall portfolio and what you actually want. If you have $100k in a money market, and you are not going to need $100k in cash for the forseeable future -- you are \"\"paying\"\" (via the low yield) for flexibility that you don't need. If get your money into an appropriately diversified portfolio, you'll end up with a more optimal return. If the money involved is relatively small, doing nothing is a real option as well. $5,000 at 0.5% yields $25, and a 5% return yields only $250. If you need that money soon to pay tuition, use for living expenses, etc, it's not worth the trouble.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b381fce7dd29bb532e1caeb0c23caf36", "text": "\"Let me summarize your question for you: \"\"I do not have the down payment that the lender requires for a mortgage. How can I still acquire the mortgage?\"\" Short answer: Find another lender or find more cash. Don't overly complicate the scenario. The correct answer is that the lender is free to do what they want. They deem it too risky to lend you $1.1M against this $1.8M property, unless they have $700k up front. You want their money, so you must accept their terms. If other lenders have the same outlook, consider that you cannot afford this house. Find a cheaper house.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8466c5005eb2bad187a712362c942f99", "text": "\"Don't ignore it. If this is a non-trivial amount of money you need a lawyer. You've acknowledged that a loan exists and have personally guaranteed it, so a court can and will ultimately order you to pay. In doing so, they can put liens on your assests. Depending on the state, how the property is titled and other factors, that can include your home. If you don't have the money and are pretty much broke, try to negotiate a settlement. If they balk, you'll eventually need to start talking about bankruptcy -- that's the \"\"nuclear option\"\" and a motivator to settle. Otherwise, you need to either seriously explore bankruptcy or be prepared to lose your stuff to a judgement and having your dirty laundry aired in court. If you're not broke, but don't have liquid capital, you need to figure out a way to raise the money somehow. Again, you need to consult an attorney.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f28372124749da6c9627223ed8e9e488", "text": "You need to find a fiduciary advisor pronto. Yes, you are getting a large amount of money, but you'll probably have to deal with higher than average health expenses and lower earning potential for years to come. You need to make sure the $1.2 million lasts you, and for that you need professional advice, not something you read on the Internet. Finding a knowledgeable advisor who has your interests at heart at a reasonable rate is the key here. These articles are a good start on what to look for: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/financialcareers/08/fiduciary-planner.asp https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2013/09/20/6-pointed-questions-to-ask-before-hiring-a-financial-advisor/#2e2b91c489fe http://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionaleducation/11/suitability-fiduciary-standards.asp You should also consider what your earning potential is. You rule out college but at 26, you can have a long productive career and earn way more money than the $1.2 million you are going to get.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23d0426069b775a93976abd84038d7ea", "text": "Do you need to do anything special when you receive such a huge amount of money? YES, ABSOLUTELY! 1st: Hire a lawyer. Retain him. Preferably one who has experience with high net worth clients. 2nd: Hire a financial advisor/wealth manager. Similarly, one who has experience with high net worth clients. 3rd: Tell no one else that you won. I cannot stress this point enough. Do these things before you even claim your prize. Winning the lottery seems like a great thing to people who haven't won, but statistically speaking most people end up worse off. Most people, not just lottery winners, but people who come into large sums of money unexpectedly just don't know how to handle it. Hire people who do know how to handle that sort of thing and get them on your side. If you win the lottery PROTECT YOURSELF! Go here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vo34/whats_the_happiest_5word_sentence_you_could_hear/chb38xf and read the top comment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7172f0dbc7272ccb64f5add44bd49f70", "text": "Borrow the overpriced bond promising to repay the lender $1000 in one year. Sell the bond immediately for $960. Put $952.38 in the bank where the it will gain enough to be worth $1000 in one year. You have +$7.62 immediate cash flow. In one year repay the bond lender with the $1000 from the bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8f2a0b3957abc9cff84a66aee8918af", "text": "\"First - Welcome to Money.SE. You gave a lot of detail, and it's tough to parse out the single question. Actually, you have multiple issues. $1300 is what you need to pay the tax? In the 25% bracket plus 10% penalty, you have a 65% net amount. $1300/.65 = Exactly $2000. You withdraw $2000, have them (the IRA holder) withhold $700 in federal tax, and you're done. All that said, don't do it. Nathan's answer - payment plan with IRS - is the way to go. You've shared with us a important issue. Your budget is running too tight. We have a post here, \"\"the correct order of investing\"\" which provides a great guideline that applies to most visitors. You are missing the part that requires a decent sized emergency fund. In your case, calling it that, may be a misnomer, as the tax bill isn't an unexpected emergency, but something that should have been foreseeable. We have had a number of posts here that advocate the paid in full house. And I always respond that the emergency fund comes first. With $70K of income, you should have $35K or so of liquidity, money readily available. Tax due in April shouldn't be causing you this grief. Please read that post I linked and others here to help you with the budgeting issue. Last - You are in an enviable position, A half million dollars, no mortgage, mid 40s. Easily doing better than most. So, please forgive the soapbox tone of the above, it was just my \"\"see, that's what I'm talking about\"\" moment from my tenure here.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "353f69910c12dc261482d6363c090c09", "text": "\"I'd interpret it as \"\"Net Worth\"\" reached 1M where \"\"net worth\"\" = assets - liabilities.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3c9f34a984c3fc84aa3b8bd0f4abd9af", "text": "If you are going to put it into a banking system, just deposit it. Why did breaking it up even cross your mind? Like what would that even have accomplished, so you could pretend like you started moonlighting as a club bouncer if you were ever casually asked by a bank teller or federal agent? If you have to ever account for the source of your money, you will have to account for it regardless. You shouldn't worry about things that may trigger higher scrutiny on you, because it is pretty random. The financial institution may file a suspicious activity report any time they feel like it (which they routinely do without the customer's knowledge, for a wide range of reasons), and actually attempting to break it up into smaller deposits would mean the suspicious activity report would escalate into criminal charges. And regarding the IRS, if they ever audited you then you will still have to account for that $25,000 no matter what you did with it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15b788b4c1659b1bb97b9e014bb2e216", "text": "You're off to a great start. Here are the steps I would take: 1.) Pay off any high-interest debt. 2.) Keep six to twelve months in a highly liquid emergency fund. If the banks aren't safe, also consider having one or two months of cash or cash-equivalents on the premises. 3.) Rent a larger apartment, if possible, until you've saved more. The cost of the land and construction will consume a very large portion of your net worth. Given the historical political instability in that region, mentioned by the previous comments, I would hesitate to put such a large percentage of your wealth in to real estate. 4.) Get a brokerage account that's insured and well known. If you're willing to take the five percent hit to move assets offshore, then consider Vanguard. I'm not sure if they'll give you an account but they're generally acknowledged as an amazing broker in the US with low fees and amazing funds. Five percent (12,500) is worth it in my opinion. As you accumulate more wealth, you can stop moving cash overseas and keep a larger mix domestically. 5.) Invest in your business and yourself even more. As far as finding new investment opportunities, I would go through the list of all the typical major asset classes and consider the pros and cons: fixed-income, stocks, currencies, real estate / REITs, own a small business, commodities etc.,", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6505237c2b3c1430722426bc5eb31baa", "text": "\"If all of the money needs to be liquid, T-Bills from a broker are the way to go. Treasury Direct is a little onerous -- I'm not sure that you could actually get money out of there in a week. If you can sacrifice some liquidity, I'd recommend a mix of treasury, brokered CDs, agency and municipal securities. The government has implicitly guaranteed that \"\"too big to fail\"\" entities are going to be backed by the faith & credit of the United States, so investments in general obligation bonds from big states like New York, California and Florida and cities like New York City will yield you better returns, come with significant tax benefits, and represent only marginal additional short-term risk.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b507736959e0c7c7a3ec0c3404ad7988	What effect would currency devaluation have on my investments?	[ { "docid": "3f97d35bd94c664205c2929914af3cc9", "text": "Stocks, gold, commodities, and physical real estate will not be affected by currency changes, regardless of whether those changes are fast or slow. All bonds except those that are indexed to inflation will be demolished by sudden, unexpected devaluation. Notice: The above is true if devaluation is the only thing going on but this will not be the case. Unfortunately, if the currency devalued rapidly it would be because something else is happening in the economy or government. How these asset values are affected by that other thing would depend on what the other thing is. In other words, you must tell us what you think will cause devaluation, then we can guess how it might affect stock, real estate, and commodity prices.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a70568de6258ac4ff20caf60647f630e", "text": "\"First, a clarification. No assets are immune to inflation, apart from inflation-indexed securities like TIPS or inflation-indexed gilts (well, if held to maturity, these are at least close). Inflation causes a decline in the future purchasing power of a given dollar1 amount, and it certainly doesn't just affect government bonds, either. Regardless of whether you hold equity, bonds, derivatives, etc., the real value of those assets is declining because of inflation, all else being equal. For example, if I invest $100 in an asset that pays a 10% rate of return over the next year, and I sell my entire position at the end of the year, I have $110 in nominal terms. Inflation affects the real value of this asset regardless of its asset class because those $110 aren't worth as much in a year as they are today, assuming inflation is positive. An easy way to incorporate inflation into your calculations of rate of return is to simply subtract the rate of inflation from your rate of return. Using the previous example with inflation of 3%, you could estimate that although the nominal value of your investment at the end of one year is $110, the real value is $100(1 + 10% - 3%) = $107. In other words, you only gained $7 of purchasing power, even though you gained $10 in nominal terms. This back-of-the-envelope calculation works for securities that don't pay fixed returns as well. Consider an example retirement portfolio. Say I make a one-time investment of $50,000 today in a portfolio that pays, on average, 8% annually. I plan to retire in 30 years, without making any further contributions (yes, this is an over-simplified example). I calculate that my portfolio will have a value of 50000 (1 + 0.08)^30, or $503,132. That looks like a nice amount, but how much is it really worth? I don't care how many dollars I have; I care about what I can buy with those dollars. If I use the same rough estimate of the effect of inflation and use a 8% - 3% = 5% rate of return instead, I get an estimate of what I'll have at retirement, in today's dollars. That allows me to make an easy comparison to my current standard of living, and see if my portfolio is up to scratch. Repeating the calculation with 5% instead of 8% yields 50000 * (1 + 0.05)^30, or $21,6097. As you can see, the amount is significantly different. If I'm accustomed to living off $50,000 a year now, my calculation that doesn't take inflation into account tells me that I'll have over 10 years of living expenses at retirement. The new calculation tells me I'll only have a little over 4 years. Now that I've clarified the basics of inflation, I'll respond to the rest of the answer. I want to know if I need to be making sure my investments span multiple currencies to protect against a single country's currency failing. As others have pointed out, currency doesn't inflate; prices denominated in that currency inflate. Also, a currency failing is significantly different from a prices denominated in a currency inflating. If you're worried about prices inflating and decreasing the purchasing power of your dollars (which usually occurs in modern economies) then it's a good idea to look for investments and asset allocations that, over time, have outpaced the rate of inflation and that even with the effects of inflation, still give you a high enough rate of return to meet your investment goals in real, inflation-adjusted terms. If you have legitimate reason to worry about your currency failing, perhaps because your country doesn't maintain stable monetary or fiscal policies, there are a few things you can do. First, define what you mean by \"\"failing.\"\" Do you mean ceasing to exist, or simply falling in unit purchasing power because of inflation? If it's the latter, see the previous paragraph. If the former, investing in other currencies abroad may be a good idea. Questions about currencies actually failing are quite general, however, and (in my opinion) require significant economic analysis before deciding on a course of action/hedging. I would ask the same question about my home's value against an inflated currency as well. Would it keep the same real value. Your home may or may not keep the same real value over time. In some time periods, average home prices have risen at rates significantly higher than the rate of inflation, in which case on paper, their real value has increased. However, if you need to make substantial investments in your home to keep its price rising at the same rate as inflation, you may actually be losing money because your total investment is higher than what you paid for the house initially. Of course, if you own your home and don't have plans to move, you may not be concerned if its value isn't keeping up with inflation at all times. You're deriving additional satisfaction/utility from it, mainly because it's a place for you to live, and you spend money maintaining it in order to maintain your physical standard of living, not just its price at some future sale date. 1) I use dollars as an example. This applies to all currencies.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd8b84e461d61c7f379907a7ed788f9e", "text": "\"My question boiled down: Do stock mutual funds behave more like treasury bonds or commodities? When I think about it, it seems that they should respond the devaluation like a commodity. I own a quantity of company shares (not tied to a currency), and let's assume that the company only holds immune assets. Does the real value of my stock ownership go down? Why? On December 20, 1994, newly inaugurated President Ernesto Zedillo announced the Mexican central bank's devaluation of the peso between 13% and 15%. Devaluing the peso after previous promises not to do so led investors to be skeptical of policymakers and fearful of additional devaluations. Investors flocked to foreign investments and placed even higher risk premia on domestic assets. This increase in risk premia placed additional upward market pressure on Mexican interest rates as well as downward market pressure on the Mexican peso. Foreign investors anticipating further currency devaluations began rapidly withdrawing capital from Mexican investments and selling off shares of stock as the Mexican Stock Exchange plummeted. To discourage such capital flight, particularly from debt instruments, the Mexican central bank raised interest rates, but higher borrowing costs ultimately hindered economic growth prospects. The question is how would they pull this off if it's a floatable currency. For instance, the US government devalued the US Dollar against gold in the 30s, moving one ounce of gold from $20 to $35. The Gold Reserve Act outlawed most private possession of gold, forcing individuals to sell it to the Treasury, after which it was stored in United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox and other locations. The act also changed the nominal price of gold from $20.67 per troy ounce to $35. But now, the US Dollar is not backed by anything, so how do they devalue it now (outside of intentionally inflating it)? The Hong Kong Dollar, since it is fixed to the US Dollar, could be devalued relative to the Dollar, going from 7.75 to 9.75 or something similar, so it depends on the currency. As for the final part, \"\"does the real value of my stock ownership go down\"\" the answer is yes if the stock ownership is in the currency devalued, though it may rise over the longer term if investors think that the value of the company will rise relative to devaluation and if they trust the market (remember a devaluation can scare investors, even if a company has value). Sorry that there's too much \"\"it depends\"\" in the answer; there are many variables at stake for this. The best answer is to say, \"\"Look at history and what happened\"\" and you might see a pattern emerge; what I see is a lot of uncertainty in past devaluations that cause panics.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "d3207224e410452dea55c68e15e4aaf4", "text": "Whether it's historically stronger or weaker isn't going to have an impact on you; the forex exposure you have is going forward if the exchange rates change you will have missed out on having more or less value by leaving it in a certain currency. (Ignoring fees) Say you exchange €85 for $100, if while you're in the US the Euro gets stronger than it currently is, and the exchange rate changes to €8:$10; then you will lose out on €5 if you try to change it back, and the opposite is true if the euro gets weaker than it currently is you would gain money on exchanging it back. Just look at it as though you're buying dollars like it were a commodity. If the euro gets stronger it buys more dollars and you should've held onto it in euros, if it gets weaker it buys less dollars and you were better off having it in dollars. You would want to use whichever currency you think will be weaker or gain the least against the dollar while you're here.", "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": "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": "3df65e68c8633ccfc01a4496253623f3", "text": "How can I calculate my currency risk exposure? You own securities that are priced in dollars, so your currency risk is the amount (all else being equal) that your portfolio drops if the dollar depreciates relative to the Euro between now and the time that you plan to cash out your investments. Not all stocks, though, have a high correlation relative to the dollar. Many US companies (e.g. Apple) do a lot of business in foreign countries and do not necessarily move in line with the Dollar. Calculate the correlation (using Excel or other statistical programs) between the returns of your portfolio and the change in FX rate between the Dollar and Euro to see how well your portfolio correlated with that FX rate. That would tell you how much risk you need to mitigate. how can I hedge against it? There are various Currency ETFs that will track the USD/EUR exchange rate, so one option could be to buy some of those to offset your currency risk calculated above. Note that ETFs do have fees associated with them, although they should be fairly small (one I looked at had a 0.4% fee, which isn't terrible but isn't nothing). Also note that there are ETFs that employ currency risk mitigation internally - including one on the Nasdaq 100 . Note that this is NOT a recommendation for this ETF - just letting you know about alternative products that MIGHT meet your needs.", "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": "38a479e3fac8a4d4deb5d8caa993d72a", "text": "\"Having savings only in your home currency is relatively 'low risk' compared with other types of 'low diversification'. This is because, in a simple case, your future cash outflows will be in your home currency, so if the GBP fluctuates in value, it will (theoretically) still buy you the same goods at home. In this way, keeping your savings in the same currency as your future expenditures creates a natural hedge against currency fluctuation. This gets complicated for goods imported from other countries, where base price fluctuates based on a foreign currency, or for situations where you expect to incur significant foreign currency expenditures (retirement elsewhere, etc.). In such cases, you no longer have certainty that your future expenditures will be based on the GBP, and saving money in other currencies may make more sense. In many circumstances, 'diversification' of the currency of your savings may actually increase your risk, not decrease it. Be sure you are doing this for a specific reason, with a specific strategy, and not just to generally 'spread your money around'. Even in case of a Brexit, consider: what would you do with a bank account full of USD? If the answer is \"\"Convert it back to GBP when needed (in 6 months, 5 years, 30, etc.), to buy British goods\"\", then I wouldn't call this a way to reduce your risk. Instead, I would call it a type of investment, with its own set of risks associated.\"", "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": "2ebc7fc2fe6982e3c3c583336b0bc7fb", "text": "There's a possibility to lose money in exchange rate shifts, but just as much chance to gain money (Efficient Market Hypothesis and all that). If you're worried about it, you should buy a stock in Canada and short sell the US version at the same time. Then journal the Canadian stock over to the US stock exchange and use it to settle your short sell. Or you can use derivatives to accomplish the same thing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e92a5e3cfe7db5a782b9931710ff389d", "text": "\"You might find some of the answers here helpful; the question is different, but has some similar concerns, such as a changing economic environment. What approach should I take to best protect my wealth against currency devaluation & poor growth prospects. I want to avoid selling off any more of my local index funds in a panic as I want to hold long term. Does my portfolio balance make sense? Good question; I can't even get US banks to answer questions like this, such as \"\"What happens if they try to nationalize all bank accounts like in the Soviet Union?\"\" Response: it'll never happen. The question was what if! I think that your portfolio carries a lot of risk, but also offsets what you're worried about. Outside of government confiscation of foreign accounts (if your foreign investments are held through a local brokerage), you should be good. What to do about government confiscation? Even the US government (in 1933) confiscated physical gold (and they made it illegal to own) - so even physical resources can be confiscated during hard times. Quite a large portion of my foreign investments have been bought at an expensive time when our currency is already around historic lows, which does concern me in the event that it strengthens in future. What strategy should I take in the future if/when my local currency starts the strengthen...do I hold my foreign investments through it and just trust in cost averaging long term, or try sell them off to avoid the devaluation? Are these foreign investments a hedge? If so, then you shouldn't worry if your currency does strengthen; they serve the purpose of hedging the local environment. If these investments are not a hedge, then timing will matter and you'll want to sell and buy your currency before it does strengthen. The risk on this latter point is that your timing will be wrong.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "605eb7aa548de18d74c5f4e178dd3731", "text": "First, currencies are not an investment; they are a medium of exchange; that is, you use currency to buy goods and services and/or investments. The goods and services you intend to buy in your retirement are presumably going to be bought in your country; to buy these you will need your country's currency. The investments you intend to buy now require the currency of whatever country they are located in. If you want to buy shares in Microsoft you need USD; if you want shares in BHP-Billiton you need AUD or GBP (It is traded on two exchanges), if you want property in Kuwait you need KWD and if you want bonds in your country you need IDR. When you sell these later to buy the goods and services you were saving for you need to convert from whatever currency you get for selling them into whatever currency you need to buy. When you invest you are taking on risk for which you expect to be compensated for - the higher the risk you take the better the returns had better be because there is always the chance that they will be negative, right down to losing it all if you are unlucky. There is no 100% safe investment; if you want to make sure you get full value for your money spend it all right now! If you invest overseas then, in addition to all the other investment risks, you are adding currency risk as well. That is, the risk that when you redeem your investments the overseas currency will have fallen relative you your currency. One of the best ways of mitigating risk is diversification; which allows the same return at a lower risk (or a higher return at the same risk). A pure equity portfolio is not diversified across asset classes (hopefully it is diversified across the equities). Equities are a high risk-high yield class; particularly in a developing economy like Indonesia. If you are very young with a decades long investment horizon this may be OK but even then, a diversified portfolio will probably offer better rewards at the same risk. Diversifying into local cash, bonds and property with a little foreign equities, bonds and property will serve you better than worrying about the strength of the IDR. Oh, and pay a professional for some real advice rather than listening to strangers on the internet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfc83f88b6585b59ac0a6f5dd80350e4", "text": "\"No money is gone. The movement of the existing currency has slowed down. Currency moves through the economy through deposits or loans to banks, and withdrawal from banks as proceeds from loans or return of deposits. When a bank makes a loan they provide a balance in a bank account, which isn't converted to hard currency until withdrawn. So those bank loans essentially count as currency, and thus effectively multiply the stock of currency available. Deposits into money market funds, and those funds loans into the commercial paper markets, have the same effect. Banks and money funds are now making fewer loans. In particular they are not funding \"\"companies\"\" that invested in securitizations of home mortgages and credit card receivables, but they are also lending less to businesses and consumers. Because they are lending less they are \"\"effectively multiplying\"\" the currency less. Think of deposited and lent currency as spare cycles on a desktop computer. You let your computer help decipher the genome when you aren't using it yourself. If you somehow feared that you would lose those cycles, slowing down your own computing, you would be less likely to lend those cycles out. There would still be the same number of computing cycles in the world, but the stock of those available for actual computing would appear to be diminished. The technical term for this concept is \"\"monetary velocity\"\" and it is a crucial factor in determing the level of overall economic activity, banking stability, and inflation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6cbf93cdf03f9730462f5dd3d3dd2d7", "text": "\"Just to get the ball rolling, here's an answer: it won't affect you in the slightest. The pound happened to be tumbling anyway. (If you read \"\"in the papers\"\" that Brexit is \"\"making the pound fall\"\", that's as valuable as anything else you've ever read in the papers.) Currencies go up and down drastically all the time, and there's nothing you can do about it. We by fluke once bought a house in Australia when that currency was very low; over the next couple years the currency basically doubled (I mean per the USD) and we happened to sell it; we made a 1/2 million measured in USD. Just a fluke. I've had the opposite happen on other occasions over the decades. But... Currency changes mean absolutely nothing if you're in that country. The example from (2) was only relevant because we happened to be moving in and out of Aus. My various Australian friends didn't even notice that their dollar went from .5 to 1 in terms of USD (how could it matter to them?) All sorts of things drastically affect the general economy of a given country. (Indeed, note that a falling currency is often seen as a very good thing for a given nation's economy: conspiracy theorists in the states are forever complaining that ) Nobody has the slightest clue if \"\"Brexit\"\" will be good bad or indifferent for the UK. Anything could happen. It could be the beginning of an incredible period of growth for the UK (after all, why does Brussels not want your country to leave - goodwill?) and your house could triple in value in a year. Or, your house price could tumble to half in a year. Nobody has the slightest clue, whatsoever about the effects on the \"\"economy\"\" of a country going forward, of various inputs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "feac8aba143a4a01affea2a93292e1ae", "text": "\"If you live and work in the euro-zone, then even after a \"\"crash\"\" all of your income and most of your expenses will still be in euros. The only portion of your worth you need to worry about protecting is the portion you intend to spend on goods from outside the euro-zone (i.e. imports). In that case, you may want to consider parking some of your money in short-term government bonds issued by other countries, such as the UK, Switzerland, and USA (or wherever else your favorite goods tend to come from). If the euro actually \"\"massively devalues\"\" (an extremely unlikely scenario), then you can expect foreign goods to cost a lot more than they do now. Inflation might also pick up, so you might also want to purchase some OATis.\"", "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": "feea3c7cd647080a887e72b9affeb790", "text": "\"Others have mentioned the exchange rate, but this can play out in various ways. One thing we've seen since the \"\"Brexit\"\" vote is that the GBP/USD has fallen dramatically, but the value of the FTSE has gone up. This is partly due to many the companies listed there operating largely outside the UK, so their value is more linked to the dollar than the pound. It can definitely make sense to invest in stocks in a country more stable than your own, if feasible and not too expensive. Some years ago I took the 50/50 UK/US option for my (UK) pension, and it's worked out very well so far.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
64ec24ed53fdc15fcd3a8d03674feda2	Does the sale of personal items need to be declared as income on my income taxes?	[ { "docid": "8cb4e274c228cb0a2282d036447a0de5", "text": "\"Books would be considered Personal-Use Property according to Canada's income tax laws. The most detailed IT I was able to find is IT-332R, which says: GAINS AND LOSSES 3. A gain on the disposition of personal-use property is normally a capital gain within the meaning of paragraph 39(1)(a). Where the property is a principal residence, the gain > is computed under paragraph 40(2)(b) or (c). 4. Under subparagraph 40(2)(g)(iii), a loss on a disposition of personal-use property, other than listed personal property, is deemed to be nil. [...] This part of the bulletin indicates that a gain might be considered a capital gain - not income. However, you don't get to book a loss as a capital loss. This is the first hint that your book sale - which is actually an exempt capital loss - shouldn't go on your tax return unless it's one of the \"\"listed\"\" items: LISTED PERSONAL PROPERTY 7. Listed personal property is defined in paragraph 54(e) to mean personal-use property that is all or any portion of, or any interest in or right to, any (a) print, etching, drawing, painting, sculpture, or other similar work of art, (b) jewellery, (c) rare folio, rare manuscript, or rare book, (d) stamp, or (e) coin. So unless you're selling rare books, the disposition (sale) of them is essentially exempt as income, regardless of whether you sold it at a profit or at a loss. If it is rare, then you might be able to consider it a capital loss, which doesn't help you much unless you had other capital gains, but you can carry over capital losses to future years. There's also a newer IT related to hobbies and \"\"collecting\"\" items, IT-334R2. This one says: 11. In order for any activity or pursuit to be regarded as a source of income, there must be a reasonable expectation of profit. Where such an expectation does not exist (as is the case with most hobbies), neither amounts received nor expenses incurred are included in the income computation for tax purposes and any excess of expenses over receipts is a personal or living expense, the deduction of which is denied by paragraph 18(1)(h). On the other hand, if the hobby or pastime results in receipts of revenue in excess of expenses, that fact is a strong indication that the hobby is a venture with an expectation of profit; if so, the net income may be taxable as income from a business. The current version of IT-504, Visual Artists and Writers, discusses the concept of \"\"a reasonable expectation of profit\"\" in greater detail. Where a hobby consists of collecting personal-use property or listed personal property, dispositions should be accounted for as described in the current version of IT-332, Personal-Use Property. (emphasis mine) In other words, if it's not the type of thing where you'd make a tax deduction when you bought it in the first place, then you clearly don't need to report it as income when you sell it. Just to be absolutely clear here: The fact that you are selling them at a loss is not actually what's important here. What's important is that, if the books aren't collectibles, then you would have had no expectation of profit. If you did have that expectation then you could have made a tax deduction when you first purchased them. So in this case, it is probably not necessary for you to report the income; however, for the benefit of other readers, in some cases you might need to report it under \"\"other income\"\" or book it as a capital gain/loss, depending on what those personal items are and whether or not you made a net profit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27d9e24ac779e2b2ae49ec352be8120e", "text": "\"I doubt it. In the States you would only owe tax if you sold such an item at a profit. \"\"garage sales\"\" aren't taxable as they are nearly always common household items and sale is more about clearing out one's attic/garage than about profit. Keep in mind, if I pay for a book, and immediately sell it for the same price, there's no tax due, why would tax be due if I sell for a loss?\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b958ecddb6579a5edb96c07558272915", "text": "\"In most jurisdictions, both the goods (raw materials) and the service (class) are being \"\"sold\"\" to the customer, who is the end user and thus the sale is subject to sales tax. So, when your friend charges for the class, that $100 is subject to all applicable sales taxes for the jurisdiction and all parent jurisdictions (usually city, county and state). The teacher should not have to pay sales tax when they buy the flowers from the wholesaler; most jurisdictions charge sales tax on end-user purchases only. However, they are required to have some proof of sales tax exemption for the purchase, which normally comes part and parcel with the DBA or other business entity registration paperwork in most cities/states. Wholesalers deal with non-end-user sales (exempt from sales tax) all the time, but your average Michael's or Hobby Lobby may not be able to deal with this and may have to charge your friend the sales tax at POS. Depending on the jurisdiction, if this happens, your friend may be able to reduce the amount the customer is paying that is subject to sales tax by the pre-tax value of the materials the customer has paid for, which your friend already paid the tax on.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44f7f02ebc9b4bba410c9a805b9ed00d", "text": "\"If you have income - it should appear on your tax return. If you are a non-resident, that would be 1040NR, with the eBay income appearing on line 21. Since this is unrelated to your studies, this income will not be covered by the tax treaties for most countries, and you'll pay full taxes on it. Keep in mind that the IRS may decide that you're actually having a business, in which case you'll be required to attach Schedule C to your tax return and maybe pay additional taxes (mainly self-employment). Also, the USCIS may decide that you're actually having a business, regardless of how the IRS sees it, in which case you may have issues with your green card. For low income from occasional sales, you shouldn't have any issues. But if it is something systematic that you spend significant time on and earn significant amounts of money - you may get into trouble. What's \"\"systematic\"\" and how much is \"\"significant\"\" is up to a lawyer to tell you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "caac26bdd391f8e851b7ad6108cc0407", "text": "Yes, you do. Depending on your country's laws and regulations, since you're not an employee but a self employed, you're likely to be required to file some kind of a tax return with your country's tax authority, and pay the income taxes on the money you earn. You'll have to tell us more about the situation, at least let us know what country you're in, for more information.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2feb74b8173e7cfcdc17af615e980e0", "text": "The HMRC website would explain it better to you. There is a lot of factors and conditions involved, so refer to the HMRC website for clarification. If your question had more details, it could have been easy to pinpoint the exact answer. Do I declare the value of shares as income Why would you do that ? You haven't generated income from that yet(sold it to make a profit/loss), so how can that be declared as income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a87688fb747cdc8f66ebfc69393bdf18", "text": "This is taxed as ordinary income. See the IRC Sec 988(a)(1). The exclusion you're talking about (the $200) is in the IRC Sec 988(e)(2), but you'll have to read the Treasury Regulations on this section to see if and how it can apply to you. Since you do this regularly and for profit (i.e.: not a personal transaction), I'd argue that it doesn't apply.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b219e3f4fc351e102ae83ad6c09750c8", "text": "Any commercially distributed product needs to be taxed. Depending on country of residence and distribution, legislation varies widely, therefore the best place to ask would be your local small business counsel or even your local taxation office. Depending on the size of your business, you might need a license to sell them in the first place anyway and that comes with its own set of prerequisites.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee0f34fa27cb4ca84be860d651f060f3", "text": "You tagged with S-Corp, so I assume that you have that tax status. Under that situation, you don't get taxed on distributions regardless of what you call them. You get taxed on the portion of the net income that is attributable to you through the Schedule K that the S-Corp should distribute to you when the S-Corp files its tax return. You get taxed on that income whether or not it's distributed. If you also work for the small business, then you need to pay yourself a reasonable wage. The amount that you distribute can be one factor in determining reasonableness. That doesn't seem to be what you asked, but it is something to consider.", "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": "e0c51eea3ded591cacec119ff328abda", "text": "Payment of taxes for your personal return filed with the IRS always come from your personal account, regardless of how the money was earned. Sales tax would be paid from your business account, so would corporate taxes, if those apply; but if you're talking about your tax payments to the IRS for your personal income that should be paid from your personal account. Also, stating the obvious, if you're paying an accountant to handle things you can always ask them for clarification as well. They will have more precise answers. EDIT Adding on for your last part of the question I missed: In virtually all cases LLC's are what's called a pass through entity. For these entities, all income in the eyes of the federal government passes directly through the entity to the owners at the end of each year. They are then taxed personally on this net income at their individual tax rate, that's the very abridged version at least. The LLC pays no taxes directly to the federal government related to your income. Here's a resource if you'd like to learn more about LLC's: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/llc-basics-30163.html", "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": "ac9363665b6f3b6c63d77f667d33cd17", "text": "\"The point is that you need to figure out when a \"\"business expense\"\" is actually just a personal purchase. Otherwise you could very easily just start a business and mark all of your personal purchases as business expenses, so you never have to pay income taxes because you're handling all of your money through the untaxed corporation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37a8df9320affe0b7287c522247d716f", "text": "If you are being paid money in exchange for services that you are providing to your cousin, then that is income, are legally you are required to declare it as self-employment income, and pay taxes when you file your tax return (and if you have a significant amount of self-employment income, you're supposed make payments every quarter of your estimated tax liability. The deposit itself will not be taxed, however.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "819197acdc0e88afc44350dcccd999eb", "text": "\"I believe you have to file a tax return, because state tax refund is considered income effectively connected with US trade or business, and the 1040NR instructions section \"\"Who Must File\"\" includes people who were engaged in trade or business in the US and had a gross income. You won't end up having to pay any taxes as the income is less than your personal exemption of $4050.\"", "title": "" }, { "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": "ccad5df003233c9e6cdffdce3837c9a4", "text": "\"Speculation is when someone else makes an investment you don't like. The above is tongue in cheek, but is a serious answer. There are several attempts at separating the two, but they turn into moral judgements on the value of a pure \"\"buy and hold\"\" versus any other investment strategy (which is itself doubtful: is shorting an oil stock more \"\"speculation\"\" than buying and holding an alternative energy stock?). Some economists take the other route and just argue that we should remove the moral judgement and celebrate speculation as we celebrate investment.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
636a72a70abb562b8f299f76cea352ba	What happens to 401(k) money that isn't used by the time the account holder dies?	[ { "docid": "5a7606fa019b48931adaeb45ed7e95da", "text": "A 401k plan will ask you to name a beneficiary who will receive the funds if you don't withdraw them all before death. Usually, a primary beneficiary and a secondary beneficiary is requested. If you don't specify a beneficiary, your estate is the beneficiary by default. Note that the name supplied to the 401k plan is who will get the money, and you cannot change this by bequeathing the money in your will. For example, if you neglected to change the beneficiary upon divorce, it is useless to say in your will that the money in the 401k plan goes to your new wife; the 401k plan will give it to your ex-wife who still remains the beneficiary of your 401k Money in a 401k plan is what is called income with respect to a decedent (IRD) on which income tax is levied, and it is also is part of your estate and thus liable to be subject to estate tax. The latter is true even if the 401k plan assets are not mentioned anywhere in your will, and even if the assets got sent to your ex-wife which is not what you wanted to have happen. There are various estate tax exceptions for spouse beneficiaries (no estate tax due now, but will be charged when the spouse passes away). With regard to income tax, the beneficiaries of a 401k plan (similarly IRAs, 403b plans etc) generally get to take the whole amount and pay the income tax themselves. Edit in response to littleadv's comments: Each 401k plan is different, and some plans, especially the smaller ones, may prefer to distribute the 401k assets as a lump sum rather than allow the beneficiaries to withdraw the money over several years (and pay income tax on the amount withdrawn each year). This is because there are far too many rules and regulations to trip over when making withdrawals over several years. The lump sum distribution can be transferred into a newly established Inherited IRA (see the Nolo article linked to in @littleadv's answer for some details and some pitfalls to avoid) and the income tax is thus deferred until withdrawals occur. Spouse beneficiaries are entitled to more generous rules than non-spouse beneficiaries. If your heirs are otherwise well provided for and you are in a philanthropic mood (or you don't want to give 'em a dime, the ungrateful... who never call, not even on Father's Day!), one way of avoiding a lot of tax is to make the beneficiary of your 401k be one or more of your favorite charities. In fact, if your testamentary inclination is to make some charitable bequests as part of your will, it is much more advantageous to give money from a tax-deferred account to the charity (size of estate is reduced, no income tax paid by anyone on amount given), and bequeath assets in non-retirement accounts to one's heirs (bequests are not taxable income, and heirs get a step up in basis for assets that have appreciated) rather than the other way around (heirs pay income tax as they withdraw the money from tax-deferred account) Estate planning is a complicated business, and you really should talk to a professional about such matters and not rely on advice from an Internet forum.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04a95e7b3aadedaa7b4dbab8390f2224", "text": "It goes to the beneficiaries, not necessarily the heirs. Taxation is a bit complicated and depends also on the plan requirements, the new owners' decisions, and the last status of the deceased owner. You should really talk to a tax adviser with the specific details to get a reliable answer that would address your situation. You should also ask about State inheritance taxes for the deceased and the beneficiaries' states. Here's the NOLO article on the issue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6bb8101ee256f238393262289b7c695", "text": "\"I understand the answers addressing the question as asked. Yes, inheriting a 401(k) can be a convoluted process. In general, it's best to transfer the account to an IRA after separation from the company to avoid the issues both of my esteemed colleagues have referenced. Given the issue of \"\"allowed by not required\"\" the flexibility is greater once the account has been transferred to an IRA. With few exceptions, there's little reason to leave the account with the 401(k) after leaving that company. (Note - I understand the original question as worded can mean the account holder passes while still working for the company. In that case, this wouldn't be an option.)\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1b21083a4db2e80d235303fafe596388", "text": "Generally speaking the bank accounts and credit card accounts remain open. Banks and the credit card companies don't monitor public records on a daily basis. Instead, whoever is handling your estate will need to obtain copies of your death certificate and they will then search your paper records to identify all accounts (reason to get your act together - there are books on the subject). The executor will work with the banks and card companies to make sure all your charges and payments clear (common to have them open for months or even a year) and to make close or transfer autopays. They will make sure to notify the credit agencies to flag your accounts so no new accounts can be created. MANY copies of the death certicates are needed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "701bdcfae7c89d8354151051c10d5239", "text": "IANAL, nor am I a financial professional. However, I've just looked into this because of a relative's death, and I have minor children. I am in the US. First, a named beneficiary on many accounts means that any proceeds are kept out of the estate and do not have to go through probate. That usually means that they're available much more quickly. Second, a beneficiary statement trumps a will. The account may pay out long before a will is even filed with the probate court. Third, you can name a trust as the beneficiary. In this case, because you want to make sure the money goes to your children, that's likely your best option.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8418b64bc7a531370f7aca1b38f565ab", "text": "The fact that you are planning to move abroad does not affect the decision to contribute to a 401(k). The reason for this is that after you leave your employer, you can roll all the money over from your 401(k) into a self-directed traditional IRA. That money can stay invested until retirement, and it doesn't matter where you are living before or after retirement age. So, when deciding whether or not to use a 401(k), you need to look at the details of your employer's plan: Does your employer offer a match? If so, you should definitely take advantage of it. Are there good investments available inside the 401(k)? Some plans offer very limited options. If you can't find anything good to invest in, you don't want to contribute anything beyond the match; instead, contribute to an IRA, where you can invest in a fund that you like. The other reason to use a 401(k) is that the contribution limits can be higher. If you want to invest more than you are allowed to in an IRA, the 401(k) might allow that. In your case, since there is no match, it is up to you whether you want to participate or not. An IRA will allow more flexibility in investing options. If you need to invest more than your IRA limit, the 401(k) might allow that. When you leave your employer, you should probably roll any 401(k) money into an IRA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6547f985aca6bb38f8b169d582192dc7", "text": "The money that you have under your control (e.g. in bank accounts, savings accounts, taxable investments, etc) is your money and there is no tax of any kind (either in India or in US) that needs to be paid when the money is transferred to India. As Dheer's answer says, you need to transfer all these monies within 7 years as per Indian tax law. For your 401(k) account, assuming that all the money is tax-deferred (i.e. you contributed to a regular 401(k) and not a Roth 401(k)), you will have separated from service as far as US tax law is concerned. So, check if it is at all possible to roll over the money into a similar scheme in India, specifically the Employees Provident Fund. Wikipedia says The schemes covers both Indian and international workers (for countries with which bilateral agreements have been signed; 14 such social security agreements are active). and so a rollover might be possible. If not, you could withdraw small amounts each year and avoid US income tax (but not the 10% excise tax), but how long you can continue holding 401(k) assets after return to India and whether that is long enough to drain the 401(k) are things that you need to find out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f3d41dab345f9102c1cf5ff38976689", "text": "Okay, I went through a similar situation when my mother died in March of this year. The estate still needs to go into probate. Especially if there was a will. And when you do this, your husband will be named as the executor. Then what he will need to do is produce both of their death certificates to the bank, have the account closed, and open an estate account with both of their names on it. Their debts & anything like this should be paid from this account as well. Then what you can do is endorse the check as the executor and deposit it into this account. After all debts are paid, the money can be disbursed to the beneficiaries (your husband). Basically, as long as they didn't have any huge debts to pay, he will see the money again. It just may be a couple of months. And you will have to pay some filing fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "073f152f5a67dadbd7166117ae110ff2", "text": "An employer can decide that the employee funds are automatically vested. The new company could have had a more aggressive vesting schedule and grandfathered in all the employees of the company they acquired. This could have been part of the purchase negoaitaions. I would be surprised if they did it for employees that left years ago, especially if they were beyond the return period. I wouldn't keep money in a plan with a former employer just in case it happens. Check the plan documents to see all the verbiage regarding vesting here is a paragraph from one: You will receive one year of vesting service for each calendar year during which you complete 850 or more hours of service. Once you have five years of service, your account is fully vested and any future Company contributions made to your account will be immediately vested. Full vesting also occurs at age 59½, total disability or death while employed by the Company. If you leave the Company prior to 100% vesting, any unvested portion of your Plan account will be forfeited.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0cceb497f58538334e0e4db26852665f", "text": "Something I wanted to posit: Do you have a life insurance policy, either taken out yourself or offered through your company? Many of these policies will pay out prior to the death of the covered individual, given statements by medical professionals that the person has a terminal illness or condition. The benefit, once disbursed, can be used for almost anything, including to pay down a mortgage, cover medical bills and other care expenses, etc. If you have such a policy, I urge you to look into it; that is the money that should be used for your end-of-life care and to ease the burden on your family, not your retirement savings. Your savings, if possible, should be left to continue to compound to provide your wife with a nest egg to retire with.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "296179e169de56e32873400143975bb0", "text": "\"Let's say, I have a Life Insurance for 20 years. Whether the money will be given back to the Policy Holder along with the Accumulated Interest on it ? This depends on the type of Insurance Policy. If you have purchased a \"\"Term Plan/Policy\"\" then these do not give back anything. However the premium is very low and is essentially covering for the risk. If you have \"\"Cash Value type\"\" of policies [Whole Life, Endowment, Universal Life, etc] then you get something back at the end. This depends on the policy document. The premiums are substantially high. It is generally advised that Cash Value type of policies are not good and the returns they generate are poor than depositing the difference in premium in alternative investments and buying a Term Plan.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "909eae1d15d84e2380144c2af50e1f14", "text": "My observations is that this seems like hardly enough to kill inflation. Is he right? Or are there better ways to invest? The tax deferral part of the equation isn't what dominates regarding whether your 401k beats 30 years of inflation; it is the return on investment. If your 401k account tanks due to a prolonged market crash just as you retire, then you might have been better off stashing the money in the bank. Remember, 401k money at now + 30 years is not a guaranteed return (though many speak as though it were). There is also the question as to whether fees will eat up some of your return and whether the funds your 401k invests in are good ones. I'm uneasy with the autopilot nature of the typical 401k non-strategy; it's too much the standard thing to do in the U.S., it's too unconscious, and strikes me as Ponzi-like. It has been a winning strategy for some already, sure, and maybe it will work for the next 30-100 years or more. I just don't know. There are also changes in policy or other unknowns that 30 years will bring, so it takes faith I don't have to lock away a large chunk of my savings in something I can't touch without hassle and penalty until then. For that reason, I have contributed very little to my 403b previously, contribute nothing now (though employer does, automatically. I have no match.) and have built up a sizable cash savings, some of which may be used to start a business or buy a house with a small or no mortgage (thereby guaranteeing at least not paying mortgage interest). I am open to changing my mind about all this, but am glad I've been able to at least save a chunk to give me some options that I can exercise in the next 5-10 years if I want, instead of having to wait 25 or more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79ecb26ea9c0236996186ea69aed8152", "text": "\"As you alluded to in your question, there is not one answer that will be true for all mutual funds. In fact, I would argue the question is not specific to mutual funds but can be applied to almost anyone who must make an investment decision: a mutual fund manager, hedge fund manager, or an individual investor. Even though money going into a company 401(k) retirement savings plan is typically automatically allocated to different funds as we have specified, this is generally not the case for other investment accounts. For example, I also have a Roth IRA in which I have some money from each paycheck direct deposited and it's up to me to decide whether to leave that money in cash or to invest it somewhere else. Every time you invest more money into a mutual fund, the fund manager has the same decision to make. There are two commonly used mutual fund figures that relate to your question: turnover rate, and cash reserves. Turnover rate measures the percent of a fund's portfolio that changes every year. For example, a turnover rate of 100% indicates that a fund replaces every asset it held at the beginning of the year with something else at the end of the year – funds with turnover rates greater than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of less than one year, and funds with turnover rates less than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of more than one year. Cash reserves simply measure the amount of money funds choose to keep as cash instead of investing in other assets. Another important distinction to make is between actively managed funds and passively managed funds. Passively managed funds are often referred to as \"\"index funds\"\" and have as their goal only to match the returns of a given index or some other benchmark. Actively managed funds on the other hand try to beat the market by exploiting so-called market inefficiencies; e.g. buying undervalued assets, selling overvalued assets, \"\"timing\"\" the market, etc. To answer your question for a specific fund, I would encourage you to look at the fund's prospectus. I take as one example of a passively managed fund the Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFINX), a mutual fund that was created to track the S&P 500. In its prospectus, the fund states that, \"\"to track its target index as closely as possible, the Fund attempts to remain fully invested in stocks\"\". Furthermore, the prospectus states that \"\"the fund's daily cash balance may be invested in one or more Vanguard CMT Funds, which are very low-cost money market funds.\"\" Therefore, we would expect both this fund's turnover rate and cash reserves to be extremely low. When we look at its portfolio composition, we see this is true – it is currently at a 4.8% turnover rate and holds 0.0% in short term reserves. Therefore, we can assume this fund is regularly purchasing shares (similar to a dollar cost averaging strategy) instead of holding on to cash and purchasing shares together at a specific time. For actively managed funds, the picture will tend to look a little different. For example, if we look at the Magellan Fund's portfolio composition, we can see it has a turnover rate of 42%, and holds around .95% in cash/short term reserves. In this case, we can safely guess that trading activity may not be as regular as a passively managed fund, as an active manager attempts to time the market. You may find mutual funds that have much higher cash reserves – perhaps 10% or even more. Granted, it is impossible to know the exact trading strategy of a mutual fund, and for good reason – if we knew for example, that a fund purchases shares every day at 2:30PM in order to realign with the S&P 500, then sellers of S&P components could up the prices at that time to exploit the mutual fund's trade strategy. Large traders are constantly trying to find ways to conceal their actual trading activity in order to avoid these exact problems. Finally, I feel obligated to note that it is important to keep in mind that trade frequency is linked to transactions costs – in general, the more frequently an investment manager (whether it be you or a mutual fund manager) executes trades, the more that manager will lose in transactions costs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0aa16b8a07ae8ff46fd91f3e373b6fd0", "text": "The point is to provide for yourself in retirement, so it makes sense that these withdrawals would be penalized. Tax deferred accounts are usually created for a specific cause. Using them outside of the scope of that cause triggers penalties. You mentioned 401(k) and IRA that have age limitations because they're geared towards retirement. In the US, here are other types, and if you intend to spend money in the related areas, they may be worth considering. Otherwise, you'll hit penalties as well. Examples: HSA - Health Savings Account allows saving pre-tax contributions and gains towards medical expenses. You must have a high deductible health plan to be eligible. Can be used as IRA once retired. 529 plans - allow saving pre-tax gains (and in some states pre-tax contributions) for education expenses for you or a beneficiary. If a beneficiary - contributions are considered a gift. There's a tax benefit in long term investing in a regular taxable brokerage accounts - long term capital gains are taxed at a preferable (lower) rate than short term or ordinary income. The difference may be significant. Long term = 1+ year holding. The condition here is holding an investment for more than a year, and there's no penalty for not satisfying it but there's a reward (lower rates) if you do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4d718f0c2b682fc282de53f9ebdaef6", "text": "\"If the person has prepared (\"\"put your affairs in order\"\") then they will have a will and an executor. And this executor will have a list of the life insurance policies and will contact the companies to arrange payouts to the beneficiaries. It's not really the beneficiary's job to do that. If the person hasn't made a list of their policies, but has a will and an executor, then the executor can try things like looking at recently paid bills (you're sending $100 a month to \"\"Friendly Life Insurance Company\"\"? Bet it's a life insurance policy) or paperwork that is in the person's home or their safety deposit boxes. Even if you don't have the key to those boxes, a copy of the will and the death certificate will get the box drilled out for you. If you don't know what bank they might have SD boxes at, again your paperwork will get the manager to find out for you if there is a box at that particular branch, so a day spent visiting branches can be fruitful. (Something I know from personal experience with someone whose affairs were nowhere near in order.) Generally you find out you're a beneficiary of a will because the executor tells you. I suppose it's possible that a person might name you beneficiary of their life insurance without telling you or anyone else, and without writing a will, but it's pretty unlikely. If you're worried, I suggest you encourage your parents, grandparents, and other likely namers of you to write up some paperwork and keep it somewhere family is likely to find it. (Not hidden inside a book on a bookcase or in the back of the wool cupboard.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "272e8dbf02ccb23db698f3ff3b8fde2b", "text": "\"Great question, and here is the answer. No. Shares in 401k plans are never registered to an individual while the money is held in the plan. That goes for stock or mutual funds. Technically your account is never \"\"yours\"\" until you request a distribution from the plan. Most people do not understand this, and it's not the easiest of concepts to understand or be willing to grasp.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6be831b52115cf6dcbf224d2b4ed272", "text": "Dividends from mutual funds reduce the share value the day they are distributed. Mutual funds do this at least once a year, or more times in the year if there are a lot of gains, to pass through taxable gains to individuals who may have lower tax rates or deferred tax accounts such as you. This is meaningful for investors who hold the mutual funds in taxable accounts, but immaterial for 401ks. Your account balance is not affected if you don't get the distribution before roll over.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a3383b6bcd50a726b8eb7a8de6983f5", "text": "401(k) contributions are pre-tax dollars, but at the cost of locking the money up. So you wouldn't have to pay taxes on it, but the funds wouldn't be available either.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
f9a7b1751420eff9036c5933689803b1	How to calculate how much house I can afford?	[ { "docid": "76cbac1d8c3e18b9fb441b9ae4daec38", "text": "There is no simple way to calculate how much house any given person can afford. In the answer keshlam gave, several handy rules of thumb are mentioned that are used as common screening devices to reject loans, but in every case further review is required to approve any loan. The 28% rule is the gold standard for estimating how much you can afford, but it is only an estimate; all the details (that you don't want to provide) are required to give you anything better than an estimate. In the spirit of JoeTaxpayer's answer I'm going to give you a number that you can multiply your gross income by for a good estimate, but my estimate is based on a 15 year mortgage. Assuming a 15 year mortgage with a 3% interest rate, it will cost $690.58 per $100,000 borrowed. So to take those numbers and wrap it up in a bow, you can multiply your income by 3.38 and have the amount of mortgage that most people can afford. If you have a down-payment saved add it to the number above for the total price of the home you can buy after closing costs are added in. Property taxes and insurance rates vary widely, and those are often rolled into the mortgage payment to be paid from an escrow account, banks may consider all of these factors in their calculators but they may not be transparent. If you can't afford to pay it in 15 years, you really can't afford it. Compare the same $100k loan: In 30 years at 4% you pay about $477/month with a total of about $72k in interest over the life of the loan. In 15 years at 3% you pay about $691/month but the total interest is only $24k, and you are out of the loan in half of the time. The equity earned in the first 5 years is also signficantly different with 28.5% for the 15 year loan vs. 9.5% on the 30 year loan. Without straying too far into general economics, 15 year loans would also have averted the mortgage crisis of 2008, because more people would have had enough equity that they wouldn't have walked out on their homes when there was a price correction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e43edb28f19cc9358a2f166661299374", "text": "$100K of mortgage debt at 4%, 30 years will result in a $477/mo mortgage. It would take about $23K in income to have 25% of the monthly income cover the mortgage. This means, that with no other large debts, a bank will lend you about 4X your income. If, instead of 25%, we decided that having 20% of income go to the mortgage, the ratio drops to just over 3X. In the end, it comes down to keshlam's advice regarding a budget. I think the question can't be answered as asked, given the fact that you offer no numbers. For the average person, credit card debt, student loans, and cars payments add up to enough to chip away at the amount the bank will lend you. Since (per one of the linked questions) the maximum debt service should be 36%, you start with that and subtract all current payments. If this doesn't suffice, let us know what, exactly you're looking for .", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5711d12602cfcbaf9d52c641416cb4d", "text": "\"Fundamentals: Then remember that you want to put 20% or more down in cash, to avoid PMI, and recalculate with thatmajor chunk taken out of your savings. Many banks offer calculators on their websites that can help you run these numbers and figure out how much house a given mortgage can pay for. Remember that the old advice that you should buy the largest house you can afford, or the newer advice about \"\"starter homes\"\", are both questionable in the current market. =========================== Added: If you're willing to settle for a rule-of-thumb first-approximation ballpark estimate: Maximum mortgage payment: Rule of 28. Your monthly mortgage payment should not exceed 28 percent of your gross monthly income (your income before taxes are taken out). Maximum housing cost: Rule of 32. Your total housing payments (including the mortgage, homeowner’s insurance, and private mortgage insurance [PMI], association fees, and property taxes) should not exceed 32 percent of your gross monthly income. Maximum Total Debt Service: Rule of 40. Your total debt payments, including your housing payment, your auto loan or student loan payments, and minimum credit card payments should not exceed 40 percent of your gross monthly income. As I said, many banks offer web-based tools that will run these numbers for you. These are rules that the lending industy uses for a quick initial screen of an application. They do not guarantee that you in particular can afford that large a loan, just that it isn't so bad that they won't even look at it. Note that this is all in terms of mortgage paymennts, which means it's also affected by what interest rate you can get, how long a mortgage you're willing to take, and how much you can afford to pull out of your savings. Also, as noted, if you can't put 20% down from savings the bank will hit you for PMI. Standard reminder: Unless you explect to live in the same place for five years or more, buying a house is questionable financially. There is nothing wrong with renting; depending on local housing stock it may be cheaper. Houses come with ongoung costs and hassles rental -- even renting a house -- doesn't. Buy a house only when it makes sense both financially and in terms of what you actually need to make your life pleasant. Do not buy a house only because you think it's an investment; real estate can be a profitable business, but thinking of a house as simultaneously both your home and an investment is a good way to get yourself into trouble.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "60d54be3b63010282dc4e0772eaea452", "text": "I would ignore the bank completely when they use gross income. Decide, based upon your current living situation, what your MAX limit on a monthly payment is. Then from that determine the size and cost of the house you can buy. My husband and I decided on a $2000 monthly payment max, but also agreed $1500 was more reasonable. When using those numbers in the calculators it is way less than when using gross income. When we used our gross pay the calculators all said we could afford double what we were looking for. Since they don't know what our take home pay is (after all the deductions including 401k, healthcare, etc), the estimates on gross income are way higher than what we can comfortably afford. Set a budget based on your current living situation and what you want your future to look like. Do you want to scrimp and coupon clip or would you rather live comfortably in a smaller home? Do the online calculators based on take home pay and on gross pay to get a sense of the range you could be looking at.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "608664a3ae76a4af65782c61dae82c6a", "text": "\"It's just a rule of thumb, and so it's done from gross to make it easy. If you make $3300 a month, and spent $1000 a month on rent, you're at the limit of what you can afford. It's not like if it's 30.0001% you're screwed but if it's 29.999% everything's fine. Some rents won't include things (wifi, cable, utilities) that others do. Some locations will require you to spend more on transportation. So the real \"\"ok\"\" range is quite wide. But if you're at 60% of gross on rent, you literally cannot make that work because after deductions, you won't have any money for food. If you're at 10% of gross on rent, you probably have a lot more money left over than most people.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "64576ad5c580bb9cc5bb4692aa83267e", "text": "If your goal is to have a 400K net worth, in 11 years, and you invest 2144 the entire time you will need a rate of return of at least 6.4%. This is assuming that you have zero net worth now and it does not consider your house. Obviously the house will be worth some amount, and the mortgage balance will go down. However, it cannot really be calculated with the details provided. It seems like your risk tolerance is low. You may want to head over to Bogleheads.org and look into their asset allocation model. They typically site about a 7% compounded growth rate which will more than meet your goals. They probably have information for European investors that map to the funds that we use here in the US. Keep in mind, during this time you will likely receive raises, if you start out assuming you will hit the 400-500k mark, and stick to the plan, you will likely blow that goal away. Also keep in mind the three legs to wealth building: giving some, spending some, and investing some. Your question is addressing the investing portion make sure you are also enjoying your money by spending some on yourself; and, others benefit from your prosperity. Giving to causes you deem worthy is a key component to wealth building that is often overlooked by those interested in investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b7c1624d7d04d8c11b7637127205547", "text": "\"When your dream car is not just 200 times your disposable income but in fact 200 times your whole monthly salary, then there is no way for you to afford it right now. Any attempt to finance through a loan would put you into a debt trap you won't ever dig yourself out. And if there are any car dealerships in your country which claim otherwise, run away fast. Jon Oliver from Last Week tonight made a video about business practices of car dealerships in the United States which sell cars on loans to people who can't afford them a while ago. As usual: When a deal seems too good to be true, it generally isn't true at all. After a few months, the victims customers usually end up with no car but lots of outstanding debt they pay off for years. So how do you tell if you can afford a car or not? A new car usually lives for about 10-20 years. So when you want to calculate the monthly cost of owning a new car, divide the price by 120. But that's just the price for buying the vehicle, not for actually driving it. Cars cost additional money each month for gas, repairs, insurance, taxes etc. (these costs depend a lot on your usage pattern and location, so I can not provide you with any numbers for that). If you have less disposable income per month (as in \"\"money you currently have left at the end of each month\"\") than monthly cost of purchase plus expected monthly running costs, you can not afford the car. Possible alternatives:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "415e726f50391132ed4c01460adb72a3", "text": "\"The formula you are looking for is pretty complicated. It's given here: http://itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda3661.htm You might prefer to let somebody else do the grunt work for you. This page will calculate the probability for you: http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/normal.aspx. In your case, you'd enter mean=.114, standard deviation=.132, and \"\"standard score\"\"= ... oh, you didn't say what you're paying on your debt. Let's say it's 6%, i.e. .06. Note that this page will give you the probability that the actual number will be less than or equal to the \"\"standard score\"\". Enter all that and click the magic button and the probability that the investment will produce less than 6% is ... .34124, or 34%. The handy rule of thumb is that the probability is about 68% that the actual number will be within 1 standard deviation of the mean, 95% that it will be within 2 standard deviations, and 99.7% that it will be within 3. Which isn't exactly what you want because you don't want \"\"within\"\" but \"\"less than\"\". But you could get that by just adding half the difference from 100% for each of the above, i.e. instead of 68-95-99.7 it would be 84-98-99.9. Oh, I missed that in a follow-up comment you say you are paying 4% on a mortgage which you are adjusting to 3% because of tax implications. Probability based on mean and SD you gave of getting less than 3% is 26%. I didn't read the article you cite. I assume the standard deviation given is for the rate of return for one year. If you stretch that over many years, the SD goes down, as many factors tend to even out. So while the probability that money in a given, say, mutual fund will grow by less than 3% in one year is fairly high -- the 25 - 35% we're talking here sounds plausible to me -- the probability that it will grow by an average of less than 3% over a period of 10 or 15 or 20 years is much less. Further Thought There is, of course, no provably-true formula for what makes a reasonable risk. Suppose I offered you an investment that had a 99% chance of showing a $5,000 profit and a 1% chance of a $495,000 loss. Would you take it? I wouldn't. Even though the chance of a loss is small, if it happened, I'd lose everything I have. Is it worth that risk for the modest potential profit? I'd say no. Of course to someone who has a billion dollars, this might be a very reasonable risk. If it fails, oh well, that could really cut in to what he can spend on lunch tomorrow.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fae978c812a104583716ba6b0d6ed86d", "text": "If you can't afford it don't buy it, the next perfect house is just around the corner. The more time you spend researching and looking at houses, the increased chance you will find the perfect house you can afford. Also, here in Australia, we (the banks as well) factor in an interest rate rise of 2% above current rates to see if repayments can still be afforded at this increased rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19cee018f7319046d2a12068ecb47663", "text": "There is a fundamental flaw in this statement: For example, a home bought cash $100,000 would have to be sold $242,726.247 30 years later just to make up with inflation, and that would be a 0% return. You forgot to deduct rent from your monthly carrying costs. That changes the calculations significantly. Your calculations are valid ONLY if you were to buy a house, and let it sit empty, which is unlikely. Either you are going to live in it, and save yourself $1000 a month in rent, or, you are going to rent it out to someone, and earn an income of $1000 a month. Either way, you're up $1000 a month and this needs to be included.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f95f6b5332818507075b52f5b406e60d", "text": "\"I'd encourage you to use rules of thumb and back-of-the-envelope. Here are some ideas that could be useful: The problem with any kind of detailed calculations is the number of unknowns: There are some really complex calculators out there, for example see ESPlanner (http://www.esplanner.com/) (caution: horrible user interface, but seemed to work), that will include all kinds of factors and run monte carlo and the whole thing. But in my opinion, it's just as good or better to say save at least 15% of income until you have 25x what you spend, or some other such rule of thumb. Here's my little blog post on savings and investing fwiw: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ Another note, there's sort of an \"\"ideology of how to live\"\" embedded in any retirement recommendation, and you might want to take the time to reflect on that and consciously choose. A book on this topic is Your Money or Your Life by Robin & Dominguez, http://www.amazon.com/Your-Money-Life-Transforming-Relationship/dp/0143115766 which is a sort of radical \"\"you should save everything possible to achieve financial independence as early as possible\"\" argument. I didn't go for their plan, but I think it's thought-provoking. A newer book that may be more appealing is called The Number and it's about your question exactly. It's more designed to get you thinking, while Your Money or Your Life has a particular answer in mind. Both have some math and some rules of thumb, though they aren't focused on that. A kind of general takeaway from these books might be: first think about your expenses. What are you trying to accomplish in life, how would you like to spend your time? And then ask how much money you absolutely need to accomplish that, and focus on accomplishing your goals, spending your time (as much as you can) on what you'd like to spend it on. I'm contrasting this with a generic recommendation to save enough to spend 80% of your income in retirement, which embeds this idea that you should spend as much as possible every year, before and after you retire. Lots of people do like that idea, but it's not a law of the universe or something, it's just one popular approach.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2fbc5dc05a3d6d3b2e81994ca5c3e12", "text": "I believe the following formula provides a reasonable approximation. You need to fill in the following variables: The average annual return you need on investing the 15% = (((MP5 - MP20) * 12) + (.0326 * .95 * PP / Y)) / (PP *.15) Example assuming an interest rate of 4% on a 100K home: If you invest the $15K you'll break even if you make a 9.86% return per year on average. Here's the breakdown per year using these example numbers: Note this does not consider taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a343aab16364936d534a6a452b22d73d", "text": "\"To buy a house, you need: At least 2 years tax returns (shows a steady income history; even if you're making 50k right now, you probably weren't when you were 16, and you might not be when you're 20; as they say, easy come, easy go). A 20% down payment. These days, that easily means writing a $50k check. You make $50k a year, great, but try this math: how long will it take you to save 100% of your annual salary? If you're saving 15% of your income (which puts you above many Americans), it'll still take 7 years. So no house for you for 7 years. While your attitude of \"\"I've got the money, so why not\"\" is certainly acceptable, the reality is that you don't have a lot of financial experience yet. There could easily be lean times ahead when you aren't making much (many people since 2008 have gone 18 months or more without any income at all). Save as much money as possible. Once you get $10k in a liquid savings account, speak to a CPA or an investment advisor at your local bank to set up tax deferred accounts such as an IRA. And don't wait to start investing; starting now versus waiting until you're 25 could mean a 100% difference in your net worth at any given time (that's not just a random number, either; an additional 7 years compounding time could literally mean another doubling of your worth).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8136e0b36283542987257724559274e", "text": "\"The standard interpretation of \"\"can I afford to retire\"\" is \"\"can I live on just the income from my savings, never touching the principal.\"\" To estimate that, you need to make reasonable guesses about the return you expect, the rate of inflation, your real costs -- remember to allow for medical emergencies, major house repairs, and the like when determining you average needs, not to mention taxes if this isn't all tax-sheltered! -- and then build in a safety factor. You said liquid assets, and that's correct; you don't want to be forced into a reverse mortgage by anything short of a disaster. An old rule of thumb was that -- properly invested -- you could expect about 4% real return after subtracting inflation. That may or may not still be correct, but it makes an easy starting point. If we take your number of $50k/year (today's dollars) and assume you've included all the tax and contingency amounts, that means your nest egg needs to be 50k/.04, or $1,250,000. (I'm figuring I need at least $1.8M liquid assets to retire.) The $1.5M you gave would, under this set of assumptions, allow drawing up to $60k/year, which gives you some hope that your holdings would mot just maintain themselves but grow, giving you additional buffer against emergencies later. Having said that: some folks have suggested that, given what the market is currently doing, it might be wiser to assume smaller average returns. Or you may make different assumptions about inflation, or want a larger emergency buffer. That's all judgement calls, based on your best guesses about the economy in general and your investments in particular. A good financial advisor (not a broker) will have access to better tools for exploring this, using techniques like monte-carlo simulation to try to estimate both best and worst cases, and can thus give you a somewhat more reliable answer than this rule-of-thumb approach. But that's still probabilities, not promises. Another way to test it: Find out how much an insurance company would want as the price of an open-ended inflation-adjusted $50k-a-year annuity. Making these estimates is their business; if they can't make a good guess, nobody can. Admittedly they're also factoring the odds of your dying early into the mix, but on the other hand they're also planning on making a profit from the deal, so their number might be a reasonable one for \"\"self-insuring\"\" too. Or might not. Or you might decide that it's worth buying an annuity for part or all of this, paying them to absorb the risk. In the end, \"\"ya pays yer money and takes yer cherce.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b906cdacb29255d729eb9ce051426cc4", "text": "\"Consider property taxes (school, municipal, county, etc.) summing to 10% of the property value. So each year, another .02N is removed. Assume the property value rises with inflation. Allow for a 5% after inflation return on a 70/30 stock bond mix for N. After inflation return. Let's assume a 20% rate. And let's bump the .05N after inflation to .07N before inflation. Inflation is still taxable. Result Drop in value of investment funds due to purchase. Return after inflation. After-inflation return minus property taxes. Taxes are on the return including inflation, so we'll assume .06N and a 20% rate (may be lower than that, but better safe than sorry). Amount left. If no property, you would have .036N to live on after taxes. But with the property, that drops to .008N. Given the constraints of the problem, .008N could be anywhere from $8k to $80k. So if we ignore housing, can you live on $8k a year? If so, then no problem. If not, then you need to constrain N more or make do with less house. On the bright side, you don't have to pay rent out of the .008N. You still need housing out of the .036N without the house. These formulas should be considered examples. I don't know how much your property taxes might be. Nor do I know how much you'll pay in taxes. Heck, I don't know that you'll average a 5% return after inflation. You may have to put some of the money into cash equivalents with negligible return. But this should allow you to research more what your situation really is. If we set returns to 3.5% after inflation and 2.4% after inflation and taxes, that changes the numbers slightly but importantly. The \"\"no house\"\" number becomes .024N. The \"\"with house\"\" number becomes So that's $24,000 (which needs to include rent) versus -$800 (no rent needed). There is not enough money in that plan to have any remainder to live on in the \"\"with house\"\" option. Given the constraints for N and these assumptions about returns, you would be $800 to $8000 short every year. This continues to assume that property taxes are 10% of the property value annually. Lower property taxes would of course make this better. Higher property taxes would be even less feasible. When comparing to people with homes, remember the option of selling the home. If you sell your .2N home for .2N and buy a .08N condo instead, that's not just .12N more that is invested. You'll also have less tied up with property taxes. It's a lot easier to live on $20k than $8k. Or do a reverse mortgage where the lender pays the property taxes. You'll get some more savings up front, have a place to live while you're alive, and save money annually. There are options with a house that you don't have without one.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc667cc46903d9bf2c8fd48ffd853d9e", "text": "\"I'll start by focussing on the numbers. I highly recommend you get comfortable with spreadsheets to do these calculations on your own. I assume a $200K loan, the mortgage for a $250K house. Scale this up or down as appropriate. For the rate, I used the current US average for the 30 and 15 year fixed loans. You can see 2 things. First, even with that lower rate to go 15 years, the payment required is 51% higher than with the 30. I'll get back to that. Second, to pay the 30 at 15 years, you'd need an extra $73. Because now you are paying at a 15 year pace, but with a 30 year rate. This is $876/yr to keep that flexibility. These are the numbers. There are 2 camps in viewing the longer term debt. There are those who view debt as evil, the $900/mo payment would keep them up at night until it's gone, and they would prefer to have zero debt regardless of the lifestyle choices they'd need to make or the alternative uses of that money. To them, it's not your house as long as you have a mortgage. (But they're ok with the local tax assessor having a statutory lien and his hand out every quarter.) The flip side are those who will say this is the cheapest money you'll ever see, and you should have as large a mortgage as you can, for as long as you can. Treat the interest like rent, and invest your money. My own view is more in the middle. Look at your situation. I'd prioritize In my opinion, it makes little sense to focus on the mortgage unless and until the first 5 items above are in place. The extra $459 to go to 15? If it's not stealing from those other items or making your cash flow tight, go for it. Keep one subtle point in mind, risk is like matter and energy, it's not created or destroyed but just moved around. Those who offer the cliche \"\"debt creates risk\"\" are correct, but the risk is not yours, it's the lender's. Looking at your own finances, liquidity is important. You can take the 15 year mortgage, and 10 years in, lose your job. The bank still wants its payments every month. Even if you had no mortgage, the tax collector is still there. To keep your risk low, you want a safety net that will cover you between jobs, illness, new babies being born, etc. I've gone head to head with people insisting on prioritizing the mortgage payoff ahead of the matched 401(k) deposit. Funny, they'd prefer to owe $75K less, while that $75K could have been deposited pretax (so $100K, for those in the 25% bracket) and matched, to $200K. Don't make that mistake.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88e9410a5b8cf7154bfd669250ea313e", "text": "\"Whenever I'm looking at whether I can afford a new fixed monthly cost I go over my account statement for the last three months (or last three \"\"normal\"\" months in the event that there has been something unusual recently) and list the items into four columns on an Excel sheet - Fixed Essentials - costs that happen every month and that have to happen, stuff like rent, utility bills, insurance, any loans or credit cards etc Fixed Niceties - costs that happen every month but that I could cut if I needed to, stuff like Netflix, Spotify etc Variable Essentials - costs that I incur on an adhoc basis but are essential, I'm talking things like food, fuel etc Variable Niceties - costs that I incur on an adhoc basis but could be cut if required, things like buying DVDs or games etc I sum up the \"\"Essentials\"\" columns and divide by three to get a rough monthly average. This is what I have to spend so I subtract this from my monthly income which tells me what I really have available to \"\"spend\"\" in any given month. Performing the same \"\"sum and divide by three\"\" operation on the niceties and subtracting that from my \"\"available to spend\"\" figure tells me what I have left on in an average month - if this is greater than the new monthly cost I'm considering (allowing for some reasonable buffer as well - you don't want to be running to zero each month!) then I can afford the new cost and then I just have to weigh up whether I think it's worth it or whether I'd rather use that for something else. If it's not sufficient and I really want/need whatever the new cost is then I can start looking at the fixed and variable niceties to see if I can make savings there. If after trimming the niceties where I can I still can't afford it but still really want/need it then I'll start looking at the Essentials to see if there are ways to reduce them through switching utility supplier or changing my shopping/eating habits etc.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a82d6bb88b2c6a69e9ca89ed9c8692a7", "text": "\"Generally speaking, so-called \"\"hard assets\"\" (namely gold or foreign currency), durable goods, or property that produces income is valuable in a situation where a nation's money supply is threatened. Gold is the universal hard asset. If you have access to a decent market, you can buy gold as bullion, coins and jewelry. Small amounts are valuable and easy to conceal. The problem with gold is that it is often marked up alot... I'm not sure how practical it is in a poor developing nation. A substitute would be a \"\"harder\"\" currency. The best choice depends on where you live. Candidates would be the US Dollar, Euro, Australian Dollar, Yen, etc. The right choice depends on you, the law in your jurisdiction, your means and other factors.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
6832d8c4426836df6ec3b29bf7ee418b	How to get into real estate with a limited budget	[ { "docid": "2c733ed11fa81897066eedb0e3e07ccf", "text": "You are neglecting a few very important things around real estate transactions in Belgium So in the end a 300K building may cost you more than 340K, let's take some unexpected costs into account and use 350K for remainder of calculation. Even worse if it's newly built (which I doubt) the first percentage is 21% (VAT) instead of 10%. All these costs can be checked on the useful site www.hoeveelkostmijnhuis.be Now, aside from that most banks will and actually have to demand you pay part of all this yourself. So you can't do 560K (or 570K now). Mostly banks will only finance up to about 90% of the value of the building, so 90% of 300K, which is 270K (554K), the other 80K (516K) you have to pay yourselves. But it could be the bank goes as low as 80%. Another part to complicate the loan is how much you can pay a month. Since the mortgage crisis they're very strict on this. There are lots of banks that will not allow you to make monthly payments of more than 33% of your monthly income when you are going to live there. This is a nuisance even when buying one house, you want to buy 2. Odds seem low they'll accept high monthly payments because you either need an additional loan or need to pay rent, so don't count on a 5y deal. Now this is all based on a single loan, it will probably be a bit different with multiple loans. However, it is unlikely any bank will accept this, even if all loans are with the same bank. You need to consider the basics of a real-estate loan: A bank trusts you can pay it off and if not they can seize the real-estate hoping to regain their initial investment. It's very hard to seize a complete asset if only one out of 5 loan-takers defected. You could maybe do this with another less restrictive/higher risk type of loan but rates will be a lot higher (think 5-6% instead of 1.5%). And don't underestimate the running costs: for that price and 5 rooms in that city you're likely looking at an older building. Expect lots of cost for maintenance and keeping the building according to code. Also expect costs for repairs (you rent to students...). You'll also have to pay quite a bit of money on insurances and of course on real estate taxes (which are average in Ghent). Also factor in that currently there is not a housing shortage for Ghent students so you might not always have a guaranteed occupation. Also take into account responsibility: if a fire breaks out or the house collapses or a gas leak occurs, you might be sued. It doesn't matter if you're at fault, it's costly and a big nuisance. Simply because you didn't think of any of this: don't do this. It's better to invest in real estate funds. But if you still think you can do better then all the landlords Ghent is riddled with, don't do it as a personal investment. Create a BVBA, put some investment in here (like 10-20K each), approach a bank with a serious business plan to get the rest of the money as a loan (towards a single entity - your BVBA) and get things going. When the money comes in you can either give yourselves a salary or pay out profits on the shares. You may be confused about how rich you can become because we as a nation tend to overestimate the profitability of real estate. It's really not that much better than other investments (otherwise everybody would only invest in real estate funds). There are a few things that skew our vision however:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a121c4f397ec5791d0fcf6b3cbdeb2e", "text": "\"One way to \"\"get into the real estate market\"\" is to invest your money in a fund which has its value tied to real estate. For example, a Real Estate Investment Trust. This fund would fluctuate largely inline with the property values in the area(s) where the fund puts its money. This would have a few (significant) changes from 'traditional' real estate investing, including:\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "39d5031d5986136c4c29598f88e3bb45", "text": "After a 6% commission to sell, you have $80K in equity. 20% down on a $400K house. 5% down will likely cost you PMI, and I don't know that you'll ever see a 3.14% rate. The realtor may very well have knowledge of the cost to finish a basement, but I don't ask my doctor for tax advice, and I'd not ask a realtor for construction advice. My basement flooring was $20/sqft for a gym quality rubber tile. You can also get $2/sqft carpet. I'd take the $15K number with a grain of salt until I got real bids. What's there now? Poured cement? Is there clearance to put in a proper subfloor and still have adequate ceiling height? There are a lot of details that you need to research to do it right. That said, the move to a bigger house impacts your ability to save to the extent that you are taking too large a risk. The basement finish, even if $20K, is just a bit more than the commission on your home. I like the idea of sticking it out. Once the nanny is gone, enjoy the extra income, and use the money to boost your savings and emergency funds. As I read your question again, I suggest you cut the college funding in favor of the emergency fund. What good is a funded college account if you have no funds to sustain you through a period of unemployment? There's a lot to be gained in holding tight for these 3 years. It seems that what's too small for 5 would be spacious once the nanny is gone and the basement added. The cost of a too-big house is enormous over the long run. It's going to rise in value with inflation, but no more, and has all the added costs that you've mentioned. On a personal note, I'm in a large house, with a dining room that's used 2 or 3 times a year, and a living room (different from family room) that is my dog's refuge, but we never go in there. In hindsight, a house 2/3 the size would have been ideal. Finishing the basement doesn't just buy you time, it eliminates the need for the larger house.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2a5a0971e352bc083b87a6b8757baa0", "text": "A lot of people do this. For example, in my area nice townhouses go for about $400K, so if you have $80,000 you can buy one and rent it. Here are the typical numbers: So you would make $350 per month or $4,200 per year on $80,000 in capital or about 5% profit. What can go wrong: (1) The property does not rent and sits vacant. You must come up with $2100 in mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance every month without fail or default. (2) Unexpected expenses. A new furnaces costs over $5,000. A new roof costs $7,000. A new appliance costs $600 to $2000 depending on how upscale your property is. I just had a toilet fixed for a leaky plunger. It cost me $200. As you can see maintenance expenses can quickly get a lot higher than the $50 shown above... and not only that, if you fix things as cheaply as possible (as most landlords do), not only does that decrease the rentability of the property, but it causes stuff to break sooner. (3) Deadbeats. Some people will rent your property and then not pay you. Now you have a property with no income, you are spending $2100 per month to pay for it, AND you are facing steep attorney fees to get the deadbeats evicted. They can fight you in court for months. (4) Damage, wear and tear. Whenever a tenant turns over there is always a lot of broken or worn stuff that has to be fixed. Holes in the wall need to be patched. Busted locks, broken windows, non-working toilets, stains on the carpet, stuck doors, ripped screens, leaky showers, broken tiles, painting exterior trim, painting walls, painting fences, etc. You can spend thousands every time a tenant changes. Other caveats: Banks are much more strict about loaning to non home owners. You usually have to have reserve income. So, if you have little or no income, or you are stretched already, it will be difficult to get commercial loans. For example, lets say your take-home pay is $7,000 and you have no mortgage at all (you rent), then it is fine, the bank will loan you the money. But lets say you only have $5,000 in take home pay and you have an $1,800 mortgage on your own home. In that case it is very unlikely a bank will allow you to assume a 2nd mortgage on a rental property. The more you try to borrow, the more reserve income the bank will require. This tends to set a limit on how much you can leverage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1c24e36f701c54d0d64e560d2838b03", "text": "\"There's a hellova lot to be said for investing in real estate (simple residential real estate), even though it's grandma's advice. The two critical elements are 1) it's the only realistic way for a civilian to get leverage. this is why it almost always blows away \"\"tinkering in the stock markets\"\" in the 10-year frame. 2) but perhaps more importantly - it's a really \"\"enforced\"\" saving plan. you just have to pay it off every month. There are other huge advantages like, it's the best possible equity for a civilian, so you can get loans in the future to start your dotcom, etc. Try to buy yourself a very modest little flat (perhaps to rent out?) or even something like a garage or storeroom. Real estate can crash, but it's very unlikely; it only happens in end of the world situations where it won't matter anyway. When real estate drops say 30% everyone yells about that being a \"\"crash\"\" - I've never, ever owned a stock that hasn't had 30% down times. Food for thought!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57d4041ab67140121d0bcb5619a127bf", "text": "By process, I assume you mean the financial process. Financially, this doesn't look any different to me than buying an empty lot to build a rental unit, with the added expense (potentially significant) of doing the tear-down. Given your lack of experience and capital, I would be very hesitant to jump in like this. You are going to have to spend a lot of time managing the build process, or pay someone else to do it for you. And expect everything to take twice as long and cost twice as much as you expect. If you really want to get into the landlord business, I would suggest starting with a structurally sound building that needs some renovation work and start there. One you have that up and running, you can use the cash flow and equity to finance something more aggressive. If you still think you want to do this, the first thing to do is figure out if the financials make sense. How much will it cost to do the tear-down and rebuild, plus the typical rental expenses:ongoing maintenance, taxes, insurance, vacancy rates and compare that to the expected rental rates in the area to see how long it will take to 1) achieve a positive cash flow, and 2) break even. There are a lot of good questions on this site related to rentals that go into much more detail about how to approach this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1d1d789b00e121963c56aed1a1c0e25", "text": "When it comes to Real Estate, there are 2 school of thoughts: 1. People who swear that it's the one and best way to make lots of money with RE: flipping, fixer upper, leveraging, whatnot 2. People who don't believe people in #1 above. I belong to #2 with some addendum(s): * you can make a lot of money in Real Estate by becoming a RE Broker (but it's not for everyone) even better if you own a RE agency employing brokers (but it's not for everyone); it's like collecting tolls on the highway, no matter what, you collect a fee. * every portfolio should have a portion allocated to Real Estate, either directly or by means of a REIT. Alas most people who own a home are over-allocated in Real Estate * in some, and very few, parts of the USA one can make a lot of money by buying and managing directly small apartment complex to rent out; these are remote small urban settings, low prices for both buying and renting, but the ratio of price/rent is favorable. Run your own numbers and see if it's profitable enough *for you*.", "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": "" }, { "docid": "cc9a9a5e61302b0a761eb8511f45eea6", "text": "Find local small business or real estate networking events, ask to attend as a guest and introduce yourself to everyone. Ask about them first, ask a follow up question or two, and then tell them you help achieve a result of some kind. (Did you know houses sell x times quicker with Ariel footage?). Check meetup.com to get started.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4616153314fb15cd204383d13153425b", "text": "To littleadv's comment, walking away may be the best option. If your numbers are as described, any ideas we could offer on earning or raising cash would be best to use as money to live on, not to pay down a loan on an under water house. the double wide you propose to buy will like cost less than your HELOC balance. I'd see if you could buy that home first, renting the house, and only default after you're in the new place.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25165446ba66ac50fff2c85cdaff029d", "text": "Ben already covered most of this in his answer, but I want to emphasize the most important part of getting a loan with limited credit history. Go into a credit union or community bank and talk to the loan officer there in person. Ask for recommendations on how much they would lend based on your income to get the best interest rate that they can offer. Sometimes shortening the length of the loan will get you a lower rate, sometimes it won't. (In any case, make sure you can pay it off quickly no matter the term that you sign with.) Each bank may have different policies. Talk to at least two of them even if the first one offers you terms that you like. Talking to a loan officer is valuable life experience, and if you discuss your goals directly with them, then they will be able to give you feedback about whether they think a small loan is worth their time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b72a32d49197c4b177d5f0f2866c7f5", "text": "What is your focus in your finance coursework? Investments? Wealth management? Corporate finance? Find something that compliments your desired path. Finance in-and-of itself is one of the most marketable business degrees available (if not THE most), and anything to show you're well-rounded will help get a job. Don't add real estate as a minor. Most school teach across a $eme$ter what you can learn in a month or two when studying to get your RE license. So, pay thousands of tuition dollar$, or pay the several hundred bucks for your test/course materials. Experience: finance degree, now a commercial real estate broker", "title": "" }, { "docid": "795d24a614da96627f16836ace377f4d", "text": "From your profile, I see you are in Israel. The process is probably different from in the US. In the US, an agent is usually happy to work with a buyer. After all, When I list a house, there are potential buyers all over my state and elsewhere. The best thing you can do is first, have your financing in order. A bank will be able to tell you how much you can afford and how much they'll lend you. If you approach an agent and tell them the exact range of price, area you're interested in, and other specifics such as number of bedrooms, etc, that agent should be happy to find houses to fit your request. Obviously, an agent listing million dollar homes, busy with those all day, is not going to want to handle a buyer looking for a $200K home. But in the end, the real estate agents aren't all listing high end, and someone is moving the smaller houses as well. Often, an office will have a call center where agents who are less busy will answer the phone hoping to get a client that will bring a sale. That's one way to go. The other is word of mouth. Just ask others who you work with or socialize with if they know a good agent. In my case, I'd be happy to get such a referral.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88d77a3dd754aefdfb72b4a009b8c5e4", "text": "\"Started to post this as a comment, but I think it's actually a legitimate answer: Running a rental property is neither speculation nor investment, but a business, just as if you were renting cars or tools or anything else. That puts it in an entirely different category. The property may gain or lose value, but you don't know which or how much until you're ready to terminate the business... so, like your own house, it really isn't a liquid asset; it's closer to being inventory. Meanwhile, like inventory, you need to \"\"restock\"\" it on a fairly regular basis by maintaining it, finding tenants, and so on. And how much it returns depends strongly on how much effort you put into it in terms of selecting the right location and product in the first place, and in how you market yourself against all the other businesses offering near-equivalent product, and how you differentiate the product, and so on. I think approaching it from that angle -- deciding whether you really want to be a business owner or keep all your money in more abstract investments, then deciding what businesses are interesting to you and running the numbers to see what they're likely to return as income, THEN making up your mind whether real estate is the winner from that group -- is likely to produce better decisions. Among other things, it helps you remember to focus on ALL the costs of the business. When doing the math, don't forget that income from the business is taxed at income rates, not investment rates. And don't forget that you're making a bet on the future of that neighborhood as well as the future of that house; changes in demographics or housing stock or business climate could all affect what rents you can charge as well as the value of the property, and not necessarily in the same direction. It may absolutely be the right place to put some of your money. It may not. Explore all the possible outcomes before making the bet, and decide whether you're willing to do the work needed to influence which ones are more likely.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d003b07bc1b303441f2b89575c367b78", "text": "\"It all depends on what your financial goals are when you are ready. You sound like you could be ready today if you wanted to be. The steps that I would take are. Create a monthly draft budget. This doesn't have to be something hard and fast, just a gague of what your living expenses would be compared to your after-tax salary. Make sure there would be room for \"\"fun\"\" money. a. Consider adding a new car fund line item to this budget, and deducting that amount from your paycheck starting now so that you can save for the car. Based on the most realistic estimate that you can make, you'll get a good idea if you want to spend the money it takes to move out alone now or later. You'll also see the price for various levels of rentals in your area (renting a single family home, townhouse, condo, apartment, living in a rented room or basement, sharing a place with friends, etc) and know some of the costs of setting up for yourself. Since you're looking at the real estate market, you may want to do a cost comparison of renting versus buying. I've found the New York Times interactive graphic on this is excellent. If you are looking to buy, make sure to research the hidden costs of buying thoroughly before taking this step. To answer your last question, if you have the cash you should consider upping your 401K investment (or using Roth or regular IRA). Make sure you are investing enough to get your full employer match, if your employer offers one, and then get as close as you can to government maximum contribution limits. Compound interest is a big deal when you are 23.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34b8238b9b341a369a39f1f688b488d3", "text": "\"If you don't plan to stay in it, it is never good money to try to buy a house in a bad neighborhood. The question you want to be asking is probably \"\"Is it smart to buy this piece of real estate,\"\" not \"\"is it smart to buy a house in college.\"\" In this case, it's probably not smart because you won't actually have revenue from the property (you'll break even compared to renting), you may face some expensive repairs (water heater or other appliances going out, etc.), and you may find that your startup costs in things like lawn mowers, etc. is not worth the hassle (or cost of lawn service if you have someone else do it.) On top of that, can you get a loan with your proven income and assets? Don't forget to factor the cost of selling the house again into it -- and how long can you leave it on the market after you move out if it doesn't sell without going bankrupt yourself? In my opinion, it'd be a giant albatross around your neck.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "003e10251585cd7b5cdf6042ae837ae0", "text": "Step 1: Get a part-time job in sales. Perhaps selling appliances at Sears. Step 2: If you are great at that, then look into becoming a stock broker/investment adviser in Boise ... which is a sales job. Step 3: If you are great at that, then you might be able to become a portfolio manager, perhaps a hedge fund manager for the clients you collected as a stock broker/ investment consultant. That seems to be the steps I have seen from reading the bios of a number of professional investors. The other method seems to be an MBA from a top 10 business school.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
f3a06c25d077f0897aa68d563e1024ac	Why do P/E ratios for a particular industry tend to cluster around particular values?	[ { "docid": "7e16bf72b7e84e7aac3a2eb57a804450", "text": "\"This falls under value investing, and value investing has only recently picked up study by academia, say, at the turn of the millennium; therefore, there isn't much rigorous on value investing in academia, but it has started. However, we can describe valuations: In short, valuations are randomly distributed in a log-Variance Gamma fashion with some reason & nonsense mixed in. You can check for yourself on finviz. You can basically download the entire US market and then some, with many financial and technical characteristics all in one spreadsheet. Re Fisher: He was tied for the best monetary economist of the 20th century and created the best price index, but as for stocks, he said this famous quote 12 days before the 1929 crash: \"\"Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau. I do not feel there will be soon if ever a 50 or 60 point break from present levels, such as (bears) have predicted. I expect to see the stock market a good deal higher within a few months.\"\" - Irving Fisher, Ph.D. in economics, Oct. 17, 1929 EDIT Value investing has almost always been ignored by academia. Irving Fisher and other proponents of it before it was codified by Graham in the mid 20th century certainly didn't help with comments like the above. It was almost always believed that it was a sucker's game, \"\"the bigger sucker\"\" game to be more precise because value investors get destroyed during recession/collapses. So even though a recessionless economy would allow value investors and everyone never to suffer spontaneous collapses, value investors are looked down upon by academia because of the inevitable yet nearly always transitory collapse. This expresses that sentiment perfectly. It didn't help that Benjamin Graham didn't care about money so never reached the heights of Buffett who frequently alternates with Bill Gates as the richest person on the planet. Buffett has given much credibility, and academia finally caught on around in 2000 or so after he was proven right about a pending tech collapse that nearly no one believed would happen; at least, that's where I begin seeing papers being published delving into value concepts. If one looks harder, academia's even taken the torch and discovered some very useful tools. Yes, investment firms and fellow value investors kept up the information publishing, but they are not academics. The days of professors throwing darts at the stock listings and beating active managers despite most active managers losing to the market anyways really held back this side of academia until Buffett entered the fray and embarrassed them all with his club's performance, culminating in the Superinvestors article which is still relatively ignored. Before that, it was the obsession with beta, the ratio of a security's variance to its covariance to the market, a now abandoned theory because it has been utterly discredited; the popularizers of beta have humorously embraced the P/B, not giving the satisfaction to Buffet by spurning the P/E. Tiny technology firms receive ridiculous valuations because a long-surviving tiny tech firm usually doesn't stay small for long thus will grow at huge rates. This is why any solvent and many insolvent tech firms receive large valuations: risk-adjusted, they should pay out huge on average. Still, most fall by the wayside dead, and those 100 P/S valuations quickly crumble. Valuations are influenced by growth. One can see this expressed more easily with a growing perpetuity: Where P is price, i is income, r is the rate of return, and g is the growth rate of i. Rearranging, r looks like: Here, one can see that a higher P relative to i will dull the expected rate of return while a higher g will boost it. It's fun for us value investor/traders to say that the market is totally inefficient. That's a stretch. It's not perfectly inefficient, but it's efficient. Valuations are clustered very tightly around the median, but there are mistakes that even us little guys can exploit and teach the smart money a lesson or two. If one were to look at a distribution of rs, one'd see that they're even more tightly packed. So while it looks like P/Es are all over the place industry to industry, rs are much more well clustered. Tech, finance, and discretionaries frequently have higher growth rates so higher P/Es yet average rs. Utilities and non-discretionaries have lower growth rates so lower P/Es yet average rs.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "0f3adf4b5a6d10cd96ff4f1b65cca73f", "text": "P/E can use various estimates in its calculation as one could speculate about future P/E rations and thus could determine a future valuation if one is prepared to say that the P/E should be X for a company. Course it is worth noting that if a company isn't generating positive earnings this can be a less than useful tool, e.g. Amazon in the 1990s lost money every quarter and thus would have had a N/A for a P/E. PEG would use P/E and earnings growth as a way to see if a stock is overvalued based on projected growth. If a company has a high P/E but has a high earnings growth rate then that may prove to be worth it. By using the growth rate, one can get a better idea of the context to that figure. Another way to gain context on P/E would be to look at industry averages that would often be found on Yahoo! Finance and other sites.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3beff2f050d4a1efb3f16ba20425ebde", "text": "Points are the units of measurement of the index. They're calculated based on the index formula, which in turn based on the prices of the underlying stocks. Movement in points is not really interesting, the movement as a percentage of the base price (daily opening, usually) is more interesting since it gives more context.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5fd2fc3ea79e1c5c3779c8ed00a42f8", "text": "\"Yes, there are non-stock analogs to the Price/Earnings ratio. Rental properties have a Price/Rent ratio, which is analogous to stocks' Price/Revenue ratio. With rental properties, the \"\"Cap Rate\"\" is analogous to the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio of a company that has no long-term debt. Bonds have an interest rate. Depending on whether you care about current dividends or potential income, the interest rate is analogous to either a stock's dividend rate or the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d9f02719dc4bd5d2fe38df5e59c278b", "text": "In highly developed and competitive industries companies tread a continuous and very fine line between maximising shareholder profits by keeping prices up while making products as cheaply as possible, vs competitors lowering prices when they work out a way to make equivalents cheaper. In the short run you will quite often see companies hold onto large portions of efficiency savings (particularly if they make a major breakthrough in a specific manufacturing process etc) by holding old prices up, but in the long run competition pretty quickly lowers prices as the companies trying to keep high margins and prices get ruthlessly undercut by smaller competitors happy to make a bit less.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34bbcb90aefee6b1b90f85ab10a1b6d5", "text": "While there are many very good and detailed answers to this question, there is one key term from finance that none of them used and that is Net Present Value. While this is a term generally associate with debt and assets, it also can be applied to the valuation models of a company's share price. The price of the share of a stock in a company represents the Net Present Value of all future cash flows of that company divided by the total number of shares outstanding. This is also the reason behind why the payment of dividends will cause the share price valuation to be less than its valuation if the company did not pay a dividend. That/those future outflows are factored into the NPV calculation, actually performed or implied, and results in a current valuation that is less than it would have been had that capital been retained. Unlike with a fixed income security, or even a variable rate debenture, it is difficult to predict what the future cashflows of a company will be, and how investors chose to value things as intangible as brand recognition, market penetration, and executive competence are often far more subjective that using 10 year libor rates to plug into a present value calculation for a floating rate bond of similar tenor. Opinion enters into the calculus and this is why you end up having a greater degree of price variance than you see in the fixed income markets. You have had situations where companies such as Amazon.com, Google, and Facebook had highly valued shares before they they ever posted a profit. That is because the analysis of the value of their intellectual properties or business models would, overtime provide a future value that was equivalent to their stock price at that time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea277e4ed379486c09e3bbc1d31fd249", "text": "Your analysis is correct. The income statement from Google states that LinkedIn made $3.4 million in 2010 - the same number you backed into by using the P/E ratio. As you point out, the company seems overvalued compared to other mature companies. There are companies, however, that posts losses and still trade on exchanges for years. How should these companies be valued? As other posters have pointed out there are many different ways to value a company. Some investors may be speculating on substantial growth. Others may be speculating on IPO hype. Amazon did not make a profit until 2003. Its stock had been around for years before that and even split many times. If you bought the stock in 1998 and still have it you would be doing quite well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6bf6a14a1513d13c389d1123443d40fb", "text": "\"P/E is a useful tool for evaluating the price of a company, but only in comparison to companies in similar industries, especially for industries with well-defined cash flows. For example, if you compared Consolidated Edison (NYSE:ED) to Hawaiian Electric (NYSE:HE), you'll notice that HE has a significantly higher PE. All things being equal, that means that HE may be overpriced in comparison to ED. As an investor, you need to investigate further to determine whether that is true. HE is unique in that it is a utility that also operates a bank, so you need to take that into account. You need to think about what your goal is when you say that you are a \"\"conservative\"\" investor and look at the big picture, not a magic number. If conservative to you means capital preservation, you need to ensure that you are in investments that are diversified and appropriate. Given the interest rate situation in 2011, that means your bonds holding need to be in short-duration, high-quality securities. Equities should be weighted towards large cap, with smaller holdings of international or commodity-associated funds. Consider a target-date or blended fund like one of the Vanguard \"\"Life Strategy\"\" funds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8bee78018b81af59a0e3e08da5d804a6", "text": "The article is talking about relative cost. You could use the cash Schiller P/E ratio as a proxy. That's unit of price per unit of earning. The answer to your question is one time in history, during the 2000 dot com bubble. It's higher than 2008 before the downturn. You are paying more for the same earnings. That has nothing to do with the size of the economy and everything to do with interest rates being too low for too long", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c0181979f92ee71a72352910947e00d", "text": "\"The \"\"random walk\"\" that you describe reflects the nature of the information flow about the value of a stock. If the flow is just little bits of relatively unimportant information (including information about the broader market and the investor pool), you will get small and seemingly random moves, which may look like a meander. If an important bit of information comes out, like a merger, you will see a large and immediate move, which may not look as random. However, the idea that small moves are a meander of search and discovery and large moves are immediate agreements is incorrect. Both small moves and large moves are instantaneous agreements about the value of a stock in the form of a demand/supply equilibrium. As a rule, neither is predictable from the point of view of a single investor, but they are not actually random. They look different from each other only because of the size of the movement, not because of an underlying difference in how the consensus price is reached.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b903171e5ccf5976a0e9468d1cb7e160", "text": "\"For any isolated equity market, its beta will less resemble the betas of all other interconnected equity markets. For interconnected markets, beta is not well-dispersed, especially during a world expansion because richer nations have more wealth thus a dominant influence over smaller nations' equity markets causing a convergence. If the world is in recession, or a country is in recession, all betas or the recessing country's beta will start to diverge, respectively. If the world's economies diverge, their equity markets' betas will too. If a country is having financial difficulty, its beta too will diverge. Beta is correlation against a ratio of variance, so variance or \"\"volatiliy\"\" is only half of that equation. Correlation or \"\"direction\"\" is the other half. The ratio of variance will give the magnitude of beta, and correlation will give the sign or \"\"direction\"\". Therefore, interconnected emerging equity markets should have higher beta magnitudes because they are more variant but should generally over time have signs that more closely resemble the rest. A disconnected emerging equity market will improbably have average betas both by magnitude and direction.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2ec640fa7f7a0b70da50dfc98da4ee5", "text": "\"To add on to the other answers, in asking why funds have different price points one might be asking why stocks aren't normalized so a unit price of $196 in one stock can be directly compared to the same price in another stock. While this might not make sense with AAPL vs. GOOG (it would be like comparing apples to oranges, pun intended, not to mention how would two different companies ever come to such an agreement) it does seem like it would make more sense when tracking an index. And in fact less agreement between different funds would be required as some \"\"natural\"\" price points exist such as dividing by 100 (like some S&P funds do). However, there are a couple of reasons why two different funds might price their shares of the same underlying index differently. Demand - If there are a lot of people wanting the issue, more shares might be issued at a lower price. Or, there might be a lot of demand centered on a certain price range. Pricing - shares that are priced higher will find fewer buyers, because it makes it harder to buy round lots (100 shares at $100/share is $10,000 while at $10/share it's only $1000). While not everyone buys stock in lots, it's important if you do anything with (standardized) options on the stock because they are always acting on lots. In addition, even if you don't buy round lots a higher price makes it harder to buy in for a specific amount because each unit share has a greater chance to be further away from your target amount. Conversely, shares that are priced too low will also find fewer buyers, because some holders have minimum price requirements due to low price (e.g. penny) stocks tending to be more speculative and volatile. So, different funds tracking the same index might pick different price points to satisfy demand that is not being filled by other funds selling at a different price point.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0adb3fdabed361261d5cea1a20e2cffd", "text": "One problem is that P/E ratio only looks at the last announced earnings. Let's take your manufacturing plant with a P/E of 12.5. Then they announce a major problem that will hurt future earnings and the price drops in half. Now the P/E is 6.25. It looks great, but since there aren't any new earnings that reflect the problem, it's very misleading.", "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": "9693a8aeda6d310fd31f8997e1672f4e", "text": "When fundamentals such as P/E make a stock look overpriced, analysts often point to other metrics. The PEG ratio, for example, can be applied to cast growth companies in a better light. Fundamental analysis is highly subjective. For further discussion on the pitfalls of fundamentals, I suggest A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa3078ec6e69e72a7a071cc61a91b20a", "text": "I'm not in the business but I've always thought that Catalyst + industry context = market beating returns. Meaning that if you know what an event means faster than everyone else you can make money. Though I don't know how you'd express that in a report. An example that comes to mind is when Japan announced they were forming a consortium, the largest in the world, to make LCD panel glass. After that I got the heck of GLW though the stock price kept going up at the time. It is like no one understood the implications.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
37f2a0c41f0517dbaefd3c8782d37d64	Why are capital gains taxed at a lower rate than normal income?	[ { "docid": "1cce8697a1c37d9117ab570f6adfe51d", "text": "I think this question is very nearly off-topic for this site, but I also believe that a basic understanding of the why the tax structure is what it is can help someone new to investing to understand their actual tax liability. The attempt at an answer I provide below is from a Canadian & US context, but should be similar to how this is viewed elsewhere in the world. First note that capital gains today are much more fluid in concept than even 100 years ago. When the personal income tax was first introduced [to pay for WWI], a capital gain was viewed as a very deliberate action; the permanent sale of property. Capital gains were not taxed at all initially [in Canada until 1971], under the view that income taxes would have been paid on income-earning assets all along [through interest, dividends, and rent], and therefore taxing capital gains would be a form of 'double-taxation'. This active, permanent sale was also viewed as an action that an investor would need to work for. Therefore it was seen as foolish to prevent investors from taking positive economic action [redistributing their capital in the most effective way], simply to avoid the tax. However today, because of favourable taxation on capital gains, many financial products attempt to package and sell capital gains to investors. For example, many Canadian mutual funds buy and sell investments to earn capital gains, and distribute those capital gains to the owners of the mutual fund. This is no longer an active action taken by the investor, it is simply a function of passive investing. The line between what is a dividend and what is a capital gain has been blurred by these and similar advanced financial products. To the casual investor, there is no practical difference between receiving dividends or capital gain distributions, except for the tax impact. The notional gain realized on the sale of property includes inflation. Consider a rental property bought in 1930 for $100,000, and sold in 1960 for $180,000, assuming inflation between 1930 and 1960 was 70%. In 1960 dollars, the property was effectively bought for 170k. This means the true gain after accounting for inflation is only $10k. But, the notional gain is $80k, meaning a tax on that capital gain would be almost entirely a tax on inflation. This is viewed by many as being unfair, as it does not actually represent true income. I will pause to note that any tax on any investment at all, taxes inflation; interest, for example, is taxed in full even though it can be almost entirely inflationary, depending on economic conditions. A tax on capital gains may restrict market liquidity. A key difference between capital gains and interest/rent/dividends, is that other forms of investment income are taxed annually. If you hold a bond, you get taxed on interest from that bond. You cannot gain value from a bond, deferring tax until the date it matures [at least in Canada, you are deemed to accrue bond interest annually, even if it is a 0 coupon bond]. However, what if interest rates have gone down, increasing the value of your bond, and you want to sell it to invest in a business? You may choose not to do this, to avoid tax on that capital gain. If it were taxed as much as regular income, you might be even more inclined to never sell any asset until you absolutely have to, thus restricting the flow of capital in the market. I will pause here again, to note that laws could be enacted to minimize capital gains tax, as long as the money is reinvested immediately, thus reducing this impact. Political inertia / lobbying from key interests has a significant impact on the tax structure for investments. The fact remains that the capital gains tax is most significantly an impact on those with accrued wealth. It would take significant public support to increase capital gain tax rates, for any political party to enact such laws. When you get right down to it, tax laws are complex, and hard to push in the public eye. The general public barely understands that their effective tax rate is far lower than their top marginal tax rate. Any tax increases at all are often viewed negatively, even by those who would never personally pay any of that tax due to lack of investment income. Therefore such changes are typically made quietly, and with some level of bi-partisan support. If you feel the capital gains tax rules are illogical, just add it to the pile of such tax laws that exist today.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49d4a2614ee3aaadcb147c53898312d4", "text": "To me, the lower tax rate for capital gains is largely due to governments encouraging economic activity. Note that investments usually come from your normal income, which is already taxed. Capital gains tax is essentially punishing people who take the extra effort to put their money into work. If the tax rate is high, it would definitely cause people to rethink about investing, thus slowing the general economy down.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef203ba39ef70e2829a933156dec62b9", "text": "Were capital gains taxes not lower, companies would have an incentive to minimize the portion of the value they create that materializes as capital gains. They would do this by using more debt financing (since interest is deductible) than equity financing. This would have a destabilizing effect on the economy. Low capital gains taxes help encourage investment over spending. This is believed to improve economic growth. Given these factors, it is generally believed that the current capital gains tax rate is very close to the optimal rate. That is, a higher tax rate would not result in greater tax revenue. Bluntly, a higher income tax rate on earned income does not really discourage people from working harder and earning more money. But a higher rate on capital gains does discourage investment. Essentially, it's because investment is more discretionary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68e53d9a0079ca173fdcebb3df94e18e", "text": "Here are three key factors that you do not explicitly state: So while I cannot say exactly why the tax law is the way it is, I can infer that it encourages long-term investments rather than short-term, which would seem to be a good thing for society overall. The fast that capital gains are taxed at all somewhat discourages cashing out investments (although I suspect it's more of a nuisance factor - the cash received is likely more on an incentive that the tax is a disincentive).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "575ab6f8302a708a31d8cc802c567c7f", "text": "There are two alternative explanations: Choose the explanation you prefer based on your level of cynicism.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e412fe500295c444abe019618d6cf128", "text": "Every economy wants growth and for growth to come you need investments. So, you must provide some motive for people to risk their money (every investment has inherently a degree of risk or if you want uncertainty about the outcome). As a result the tax on capital gains is lower than on other types of income (because the risk is almost zero). The tax is considered in the calculation of the net interest rate. And you can see this as the interest which the investors demand in order to invest their money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "16a624a10ee783824d9bef140250bf4d", "text": "Consider inflation. If you invest $10,000 today, you need to make a few hundred dollars interest just to make up for inflation - if there is 3% inflation then a change from $10,000 to $10,300 means you didn't actually make any money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd9497f6f720d74c94f789669aa226c2", "text": "There are many reasons, which other answers have already discussed. I want to emphasize and elaborate on just one of the reasons, which is that it avoids double taxation, especially on corporate earnings. Generally, for corporations, its earnings are already taxed at around 40% (for the US - including State income taxes). When dividends are distributed out, it is taxed again at the individual level. The effect is the same when equity is sold and the distribution is captured as a capital gain. (I believe this is why the dividend and capital gain rates are the same in the US.) For a simplistic example, say there is a C Corporation with a single owner. The company earns $1,000,000 before income taxes. It pays 400,000 in taxes, and has retained earnings of $600,000. To get the money out, the owner can either distribute a dividend to herself, or sell her stake to another person. Either choice leads to $600,000 getting taxed at another 20%~30% or so at the individual level (depending on the State). If we calculate the effective rate, it is above 50%! Many people invest in stock, including mutual funds, and the dividends and capital gains are taxed at lower rates. Individual tax returns that contain no wage income often have very low average tax rates for this reason. However, the investments themselves are continuously paying out their own taxes, or accruing taxes in the form of future tax liability.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "d2223ba17e7bcf4a2a34b412079a6779", "text": "This is how all corporations shift taxes to low income tax . Most large companies are actually hundreds of companies, with individual companies in each country they do business in. They use this type of transfer payment so most of the profits end up in countries with low income taxes. That is why you might as well lower the corporate rate. It will help employment, and end this kind of useless profit shifting. It's a world wide economy, and companies do what they need to do to keep taxes low no matter what.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d25c6859e23e7eb52e67298252c4a3d5", "text": "I'm not sure where people keep getting this idea, but I see it come up a lot. Anyway, you pay capital gains taxes when you sell an investment that has appreciated. It makes no difference when/if you reinvest the money or what you invest it in. If you are afraid of the tax burden you can minimize it by: 1) Selling a stock that you have held longer than a year to get the lower long-term rate. 2) Sell a stock that hasn't appreciated that much and therefore doesn't have a lot of gains to tax. 3) Sell a stock that's below purchase price (i.e. at a loss) to offset any short term gains.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82656dc3612c08054841c7790d06bcbc", "text": "This is ideal placement for your allocation to income investments or those with nonqualified dividends: bonds, REITS, MLPS, other partnerships, and so forth. These are all taxed at income rate, generally throw off more income than capital gains, so you get the deferment without losing the cap gains rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f6c02737efba52705b611902380566b", "text": "If you have flow through income then you arent being taxed at the corporate rate you are being taxed at your personal income tax rate which wont change so raising or lowering the corporate tax rate wont change that at all. Like he said tax rich people not corporations. If people just had a better understanding there wouldn't be really anybody opposed to it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccee1d130a4cefa6b31916dd78b4f0b3", "text": "\"Appreciation of a Capital Asset is a Capital Gain. In the United States, Capital Gains get favorable tax treatment after being held for 12 months. From the IRS newsroom: Capital gains and losses are classified as long-term or short-term, depending on how long you hold the property before you sell it. If you hold it more than one year, your capital gain or loss is long-term. If you hold it one year or less, your capital gain or loss is short-term. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2009, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%. The IRS defines a Capital Asset as \"\"most property you own\"\" with a list of exclusions found in Schedule D Instructions. None of the exclusions listed relate to Bond ETFs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cf8b0da9f9bd690eec82a6dad9df298", "text": "You pay taxes on capital gains when you realize your gains by selling the investment property. Also, in the US, taxes on capital gains are computed at special rates depending on your current income level, and so when you realize your gains two years from now, you will pay taxes on the gains at the special rate then applicable to your income level for the year of sale. Remember also that the US Congress can change the tax laws at any time between now and the time you sell your stocks, and so the rates you are looking at now may have changed too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa2e95a05894c913e5027ada929a1564", "text": "what I'm saying is my meager 1600 gain could have incurred an extra $170 in taxes if there was no capital gains tax. It's basic math, not rocket science. that's just the numbers at my current tax bracket(25%) which isn't that high. I seriously don't get how you can't understand basic numbers and the fact that the capital gains tax is a huge advantage for a small time investor like me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14137eb112dfeae7d10fd3db3b31d49d", "text": "I got down voted for my comment. But, this is exactly what a lot proponents of higher capital taxes argue. That, if you are not a hoarder of wealth; then, you should not worry about a high capital gains tax. And, again as the video clearly demonstrated. Capital gains prevent labor gains; where the lower and middle classes earn.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f72e4c4ced09e034dd3fe9a774d88945", "text": "\"You're right. I did include \"\"is it reasonable\"\" in the title. Therefore that brings in the acceptability of those taxes. However I am making the case that I would like capital gains to be taxed most similarly to regular income (or at least in a parallel bracket), which is independent of the amount needed to be brought in. I think parallel brackets would be the most productive since it would encourage people to both produce and invest, because you would get the lowest taxes by maximizing both.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "182b561785b6dbb85ff8bf140ba84456", "text": "\"If you only have to pay 23k federal taxes on 100k, that means you are in the long term capital gains tax rate, which is the lower of the tax rates available. First you get your federal income tax marginal tax rate, and then find the matching long term capital gains tax rate. For example, if your marginal federal income tax rate is 28%, your capital gains tax rate would be 15%. Or rather, if the amount of the gain would put you in the 28% rate, then your long term capital gains tax rate is 15%. You can reduce that by having more losses. If you have anything else invested anywhere that is taking a loss, then you can sell that this year and it will offset the other gains you have realized. The only note is that your losses have to be long term capital losses too. Tax loss harvesting takes this to an extreme where you sell something at a loss to lock in the tax loss, but you didn't really want to get rid of that investment, so then you buy a nearly identical investment. ie. if you owned shares of \"\"Direxion Tech Sector ETF\"\" and it was at a loss, you would sell that and then immediately buy \"\"ProShares Tech Sector ETF\"\", the competing product that does the exact same thing. Then there is charity. This still requires spending money and you not having it any longer. If you feel that a cause can use the money more directly than the US government, you can donate an appreciated asset to the charity - not report a gain and also take a charitable deduction.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec9e92e8583f6e3fb635b2d9b7fe7e8e", "text": "\"I had been pondering this recently myself too. This question motivated me to do a little research. It appears that what happens is that (take a deep breath) the capital gain does push you into the next tax bracket, but the capital gain is always interpreted as the \"\"last\"\" income you received, so that if your non-capital-gains income is less than the threshold, it will all be taxed in the lower bracket, and only your capital gain will be taxed in the higher bracket (but it will be taxed at the capital-gains rate of that higher bracket). In short, a capital gain can only push capital gains into higher capital-gains tax brackets; it cannot push ordinary income into higher ordinary-income tax brackets. In addition, the amount of the capital gain is taxed in a marginal fashion, such that any portion of the gain that will \"\"fit\"\" into a lower bracket will be taxed at a lower level, with only the topmost portion of any gain being taxed at the top rate. This site is one claiming this: Will capital gain or dividend income push my other income into a higher tax bracket? No, the tax rates apply first to your “ordinary income” (income from sources other than long-term capital gains or qualifying dividends) so these items that are taxed at special rates won’t push your other income into a higher tax bracket. If my ordinary income puts me in the 15% tax bracket, can I receive an unlimited amount of long-term capital gain at the 0% rate? No, the 0% rate applies only to the amount of long-term capital gain and dividend income needed to “fill up” the 15% tax bracket. For example, if your ordinary income is $4,000 below the figure that would put you in the 25% bracket and you have a $10,000 long-term capital gain, you’ll pay 0% on $4,000 of your capital gain and 15% on the rest. There are several Bogleheads forum threads (here, here, here and here) that also touch on the same issue. The last of those links to the IRS capital gains worksheet. I traced through the logic and I believe it confirms this. Here's how it works: (In conclusion, we now know Mitt Romney's secret.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40018b4c4e8dee5c8fc6aba5502f7493", "text": "I suppose that there should be some sort of adjustment for inflation in the capital gains. That way those who exploit the short term volatility of the market and make money investing in real estate will be treated differently than the grandma who has lived in her house for 30 years. I guess that is why they call inflation the invisible tax.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0135bf2ab914c53905961d531f2b4ae1", "text": "My understanding was that if they cash out they only have to pay capital gains tax on it, which is lower than income tax for their bracket. You also have to think about tax on dividends from these stock options, which is only 15%, which is paltry to regular incometax rate that the rich pay on their salaries. According to Wikipedia: Congress passed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), which included some of the cuts Bush requested and which he signed into law on May 28, 2003. Under the new law, qualified dividends are taxed at the same rate as long-term capital gains, which is 15 percent for most individual taxpayers Anyways, SOMETHING needs to be done.", "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": "03d8f44f13ce913c119dcf7f6e146bcb", "text": "\"It is important to remember that the stock price in principle reflects the value of the company, so the market cap should drop upon issuance of the the dividend. However, the above reasoning neglects to consider taxes, which make the question a bit more interesting. The key fact is that different investors are going to get taxed on the dividend to varying degrees, ranging from 20% for qualified dividends in the USA for a high-income individual in a taxable account (and even worse for non-qualified dividends) to 0% for tax-exempt nonprofits, retirement accounts, and low-income individuals. The high-tax investors are going to be a bit averse to paying tax on that dividend, whereas the tax-free investors are not. Hence in a tax-rational market the tax-free investors are going to be the ones buying right before a dividend and the tax-paying investors will be buying right afterwards. Tax-exempt investors could in principle make some amount of money buying dividends to keep them off the tax-paying investors' books. (Of course, the strategy could backfire if too many people did it all at once.) That said, the tax-payers have the tax disincentive to prevent them from fully exploiting the opposite strategy of selling just before a dividend. In particular, they are subject to capital gains tax when they sell at a profit (unless they have enough compensating capital losses), and it is to their after-tax profit to defer taxation by not trading. That said, the stock market has well-known irrationality when it comes to considering tax consequences, so logic based on assumed rationality of the market does not always apply to the extent one would expect. The foremost example of tax-irrationality is the so-called \"\"dividend paradox\"\", which basically states that corporations should favor stock buybacks (or perhaps loan repayment) to the complete exclusion of dividends because capital gains are taxed less harshly than dividends in a variety of ways, some of which are subtle: 1) Historically (although not currently in the USA for qualified dividends) the tax rate was higher for dividends. (In Canada, for example, dividends are taxed at twice the rate of capital gains.) 2) If you die holding appreciated stock then you (meaning your heirs) completely escape US the capital gains tax on the accrual during your lifetime. 3) Capital gains tax can be deferred by simply not selling. In comparison to dividends, this is roughly equivalent to getting a tax-free loan from the government which is invested for profit and paid at a later date after inflation has eaten away at the real value of the loan. For example, if all your stock investments increase by 10%/year but you sell every year, in a high-tax bracket situation you're total after-tax return will be only 8% per year. In contrast, if you hold the same investments for many many years and then sell, your total return will be nearly 10% per year, because you only pay 20% once (at the end). 4) A capital gain can often be neutralized by a capital loss in another stock, so that no tax results. If you loose money on a stock that is paying dividends, you're still going to have to pay tax on that dividend. There are companies that borrow money to pay out that taxable-dividend each quarter, which seems like gross tax malpractice on the part of the CFO. (If the dividend paradox doesn't make sense, first consider the case that you owned ALL the shares of a company. It wouldn't matter to you at all on a pre-tax basis whether you got a $1000 company buyback or a $1000 dividend, because after the buyback/dividend you'd still own the entire company and $1000. The number of shares would be reduced, but objecting that you owned fewer shares after the buyback would be like saying you have become shorter if your height is measured in inches rather than centimeters.) [Of course, in the case of many shareholders you can get burned by failing to sell into the buyback when the share price is too high, but that is another matter.]\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
5faf04b80d5028018799815790837e2b	Is there a benefit, long term, to life insurance for a youngish, debt, and dependent free person?	[ { "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": "" }, { "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": "9ec1ba1b17dda00950e30201d22de91d", "text": "\"For most situations the \"\"no need\"\" answers are 100% correct. The corner case to think about depends on your health and your family history. Not to be morose, but if folks in your family who died young from heart issues, clusters of cancer or other terminal illnesses, you may want to consider getting medically qualified for a modest amount of insurance when you are young. Then, when you have children, you usually have the option of incrementally upgrading your coverage over time.\"", "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": "" }, { "docid": "4d31afb23d1362c3d8ae5cbc15fb6ac4", "text": "As Mhoran stated, no dependents, no need. Even with dependants, insurance is to cover those who would otherwise have a hardship. Once the kids are off to college and house paid for, the need drops dramatically. There are some rather complex uses for insurance when estates are large but potentially illiquid. Clearly this doesn't apply to you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8177505fb3f012694faa2ced7ad40d4d", "text": "\"There are a few questions that need qualification, and a bit on the understanding of what is being 'purchased'. There are two axioms that require re-iteraton, Death, and Taxes. Now, The First is eventually inevitable, as most people will eventually die. It depends what is happening now, that determines what will happen tomorrow, and the concept of certainty. The Second Is a pay as you go plan. If you are contemplating what will heppen tomorrow, you have to look at what types of \"\"Insurance\"\" are available, and why they were invented in the first place. The High seas can be a rough travelling ground, and Not every shipment of goods and passengers arrived on time, and one piece. This was the origin of \"\"insurance\"\", when speculators would gamble on the safe arrival of a ship laden with goods, at the destination, and for this they received a 'cut' on the value of the goods shipped. Thus the concept of 'Underwriting', and the VALUE associated with the cargo, and the method of transport. Based on an example gallion of good repair and a well seasoned Captain and crew, a lower rate of 'insurance' was deemed needed, prior to shipment, than some other 'rating agency - or underwriter'. Now, I bring this up, because, it depends on the Underwriter that you choose as to the payout, and the associated Guarantee of Funds, that you will receive if you happen to need to 'collect' on the 'Insurance Contract'. In the case of 'Death Benefit' insurance, You will never see the benefit, at the end, however, while the policy is in force (The Term), it IS an Asset, that would be considered in any 'Estate Planning' exercise. First, you have to consider, your Occupation, and the incidence of death due to occupational hazards. Generally this is considered in your employment negotiations, and is either reflected in the salary, or if it is a state sponsored Employer funded, it is determined by your occupational risk, and assessed to the employer, and forms part of the 'Cost-of-doing-business', in that this component or 'Occupational Insurance' is covered by that program. The problem, is 'disability' and what is deemed the same by the experience of the particular 'Underwriter', in your location. For Death Benefits, Where there is an Accident, for Motor Vehicle Accidents (and 50,000 People in the US die annually) these are covered by Motor Vehicle Policy contracts, and vary from State to State. Check the Registrar of State Insurance Co's for your state to see who are the market leaders and the claim /payout ratios, compared to insurance in force. Depending on the particular, 'Underwiriter' there may be significant differences, and different results in premium, depending on your employer. (Warren Buffet did not Invest in GEICO, because of his benevolence to those who purchase Insurance Policies with GEICO). The original Poster mentions some paramaters such as Age, Smoking, and other 'Risk factors'.... , but does not mention the 'Soft Factors' that are not mentioned. They are, 'Risk Factors' such, as Incidence of Murder, in the region you live, the Zip Code, you live at, and the endeavours that you enjoy when you are not in your occupation. From the Time you get up in the morning, till the time you fall asleep (And then some), you are 'AT Risk' , not from a event standpoint, but from a 'Fianancial risk' standpoint. This is the reason that all of the insurance contracts, stipulate exclusions, and limits on when they will pay out. This is what is meant by the 'Soft Risk Factors', and need to be ascertained. IF you are in an occupation that has a limited exposure to getting killed 'on the job', then you will be paying a lower premium, than someone who has a high risk occupation. IT used to be that 'SkySkraper Iron Workers', had a high incidence of injury and death , but over the last 50 years, this has changed. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics lists these 10 jobs as the highest for death (per 100,000 workers). The scales tilt the other way for these occupations: (In Canada, the Cheapest Rate for Occupational Insurance is Lawyer, and Politician) So, for the rest in Sales, management etc, the national average is 3 to 3.5 depending on the region, of deaths per 100,000 employed in that occupation. So, for a 30 year old bank worker, the premium is more like a 'forced savings plan', in the sense that you are paying towards something in the future. The 'Risk of Payout' in Less than 6 months is slim. For a Logging Worker or Fisher(Men&Women) , the risk is very high that they might not return from that voyage for fish and seafood. If you partake in 'Extreme Sports' or similar risk factors, then consider getting 'Whole Term- Life' , where the premium is spread out over your working lifetime, and once you hit retirement (55 or 65) then the occupational risk is less, and the plan will payout at the age of 65, if you make it that far, and you get a partial benefit. IF you have a 'Pension Plan', then that also needs to be factored in, and be part of a compreshensive thinking on where you want to be 5 years from today.\"", "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": "826e33c2cd454c37fbbb27078840224d", "text": "Term life insurance for a healthy 30 year old is a heck of a lot cheaper than for a 40 year old who's starting to break down (and who needs the coverage since he's got a spouse and kids). So, get a long term policy now while it's cheap.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f2bafadcd0846e0c462f6e6c8191488b", "text": "We frequently get whole insurance vs term insurance questions; and most of the answers will support term insurance. We get questions regarding getting insurance before there is a need in case there is a problem getting it later. And for most people it doesn't make sense to over-insure early. You have asked from a slightly different position, you have a more solid reason to be concerned about your health. You don't have a need now, and can't estimate what your need will be, or when it will be. Those numbers you quote may seem high, but when you don't know how many kids you may have, or what you will need to protect against, they may turn out to be inadequate when you do need the insurance. You need to sit down with a fee only financial planner. They can lay out your options today, and as your situation changes. Then as the years go by, have that plan reexamined. The fee only planner will not tell you what company to buy insurance from, or what funds to invest in, but they will help you decide what types of protection and investment you need.", "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": "eb0aaf07385a614da2199677cdbf2c77", "text": "Look into the Coverdell Education Savings Account (ESA). This is like a Roth IRA for higher education expenses. Withdrawals are tax free when used for qualified expenses. Contributions are capped at $2000/year per beneficiary (not per account) so it works well for young kids, and not so well for kids about to go to College. This program (like all tax law) are prone to changes due to action (or inaction) in the US Congress. Currently, some of the benefits are set to sunset in 2010 though they are expected to be renewed in some form by Congress this year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d18033444d5e4d44f12219c7e5182102", "text": "The purpose of long term care insurance is to pay for your long term care while protecting your assets. This is highly recommended to people who have high risk factors or family history. People who will most likely receive care should purchase this as early as possible in order to avoid the soaring cost of coverage and care. Another reason why people should buy this is is because of the much longer life expectancy today. Statistics would show that about 70% of people who are 65 years old will need long term care. This is obviously high and alarming. For me, this is enough to encourage people to prepare for their future and buy insurance for long term care.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53bdf838a2709ffdd535c342eae41bdc", "text": "Term life insurance makes sense if you will have a need for money if someone dies. If you (and your brothers) do not have enough money currently for a proper burial for your father, then you might consider term insurance to cover this. If you already have the money to cover this (or can save for it in a short amount of time), then you are better off financially to not purchase the insurance. Estimate what you think it will cost for a burial, then determine if you have this money available to you. If you already do, then don't purchase the insurance. If you do not have this money available to you, then you can look into a term life insurance policy on your father. You definitely do not want a whole life insurance policy. This will cost many more times what a term policy costs. A term policy is a policy with an expiration date. For example, let's say that you determine that you will need $10,000 when your father dies for the funeral and burial. You could get a 10-year policy on your father for $10,000. Over the next 10 years, besides paying your premiums, save up $10,000 ($1,000 each year) in some type of savings/investing account. Hopefully, your father will still be around 10 years from now, and you won't need the insurance policy anymore, because you will have saved enough to cover the costs when the time comes. Doing this will almost always cost you less than getting a whole life policy, which never expires, but has much higher premiums. There are also 20-year term policies, which will cost more, but will give you more time to save up your fund. The costs for these policies depend on your father's age, so get a quote for both and decide what will work for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ab7a895569eedf19577c89144cf4853", "text": "\"I think you're right that from a pure \"\"expected future value\"\" perspective, it makes sense to pay this loan off as quickly as possible (including not taking the next year's loan). The new student loans with the higher interest rates have changed the balance enough that it's no longer automatically better to keep it going as long as possible. The crucial point in your case, which isn't true for many people, is that you will likely have to pay it off eventually anyway and so in terms of net costs over your lifetime you will do best by paying it off quickly. A few points to set against that, that you might want to consider: Not paying it off is a good hedge against your career not going as well as you expect, e.g. if the economy does badly, you have health problems, you take a career break for any reason. If that happens, you would end up not being forced to pay it off, so will end up gaining from not having done so voluntarily. The money you save in that case could be more valuable to you that the money you would lose if your career does go well. Not paying it off will increase your net cash earlier in life when you are more likely to need it, e.g. for a house deposit. Having more free cash could increase your options, making it possible to buy a house earlier in life. Or it could mean you have a higher deposit when you do buy, reducing the interest rate on the entire mortgage balance. The savings from that could end up being more than the 6% interest on the loan even though when you look at the loan in isolation it seems like a very bad rate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f076dd3187018636d45d0f17fa3d758", "text": "\"Note: this answer was provided when the question was only about Life Insurance, therefore it does not address any other \"\"benefits\"\" Term Life Insurance is very easy to evaluate, once you have determined how much you need and for how long. For significant amounts of coverage they may require a physical to be performed. The price quotes will be for two levels of health, so you can compare costs from many companies quite easily. You have several sources in no particular order: employer, independent company, 3rd party like AARP, AAA, or via you bank or credit union. Note that the 3rd party will be getting a cut of the premium. Also some choices offered from the employer or 3rd party may be limited in size or duration. The independent companies will be able to have terms that extend for 10 years or more. So view the insurance offered by AARP as just another option that has to be compared to all your other options.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7c8e7009cd6b8c165cf6a0622657ef4", "text": "\"The risk is that the \"\"free\"\" service may be supporting itself by steering customers to products which part a sales commission, or that are products of the company/bank that employees then, rather than those which are actually best for the customer. If you go in with a skeptical outlook, watching for this sort of conflict of interest, it's possible they might be useful. But that's not exactly a glowing recommendation... If they try to tell you that insurance is an investment, or if they recommend anything other than low-fee index funds without an extremely good reason, run.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18b79cd0bd218a253049cfab75afeb3a", "text": "There is an opportunity cost of your future insurance needs, Here, the savings vs risks ratio is difficult to figure out. Hence it is always worth that extra cost to buy the larger and longer policy if you can afford it. Basically if you can afford it today, it will cost peanuts after 20 years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd54cde816bd45947791601cbb7f80ee", "text": "\"You're definitely not the first to pose this question. During the peak of the housing crisis I noticed a decent amount of very high dollar properties get abandoned to their fates. Individuals who can afford the mortgage on a 5 million dollar home don't necessarily need their credit to survive so it made more sense to let the asset (now a liability) go and take the hit on their credit for a few years. Unsecured debt, as mentioned is a little trickier because its backed by default by your personal estate. If the creditor is active they will sue you and likely win unless there are issues with their paperwork. Thing is though, you might escape some impacts of the debt to your credit rating and you might not \"\"need\"\" credit, but if you were to act as a wealthy person and not \"\"new money\"\" you would observe the significant value of using credit. credit allows you to leverage your wealth and expand the capacity of your money to import your overall wealth picture. It may prove best to learn that and then make more wealth on your winnings than take the short sighted approach and welch on the debt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abfe341af61637ca246e2c5f0a6d6b15", "text": "\"First of all, congratulations on being in an incredible financial position. you have done well. So let's look at the investment side first. If you put 400,000 in a decent index fund at an average 8% growth, and add 75,000 every year, in 10 years you'll have about $1.95 Million, $800k of which is capital gain (more or less due to market risk, of course) - or $560k after 30% tax. If you instead put it in the whole life policy at 1.7% you'll have about $1.3 Million, $133k of which is tax-free capital gain. So the insurance is costing you $430K in opportunity cost, since you could have done something different with the money for more return. The fund you mentioned (Vanguard Wellington) has a 10-year annualized growth of 7.13%. At that growth rate, the opportunity cost is $350k. Even with a portfolio with a more conservative 5% growth rate, the opportunity cost is $178k Now the life insurance. Life insurance is a highly personal product, but I ran a quick quote for a 65-year old male in good health and got a premium of $11,000 per year for a $2M 10-year term policy. So the same amount of term life insurance costs only $110,000. Much less than the $430k in opportunity cost that the whole life would cost you. In addition, you have a mortgage that's costing you about $28K per year now (3.5% of 800,000). Why would you \"\"invest\"\" in a 1.7% insurance policy when you are paying a \"\"low\"\" 3.5% mortgage? I would take as much cash as you are comfortable with and pay down the mortgage as much as possible, and get it paid off quickly. Then you don't need life insurance. Then you can do whatever you want. Retire early, invest and give like crazy, travel the world, whatever. I see no compelling reason to have life insurance at all, let alone life insurance wrapped in a bad investment vehicle.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25c73c24fa91cd5756013eee21f7adfb", "text": "I'm not the guy you're responding to, but you asked a good question. There's a dearth of data, but [about 1% is the estimate.] (http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20110814/NEWS03/308149986#) Either way, having increased young adults on an insurance plan is a good thing. Socially, this demographic is exceptionally stinging from the Great Recession and I think the ability to give young adults health insurance (and thus the freedom to start developing a career without worrying about health coverage) outweighs the nominal additional premium costs. Fiscally, having young adults in a group plan decreases the risk profile of that plan since young adults don't incur the same expenses that a 45 or 50 year old would.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5baab23655fcb5e43bd9fbdbbb8e2704", "text": "So an investor would get their principal back in interest payments after 13.5 years if things remained stable, not accounting for discounting future cash flows/any return for the risk they are taking. The long maturity helps insurance companies and pensions properly match the duration of their liabilities. Still doesn't seem like a good bet, but it makes sense that it happened.", "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": "953998066744ca70bd3d52152d186a3a", "text": "\"If you are interested in a career in algorithmic trading, I strongly encourage you to formally study math and computer science. Algorithmic trading firms have no need for employees with financial knowledge; if they did, they'd just be called \"\"trading\"\" firms. Rather, they need experts in machine learning, statistical modeling, and computer science in general. Of course there are other avenues of employment at an algorithmic trading firm, such as accounting, clearing, exchange relations, etc. If that's the sort of thing you're interested in, again you'll probably want a formal education in those areas as opposed to just reading about finance in the news. If you edit your question or add a comment below with information about your particular background, I could perhaps advise you in a bit more detail. ::edit:: Given your comment, I would say you have a fine academic background for the industry. When hiring mathematicians, firms care most about the ease with which you can explore and extract features from massive datasets (especially time series) regardless of what the dataset might represent. An intelligent firm will not care whether you arrive at their doorstep with zero finance knowledge; they will want to teach you everything from scratch anyway. Nonetheless, some domain knowledge could be helpful, but you're not going to get \"\"more\"\" of it from reading any mass market news source, whether you have to pay for it or not. That's because Some non-mass-market news sources in the industry are These are subscription-only and actually discuss real information that real professional investors care about. They are loaded with industry jargon, they're extremely opinionated, and (in my opinion) they're useless. I can't imagine trying to learn about the industry from them, but if you want to spend money for news in order to be exposed to the innards of the industry, then either of these is far better than the Financial Times. Despite requiring a subscription, the Financial Times still does not cover the technical details of professional trading. Instead of trying to learn from news, then, I would suggest some old favorites: and, above all else, Read everything in the navigation box on the right side under Financial Markets and Financial Instruments.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
f52f07de19bd660c35ed874c32c94abf	Why do people buy new cars they can not afford?	[ { "docid": "7d981886fcd3d12405655510fc4a88ff", "text": "There are many reasons for buying new versus used vehicles. Price is not the only factor. This is an individual decision. Although interesting to examine from a macro perspective, each vehicle purchase is made by an individual, weighing many factors that vary in importance by that individual, based upon their specific needs and values. I have purchased both new and used cars, and I have weighted each of these factors as part of each decision (and the relative weightings have varied based upon my individual situation). Read Freakonomics to gain a better understanding of the reasons why you cannot find a good used car. The summary is the imbalance of knowledge between the buyer and seller, and the lack of trust. Although much of economics assumes perfect market information, margin (profit) comes from uncertainty, or an imbalance of knowledge. Buying a used car requires a certain amount of faith in people, and you cannot always trust the trading partner to be honest. Price - The price, or more precisely, the value proposition of the vehicle is a large concern for many of us (larger than we might prefer that it be). Selection - A buyer has the largest selection of vehicles when they shop for a new vehicle. Finding the color, features, and upgrades that you want on your vehicle can be much harder, even impossible, for the used buyer. And once you have found the exact vehicle you want, now you have to determine whether the vehicle has problems, and can be purchased at your price. Preference - A buyer may simply prefer to have a vehicle that looks new, smells new, is clean, and does not have all the imperfections that even a gently used vehicle would exhibit. This may include issues of pride, image, and status, where the buyer may have strong emotional or psychological needs to statisfy through ownership of a particular vehicle with particular features. Reviews - New vehicles have mountains of information available to buyers, who can read about safety and reliability ratings, learn about problems from the trade press, and even price shop and compare between brands and models. Contrasted with the minimal information available to used vehicle shoppers. Unbalanced Knowledge - The seller of a used car has much greater knowledge of the vehicle, and thus much greater power in the negotiation process. Buying a used car is going to cost you more money than the value of the car, unless the seller has poor knowledge of the market. And since many used cars are sold by dealers (who have often taken advantage of the less knowledgeable sellers in their transaction), you are unlikely to purchase the vehicle at a good price. Fear/Risk - Many people want transportation, and buying a used car comes with risk. And that risk includes both the direct cost of repairs, and the inconvenience of both the repair and the loss of work that accompanies problems. Knowing that the car has not been abused, that there are no hidden or lurking problems waiting to leave you stranded is valuable. Placing a price on the risk of a used car is hard, especially for those who only want a reliable vehicle to drive. Placing an estimate on the risk cost of a used car is one area where the seller has a distinct advantage. Warranties - New vehicles come with substantial warranties, and this is another aspect of the Fear/Risk point above. A new vehicle does not have unknown risk associated with the purchase, and also comes with peace of mind through a manufacturer warranty. You can purchase a used car warranty, but they are expensive, and often come with (different) problems. Finance Terms - A buyer can purchase a new vehicle with lower financing rate than a used vehicle. And you get nothing of value from the additional finance charges, so the difference between a new and used car also includes higher finance costs. Own versus Rent - You are assuming that people actually want to 'own' their cars. And I would suggest that people want to 'own' their car until it begins to present problems (repair and maintenance issues), and then they want a new vehicle to replace it. But renting or leasing a vehicle is an even more expensive, and less flexible means to obtain transportation. Expense Allocation - A vehicle is an expense. As the owner of a vehicle, you are willing to pay for that expense, to fill your need for transportation. Paying for the product as you use the product makes sense, and financing is one way to align the payment with the consumption of the product, and to pay for the expense of the vehicle as you enjoy the benefit of the vehicle. Capital Allocation - A buyer may need a vehicle (either to commute to work, school, doctor, or for work or business), but either lack the capital or be unwilling to commit the capital to the vehicle purchase. Vehicle financing is one area banks have been willing to lend, so buying a new vehicle may free capital to use to pay down other debts (credit cards, loans). The buyer may not have savings, but be able to obtain financing to solve that need. Remember, people need transportation. And they are willing to pay to fill their need. But they also have varying needs for all of the above factors, and each of those factors may offer value to different individuals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1c91b3a85c77daa1716961527a74130", "text": "If everyone bought used cars, who would buy the new cars so that everyone else could buy them used? Rental car companies? Your rant expresses a misunderstanding of fundamental economics (as demand for used cars increases, so will prices) but economics is off-topic here, so let me explain why I bought a new car—that I am now in the 10th year of driving. When I bought the car I currently drive, I was single, I was working full-time, and I was going to school full-time. I bought a 2007 Toyota Corolla for about $16,500 cash out the door. I wanted a reliable car that was clean and attractive enough that I wouldn't be embarrassed in it if I took a girl out for dinner. I could have bought a much more expensive car, but I wanted to be real about myself and not give the wrong impression about my views on money. I've done all the maintenance, and the car is still very nice even after 105K miles. It will handle at least that many more miles barring any crashes. Could I have purchased a nice used car for less? Certainly, but because it was the last model year before a redesign, the dealer was clearly motivated to give me a good deal, so I didn't lose too much driving it off the lot. There are a lot of reasons why people buy new cars. I didn't want to look like a chump when out on a date. Real-estate agents often like to make a good impression as they are driving clients to see new homes. Some people can simply afford it and don't want to worry about what abuse a prior owner may have done. I don't feel defensive about my decision to buy a new car those years ago. The other car I've purchased in the last 10 years was a four year old used car, and it certainly does a good job for my wife who doesn't put too many miles on it. I will not rule out buying another new car in the future either. Some times the difference in price isn't significant enough that used is always the best choice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "411b2d4d2e5d9415dbd97a8e83cba938", "text": "\"Two reasons: Many people make lots of financial decisions (and other kinds of decisions) without actually running any numbers to see what is best (or even possible). They just go with their gut and buy things they feel like buying, without making a thoroughgoing attempt to assess the impact on their finances. I share your bafflement at this, but it is true. A sobering example that has stuck with me can be found in this Los Angeles Times story from a few years ago, which describes a family spending $1000 more than their income every month, while defaulting on their mortgage and dipping into their 7-year-old daughter's savings account to cover the bills --- but still spending $275 a month on \"\"beauty products and services\"\" and $200 a month on pet expenses. Even to the extent that people do take finances into account, finances are not the only thing they take into account. For many people, driving a car that is new, looks nice and fresh, has the latest features, etc., is something they are willing to pay money for. Your question \"\"why don't people view a car solely as a means of transportation\"\" is not a financial question but a psychological one. The answer to \"\"why do people buy new cars\"\" is \"\"because people do not view cars solely as a means of transportation\"\". I recently bought a used car, and while looking around at different ones I visited a car lot. When the dealer heard which car I was interested in, he said, \"\"So, I guess you're looking for a transportation car.\"\" I thought to myself, \"\"Duh. Is there any other kind?\"\" But the fact that someone can say something like that indicates that there are many people who are looking for something other than a \"\"transportation car\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd397206a1286febf43cd37d785666c5", "text": "I had a 2000 Chevy Cavalier until late 2011. It worked well, but was very definitely at the end of its life. This was a low-end car, certainly, but I dispute your claim that cars last 20 - 25 years. Consumer Reports apparently says the average life expectancy of a new vehicle is around 8 years or 150,000 miles. When it came time to replace my Cavalier, I was significantly concerned about car safety and about the ability to handle Canadian winters (-40 temperatures, lots of snow). I chose a Subaru Forester as a good match for me. I could have bought one second-hand, but I wasn't willing to get one as old as five years. Car manufacturers constantly improve safety and features over that time period. The Forester is massively more capable of handling Canadian winters than the Cavalier was. If I was buying a Forester now, I'd want the EyeSight Driver Assist System which Subaru added a couple of years after my model year. The newer models score slightly higher in crash tests, too. That would limit me to 2014 or later models, and I'd be concerned someone selling a 2014 or 2015 knew something I didn't, knew they had purchased a lemon. I didn't need financing for my vehicle. On the other hand, I could have invested the money I saved, so if all I wanted was something to get me from point A to point B, my choice does not make much financial sense. But Canadian winters are brutal and car safety is massively important to me. I'm well aware that I paid considerably for this, and I'm comfortable with my decision.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de33827a3717ec57427af2b917af67cc", "text": "The car you dream of might not be available in your local used car market. Or if it is, there might be something wrong with it. Here are some reasons that a person might want to buy a new car. Basically, if you have a picture in your mind of what your next car should look like, it is easier to shop for a new car: New cars are getting better. Here are some reasons that a person might want a newer generation car rather than an older generation car: Cars wear out. Here are some reasons a person shopping for a car might pass on a used car: In other words, there are good reasons to want a car that is either brand new, exactly two years old, or 3 - 5 years old. The brand new car might be better than the old car ever was.", "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": "2fe9678a881addfc444414ac7706b947", "text": "\"I would answer your question very simply: marketing works. \"\"If you don't have a new F-150, you are not a real man.\"\" for men, and \"\"If you don't have a new Honda Pilot your kids are in danger.\"\" for woman. One observation that reinforces this are the amount of new(er) Buicks on the road. Five years ago, they were pretty rare, now there are many. Their marketing strategy of \"\"We don't suck so much anymore\"\", seems to have worked. I don't get it. Last year, Consumer Reports reported that 84.5% of new cars are financed with an average payment of $457 over 65 months. I like your analysis, but lets say instead of following this path, Brad and Jenn, put $250 a month away in a cookie jar (to cover repairs and car replacement), and $664 (457*2-250) in a mutual fund. After doing this for 30 years, they will have 1.5 million. Driving a new car is precluding many from being wealthy. It is hard to jump aboard the \"\"income inequality\"\" bandwagon when you see with brand new iphones and cars.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8244db9b6d7cb8ae986c5b82432cdec", "text": "Most people today (and maybe regardless of era) are irrational and don't properly valuate many of their purchases, nor are they emotionally equipped to do the math properly, including projection into the future and applying probabilities. This compounds. Imagine that each individual is bound to others by a rubber band and can stretch in a certain direction. The more your neighbors stretch, the more you are both motivated to stretch and able to stretch. These are crudely analogous to consumer wants as well as allowed consumer debt. The banks are also within this network of rubber bands and much of their balance sheet is based on how far they've stretched on the aggregate of all connected bands (counting others debts as their credit because it will presumably be repaid), and every so often enough people's feet slip that a lot of rubber bands snap back. This is a bubble bursting.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7caee9943b847a9c3f306418c0616758", "text": "If you don't know how to fix your own car or have time to take car parts off of a car at a junk yard, the average amount of money per month you spend on repairing an old car will be greater than the amount of money you spend per month on a new car payment. This is because car repair shops are charging $85 per hour for labor for car repairs. Many parts that wear out on a car are difficult to replace because of their location on the engine. The classic example is piston rings.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "833192fa2624bd4fca23f6210fe60398", "text": "It is almost never going to be more economical to buy a new car versus repairing your current car. If you want a new car, that is justification enough.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b617a85ac8aafa6bed5a5d62f5b24ef", "text": "\"I don't think you're missing anything on the math side as far as the payments. Likewise, it may seem everyone's driving a nicer car, but I'm going to predict that's based on area and a few other factors (for instance, my used car feels like riches in a college town). The behavior of why people would pay money, especially with high interest debt, for something is a little different. To explain the behavior behind people who purchase luxury cars: for some people, a car is a purchase that they value, similar to a person valuing the clothes they wear, the house they live in, or the equipment they buy and either borrowing or paying full price on an expensive car is worth it to them. We can call it a status symbol dismissively and criticize the financial waste without realizing, \"\"Wait, this is something they value\"\" like a rare book collector likes rare books (would a rare book collector pass on borrowing money if it meant a once-in-a-lifetime rare book purchase opportunity?). Have you ever felt, \"\"Wow this is cool/awesome/amazing\"\" with something? Basically, that's how many of them feel toward these cars. As much as I'd love to say they're only doing it for status (because I'm not a car person), that's actually somewhat de-humanizing and the more I've met people like this, the more I've realized this is their \"\"thing\"\" and to them it's totally worth it (even with all the debt). I have no doubt that there's a percentage of them who truly may be misled - maybe they don't realize the full cost of borrowing money or leasing. Still, for those who don't care the full cost, that's because it's their thing. We can all agree that it's still not wise to do financially (borrow on a luxury vehicle), and it won't change that some people will do it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06a6da7796e678cdfb951542d9ec1323", "text": "\"How can people afford luxury cars? The same way they can afford anything: by finding it cheaply, saving for it, or adjusting their priorities. Company cars - either paid for by the company, or as part of a bonus/compensation/salary sacrifice scheme. I have friends who drive luxury cars, but they pay £200/month - not much more than, for example, finance on a used Honda People who have paid off their mortgage. There are people who spend a decade pouring every cent they have into a mortgage. Once paid off, they have £500-1500 a month \"\"spare\"\" People who have different priorities to you. I'm not bothered about big houses and holidays, but I love cars: I'd rather spend an extra £100/month on my car and have a holiday every 2 years, not every year People who only run one car in the family: if you're running two cars at £200/month, then discover one of you can work from home, you could have one £400 car and still be saving money on running costs. People who don't have (or want) children. Children are expensive, if they aren't part of your plans then you can save a lot of money for luxuries.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f78e13b5fa08fd74fc0c5257c84d2820", "text": "\"Evaluating the total cost of operation and warranty period are indeed important considerations, but the article is specifically about buyers making an expensive car \"\"feel\"\" more affordable to their budget by having smaller payments over a longer term. >“Stretching out loan terms to secure a monthly payment they’re comfortable with is becoming buyers’ go-to way to get the cars they want, equipped the way they want them,” said Jessica Caldwell, Edmunds executive director of industry analysis.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c70411aa1737ecee503bb98d9d7284d9", "text": "+1 They are over priced to begin with - More specifically they are expensive to create exclusivity, which raises their value to people who value that kind of thing. Perhaps folks who buy those cars aren't buying them for value or quality or performance, but are buying them for the badge and the intangible factors. I frequently hear about rich people who earned their millions driving around in cars Consumer Reports rank highly, so it isn't because they are so much better than a mid priced car. A car for $140,000 is either equipped for the A-Team or is a status symbol. The status symbol notion is very expensive, but fades very quickly, hence the mighty depreciation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1913ec64a4d2a98e9c9970f4e2773f84", "text": "Most people buy insurance because it is legally required to own a car or to have a mortgage. People want to own homes and to have personal transportation enough that they are willing to pay for required insurance costs. There are a lot of great explanations here as to why insurance is important and I don't want to detract from those at all. However, if we're being honest, most people are not sophisticated enough to measure and hedge their various financial risks. They just want to own an home and to drive a car.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e24628ceca68d763bdf34b9735502da", "text": "That's because the wealthy are paid for every engine stroke, and they know the car is almost out of fuel, and is heading for a cliff. So they are making plans to bail while collecting as many resources from the car's operation before it's inevitable crash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28d242f7c2ac47f3f855c8fc7f4ac7c1", "text": "Nothing's generating a whole lot of interest right now. But more liquid and stable is better (cash or cash-like). But a related question: Why a new car? You can knock thousands of dollars off of the price of a comparable vehicle by buying one that's one or two years old. Your new vehicle loses thousands of dollars in value the moment it goes off the lot.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a791487dcfbe402a31155b4ede78ab68", "text": "I believe one of the main reasons cars -- luxury or otherwise -- depreciate so quickly is that many auto accidents can cause serious engine/frame damage but are easily cosmetically repaired. If you smash up the car but get the body fixed, and you don't go through insurance, it will be indistinguishable from the same car that hasn't been in a crash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69a69d1b15ecc516ddce401f9c7c4c96", "text": "A loan that does not begin with at least a 20% deposit and run through a term of no longer than 48 months is the world's way of telling you that you can't afford this vehicle. Consumer-driven cars are rapidly depreciating assets. Attenuating the loan to 70 months or longer means that payments will likely not keep up with depreciation, thus trapping the buyer in an upside down loan for the entire term.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "794503653f3a60d390710785243bdcd4", "text": "Their argument is that if prices start dropping, people won't buy stuff because they think the prices will keep going down? Aside from the fact that if prices go down, the cost to produce things also goes down, this is patently untrue. Look at gas. When prices are down, do people drive less because they think prices will keep going down?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b10a6a9f11ddd5e980624a5df4c0c0f8", "text": "Car dealers as well as boat dealers, RV dealers, maybe farm vehicle dealers and other asset types make deals with banks and finance companies to they can make loans to buyers. They may be paying the interest to the finance companies so they can offer a 0% loan to the retail customer for all or part of the loan term. Neither the finance company nor the dealer wants to make such loans to people who are likely to default. Such customers will not be offered this kind of financing. But remember too that these loans are secured by the asset - the car - which is also insured. But the dealer or the finance company holds that asset as collateral that they can seize to repay the loan. So the finance company gets paid off and the dealer keeps the profit he made selling the car. So these loans are designed to ensure the dealer nor the finance company looses much. These are called asset finance loans because there is always an asset (the car) to use as collateral.", "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": "773fc0ae59fbccb280948366988d9149", "text": "When you purchase a mortgage, you have to prove the source of your down payment. Primarily this is so that the mortgage lender knows that there are no other outstanding liens against the property. If you show that some or part of your down payment was a gift, there is no fraud, but it may affect your qualification for the mortgage. Consult a lawyer in your area to determine if there is a legal way to gift the money that is not taxed. If all else fails you could just pay the tax. Also, you should research whether your gift is above the floor of taxable gifts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4f23ce5910e953720f911b9b3e81a44", "text": "This is all very basic and general advice, that works for most, but not all. You are unique with your own special needs and desires. Good luck! P.S.: not exactly related to your question, but when you get more familiar with investing and utilizing your money, find more ways to save more. For example, change phone plan, cut the cable, home made food in bulk, etc.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3b1fcd2861c9343dfbc4e5950098eab2	I was given a 1099-misc instead of a w-2 what are my next steps?	[ { "docid": "563440e7c3bd9c4100cc7605236340c8", "text": "\"I agree that you should have received both a 1099 and a W2 from your employer. They may be reluctant to do that because some people believe that could trigger an IRS audit. The reason is that independent contractor vs employee is supposed to be defined by your job function, not by your choice. If you were a contractor and then switched to be an employee without changing your job description, then the IRS could claim that you should have always been an employee the entire time, and so should every one of the other contractors that work for that company with a similar job function. It's a hornet's nest that the employer may not want to poke. But that's not your problem; what should you do about it? When you say \"\"he added my Federal and FICA W/H together\"\", do you mean that total appears in box 4 of your 1099? If so, it sounds like the employer is expecting you to re-pay the employer portion of FICA. Can you ask them if they actually paid it? If they did, then I don't see them having a choice but to issue a W2, since the IRS would be expecting one. If they didn't pay your FICA, then the amount this will cost you is 7.65% of what would have been your W2 wages. IMHO it would be reasonable for you to request that they send you a check for that extra amount. Note: even though that amount will be less than $600 and you won't receive a 1099 in 2017 for it, legally you'll still have to pay tax on that amount so I think a good estimate would be to call it 10% instead. Depending on your personality and your relationship with the employer, if they choose not to \"\"make you whole\"\", you could threaten to fill out form SS-8. Additional Info: (Thank you Bobson for bringing this up.) The situation you find yourself in is similar to the concept of \"\"Contract-to-Hire\"\". You start off as a contractor, and later convert to an employee. In order to avoid issuing a 1099 and W2 to the same person in a single tax year, companies typically utilize one of the following strategies: Your particular situation is closest to situation 2, but the reverse. Instead of retroactively calling you a W2 employee the entire time, your employer is cheating and attempting to classify you as a 1099 contractor the entire time. This is frowned upon by the IRS, as well as the employee since as you discovered it costs you more money in the form of employer FICA. From your description it sounds like your employer was trying to do you a favor and didn't quite follow through with it. What they should have done was never switch you to W2 in the first place (if you really should have been a contractor), or they should have done the conversion properly without stringing you along.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "9ca487f414c2c6031f240a6f39f57761", "text": "\"Well, as you say, the instructions for form W-2 (for your employer to fill out) say You must report all employer contributions (including an employee's contributions through a cafeteria plan) to an HSA in box 12 of Form W-2 with code W. Employer contributions to an HSA that are not excludable from the income of the employee also must be reported in boxes 1, 3, and 5. However, while it's your employer's job to fill out W-2 correctly, it's only your job to file your taxes correctly. Especially as you say your box 1/3/5 income is correct, this isn't too hard to do. You should file Form 8889 with your return and report the contributions on Line 9 as Employer Contributions. (And as you say, both what the employer contributed outright and what you had deducted from your pay are both Employer Contributions.) Be sure to keep your final pay stub for the year (or other documentation) showing that your employer did contribute that amount, just in case the IRS does end up questioning it for some reason. If you really want to, you could try calling the IRS and letting them know that you have contributions that weren't reported on your W-2 to see if they want to follow up with your employer about correcting their documentation, if your efforts have been fruitless. There's even a FAQ page on the IRS site about how to contact them when your employer isn't giving you a correct W-2 and how to fill out a Form 4852 instead of using the W-2, which I'd recommend if the amount of income listed was wrong or if there were some other more \"\"major\"\" problem with the form. Most likely, though, since it's not going to affect the amount of tax anybody will pay, it's not going to be at the top of their list. I would worry more filling out the forms you need to fill out correctly rather than worrying about the forms your employer isn't filling out correctly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e60c76c4257a2b9514250cba964fb1e6", "text": "I believe it's not only legal, but correct and required. A 1099 is how a business reports payments to others, and they're required by the IRS to send them for payments of $600 or more (for miscalleneous payments like this). The payment is an expense to the landlord and income to you, and the 1099 is how that's documented (although note that if they don't send you a 1099, it's still income to you and you still need to report it as such). It's similar to getting a 1099-INT for interest payments or a 1099-DIV for dividend payments. You'll get a 1099-MISC for a miscellaneous payment. If you were an employee they'd send you a W-2, not a 1099.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f32d820d97c3f202be1a3c1a88a1820b", "text": "\"Does he need to file a tax return in this situation? Will the IRS be concerned that he did not file even if he received a 1099? No. However, if you don't file the IRS may come back asking why, or \"\"make up\"\" a return for you assuming that the whole amount on the 1099-MISC is your net earnings. So in the end, I suspect you'll end up filing even though you don't have to, just to prove that you don't have to. Bottom line - if you have 1099 income (or any other income reported to the IRS that brings you over the filing threshold), file a return.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d261b95aa4f917f2b19443b949a5c35e", "text": "\"Whenever you do paid work for a company, you will need to fill out some sort of paperwork so that the company knows how to pay you, and also how to report how much they paid you to the appropriate government agencies. You should not think of this as a \"\"hurdle\"\" and you shouldn't worry that you haven't been employed for a long time. The two most common ways a company pays an individual are via employee wages, or \"\"independent contractor\"\" payments. When you start a relationship with a company, if you are going to become an employee, then you will out a W4 form, and at the end of the year you will receive a W2 form. If you are an independent contractor, (which you would be considered in this case), you will fill out form W9 and at the end of the year you will receive a 1099. This is completely normal and you have nothing to worry about. All it means is that if you make more than a certain amount (typically $600) in a year, you will receive a 1099 in the mail or electronically. The 1099 form basically means that they are reporting that amount to the IRS, and it also helps you file your tax return by showing you all the numbers you need on one form. Please remember that when you are paid as an independent contractor, no taxes are withheld on your behalf, so you may owe some tax on the money you make. It's best to set aside some of your income so you are prepared to pay it come tax time next year.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51e02e18fe8ff18b3bbd421ca9eeee5c", "text": "As a follow-up, I was able to find a bank that gave me a loan. I just called several banks listed on Yelp, and one ended up working with me. It is also possible that the previous banks misunderstood me and assumed I was 1099 and not W2. I made it very clear to this guy that I was W2, and there was absolutely no problem. Also, it turned out the recruiter I work for has special paperwork their employees can give to lenders to verify W2 employment. So, I have been in my condo since January. And, the condo was a little under $250K. Anyway, I still think it's ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS that banks would not give a loan to a web developer who is in super high demand and making well over 100K/year -- even if I am 1099. I have never, ever in my life been late on a single payment for anything, and I have an 800 credit score. To even question that I could not make payments is ludicrous. Whenever I put my resume on monster.com (just one web site), I receive about 20 phone calls daily -- and I am not exaggerating even slightly.", "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": "a403d7de68675f08817c02e9104ea567", "text": "If you're correct that it's not taxable because it's non-taxable reimbursement (which is supported by your W-2), then it should not go on your 1040 at all. If it is taxable, then it really should have appeared on your W-2 and would probably end up on Line 7 of your Form 1040.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "16581677e644eac47253d3d85e446f77", "text": "I suggest you have a professional assist you with this audit, if the issue comes into questioning. It might be that it wouldn't. There are several different options to deal with such situation, and each can be attacked by the IRS. You'll need to figure out the following: Have you paid taxes on the reimbursement? Most likely you haven't, but if you had - it simplifies the issue for you. Is the program qualified under the employers' plan, and the only reason you're not qualified for reimbursement is that you decided to quit your job? If so, you might not be able to deduct it at all, because you can't take tax benefits on something you can be reimbursed for, but chose not to. IRS might claim that you quitting your job is choosing not to get reimbursement you would otherwise get. I couldn't find from my brief search any examples of what happened after such a decision. You can claim it was a loan, but I doubt the IRS will agree. The employer most likely reported it as an expense. If the IRS don't contest based on what I described in #2, and you haven't paid taxes on the reimbursement (#1), I'd say what you did was reasonable and should be accepted (assuming of course you otherwise qualify for all the benefits you're asking for). I would suggest getting a professional advice. Talk to a EA or a a CPA in your area. 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": "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": "0e0ae1e5e3f2fc011f870fc4b608327e", "text": "\"You can list it as other income reported on line 21 of form 1040. In TurboTax, enter at: - Federal Taxes tab (Personal in Home & Business) - Wages & Income -“I’ll choose what I work on” Button Scroll down to: -Less Common Income -Misc Income, 1099-A, 1099-C. -The next screen will give you several choices. Choose \"\"Other reportable Income\"\". You will reach a screen where you can type a description of the income and the amount. Type in the amount of income and categorize as Tutoring.\"", "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": "d1b3d85e0259ff79c5fcce5e2a24ff6c", "text": "I assume the OP is the US and that he is, like most people, a cash-basis tax payer and not an accrual basis tax payer. Suppose the value of the rental of the unit the OP is occupying was reported as income on the OP's 2010 and 2011 W-2 forms but the corresponding income tax was not withheld. If the OP correctly transcribed these income numbers onto his tax returns, correctly computed the tax on the income reported on his 2010 and 2011 1040 forms, and paid the amount due in timely fashion, then there is no tax or penalty due for 2010 and 2011. Nor is the company entitled to withhold tax on this income for 2010 and 2011 at this time; the tax on that income has already been paid by the OP directly to the IRS and the company has nothing to do with the matter anymore. Suppose the value of the rental of the unit the OP is occupying was NOT reported as income on the OP's 2010 and 2011 W-2 forms. If the OP correctly transcribed these income numbers onto his tax returns, correctly computed the tax on the income reported on his 2010 and 2011 1040 forms, and paid the amount due in timely fashion, then there is no tax or penalty due for 2010 and 2011. Should the OP have declared the value of the rental of the unit as additional income from his employer that was not reported on the W-2 form, and paid taxes on that money? Possibly, but it would be reasonable to argue that the OP did nothing wrong other than not checking his W-2 form carefully: he simply assumed the income numbers included the value of the rental and copied whatever the company-issued W-2 form said onto his 1040 form. At least as of now, there is no reason for the IRS to question his 2010 and 2011 returns because the numbers reported to the IRS on Copy A of the W-2 forms match the numbers reported by the OP on his tax returns. My guess is that the company discovered that it had not actually declared the value of the rental payments on the OP's W-2 forms for 2010 and 2011 and now wants to include this amount as income on subsequent W-2 forms. Now, reporting a lump-sum benefit of $38K (but no actual cash) would have caused a huge amount of income tax to need to be withheld, and the OP's next couple of paychecks might well have had zero take-home pay as all the money was going towards this tax withholding. Instead, the company is saying that it will report the $38K as income in 78 equal installments (weekly paychecks over 18 months?) and withhold $150 as the tax due on each installment. If it does not already do so, it will likely also include the value of the current rent as a benefit and withhold tax on that too. So the OP's take-home pay will reduce by $150 (at least) and maybe more if the current rental payments also start appearing on the paychecks and tax is withheld from them too. I will not express an opinion on the legality of the company withholding an additional $150 as tax from the OP's paycheck, but will suggest that the solution proposed by the company (have the money appear as taxable benefits over a 78-week period, have tax withheld, and declare the income on your 2012, 2013 and 2014 returns) is far more beneficial to the OP than the company declaring to the IRS that it made a mistake on the 2010 and 2011 W-2's issued to the OP, and that the actual income paid was higher. Not only will the OP have to file amended returns for 2010 and 2011 but the company will need to amend its tax returns too. In summary, the OP needs to know that He will have to pay taxes on the value of the waived rental payments for 2010 and 2011. The company's mistake in not declaring this as income to the OP for 2010 and 2011 does not absolve him of the responsibility for paying the taxes What the company is proposing is a very reasonable solution to the problem of recovering from the mistake. The alternative, as @mhoran_psprep points out, is to amend your 2010 and 2011 federal and state tax returns to declare the value of the rental during those years as additional income, and pay taxes (and possibly penalties) on the additional amount due. This takes the company completely out of the picture, but does require a lot more work and a lot more cash now rather than in the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "64ff7d85368c789defd8b35ea3d24c03", "text": "\"The contract he wants me to sign states I'll receive my monthly stipend (if that is the right word) as a 1099 contractor. The right word is guaranteed payment, which is what \"\"salary\"\" is called when a partner is working for a partnership she's a partner in. Which is exactly the case in your situation. 1099 is not the right form to report this, the partnership (LLC in your case) should be using the Schedule K-1 for that. I suggest you talk to a lawyer and a tax adviser (EA/CPA) who are licensed in your State, before you sign anything.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f60760cdf7ae4938f7de3f0c56f80baf", "text": "Based on the statement in your question you think it should have been on the 2014 W-2 but it was included on the 2015 W-2. If you are correct, then you are asking them to correct two w-2 forms: the 2014 form and the 2015 form. You will also have to file form 1040-x for 2014 to correct last years tax forms. You will have to pay additional tax with that filing, and there could be penalties and interest. But if you directed them on the last day of the year, it is likely that the transaction actually took place the next year. You will have to look at the paperwork for the account to see what is the expected delay. You should also be able to see from the account history when it actually took place, and when the funds were credited to your account. or you could just pay the tax this year. This might be the best if there is no real difference in the result. Now if you added the sale to your taxes lat year without a corresponding tax statement from your account, that is a much more complex situation. The IRS could eventually flag the discrepancy, so you may have to adjust last year filing anyway.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "177452e08f5bcd1a5ccb6fada4720bcd", "text": "\"(Insert the usual disclaimer that I'm not any sort of tax professional; I'm just a random guy on the Internet who occasionally looks through IRS instructions for fun. Then again, what you're doing here is asking random people on the Internet for help, so here goes.) The gigantic book of \"\"How to File Your Income Taxes\"\" from the IRS is called Publication 17. That's generally where I start to figure out where to report what. The section on Royalties has this to say: Royalties from copyrights, patents, and oil, gas, and mineral properties are taxable as ordinary income. In most cases, you report royalties in Part I of Schedule E (Form 1040). However, if you hold an operating oil, gas, or mineral interest or 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). It sounds like you are receiving royalties from a copyright, and not as a self-employed writer. That means that you would report the income on Schedule E, Part I. I've not used Schedule E before, but looking at the instructions for it, you enter this as \"\"Royalty Property\"\". For royalty property, enter code “6” on line 1b and leave lines 1a and 2 blank for that property. So, in Line 1b, part A, enter code 6. (It looks like you'll only use section A here as you only have one royalty property.) Then in column A, Line 4, enter the royalties you have received. The instructions confirm that this should be the amount that you received listed on the 1099-MISC. Report on line 4 royalties from oil, gas, or mineral properties (not including operating interests); copyrights; and patents. Use a separate column (A, B, or C) for each royalty property. If you received $10 or more in royalties during 2016, the payer should send you a Form 1099-MISC or similar statement by January 31, 2017, showing the amount you received. Report this amount on line 4. I don't think that there's any relevant Expenses deductions you could take on the subsequent lines (though like I said, I've not used this form before), but if you had some specific expenses involved in producing this income it might be worth looking into further. On Line 21 you'd subtract the 0 expenses (or subtract any expenses you do manage to list) and put the total. It looks like there are more totals to accumulate on lines 23 and 24, which presumably would be equally easy as you only have the one property. Put the total again on line 26, which says to enter it on the main Form 1040 on line 17 and it thus gets included in your income.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
15fa33fb3f43a705b1de60973e3593bd	Which % of the global economy is considered “emerging”?	[ { "docid": "6fe7136d0ad975b808acb88e334ef023", "text": "The company that runs the fund (Vanguard) on their website has the information on the general breakdown of their investments of that fund. They tell you that as of July 31st 2016 it is 8.7% emerging markets. They even specifically list the 7000+ companies they have purchased stocks in. Of course the actual investment and percentages could [change every day]. Vanguard may publish on this Site, in the fund's holdings on the webpages, a detailed list of the securities (aggregated by issuer for money market funds) held in a Vanguard fund (portfolio holdings) as of the most recent calendar-quarter-end, 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter, except for Vanguard Market Neutral Fund (60 calendar days after the end of the calendar quarter), Vanguard index funds (15 calendar days after the end of the month), and Vanguard Money Market Funds (within five [5] business days after the last business day of the preceding month). Except with respect to Vanguard Money Market Funds, Vanguard may exclude any portion of these portfolio holdings from publication on this Site when deemed in the best interest of the fund.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "23c2964324abb7d0c9853444e043d7a3", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-policy-development/u-s-is-a-danger-to-the-world-warns-top-economist-idUSKCN1C41XD) reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot) *** > BARCELONA - A global push to end poverty and hunger, and combat climate change by 2030 is at risk from American &quot;Militarism&quot;, powerful business interests and the actions of President Donald Trump, said leading U.S. economist and U.N. special adviser Jeffrey Sachs. > &quot;More and more I see that while the kind of technical solutions I work on are very important ... the real obstacles that we are fighting every day are the political obstacles, the headwinds of powerful interests, bad ways of doing things,&quot; he added. > Sachs, who has helped some 100 countries shape their policies, said he had expected to focus on international development issues &quot;Because the U.S. would more or less take care of itself&quot; - but that no longer applies to his home nation. * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/73l97c/us_is_a_danger_to_the_world_warns_top_economist/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~219995 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: U.S.^#1 Sachs^#2 More^#3 United^#4 going^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f37f44c33a386f41e8aa32c706e65f5", "text": "Think of GDP growth as a weighted average of all agents in the country that produce goods and services, some grow, some retract, we get an average of ~1.5%. While the S&P 500 is just the weighted average of the 500 largest public companies, and while some shrink, most are growing. They are responsible for a portion of GDP growth, but not all. Even the Wilshire 5000, which has every public company listed will show growth larger than GDP because of the nature of the companies listed. Lastly, as time goes to infinity, all companies will grow at the rate of GDP growth, otherwise they'll consume every other company until it is the only one left. Essentially, exchanges only look at a handful of companies and their performance. GDP looks at all companies in the U$.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75c48506b317dc3518cb079bdcf946b9", "text": "\"GDP being a measurement for an economy's growth and with the stock market being driven (mostly) by company profits you would expect a tight correlation between GDP growth and stock market performance. After all, a growing economy should lead to a corresponding increase in profit right? But the stock market is heavily influenced by investor mentality; irrational exuberant buying and panic selling make the stock market far more volatile than GDP ever can be. Just look at the 2001 bubble and 2008 panic sell-off for famous examples. I feel emerging markets are particularly prone to overly optimistic buying to \"\"get in\"\" on the GDP growth followed by overly pessimistic selling when politics get unfavorable. Also keep in mind that GDP measurements are all done after the fact, the growth that is reported has already happened. The stock market might have already expected the reported growth and priced it in. A final point: governments and companies in emerging markets have a reputation (sometimes deserved) of poor governance, think corruption, nepotism etc. So even if the economy grows substantially investors might not believe they can profit from the growth. P.S. What do you base the \"\"no great increase\"\" on? Emerging markets have had a rough decade but that index would have still returned 9% annually if you held it since 2001.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0389ef13c4efdfebeb2cfe9c55344eb3", "text": "\"This might not map well, because personal finance is not the global economy; but let's start by talking about this in terms of the cost of a loan vs the gain of an investment. If you can buy a house with a mortgage at 3%, but make 7% on average in the stock market... You should take as looong as possible to pay that off, and invest every penny you can spare in the markets. Heck, if you can take on even more debt at 3%, you should still do the same. Now imagine you have the power to literally print money, but, doing so is effectively a form of \"\"loan\"\" to yourself. We call the \"\"interest\"\" on that loan \"\"inflation\"\", and it comes out to roughly 2%, basically the same rate that US treasuries pay (they aren't strictly locked, but they rarely drift far apart). So, if you can print money at 1%, you should rationally print as much money as you possibly can to buy US treasuries at 2+%. But someone has to take that money off your hands - Pallets of money siting in a warehouse aren't worth any more than the paper they're made of. There we get into trade imbalances... Whether printing money costs you 0.1% or 10% or 1000% per year depends on whether your country is, on average, making or losing money on international trade (I'm glossing over a hell of a lot there, as full disclosure), and by how much. If you're printing money as fast as you can just to buy food to stay alive with zero exports, you're screwed; if your country exports $10 to the US (or equivalents) for every $1 you import, the rest of that is essentially \"\"invested\"\" in USD, in that you didn't need to print it yourself just to feed your people.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86624c3d1509fa6dba40561c99974129", "text": "\"What a great explanation! I was familiar with many of the concepts, but I've learnt quite a lot. Do you happen to know any sources for further reading that are just as understandable to a non-economist? And/Or would you mind continuing / expanding this into whichever direction you find worth exploring? I would love to see this explanation \"\"connected\"\" to the debt crisis and how/why the US and europe seem to be in different situations there. Maybe that would be too complex to explain in more detail using your model, but maybe it is possible..?\"", "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": "5bf3487c2e9cffeaedd48bd6196fafaa", "text": "\"China's regulators, it seems, are on the attack. Guo Shuqing, chairman of the China Banking Regulatory Commission, announced recently that he'd resign if he wasn't able to discipline the banking system. Under his leadership, the CBRC is stepping up scrutiny of the role of trust companies and other financial institutions in helping China's banks circumvent lending restrictions. The People's Bank of China has also been on the offensive. It has recently raised the cost of liquidity, attacked riskier funding structures among smaller banks, and discontinued a program that effectively monetized one-fifth of last year's increase in lending. Are the regulators finally getting serious about reining in credit creation? The answer is an easy one: Yes if they're willing to allow economic growth to slow substantially, probably to 3 percent or less, and no if they aren't. inRead invented by Teads This is because there's a big difference between China's sustainable growth rate, based on rising demand driven by household consumption and productive investment, and its actual GDP growth rate, which is boosted by massive lending to fund investment projects that are driven by the need to generate economic activity and employment. Economists find it very difficult to formally acknowledge the difference between the two rates, and many don't even seem to recognize that it exists. Yet this only shows how confused economists are about gross domestic product more generally. The confusion arises because a country's GDP is not a measure of the value of goods and services it creates but rather a measure of economic activity. In a market economy, investment must create enough additional productive capacity to justify the expenditure. If it doesn't, it must be written down to its true economic value. This is why GDP is a reasonable proxy in a market economy for the value of goods and services produced. But in a command economy, investment can be driven by factors other than the need to increase productivity, such as boosting employment or local tax revenue. What's more, loss-making investments can be carried for decades before they're amortized, and insolvency can be ignored. This means that GDP growth can overstate value creation for decades. That's what has happened in China. In the first quarter of 2017, China added debt equal to more than 40 percentage points of GDP -- an amount that has been growing year after year. In 2011, the World Economic Forum predicted that China's debt would increase by a worrying $20 trillion by 2020. By 2016, it had already increased by $22 trillion, according to the most conservative estimates, and at current rates it will increase by as much as $50 trillion by 2020. These numbers probably understate the reality. If all this debt hasn't boosted China's GDP growth to substantially more than its potential growth rate, then what was the point? And why has it proven so difficult for the government to rein it in? It has promised to do so since 2012, yet credit growth has only accelerated, reaching some of the highest levels ever seen for a developing country. The answer is that credit creation had to accelerate to boost GDP growth above the growth rate of productive capacity. Much, if not most, of China's 6.5 percent GDP growth is simply an artificial boost in economic activity with no commensurate increase in the capacity to create goods and services. It must be fully reversed once credit stops growing. To make matters worse, if high debt levels generate financial distress costs for the economy -- as already seems to be happening -- the amount that must be reversed will substantially exceed the original boost. Once credit is under control, China will have lower but healthier GDP growth rates. If the economy rebalances, most Chinese might not even notice: It would require that household income -- which has grown much more slowly than GDP for nearly three decades -- now grow faster, so that the sharp slowdown in economic growth won't be matched by an equivalent slowdown in wage growth. Clear thinking from leading voices in business, economics, politics, foreign affairs, culture, and more. Share the View Enter your email Sign Up But to manage this rebalancing requires substantial transfers of wealth from local governments to ordinary households to boost consumption. This is why China hasn't been able to control credit growth in the past. The central government has had to fight off provincial \"\"vested interests,\"\" who oppose any substantial transfer of wealth. Without these transfers, slower GDP growth would mean higher unemployment. Whether regulators can succeed in reining in credit creation this time is ultimately a political question, and depends on the central government's ability to force through necessary reforms. Until then, as long as China has the debt capacity, GDP growth rates will remain high. But to see that as healthy is to miss the point completely.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf5cff032b3c606fd579c65de622fc8c", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/july/global-energy-investment-fell-for-a-second-year-in-2016-as-oil-and-gas-spending-c.html) reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot) *** > Global energy investment fell by 12% in 2016, the second consecutive year of decline, as increased spending on energy efficiency and electricity networks was more than offset by a continued drop in upstream oil and gas spending, according to the International Energy Agency&#039;s annual World Energy Investment report. > Global energy investment amounted to USD 1.7 trillion in 2016, or 2.2% of global GDP. For the first time, spending on the electricity sector around the world exceeded the combined spending on oil, gas and coal supply. > The United States saw a sharp decline in oil and gas investment, and accounted for 16% of global spending. * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6nqnvn/july_global_energy_investment_fell_for_a/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~168423 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: energy^#1 investment^#2 spender^#3 year^#4 Global^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b408999d23ce9855cfcbed05165d429b", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/28/chinas-debt-surpasses-300-percent-of-gdp-iif-says-raising-doubts-over-yellens-crisis-remarks.html) reduced by 69%. (I'm a bot) *** > Casrten Brzeski, senior economist at ING said that &quot;High debt levels mean that the debt crisis has not been solved, yet. Neither in the US, nor in the Eurozone. Increasing debt levels in Asia and other emerging market economies also show that a structural change has not yet taken place.\"\" > According to the IIF, despite the fact that debt levels have slowed down in mature economies, emerging market debt rose 5 percentage points from a year ago. > &quot;The household debt-to-GDP ratio hit an all-time high of over 45 percent in the first quarter of 2017 -well above the Emerging Market average of around 35 percent. In addition, our estimates based on monthly data on total social financing suggest that China&#039;s total debt surpassed 304 percent of GDP as of May 2017,&quot; the IIF noted. * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6p6vug/chinas_debt_surpasses_300_percent_of_gdp_iif_says/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~174153 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: debt^#1 Bank^#2 market^#3 trillion^#4 levels^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f281ca5432ea04eed56f4a9c836e0d55", "text": "The article speaks about how pieces of the pie have shrunk. I'm also curious to know if the pie's growth has maintained or shrunk as well. All the women starting full time jobs from the 60's would have to have some impact on the overall salaries. That's inevitable. And how have the demographics changed in the top 5%? Could a divergence there justify a portion of the diverging rates?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5994a1b5367cc7a98b0000bd13590441", "text": "This is an interesting read. I'd be interested in hearing what percentage of people making the high cutoff before, and then going above that after was. That is, how many low wage workers were converted to higher wage workers, and what affect that had on the resulting statistics.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c96f11b2c154045edf20bad8d9f979a4", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://about.bnef.com/blog/electric-vehicles-accelerate-54-new-car-sales-2040/) reduced by 92%. (I'm a bot) *** > London and New York, 6 July 2017 - Electric vehicles will make up the majority of new car sales worldwide by 2040, and account for 33% of all the light-duty vehicles on the road, according to new research published today. > The team now estimates that EVs will account for 54% of all new light-duty vehicle sales globally by 2040, not the 35% share it forecast previously. > BNEF sees them accounting for nearly 67% of new car sales in Europe by 2040, and for 58% in of sales in the U.S. and 51% in China by the same date. * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6p1zel/electric_vehicles_to_accelerate_to_54_of_new_car/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~173744 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: New^#1 vehicle^#2 BNEF^#3 Energy^#4 Bloomberg^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f8b1bd0693424694a36d5d0193b1a1f", "text": "This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit. - [/r/ConcentrationOfWealth] [Peak Inequality: The .01% And The Impoverishment Of Society • /r/economy](http://np.reddit.com/r/ConcentrationOfWealth/comments/2ehfse/peak_inequality_the_01_and_the_impoverishment_of/) ^If ^you ^follow ^any ^of ^the ^above ^links, ^respect ^the ^rules ^of ^reddit ^and ^don't ^vote ^or ^comment. ^Questions? ^Abuse? [^Message ^me ^here.](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmeta_bot_mailbag)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3dd3cd0bb253c7094de0c6f953b1e969", "text": "I find it somewhat doubtful that the US economy will grow by less than 16 billion in the next 33 years. 33 years ago the US had a GDP of just 4 Trillion. Yes i know that growth has slowed down considerably but I just don't see how the US economy will fail to double in such a long period of time. Hell from 2015 to 2016 the US economy grew 530 billion dollars to 18.57 Trillion dollars. Assuming Growth stopped and we simply increased our GDP by that much every year we'd increase by that much in 33 years. But that's unlikely to happen over the long period and since growth is compounding I see us easily staying ahead of India. China only gets past us on PPP seeing as their nominal economy was practically flat last year due to a slump in the renimbi.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "efedb6a2ada64387f86ac32342288419", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-31/u-s-slips-in-global-competitiveness-ranking-as-china-shoots-up) reduced by 77%. (I'm a bot) *** > The U.S. fell out of the top three in a global competitiveness ranking, as executives&#039; perception of the world&#039;s biggest economy deteriorated after Donald Trump&#039;s election. > The U.S. slipped one spot to fourth in an annual ranking published by the IMD World Competitiveness Center, a research group at IMD business school in Switzerland. > The U.S. drop largely reflects survey results, as global executives questioned by IMD ranked the country lower in categories including government and business efficiency. * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6epyee/us_slips_in_global_competitiveness_ranking_as/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~134240 tl;drs so far.\"\") \| [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) \| [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") \| Top* keywords: ranks^#1 country^#2 U.S.^#3 economy^#4 World^#5\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
27833e46ba494ac61da6cc9d8c61e83f	What are the benefits of opening an IRA in an unstable/uncertain economy?	[ { "docid": "347d5c851c80fcd03aeb5473b2a53959", "text": "\"IRAs have huge tax-advantages. You'll pay taxes when you liquidate gold and silver. While volatile, \"\"the stock market has never produced a loss during any rolling 15-year period (1926-2009)\"\" [PDF]. This is perhaps the most convincing article for retirement accounts over at I Will Teach You To Be Rich. An IRA is just a container for your money and you may invest the money however you like (cash, stocks, funds, etc). A typical investment is the purchase of stocks, bonds, and/or funds containing either or both. Stocks may pay dividends and bonds pay yields. Transactions of these things trigger capital gains (or losses). This happens if you sell or if the fund manager sells pieces of the fund to buy something in its place (i.e. transactions happen without your decision and high turnover can result in huge capital gains). In a taxable account you will pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. In an IRA you don't ever pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. Over the life of the IRA (30+ years) this can be a huge ton of savings. A traditional IRA is funded with pre-tax money and you only pay tax on the withdrawal. Therefore you get more money upfront to invest and more money compounds into greater amounts faster. A Roth IRA you fund with after-tax dollars, but your withdrawals are tax free. Traditional versus Roth comparison calculator. Here are a bunch more IRA and 401k calculators. Take a look at the IRA tax savings for various amounts compared to the same money in a taxable account. Compounding over time will make you rich and there's your reason for starting young. Increases in the value of gold and silver will never touch compounded gains. So tax savings are a huge reason to stash your money in an IRA. You trade liquidity (having to wait until age 59.5) for a heck of a lot more money. Though isn't it nice to be assured that you will have money when you retire? If you aren't going to earn it then, you'll have to earn it now. If you are going to earn it now, you may as well put it in a place that earns you even more. A traditional IRA has penalties for withdrawing before retirement age. With a Roth you can withdraw the principal at anytime without penalty as long as the account has been open 5 years. A traditional IRA requires you take out a certain amount once you reach retirement. A Roth doesn't, which means you can leave money in the account to grow even more. A Roth can be passed on to a spouse after death, and after the spouse's death onto another beneficiary. more on IRA Required Minimum Distributions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b826c0a84f0b110f908bd3de20ce1ad", "text": "Regarding investing in gold vs. stocks, I don't think I could say it better than Warren Buffett: You could take all the gold that's ever been mined, and it would fill a cube 67 feet in each direction. For what that's worth at current gold prices, you could buy all -- not some -- all of the farmland in the United States. Plus, you could buy 10 Exxon Mobils, plus have $1 trillion of walking-around money. Or you could have a big cube of metal. Which would you take? Which is going to produce more value?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "efd794cf375c797b38808e607dfeda10", "text": "Even Gold lost 1/2 of it's value between 1980 and 2000. You would not have fared well if you retired during that period heavily invested in Gold. http://www.usagold.com/reference/prices/history.html You said yourself that one can not foresee what the future will bring. At least IRA's force you to into dollar cost averaging, whereas if your money was outside of a retirement account, you might be tempted to speculate. -Ralph Winters", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18d1512abda4de57076a40fc825450fd", "text": "You bring up a valid concern. IRAs are good retirement instruments as long as the rules don't change. History has shown that governments can change the rules regarding retirement accounts. As long as you have some of your retirement assets outside of an IRA I think IRAs are good ways to save for retirement. It's not possible to withdraw the money before retirement without penalty. Also, you will be penalized if you do not withdraw enough when you do retire.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbbc82fbd231bbe26174b6697a68203d", "text": "Yes, it's possible to withdraw money without penalty but you have to do it in a special way. For example you have to withdraw the same amount every year until you retire: Tapping Your IRA Penalty-Free as for unstable economy - you can trade many instruments in your IRA. you can do bonds, mutual funds, stocks, ETFs or just keep it in cash. Some do well in bad economy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61c462dc6bf0528ecc69846b78cf4479", "text": "As I stated in my comment on @JCotton's answer, the only way you benefit by putting your money in an IRA or other tax-deferred vehicle is if you expect to have a lower tax rate when you withdraw than when you put the money in. If you look at @JCotton's numbers and remember to pay taxes when you withdraw the money in 30 years, you will see that both situations - paying taxes now or 30 years from now - give you the exact same dollar amount if the tax rates are the same at both points in time. So if you put money in an IRA, you're betting on the fact that the government will not substantially raise interest rates by then, and/or that you will be in a lower tax bracket. To me, the only valid reasons to invest in an IRA or 401K are the following: However, you should also consider the major downside that the money is locked away and, at best, inconvenient to access when you need it. At worst, you have to pay taxes and penalties if you ever withdraw that money. If you are a financially responsible person, I think you're generally better off keeping your money outside of an IRA or 401K, with the exception of making sure to get all of your employer's matching contributions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a73a32e9c0c175cc10a1014387ee433f", "text": "\"Your are mixing multiple questions with assertions which may or may not be true. So I'll take a stab at this, comment if it doesn't make sense to you. To answer the question in the title, you invest in an IRA because you want to save money to allow you to retire. The government provides you with tax incentives that make an IRA an excellent vehicle to do this. The rules regarding IRA tax treatment provide disincentives, through tax penalties, for withdrawing money before retirement. This topic is covered dozens of times, so search around for more detail. Regarding your desire to invest in items with high \"\"intrinsic\"\" value, I would argue that gold and silver are not good vehicles for doing this. Intrinsic value doesn't mean what you want it to mean in this context -- gold and silver are commodities, whose prices fluctuate dramatically. If you want to grow money for retirement over a long period, of time, you should be invested in diversified collection of investments, and precious metals should be a relatively small part of your portfolio.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c5dd8cdb1892363bbaa7e0b9547ae431", "text": "Without making specific recommendations, it is worthwhile to point out the differing tax treatments for a Roth IRA: investments in a Roth IRA will not be taxed when you withdraw them during retirement (unless they change the law on that or something crazy). So if you are thinking about investing in some areas with high risk and high potential reward (e.g. emerging market stocks) then the Roth IRA might be the place to do it. That way, if the investment works out, you have more money in the account that won't ever be taxed. We can talk about the possible risks of certain kinds of investments, but this is not an appropriate forum to recommend for or against them specifically. Healthcare stocks are subject to political risk in the current regulatory climate. BRICs are subject to political risks regarding the political and business climate in the relevant nations, and the growth of their economies need not correspond with growth in the companies you hold in your portfolio. Energy stocks are subject to the world economic climate and demand for oil, unless you're talking alternative-energy stocks, which are subject to political risk regarding their subsidies and technological risk regarding whether or not their technologies pan out. It is worth pointing out that any ETF you invest in will have a prospectus, and that prospectus will contain a section discussing the risks which could affect your investment. Read it before investing! :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6717866315a55e750928ea6245ad3f8b", "text": "I don't quite understand your thought process here. First, in a tax-advantaged retirement account you are NOT allowed to engage in a transaction with yourself. If you just want to run a business and be able to write off expenses, how is using the self-directed IRA relevant? You can either buy the condo using your tax-advantaged account and rent it out to regular tenants. Or you buy the condo yourself using your own money and then operate your business so you can deduct business expenses from doing so. 401k's allow you to take a loan out of it, so you can look into that as well.", "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": "0d4da236acbcbe8db2d292c774cbf990", "text": "\"I would add to the other excellent answers that another factor besides just high unemployment numbers is the fear people have regarding the \"\"financial\"\" aspects of the country, that is the value of stocks and the value of the dollar. When the economy is sluggish it means people aren't buying enough, therefore companies aren't making enough, therefore their profits are too low and people start to divest from them, and stock prices drop. Or even the fear of this happening can induce people to sell off shares. The point is, people are worried \"\"in this economy\"\" because if--due to unemployment, low spending/consumer confidence--the stock market crashes again as it did in 2008/09, that represents a lot of savings lost, e.g. 40-50% of what one was counting on to retire with, particularly if you panic sell at the bottom. Now suddenly it's as if you had a huge robbery, and you will have to work longer into your retirement years than you'd planned. Similarly, if, due to monetary policy, the U.S. inflates the dollar, what one saved for retirement may not be sufficient. (These arguments are true for shorter periods than just one's retirement, but just taking that as an example). So it's not just unemployment that is worrisome \"\"in this economy\"\". This said, I agree with George Marian that one ought to be careful and plan well regardless of the winds of the economy. I guess for most people (and companies), though, \"\"in this economy\"\" means they can't get away with the kind of carelessness they might have during a boom.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b35101b9909b455d70fefabb955441cf", "text": "This analysis misses the opportunities the Roth IRA presents to those with special access. It assumes that all money grows at the same rate, with investments at regular intervals. These assumptions hold for normal workers, but not for the privileged. Suppose, for example, that in a single year you have limited access to a security that is an acorn you know will grow into a mighty oak; for this example, this security will grow 1000x over some short period of time. For simplicity, assume both the value of acorns you can buy and the the maximum IRA contribution in this year is $5K. After the short acorn growth period, the after tax values are: There is a minor difference in the amount of money you need to buy the acorns (pre v. post tax), but this is negligible relative to the amount of cash you can assume you have on hand to have special access. The Atlantic provides an acorn example from private equity (not used with a Roth) and this Washington Post article describes someone with non-publicly traded startup stocks and a Roth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9446134c4389c8289474a7910980a74b", "text": "Then at the end, if you decide to cash in your house, you can roll the proceeds into a fancier house to avoid paying taxes on your profit. The problem is that the book was written in 1989. That comment is no longer true; that part of the tax law changed in the 1990's. Also in 1989 the maximum amount that person could put in an IRA was $2,000 and hadn't been raised for almost a decade and wouldn't be raised for another decade. Roth accounts didn't exist; nor did HSA's or 529's. Most people didn't have a 401K. You are asking to compare what options we have today compared to what was available in the late 1980's. For me except, for the years 2001-2005 and 2010-2015, the period from 1988 until now has had flat real estate values. Still the current values haven't returned to the peak in 2005. The score is 11 great years, 17 flat or negative. I know many people who during the 1990's had a zero return on their real estate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4f272cbcf780e50d86fda8794acb691", "text": "You might be confusing two different things. An advantage of investing over a long term is the compounding of returns. Those returns can be interest, dividends, or capital gains. The mix between them depends on what you invest it and how you invest in it. This advantage applies whether your investment is in a taxable brokerage account or in a tax-advantaged 401K or IRA. So, start investing early so that you have longer for this compounding of returns to happen. The second thing is the tax deferral you get from 401(k) or IRAs. If you invest in a ordinary taxable account, then you have to pay taxes on your interest and dividends for the year in which they occur. You also have to pay taxes on any capital gains which you realize during the year. These yearly tax payments are then money that you don't get the benefit of compounding on. With 401(k) and IRAs, you don't have to pay taxes during these intermediate years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e687d3a0caba7580b4613cd562a56be5", "text": "I think you may be drawing the wrong conclusion about why you put what type of investment in a taxable vs. tax-advantaged account. It is not so much about risk, but type of return. If you're investing both tax-advantaged and taxable accounts, you can benefit by putting more tax-inefficient investments inside your tax-advantaged accounts. Some aggressive asset types, like real estate, can throw off a lot of taxable income. If your asset allocation calls for investing in real estate, holding it in a 401k or IRA can allow more of your money to remain invested, rather than having to use it to pay for taxes. And if you're holding in a Roth IRA, you get that tax free. But bonds, a decidedly non-aggressive asset, also throw off a lot of taxable income. You're able to hold them in a tax-advantaged account and not pay taxes on the income until you withdraw it from the account (or tax free in the case of a Roth account.) An aggressive stock fund that is primarily expected to provide returns via price appreciation would do well in a taxable account because there's likely little tax consequence to you until it is sold.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2c9d55800920d12987fec8518dbba0a", "text": "\"That depends, really. Generally speaking, though - Roth IRAs are THE PLACE for Stock-Market/Mutual-Fund investing. All the off the wall (or, not so off the wall) things like Real Estate investments, or buying up gold, or whatever other ideas you hear from people - they may be good or bad or whatnot. But your Roth IRA is maybe not the best place for that sort of thing. The whole philosophy behind IRAs is to deliberately set aside money for the future. Anything reasonable will work for this. Explore interesting investment ideas with today's money, not tomorrow's money. That being said - at your age I would go for the riskier options within what's available. If I were in your situation (and I have been, recently), I would lean toward low-fee mutual funds classified as \"\"Growth\"\" funds. My own personal opinion (THIS IS NOT ADVICE) is that Small Cap International funds are the place to be for young folks. That's a generalized opinion based on my feel for the world, but I don't think I'm personally competent to start making specific stock picks. So, mutual funds makes sense to me in that I can select the fund that generally aligns with my sense of things, and assume that their managers will make reasonably sound decisions within that framework. Of course that assumption has to be backed up with reputation of the specific MF company and the comparative performance of the fund relative to other funds in the same sector. As to the generalized question (how else can you work toward financial stability and independence), outside of your Roth IRA: find ways to boost your earning potential over time, and buy a house before the next bubble (within the next 18 months, I'm GUESSING).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cab8a85705f3c03341cab69c7efa553e", "text": "If you look at history, it shows that the more people predict corrections the less was the chance they came. That doesn't prove it stays so, though. 2017 is not any different than other years in the future: Independent of this, with less than ten years remaining until you need to draw from your money, it is a good idea to move away from high risk (and high gain); you will not have enough time to recover if it goes awry. There are different approaches, but you should slowly and continuously migrate your capital to less risky investments. Pick some good days and move 10% or 20% each time to low-risk, so that towards the end of the remaining time 90 or 100% are low or zero risk investments. Many investment banks and retirement funds offer dedicated funds for that, they are called 'Retirement 2020' or 'Retirement 2030'; they do exactly this 'slow and continuous moving over' for you; just pick the right one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c6447c101e56bd225ca1f42fd858639", "text": "Why would somebody want an IRA if they have a 401K and a Roth 401K?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c31fd2ca20d45cccad3bed1bf0859cf", "text": "\"Well.... If you have alllll your money invested, and then there's a financial crisis, and there's a personal crisis at the same time (e.g. you lose your job) then you're in big trouble. You might not have enough money to cover your bills while you find a new job. You could lose your house, ruin your credit, or something icky like that. Think 2008. Even if there's not a financial crisis, if the money is in a tax-sheltered retirement account then withdrawing it will incur ugly penalities. Now, after you've got an emergency fund established, things are different. If you could probably ride out six to twelve months with your general-purpose savings, then with the money you are investing for the long term (retirement) there's no reason you shouldn't invest 100% of the money in stocks. The difference is that you're not going to come back for that money in 6 months, you're going to come back for it in 40 years. As for retirement savings over the long term, though, I don't think it's a good idea to think of your money in those terms. If you ever lose 100% of your money on the stock market while you've invested in diversified instruments like S&P500 index funds, you're probably screwed one way or another because that represents the core industrial base of the US economy, and you'll have better things to worry about, like looking for a used shotgun. Myself, I prefer to give the suggestion \"\"don't invest any money in stocks if you're going to need to take it out in the next 5 years or so\"\" because you generally shouldn't be worried about a 100% loss of all the money in stocks your retirement accounts nearly so much as you should be worried about weathering large, medium-term setbacks, like the dot-com bubble crash and the 2008 financial crisis. I save the \"\"don't invest money unless you can afford to lose it all\"\" advice for highly speculative instruments like gold futures or social-media IPOs. Remember also that while you might lose a lot of your money on the stock market, your savings accounts and bonds will earn you pathetic amounts by comparison, which you will slowly lose to inflation. If you've had your money invested for decades then even during a crash you may still be coming out ahead relative to bonds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f863f9b00fc3ab68fa29c09bed2ffde", "text": "\"To keep it simple, I will keep the focus between a Trad IRA and a normal Taxable account (Roth's and 401(k) add more complications that make another problem). I will also assume, based on the question, that you aren't able to deduct the IRA contributions. Also, a Roth is better in every way than a non-deductible Trad IRA so the \"\"backdoor Roth\"\" mentioned in other answers is probably the way to go and this is more of an academic exercise. Ok, so why bother with the IRA if you're taxed anyway? Because you aren't taxed as you go! With a normal non-tax-advantaged account you have to pay taxes every year on any realized capital gains and dividends (including fund distributions). Because of the compounding nature of savings, delaying paying taxes is in your best interest. Simple example: Taxable Account: IRA Account: Now, this is a very simplified example. If you're more tax-conscious (i.e. more buy-and-holding), you can delay paying some of the long-term cap gains in the taxable account, but any short-term cap gains (including distributions from the underlying funds) will be at your marginal income tax rate. A few other observations: EDIT: I set up a spreadsheet where each year I deposited $1000 for 35 years. Each year, the balance in the IRA account grows by 5%, but the taxable only by 5%*(1-0.15) = 4.25% due to the effect of taxes. At the end of 35 years, my simulation assumes you pay 15% on all the gains in the IRA, which would likely not be the case, but easier than forecasting through retirement and demonstrates what I'm trying to show. Here's plot showing the balance in the various accounts, the blue is the IRA account, orange the taxable account, and grey is the effective balance of the IRA, after paying taxes on the gains: And here's a plot of the advantage of the IRA (after paying taxes on the gains), vs the taxable account: Whether that's worth it to you or anyone depends on some the assumptions in the simulation, especially effective tax rates, and growth rates, as well as any personal issues. Some people may be less likely to raid an IRA account, for example, than a normal account. Conversely, if you have a project coming up, you may need something a bit more liquid than an IRA.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2268cd97ad96813139a7a735fb5a81c3", "text": "Unfortunately, that's a call only you can make and whichever route you choose comes with advantages and disadvantages. If you manage your money directly, you may significantly reduce costs (assuming that you don't frequently trade index funds or you use a brokerage like RobinHood) and take advantage of market returns if the indexes perform well. On the other hand, if the market experiences some bad years, a professional might (and this is a huge might) have more self-discipline and prevent a panic sell, or know how to allocate accordingly both before and after a rise or fall (keep in mind, investors often get too greedy for their own good, like they tend to panic at the wrong time). As an example of why this might is important: one family member of mine trusted a professional to do this and they failed; they bought in a rising market and sold in a falling market. To avoid the above example, if you do go with the professional service, the best course of action is to look at their track record; if they're new, you might be better on your own. Since I assume this one or more professionals at the company, testing to see what they've recommended over the years might help you evaluate if they're offering you a good choice. Finally, depending on how much money you have, you could always do what Scott Adams did: he took a portion of his own money and managed it himself and tested how well he did vs. how well his professional team did (if I recall, I believe he came out ahead of his professional team). With two decades left, that may help guide you the rest of the way, even through retirement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2889ad9fd541beb4dccf1c5c25b0dfaa", "text": "You have many options, and there is no one-size-fits-all recommendation. You can contribute to your IRA in addition to your 401(k), but because you have that 401(k), it is not tax-deductable. So there is little advantage in putting money in the IRA compared to saving it in a personal investment account, where you keep full control over it. It does, however, open the option to do a backdoor-rollover from that IRA to a Roth IRA, which is a good idea to have; you will not pay any taxes if you do that conversion, if the money in the IRA was not tax deducted (which it isn't as you have the 401(k)). You can also contribute to a Roth IRA directly, if you are under the income limits for that (193k$ for married, I think, not sure for single). If this is the case, you don't need to take the detour through the IRA with the backdoor-rollover. Main advantage for Roth is that gains are tax free. There are many other answers here that give details on where to save if you have more money to save. In a nutshell, In between is 'pay off all high-interest debt', I think right after 1. - if you have any. 'High-Interest' means anything that costs more interest than you can expect when investing.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
5c33d6d48df05dfa186daa003b5abb53	Why is everyone saying how desperately we need to save money “in this economy”?	[ { "docid": "b11df8886bfc15acff79643c963ad347", "text": "\"You ask a few different, though not unrelated, questions. Everywhere you turn today, you hear people talk about how much they need to save or how important it is to find a good deal on things \"\"in this economy\"\". They use phrases like \"\"now more than ever\"\" and \"\"in these uncertain times\"\". It seems to be a lot of doom and gloom. Some of this is marketing spiel. You may notice that when the economy goes south the number of ads for the cheaper alternatives goes north. (e.g. hair clippers, discount grocery stores, discount just about anything) Truth is, we should always be looking for ways to save money on goods and services we purchase. The question is, what is acceptable to you for your desired lifestyle. (And, is that desired lifestyle reasonable for your income, age and personal situation.) Generally speaking, the harder times are the more we find discounted/cheaper alternatives acceptable. Is there really a good reason that people should be saving more than spending right now? How much you are putting away is a personal matter. I can still remember my dad griping whenever he couldn't save half of his paycheck. That said, putting away half your paycheck may lead to a rather austere lifestyle. This, of course, depends on the size of your paycheck and your desired lifestyle. You could be raking it, living simply and potentially put away more than half your income with relative ease. If you have a stable job, and a decent cash reserve, is it anymore \"\"dangerous\"\" to make a large purchase now than it was seven years ago? Who knows? Honestly, no one. Predicting the future is a fool's errand. (If you are interested in reading more on this view point, I suggest The Black Swan.) You mention the correct approach in this question. Ensure that you have liquid assets (cash or cash equivalents, i.e. money that you can draw on immediately and isn't credit) which covers at least 3-6 months of your necessary expenses (rent/mortgage, bills, car payments, food). (There is no reason that you couldn't try to increase this to 1 year, especially \"\"in this economy.\"\") You should also strive to have money available for emergencies that don't necessarily include loss of income. Of course, make sure you're putting away for retirement, as appropriate for your retirement goals. After that should come discretionary items, including investing, entertainment, the large purchase you mentioned, etc. You should never use money that you may need immediately (5-10 years) for investing. This doesn't necessarily include the large purchase you are contemplating. For example, if you are considering purchasing a home, the down-payment may be one of the items for which you need money in the \"\"immediate\"\" future. Is it really only because of unemployment numbers? This is probably the big one that is the focus of everyone's attention. That said, the human attention span is limited. We have a natural need to simplify things. This is one of the reasons that we tend to focus on a few, hopefully important, things. However, the unemployment numbers are not that the only thing of concern. Credit is still pretty hard to come by these days. The overall economy is still hurting, even if we are technically no longer in a recession. There are also concerns about U.S. government borrowing, consumer spending, recent trucking numbers, etc. (It may not be obvious, but trucking is used as a barometer of economic activity. If there aren't as many trucks carting goods across the country, it probably means that there is less economic activity.) The headline number these days is unemployment, as most census workers have now been returned to the pool. To answer the overall question, we should always be saving money, in good times or in bad. Be that by squeezing more value out of our purchases or by putting some money away. We should always try to reduce our risks, by having an emergency \"\"cash\"\" cushion. We should always be saving for retirement. Truth be told, it is probably more important to put money away in good times, before the hardships hit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f96bfee69cfdf9f7b0449bd154e8df2", "text": "As you point out in your question your risk level is personal. If you really believe your job is stable there is no more risk. However the overall evidence is that most jobs are less stable, and if you do lose your job you're likely going to be out of work for a while. One thing to consider though is that if you have planned on emergency credit in the past, that option is not really viable anymore.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d4da236acbcbe8db2d292c774cbf990", "text": "\"I would add to the other excellent answers that another factor besides just high unemployment numbers is the fear people have regarding the \"\"financial\"\" aspects of the country, that is the value of stocks and the value of the dollar. When the economy is sluggish it means people aren't buying enough, therefore companies aren't making enough, therefore their profits are too low and people start to divest from them, and stock prices drop. Or even the fear of this happening can induce people to sell off shares. The point is, people are worried \"\"in this economy\"\" because if--due to unemployment, low spending/consumer confidence--the stock market crashes again as it did in 2008/09, that represents a lot of savings lost, e.g. 40-50% of what one was counting on to retire with, particularly if you panic sell at the bottom. Now suddenly it's as if you had a huge robbery, and you will have to work longer into your retirement years than you'd planned. Similarly, if, due to monetary policy, the U.S. inflates the dollar, what one saved for retirement may not be sufficient. (These arguments are true for shorter periods than just one's retirement, but just taking that as an example). So it's not just unemployment that is worrisome \"\"in this economy\"\". This said, I agree with George Marian that one ought to be careful and plan well regardless of the winds of the economy. I guess for most people (and companies), though, \"\"in this economy\"\" means they can't get away with the kind of carelessness they might have during a boom.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5916d0641665dba5b9bd44c1ea6d82c8", "text": "It's all about risk. In 1990, expressing the idea of the US defaulting on debt payments would result in you being labelled as a crank. Yet in 2011, the President and Speaker of the House played chicken with the credit of the United States, and have a date to do it again in December 2011.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f9b25ee0fc4e9ae4d7ebf4281e3679a", "text": "Saving some money for the future is a good idea. But how much to save is a tough question. I retired with a small fraction of what the experts said I would need. Three years later, I can confidently say I did not even need what I had saved.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10cdd96d500ca701a652bd70c1b162fd", "text": "This was called Financial repression by Edward S. Shaw and Ronald I. McKinnon from Stanford (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_repression). Financial repression is the situation, when government is stealing from people, who rely heavily on saving, rather then on spending. Meaning that your saving rates will be a lot worse then inflation rate. Financial markets are artificially hot and interest rates artificially low (average historical interest rate is 10%). This could be a possible predictor state to hyper-inflation.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c256cc471cf2a1929507906a781f412f", "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 bank 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": "ca285c080f0cfbf760d644dbff0775e2", "text": "What is best for everyone is maximizing the effectiveness of the resources at hand. We are most certainly not doing that, as there is just so much capacity sitting idle right now. Demand is what we are lacking. Stimulus creates demand. Demand puts people to work, it builds companies, it brings ideas to fruition. Effective limiters can be used to avoid consequences of an overheating economy when that time comes, but we are far away from that point. Imposing these silly superstitions that somehow someday the U.S. is going to get to a point where we can't pay back our debt is making us lose focus on the fact that real people are suffering today, and that we can do something about it. Without artificial constraints like congress putting a limit on the debt, it is impossible for the U.S. government to default.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f07af10bc00f54fb90c1694898806ea", "text": "\"Both OP and the author of the newspaper article should have titled this \"\"When the media take the time to explain the true state of our economy, people are less optimistic about the future.\"\" A simple link to [this](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/UMCSENT) graph would show that consumer confidence has rebounded, but dipped during the debt crisis (as it should have) because the media were reminding people how utterly weak our economy is. The fact that average hourly earnings today are exactly where they were in 2008 is a disaster. But to state that Americans perception of the economy is worse is flat wrong. They actually perceive it as improving when in fact it's on extremely shaky ground.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e1626a8841ae03410334dd28d884510", "text": "\"If one takes a slightly more expansive view of the word \"\"saving\"\" to include most forms of durable asset accumulation, I think the reason some do and most don't is a matter of a few factors, I will include the three that seem obvious to me: Education Most schools in the US where I live do not offer personal finance courses, and even when they do, there is no opportunity for a student to practice good financial habits in that classroom setting. I think a simple assignment that required students to track every penny that they spend over the period of a few months would help them open their eyes to how much money is spent on trivial things that they don't need. Perhaps this would be more effective in a university setting where the students are usually away from home and therefore more responsible for the spending that occurs on their own behalf. Beyond simple education about personal finances, most people have no clue how the various financial markets work. If they understood, they would not allow inflation to eat away at their savings, but that's a separate topic from why people do not save. Culture Since much of the education above isn't happening, children get their primary financial education from their parents. This means that those who are wealthy teach their children how to be wealthy, and those who are poor pass on their habits to children who often also end up poor. Erroneous ideas about consumption vs. investment and its economic effects also causes some bad policy encouraging people to live beyond their means and use credit unwisely, but if you live in a country where the average person expects to eat out regularly and trade in their automobiles as soon as they experienced their highest rate of depreciation, it can be hard to recognize bad financial behavior for what it is. Collective savings rates reflect a lot of individuals who are emulating each other's bad behavior. Discipline Even when someone is educated about finances, they may not establish good habits of budgeting regularly, tracking spending, and setting financial goals. For me, it helps to be married to someone who has similar financial goals, because we budget monthly and any major purchases (over $100 or so) must be agreed upon at the beginning of the month (with obvious exceptions for emergencies). This eliminates any impulsive spending, which is probably 90% of the battle for me. Some people do not need to account to someone else in order to spend wisely, but everyone should find a system that works for them and helps them to maintain some financial discipline.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d10fdaed8cd256c5d5b2dd3f2d9e6c7", "text": "Can you even answer a simple question? Economics is not game unless you're thinking playing with people lives is a game? Government saving is giving away money? What? Do you even know what saving means? Also it's not because I don't agree with you that I don't have an open mind. I go with the facts and the facts suggest you're on another planet. Going against the status quo isn't a sign of an open mind.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06e5cec01e37f8eb72bb05d352980cf3", "text": ">if you don’t have a lot of money, the presence of a sizable sum in the house or even in the bank means that you’ll be constantly tempted to dip into it. The psychology behind statements like this are a source of amusement to me. They seem to presuppose that those who have less money are bad with it, kind of a chicken and egg issue that assumes one over the other. It makes me think that authors, researchers and opiners have likely never felt the degree of financial insecurity that drives behaviors such as the ones being discussed. If you don't have a lot of money, the possession of a sizable sum presents other problems, such as issues of needs and purchases that have been put off due to a lack of resources while you prioritized for survival. You put off buying the washing machine because your car needed repairs, how else were you going to be able to get to work? You can limp by using a laundromat or doing laundry at your parents' house. But you likely put off all sorts of other needs as well, and now you have to find the best way to allocate a sizable sum that likely isn't going to be enough to address all of the needs you have put off. While you're trying to decide how to best allocate this resource, don't forget the talking heads that lecture you on the importance of an emergency fund. Disregard for a moment that when cash is such a scarce resource, any unexpectedly dire circumstance which would be best resolved by your having more of it probably constitutes an emergency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b97e5030624fbfd621ea1dc1f44dddc8", "text": "\"If I understand, you're saying that the cause of the slow recovery is structural. That is, that our economic problems are due to to being unproductive. That's simply wrong. [There is no evidence of that.](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/the-structural-obsession/) Moreover, there is not \"\"plenty of demand\"\" as you claim. Expected aggregate demand growth isn't what it used to be.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3922bedf4de543ac54fbd00e3a7c3fa7", "text": "\"but simple economics also proves that if you have no savings (most millennials do not these days at least in Canada) and you have no income, then you have no entertainment or more importantly no shelter and food. I would understand taking a cashier job instead of store manager job because of the fewer hours and responsibility, but does \"\"no income\"\" not mean you go hungry? If that is true, where are they getting their food from?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41f63306bc3f9040845fb2bb465aa323", "text": "\"Well, first off - yes, every year the younger generation grows up but remember that the older generation also dying off/leaving the market place. Also, what happens if the younger generation can't take up enough debt in order to pay for previous commitments? Secondly, I think you're confusing the money supply with actual production. The two are pretty much divorced from each other - money doesn't require a \"\"resource\"\" per se (at least, not since leaving the gold standard), it just requires that someone is able/willing to take on debt. For example, every time you take a loan out from the bank, you are effectively creating money. This is called bank credit and if you live in a country that uses fractional reserve banking then it makes up a very large part of your money supply (think like up to 95%). When bank's create money, they only create the principle amount (ie. the original loan amount) and not the interest amount as well. This means that someone else needs to take out a loan so that you can repay the amount in interest that you owe on your new loan. This doesn't normally affect you because there are lots of people taking out lots of loans all the time and money is circulating around in the economy. The problem is that eventually the system gets to a stage where people can't really take out loans any more, they just have too much debt, and so you end up with a liquidity crisis like in 2008. So what I was saying is that either I'm missing something pretty obvious and I've got this wrong or this is exactly how it works and economists like to just ignore it for the benefits that it offers...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76d142e5fb17aaf1ea6bbf10412bf8fd", "text": "Preparations for inflation that is not going to happen anytime soon is preventing much needed currency from being injected into the system. The deflationary pressures are so strong that less and less currency is being circulated, as people fear for the future. They save more and spend less, because their neighbor's out of work, and they might be next (if they are lucky enough to still have a job). That's not to mention that huge mortgage that they bought into, and are now massively underwater with. With that, they are constantly removing chunks of currency from circulation. When everyone is taking chunks out, the demand for currency rises, and demand for goods and services dies, creating an ever deepening hole. So yes, I think the government should be making major purchases, damn the deficit. Fiber to everyone's home, absolutely massive funding of clean energy research and projects, combat infrastructure decay, etc etc. Labor and resources are cheap right now, and leaving all these people with stagnating skill sets by the wayside with no options creates an exponential decrease in productivity. We have the methods to control inflation when and if it rears it head.. high taxation and high interest rates. Let's burn that bridge when we get there. The U.S. budget does not work like a household, as alluring as this analogy is. There is no paying back the deficit, and there will never be a problem paying the interest on a a currency we can make more of at any point. The real limitation here is inflation, and we have none.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5adec6c3986a6144d2b490f6718cbc7", "text": "\"Smartphones? Really? How about a lack of work and a scarcity of disposable income? Currently the US unemployment rate is at 4.2%, below the mark for \"\"full employment\"\" and well below where upwards wage pressure should be forming. At the same time, the participation rate is also moribund, dithering around the 60% mark. At this point, there should be so much wage pressure that an argument over minimum wage should be moot, as even the corner McD's should be offering $15 an hour just to get people to notice the help wanted sign, and yet it isn't happening. Why? Because there are no jobs. \"\"But the BLS says there are 6.2 million jobs available!\"\" you say. Yes, and they've said so since July. This is called churn, and it's the same jobs being offered over and over again to people who stay for a month and move on. The low inflation is due to one thing: Normal, everyday people have no money to spend, there is no real economic growth, there is no wage pressure. All the money is locked up in financial markets, making more wealth, but producing nothing. \"\"But look at all the smartphones that exist today\"\" that replaced flip phones that replaced wall phones. Sure, everything is cheaper: It has to be, or else no one could afford it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b8ac04acdd03e5aee92e8b4c4d3c7d80", "text": "\"It's also not really anything new. For a several decades, a huge percentage of the population has been essentially living paycheck-to-paycheck, and with essentially zero cash savings to cover emergencies. It's possible that it is slightly worse now in the sense that -- with the pervasive use of credit & debit cards, etc -- few people deal in cash or change very often ... and so they don't even have the old proverbial \"\"piggy banks\"\" (or jars/bottles filled with end-of-day pocket-change) that they can raid for $50 or $100. Oh, and THAT really has nothing to do with \"\"bubbles\"\". --- EDIT: Plus another thought... just the other day there was an article crowing about how Millennials are \"\"saving for retirement\"\" in higher amounts and at earlier ages than prior generations -- if that is true, then a likely corollary would be that they are NOT engaged in plain old \"\"savings\"\" at the same rate -- i.e. what money they are \"\"stashing away\"\" is all heading to Wall Street, and is difficult to access in an emergency (and if they did access 401k savings, it would likely be as a \"\"loan\"\" -- rather than paying the early-withdrawal penalties & taxes).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc2c03f56b9573df37e0b93d383d7a0a", "text": "\"There's a lot wrong with your explanation and analogy. I believe you are trying to refute otherwiseyep but you haven't really. You have described the \"\"work\"\" or the \"\"step in the money-building process,\"\" that was happening before otherwiseyep's scenario. otherwiseyep's scenario begins at \"\"the apple farmer wants to get some meat but the orchard hasn't matured yet,\"\" implying that apples have in fact been traded for meat in real time. Secondly, I would much prefer a person build their own explanation and analogy than build onto someone else's while thinking it insightful in any way. Lastly, you went all Paul Krugman on us and used the word \"\"costs of production\"\" which I think you mean to be \"\"work\"\" but you did not build that analogy. When you went \"\"Paul Krugman,\"\" you jumped a HUGE boat. Krugman talks about very advanced economics and some of his stuff is political in nature. At no point did you build any specific analogies to Paul Krugman's many theories. You so completely lost me with that, I almost went into negative integers. Edit: otherwiseyep had been misspelled as otherwiseyes. Slightly laughable.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "465225c92c657be73d2e99211fcc0048", "text": "Because its working so well right now? Companies will still higher new employees if there is a demand. Some people might lose their jobs but it will not be something that cripples the economy. This sky is falling mentality is what keeps us stuck in this pseudo slavery enviornment we live in right now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "92310c6dc73db7a4cbbb2ccb0b699dd8", "text": "Besides all of the other answers, I will point out that many people simply don't have enough cash sitting around to buy a home outright. It would take many years (or even decades) for the average family to accumulate the necessary cash. Also, while you are pinching your pennies for years in an attempt to save up for your dream house, remember that inflation is steadily driving up the cost of goods and services. A house that costs $200K today could cost $230K in 5 years due to inflation.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
5d48dfa42c69837464ba17996277c9b0	How is gold shared in worldwide economies?	[ { "docid": "65ee28372de3872e9a359166613cfa9a", "text": "Money is no longer backed by gold. It's backed by the faith and credit of the issuing government. A new country,say, will first trade goods for dollars or other currency, so its ownership of gold is irrelevant. Its currency will trade at a value based on supply/demand for that currency. If it's an unstable currency, inflating too quickly, the exchange rate will reflect that as well. More than that your question kind of mixes a number of issues, loosely related. First is the gold question, second, the question of currency exchange rates and they are derived, with an example of a new country. Both interesting, but distinct processes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2010171848c9f2ed7905095c9d3428af", "text": "\"You might want to read about about the Coase Theorem. \"\"In law and economics, the Coase theorem, attributed to Ronald Coase, describes the economic efficiency of an economic allocation or outcome in the presence of externalities. The theorem states that if trade in an externality is possible and there are no transaction costs, bargaining will lead to an efficient outcome regardless of the initial allocation of property rights. In practice, obstacles to bargaining or poorly defined property rights can prevent Coasian bargaining.\"\" This is similar to what you are asking. Each country has an endowment of gold, and they must create a set amount of money to represent their endowment of gold. This will establish an exchange rate. If I have 5 tons of gold and you have 5 tons, and I print 10 dollars and you print 20, then one of my dollars is worth two of your dollars. Thus, the amount of money is not relevant- it's the exchange rate between the countries. If all the nations know each other's gold endowment, then we will have a perfect exchange rate. If we don't, then currency printing will vary but arbitrage should drive it to an accurate price. Gold and diamonds are both valuable in part due to scarcity, but gold has been used as a measure of value because it's been historically used as a medium of exchange. People just realized that swapping paper was safer and cheaper than physically transporting gold, but the idea of gold as a measure of value is present because \"\"that's how it's always been.\"\" Nobody \"\"creates/supervises\"\" these procedures, but organizations like the IMF, ECB, Fed Reserve, etc implement monetary policy to regulate the money supply and arbitrage drives exchange rates to fair values.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d226080c7b877bcf69c1d5c424cde17", "text": "I think you are asking a few questions here. Why is gold chosen as money? In a free market there are five characteristics of a good money: Gold and silver meet all five characteristics. Diamonds are not easily divisible which is why they are not normally used as money. Copper, Iron, and lead are not scarce enough - you would need a lot of these metals to make weekly or daily purchases. Paper is also way too plentiful to be used as money. By the way, historically silver has been used for money more than gold. How does international trade work with gold as money (is this what you are asking with your hypothetical example of 10 countries each with y amount of gold?) Typically a government will issue a currency that is backed by gold. This means you can redeem your currency for actual gold. Then when an American spends 5 US dollars (USD) to purchase a Chinese good the Chinese man now owns 5 USDs. The Chinese man can either redeem the 5 USD for gold or spend the 5 USD in the US. If a government issues more currency then they have gold for then the gold will start to flow from that country to other countries as the citizens of the other countries redeem the over-issued currency for gold. This outflow of gold restricts governments from over-issuing paper currency. Who creates the procedures and who supervises them in modern worldwide economy? The Federal Reserve, IMF, and Bank of International Settlements all are involved in the current system where the US dollar (see Bretton Woods agreement) is the reserve currency used by central banks throughout the world. Some think this system is coming to an end. I tend to agree.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1ebcd8981322222e077da7e11fa4c19e", "text": "This was answered wonderfully in a recent Planet Money podcast: Why Gold?. Here are some higlights of gold: If listening to podcasts isn't your thing, read this summary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02de874aa4484ea8fc2860b128165f7c", "text": "\"Because people are willing to trade for it. People are willing to trade for Gold because: The value of gold goes up because the demand for it goes up, while the supply has been basically static (or growing at a low static rate) for a long time. The demand is going up because people see it as a safe place to put their money. Another reason Gold's value in dollars goes up, is because the value of the item it's traded against (dollars, euros, yen, etc) goes down, while its own value stays roughly the same. You point out Gold is not as liquid as cash, but gold (both traded on an exchange, and held physically) is easily sold. There is always someone willing to trade you cash for gold. Compare this to some of the bank stocks during the first part of our current recession. People were not willing to give much of anything for your shares. As the (annoying, misleading) advertisements say, \"\"Gold has never been worth zero\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69e213e1a561b292ef85f0c079ea6cb6", "text": "Russia main reserve is Euro, Gold and Yuan. They have dumped good sums of dollar since way back. The rest of oil buyers would gladly pay russians in whatever currency they want, specially if it is non dollar. Cheap oil on cheaper currency? Who doesn't want that? The chinese pay their oil in Yuan. Russian gladly takes Yuan, since its the most liquid currency in pacific, not to mention china is their no.1 trading partner.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19c3b55e715be226f97cbb89d0b1d051", "text": "\"Thanks for bringing up gift economies. The \"\"barter-to-credit story\"\", as you call it, is a good just-so story for explaining our current monetary system, but it's not how it actually happened. It's important to emphasize that. The gift economy is the original economy. It's used in small groups,bands or tribes of up to ~100 people, where you keep how much each person owes you in your head. These peoples don't have writing, remember. The problem with the gift economy is that it doesn't scale. Once you've got more than a couple hundred people or so (basically, Dunbar's number), or too many tradable goods and services, it starts to break down. People can't keep track of their debts anymore, and it becomes harder to agree on prices. Random aside: It's interesting to look at communism with this in mind, because essentially it's a return to something very much like a gift economy, but on a grand scale. But despite modern records-keeping and communication, it failed because we still can't coordinate such a large economy without some sort of market to set prices.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "404f4c43c7313536978290ab8efe43b7", "text": "Yes, the US dollar is the standard for all global trade - IMF driven And China has been going for that title for the past decade and this is a very smart and tactical way to do it If this goes through, gold & oil might become really good place to be. The US has been in a supply run and kept the price of oil low. Things are changing quick...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f3bfe9e1ff531df19c0d935b14360d8", "text": "It's not really about nation states, the problem is larger than that. The West who consumes too much, faced off against the East who makes too much. Seems like everyone's just waiting for the dollar to fail, so some new order can resolve.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99ae11da9e2344a919be8ae6153f2302", "text": "\"The reason I don't want to get into here it is because internet debates over these things turn into an absolute shit-show, instantly. In a nutshell, the (sane parts of) argument comes down to very difficult-to-prove assumptions about how perfectly fiat currency can/will be implemented. - The (sane) case for gold is that it is very difficult to get into the kind of money-printing mischief that places like Zimbabwe and Argentina have got into when your currency is based on something with a finite and slow-growing supply. It's hard to print more gold. - The (sane) case for fiat currency is that it is ridiculous to hamstring the entire economy by tying it to one arbitrary commodity with a fluctuating value and supply that does not correlate well with overall economic output. A perfectly-implemented fiat currency, printed and ordained by a perfectly omniscient, perfectly competent, and perfectly benevolent central bank (let's call it \"\"God money\"\"), is the ideal. That's pretty much axiomatic, and even sane gold-bugs would tend to allow the above, so far as it goes, including all stipulations. In fact, someone inclined to believe in divine intervention might make a case that gold is precisely that: a hard-to-forge, easy-to-detect, easy-to-handle metal placed on earth by God in quantities just right to serve as currency. The problem is that a really bad fiat currency is absolutely terrible: leads to nightmare-scenarios; people starving on one side of a fence while tons of crops are being burned on the other side because of runaway price-discrepancies, stuff like that. Again, even (sane) Keynesians will allow as much. The problem is that the crazies, ideologues, and single-issue zealots come out of the woodwork when you start getting into this stuff, and tend to dominate the conversation (if \"\"conversation\"\" is a fair word to use). In a sense, the \"\"sane\"\" spectrum of debate boils down to an almost ideological divide: - Whether you believe that a sort of permanent, technocratic, central-bank/currency-issuer is possible/plausible. Because if it is achievable, it is almost certainly better than just tying the whole economy to the price of a single commodity. If it is not achievable, then it is almost certainly better to let the markets adjust and correct, however imperfectly, than to tie the whole economy to the whims and wishes of incompetent and politically-motivated money-printers. (I hope that makes sense, and that it is a fair representation of the conundrum). The problem with making an argument is that you've got a hodge-podge of technical (and sometimes fairly complicated) nitty-gritty, plus a certain amount of starting-assumption/worldview/ideological stuff, all smooshed together, and almost all of it is very hard/impossible to \"\"prove\"\" via evidential scientific testing. Both the technical and historical stuff have strong conflicting indicators, and it's obviously not possible to, say, set up two identical societies and let them run for a thousand years, controlling for everything but monetary policy, and see what happens. Macro-economics is a very imperfect science. It has certainly given the world some very useful and valuable insights and axioms, but the testing methods are extremely indirect and heavily subject to interpretation: you really have only the historical record to draw on, and it is almost impossible to find examples that control for whatever variable is in question. Macro, ideally, tries really hard to be science, but you're always kind of picking from bad examples when testing a hypothesis, trying to line up vaguely similar historical periods to isolate for some common factor. It's kind of like geology or theoretical physics, except with much smaller and messier data-sets. Ten thousand years from now, it will be much easier to look at the historical data and isolate for particular variables over multiple hundred-year spans across a variety of cultural, political, and socio-economic backgrounds. For now, the peanut-gallery is chock full of questions that the experts cannot answer, and the record is full of exceptions to every rule, and a lot of it frankly boils down to worldview and ideology (with a healthy dollop of \"\"I'm smarter than you\"\" to finish the sauce). Since I personally prefer technical questions to politics, I will leave it to others to formulate and debate those things.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ff176eb7c422c1fc2cc9399e488d3c1", "text": "I think what the person meant to say is that Gold is not a one stop solution. There's nothing wrong with having Gold in an otherwise diversified portfolio but you need to be aware about the potential downsides: The problem with gold is that its value nowadays depends mainly on investor confidence, or the lack of it (actual demand for gold cannot explain the rise in value gold had after the crisis). If people are afraid the world and currencies with it will go to hell, the gold price will go up. Why? Because if currencies seize to exist, Gold will still be accepted. It can replace currencies. What many people tend to forget: let's consider the extreme example and currencies really cease to exist and all hell breaks lose. What good are gold bars at the bank, or even at home, for that matter? You'll be better off with gold coins to use in barter and to pay off marauders. But that's not about investing anymore, that's survivalism.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd7d02335ff582044ff4b31a60e1cadd", "text": "Dear Sir/madam We are Local Village Gold Miners from Rep. of Guinea, In West African. I am a Member of the Said Community and in charge of Marketing, Advertising, communication and sourcing potential diamond and gold dust buyers, agents/brokers or partners for our mined gold dust AU./DIAMONDS. Prior To The Latest Privilege Accorded Local Gold and Diamond Miners in Guinea Conakry Since April 2007 to Market and Sell Diamond and Gold Dust AU themselves, Thus my offer to AU Gold Dust and Diamond UNCUT Dust prospective buyers, Brokers, representatives, agents, intermediaries and partners willing To Establish Meaningful Business transaction that is Viable and Durable with us. Hence, I'm offering you a Fresh Gold Dust. AU for sale with the following specifications and details. COMMODITY.......................................AURUM UTALIUM (AU) Form................................Gold Dust/nugget Powder. Quantity..........................123kg - 500kgs and more. Quality/Purity.................. 22 carat or better. Finesse..........................92% OR Better. Location.......................... Conakry Origin............................. Guinea . Price per kg......................$35,000 USD/KG AS FOR THE DIAMOND THAT IS UNCUT, WE ARE IN POSITIONS OF OVER 4850 Carats OF GAMS STONE OF FDGH AND LM GRADES. We are looking forward to your response if our product does interest you. Accept our warm hearted Regards: NB : this is my alternative CONTACT US CAN SPEAK ENGLISH ,FRENCH AND CHINESE Tel:+22467118646 webs www.africalocalgoldminers.webs.com E-mail: [email protected] Rue DI 519 Conakry Republique de Guinee Best Regard Mr john dabo", "title": "" }, { "docid": "747d0919801affbdccb59eba840be91f", "text": "I am not really qualified to be engaged in this argument so I won't tell you why I suspect you are wrong. That said, there are many many many factors that drive productivity (which I believe is up?) and the income distribution (which I concede is a big problem). Observing that the problem started approximately concurrently with the end of the gold standard (which is arguable), is really not evidence that we should return to the gold standard. Correlation != causation.", "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": "ac3f9a457db7f58af6e800ebb6250a00", "text": "It is a shame that really insightful article is wrapped up in a paranoid wrapper. It is all accurate, IMO and is basically the worldview I use when I trade markets. Except I don't get all fixated on gold. I see gold as just one tool out of many for exploiting the exploiters.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53797b151ae0daf43edf5e83c4fc64bd", "text": "The problem I have with gold is that it's only worth what someone will pay you for it. To a degree that's true with any equity, but with a company there are other capital resources etc that provide a base value for the company, and generally a business model that generates income. Gold just sits there. it doesn't make products, it doesn't perform services, you can't eat it, and the main people making money off of it are the folks charging a not insubstantial commission to sell it to you, or buy it back. Sure it's used in small quantities for things like plating electrical contacts, dental work, shielding etc. But Industrial uses account for only 10% of consumption. Mostly it's just hoarded, either in the form of Jewelry (50%) or 'investment' (bullion/coins) 40%. Its value derives largely from rarity and other than the last few years, there's no track record of steady growth over time like the stock market or real-estate. Just look at what gold prices did between 10 to 30 years ago, I'm not sure it came anywhere near close to keeping pace with inflation during that time. If you look at the chart, you see a steady price until the US went off the gold standard in 1971, and rules regarding ownership and trading of gold were relaxed. There was a brief run up for a few years after that as the market 'found its level' as it were, and you really need to look from about 74 forward (which it experienced its first 'test' and demonstration of a 'supporting' price around 400/oz inflation adjusted. Then the price fluctuated largely between 800 to 400 per ounce (adjusted for inflation) for the next 30 years. (Other than a brief sympathetic 'Silver Tuesday' spike due to the Hunt Brothers manipulation of silver prices in 1980.) Not sure if there is any causality, but it is interesting to note that the recent 'runup' in price starts in 2000 at almost the same time the last country (the Swiss) went off the 'gold standard' and gold was no longer tied to any currency (or vise versa) If you bought in '75 as a hedge against inflation, you were DOWN, as much as 50% during much of the next 33 years. If you managed to buy at a 'low' the couple of times that gold was going down and found support around 400/oz (adjusted) then you were on average up slightly as much as a little over 50% (throwing out silver Tuesday) but then from about '98 through '05 had barely broken even. I personally view 'investments' in gold at this time as a speculation. Look at the history below, and ask yourself if buying today would more likely end up as buying in 1972 or 1975? (or gods forbid, 1980) Would you be taking advantage of a buying opportunity, or piling onto a bubble and end up buying at the high? Note from Joe - The article Demand and Supply adds to the discussion, and supports Chuck's answer.", "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": "b1e31c0a10ca632844786eb12a4497e3", "text": "The company will have to pay 20% tax on its profits. Doesn't matter how these profits are earned. Profits = Income minus all money you spend to get the income. However, you can't just take the profits out of the company. The company can pay you a salary, on which income tax, national insurance, and employer's national insurance have to be paid at the usual rate. The company can pay you a dividend, on which tax has to be paid. And the company can pay money into the director's pension fund, which is tax free. Since the amount of company revenue can be of interest, I'd be curious myself what the revenue of such a company would be. And if the company makes losses, I'm sure HMRC won't allow you to get any tax advantages from such losses.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d6e16b12166a770f0e8917480a0a6255	What should I invest in to hedge against a serious crash or calamity?	[ { "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": "" }, { "docid": "6d9723d9c0973eba47a049d0c9b17649", "text": "Different risks require different hedges. You won't find a single hedge that will protect you against any risk. The best way to think about this is who would benefit if those events occurred? Those are the people you want to invest in. So if a war broke out, who would benefit? Defense contractors. Security companies. You get the idea. You also need to think about if you really need to hedge against those things now or not. For example, I wouldn't bother to hedge against global warming or peak oil. It's not like one morning you're going to wake up, turn on CNNfn and see that the stock market is down 500 points because global warming or peak oil just hit. These are things that happen gradually and you can react to them gradually as they happen.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8310f2218e19f58e31b2da656ce534a7", "text": "Are you willing to risk the possibility of investing to prepare for these things and losing money or simply getting meager returns if those crises don't happen? Just invest in a well diversified portfolio both geographically and across multiple sectors and you should be fine.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1545f1e6444530ee97aba7c5049425e", "text": "If peak oil is a concern, hedge against the effects of high oil prices. Reduce your dependence on the gas pump by moving closer to the places you normally drive, or adjust your lifestyle so that you need less. Buy things now that depend on fossil fuels (there's a long list). If instability is a concern, invest in a place where the chance of instability is less. If a freak event is a concern, think through what the consequences would be, and hedge accordingly. Etc. Etc.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "ba82b05c7a0f18ff4410c276ac34e976", "text": "I feel you. There are some good companies out there, but they all seem really expensive. I am 30% cash right now, stockpiling some dry powder for the next crash. But if everyone is doing what I am doing, well, there may not be a next crash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "658da749635d3d732d9faa1a74195a60", "text": "Options are contractual instruments. Most options you'll run into are contracts which allow you to buy or sell stock at a given price at some time in the future, if you feel like it (it gives you the option). These are Call and Put options, respectively (for buying the stock and selling the stock). If you have a lot of money in an index fund ETF, you may be able to protect your portfolio against a market decline by (e.g.) buying Put options against the ETF for a substantially lower price than the index fund currently trades at. If the market crashes and your fund falls in value significantly, you can exercise the options, selling the fund at the price that your option has specified (to the counter-party of your contract). This is the risk that the option mitigates against. Even if you don't have one particular fund with your investments, you could still buy a put option on a similar fund, and resell it to another person in lieu of exercise (they would be capable of buying the stock and performing the exercise themselves for profit if necessary). In general, if you are buying an option for safety, it should be an option either on something you own, or something whose price behavior will mimic something you own. You will note that options are linked to the price of stocks. Futures are contracts whose values are linked to the price of other things, typically commodities such as oil, gold, or orange juice. Their behaviors may diverge. With an option you can have a contractual guarantee on the exact investment you're trying to protect. (Additionally, many commodities' value may fall at the same time that stock investments fall: during economic contractions which reduce industrial activity, resulting in lower profits for firms and less demand for commodities.) You may also note that there are other structures that options may have - PUT options on index funds or similar instruments are probably most specifically relevant to your interests. The downside of protecting yourself with options is that it costs money to buy this option, and the option eventually expires, so you may lose money. Essentially, you are buying safety and risk-tolerance from the option contract's counterparty, and safety is not free. I cannot inform you what level of safety is appropriate for your portfolio's needs, but more safety is more expensive.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3309463d722dd256925d15d55a2de6a7", "text": "I recommend investing in precious metals like gold, considering the economic cycle we're in now. Government bonds are subject to possible default and government money historically tends to crumble in value, whereas gold and the metals tend to rise in value with the commodies. Stocks tend to do well, but right now most of them are a bit overvalued and they're very closely tied to overvalued currencies and unstable governments with lots of debt. I would stick to gold right now, if you're planning on investing for more than a month or so.", "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": "7c3ea2d85b77310aaa66303551243d31", "text": "Precious metals also tend to do well during times of panic. You could invest in gold miners, a gold or silver ETF or in physical bullion itself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd4f3e7ca6ee85d18d460aeb65be06f4", "text": "If the US economy crashes at all suddenly, the global economy goes with it. In that case, yes, the postapocalyptic scenarios may be the best answer. But that's got so low a probability of happening that you'd be a fool to invest in it. If you really feel the need, consider investing in the companies which supply those activities. The big winners in the California gold rush were the general stores that sold supplies to the speculators.", "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": "1b807557ba137c1143736dc37981715b", "text": "I think your premise is slightly flawed. Every investment can add or reduce risk, depending on how it's used. If your ordering above is intended to represent the probability you will lose your principal, then it's roughly right, with caveats. If you buy a long-term government bond and interest rates increase while you're holding it, its value will decrease on the secondary markets. If you need/want to sell it before maturity, you may not recover your principal, and if you hold it, you will probably be subject to erosion of value due to inflation (inflation and interest rates are correlated). Over the short-term, the stock market can be very volatile, and you can suffer large paper losses. But over the long-term (decades), the stock market has beaten inflation. But this is true in aggregate, so, if you want to decrease equity risk, you need to invest in a very diversified portfolio (index mutual funds) and hold the portfolio for a long time. With a strategy like this, the stock market is not that risky over time. Derivatives, if used for their original purpose, can actually reduce volatility (and therefore risk) by reducing both the upside and downside of your other investments. For example, if you sell covered calls on your equity investments, you get an income stream as long as the underlying equities have a value that stays below the strike price. The cost to you is that you are forced to sell the equity at the strike price if its value increases above that. The person on the other side of that transaction loses the price of the call if the equity price doesn't go up, but gets a benefit if it does. In the commodity markets, Southwest Airlines used derivatives (options to buy at a fixed price in the future) on fuel to hedge against increases in fuel prices for years. This way, they added predictability to their cost structure and were able to beat the competition when fuel prices rose. Even had fuel prices dropped to zero, their exposure was limited to the pre-negotiated price of the fuel, which they'd already planned for. On the other hand, if you start doing things like selling uncovered calls, you expose yourself to potentially infinite losses, since there are no caps on how high the price of a stock can go. So it's not possible to say that derivatives as a class of investment are risky per se, because they can be used to reduce risk. I would take hedge funds, as a class, out of your list. You can't generally invest in those unless you have quite a lot of money, and they use strategies that vary widely, many of which are quite risky.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b0d6167a19d4ea85bd2890867de5a6ac", "text": "This is not hypothetical, this is an accurate story. I am a long-term investor. I have a bunch of money that I'd like to invest and I plan on spreading it out over five or six mutual funds and ETFs, roughly according to the Canadian Couch Potato model portfolio (that is, passive mutual funds and ETFs rather than specific stocks). I am concerned that if I invest the full amount and the stock market crashes 30% next month, I will have paid more than I had to. As I am investing for the long term, I expect to more than regain my investment, but I still wouldn't be thrilled with paying 30% more than I had to. Instead, I am investing my money in three stages. I invested the first third earlier this month. I'll invest the next third in a few months, and the final third a few months after that. If the stock market climbs, as I expect is more likely the case, I will have lost out on some potential upside. However, if the stock market crashes next month, I will end up paying a lower average cost as two of my three purchases will occur after the crash. On average, as a long-term investor, I expect the stock market to go up. In the short term, I expect much more fluctuation. Statistically speaking, I'd do better to invest all the money at once as most of the time, the trend is upward. However, I am willing to trade some potential upside for a somewhat reduced risk of downside over the course of the next few months. If we were talking a price difference of 1% as mentioned in the question, I wouldn't care. I expect to see average annual returns far above this. But stock market crashes can cause the loss of 20 to 30% or more, and those are numbers I care about. I'd much rather buy in at 30% less than the current price, after all.", "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": "37e3a00a374b530dca094482cc463507", "text": "Waiting for the next economic downturn probably isn't the best plan at this point. While it could happen tomorrow, you may end up waiting a long time. If you would prefer not to think much about your investment and just let them grow then mutual funds are a really good option. Make sure you research them before you buy into any and make sure to diversify, as in buy into a lot of different mutual funds that cover different parts of the market. If you want to be more active in investing then start researching the market and stick to industries you have very good understanding of. It's tough to invest in a market you know nothing about. I'd suggest putting at least some of that into a retirement savings account for long term growth. Make sure you look at both your short term and long term goals. Letting an investment mature from age 20 through to retirement will net you plenty of compound interest but don't forget about your short term goals like possible cars, houses and families. Do as much research as you can and you will be fine!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "340d44a9f7c323428a3fd7a583777194", "text": "I'd say that because you are young, even the 'riskier' asset classes are not as risky as you think, for example, assuming conservatively that you only have 30 years to retirement, investing in stocks index might be a good option. In short term share prices are volatile and prone to bull and bear cycles but given enough time they have pretty much always outperformed any other asset classes. The key is not to be desperate to withdraw when an index is at the bottom. Some cycles can be 20 years, so when you need get nearer retirement you will need to diversify so that you can survive without selling low. Just make sure to pick an index tracker with low fees and you should be good to go. A word of warning is of course past performance is no indication of a future one, but if a diversified index tracker goes belly up for 20+ years, we are talking global calamity, in which case buy a shotgun and some canned food ;)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aed6c8a2de8cc877cb499bc37e5253b8", "text": "\"This is basically the short-term/long-term savings question in another form: savings that you hope are long-term but which may turn short-term very suddenly. You can never completely eliminate the risk of being forced to draw on long term savings during a period when the market is doing Something Unpleasant that would force you to take a loss (or right before it does Something Pleasant that you'd like to be fully invested during). You can only pick the degree of risk that you're willing to accept, balancing that hazard of forced sales against the lower-but-more-certain returns you'd get from a money market or equivalent. I'm considered a moderately aggressive investor -- which doesn't mean I'm pushing the boundaries on what I'm buying (not by a long shot!), but which does mean I'm willing to keep more of my money in the market and I'm more likely to hold or buy into a dip than to sell off to try to minimize losses. That level of risk-tolerance also means I'm willing to maintain a ready-cash pool which is sufficient to handle expected emergencies (order of $10K), and not become overly paranoid about lost opportunity value if it turns out that I need to pull a few thou out of the investments. I've got decent health insurance, which helps reduce that risk. I'm also not particularly paranoid about the money. On my current track, I should be able to maintain my current lifestyle \"\"forever\"\" without ever touching the principal, as long as inflation and returns remain vaguely reasonable. Having to hit the account for a larger emergency at an Inconvenient Time wouldn't be likely to hurt me too much -- delaying retirement for a year or two, perhaps. It's just money. Emergencies are one of the things it's for. I try not to be stupid about it, but I also try not to stress about it more than I must.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25bba446bab6025f3ba5a43c75c5eea3", "text": "In general, investors with a long period of time until they would need to withdraw the cash are best off holding mostly equities. While the dividends that equities would return are less than the interest you would get in peer-to-peer lending, over long periods of time not only do you get the dividends from equity investment but the value of the stock will grow faster than interest on loans. The higher returns from stocks, however, comes with more risk of big downturns. Many people pull their investments out of stocks right after crashes which really hurts their long term returns. So, in order to get the benefit of investing in stocks you need to be strong enough to continue to hold the stocks through the crash and into the recovery. As for which stocks to invest in, generally it is best to invest in low-fee index funds/etfs where you own a broad collection of stocks so that if (when) any one stock goes bust that your portfolio does not take much damage. Try to own both international and domestic stocks to get good diversification. The consensus recommends adding just a little bit of REITs and bonds to your investments, but for someone at 25 it might not be worth it yet. Warren Buffett had some good thoughts on index investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61e08f0d238c2474a7eb648aac96c339", "text": "\"TL;DR - go with something like Barry Ritholtz's All Century Portfolio: 20 percent total U.S stock market 5 percent U.S. REITs 5 percent U.S. small cap value 15 percent Pacific equities 15 percent European equities 10 percent U.S. TIPs 10 percent U.S. high yield corp bonds 20 percent U.S. total bond UK property market are absurdly high and will be crashing a lot very soon The price to rent ratio is certainly very high in the UK. According to this article, it takes 48 years of rent to pay for the same apartment in London. That sounds like a terrible deal to me. I have no idea about where prices will go in the future, but I wouldn't voluntarily buy in that market. I'm hesitant to invest in stocks for the fear of losing everything A stock index fund is a collection of stocks. For example the S&P 500 index fund is a collection of the largest 500 US public companies (Apple, Google, Shell, Ford, etc.). If you buy the S&P 500 index, the 500 largest US companies would have to go bankrupt for you to \"\"lose everything\"\" - there would have to be a zombie apocalypse. He's trying to get me to invest in Gold and Silver (but mostly silver), but I neither know anything about gold or silver, nor know anyone who takes this approach. This is what Jeremy Siegel said about gold in late 2013: \"\"I’m not enthusiastic about gold because I think gold is priced for either hyperinflation or the end of the world.\"\" Barry Ritholtz also speaks much wisdom about gold. In short, don't buy it and stop listening to your friend. Is buying a property now with the intention of selling it in a couple of years for profit (and repeat until I have substantial amount to invest in something big) a bad idea? If the home price does not appreciate, will this approach save you or lose you money? In other words, would it be profitable to substitute your rent payment for a mortgage payment? If not, you will be speculating, not investing. Here's an articles that discusses the difference between speculating and investing. I don't recommend speculating.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
971affea2ce998ad872a916d12a91672	How do you find reasonably priced, quality, long lasting clothing?	[ { "docid": "c48155123bdf182f41b463d4c74562ae", "text": "On the quality angle a big part of it is experience, but the biggest thing is careful observation. You have to take a close, critical look at any article of clothing. (This holds true for just about any purchase.) As far as finding them for reasonable prices it's the usual thing: sales and buying them second-hand. Finally, regarding maintenance:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "664ce5eb58362d39930520f5e54f6310", "text": "The idea that you should buy quality, long lasting clothes shouldn't go unchallenged. It's just not true for everybody. If you have a job or a lifestyle that makes it so your clothes are going to get worn out fast regardless of quality, buying expensive clothes doesn't make sense. With that said: look for heavier-feeling fabrics, avoid colors that will fade (or worse: bleed into your other clothes in the wash). Check the laundry instructions so you can see whether they're on the delicate end of the spectrum. Re: how to extend the life: avoid bleach. Even color safe bleach contains peroxide which can break down fabrics faster.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54a445ed4a0af699f5b0ac64fa97255c", "text": "Use resources like Consumer Reports and recommendations from like-minded friends to figure out brands which have a reputation for making quality clothes. Then trust, but verify. Ideally have a friend who sews a lot go with you on a clothing expedition if you don't know how to determine quality in clothing. People who sew knew their fabrics, and this could be very helpful to you. Start at places that are known for quality clothing, but make sure the reputation hasn't outlived reality. I'd look for: Once you've identified places that you can trust, wait for sales at those stores. I've found that shopping sales at department stores (or better, places like L. L. Bean) is cheaper than a discount retailer and much easier. Even cheaper, go to a thrift store and look for those brands in timeless styles. Your mileage will vary in terms of the what people throw out in your area. Thrift stores work extremely well in high cost of living areas where people give away nearly new items.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85310efc673c825bf8a414999cdf0ff2", "text": "Are specific brand recommendations allowed? I'm a big fan of Lands' End. They have good quality clothing at reasonable prices in all the basic styles. They have great customer service and you con order online and avoid clothes shopping at the mall (which I hate).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a53754b86746bae0943ef36cb00374b", "text": "According to this http://shine.yahoo.com/event/financiallyfit/cheapest-days-to-shop-online-2301854/ Tuesday is the best day of the week to buy men's apparel.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "737ae21dbe4d97bbfa38d61400848399", "text": "The best way to find good quality is to check the garment tag: What kind of material is it made of? Jersey 100% cotton or any 100% cotton is one of the best quality material for most casual clothing. Then, you should touch it (designer step/touching). You will get better along the way. If you think you will like it, it may be a good quality. You should try it. and look for similar material when shopping. It does not matter the store where you shop, you should check the garment quality because even at the expensive stores you can find bad quality. Quality in Stitch: you should check the the garment stitch, look at the top and underneath stitches, watch for good and consist stitching pattern. especially the sides and armholes underneath of the garment. Style is something personal. Everybody has different style, but stores are classified by age targeting. If you can find a store that usually made your style, good quality material at reasonable price. you should consider shop there. Most of the time, it will cost a little bit more or much more. BUT CHEAP IS EXPENSIVE!! you end up spending more money at the end of the year. Reasonable means a fair price for both parties, You and the seller. Neither cheap or expensive.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "645f3af95a25383d388d8d95adaca232", "text": "For the CPI, there is actually federal employees whose job it is to visit various stores to collect the prices of specific items (boy's size-14 collared shirt made of 97 percent cotton). Planet Money did a great podcast on this, actually following one of these people for a day.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6249769e1863bcae3d9c17157119480f", "text": "\"Zero? Ten grand? Somewhere in the middle? It depends. Your stated salary, in U.S. dollars, would be high five-figures (~$88k). You certainly should not be starving, but with decent contributions toward savings and retirement, money can indeed be tight month-to-month at that salary level, especially since even in Cardiff you're probably paying more per square foot for your home than in most U.S. markets (EDIT: actually, 3-bedroom apartments in Cardiff, according to Numbeo, range from £750-850, which is US$1200-$1300, and for that many bedrooms you'd be hard-pressed to find that kind of deal in a good infield neighborhood of the DFW Metro, and good luck getting anywhere close to downtown New York, LA, Miami, Chicago etc for that price. What job do you do, and how are you expected to dress for it? Depending on where you shop and what you buy, a quality dress shirt and dress slacks will cost between US$50-$75 each (assuming real costs are similar for the same brands between US and UK, that's £30-£50 per shirt and pair of pants for quality brands). I maintain about a weeks' wardrobe at this level of dress (my job allows me to wear much cheaper polos and khakis most days and I have about 2 weeks' wardrobe of those) and I typically have to replace due to wear or staining, on average, 2 of these outfits a year (I'm hard on clothes and my waistline is expanding). Adding in 3 \"\"business casual\"\" outfits each year, plus casual outfits, shoes, socks, unmentionables and miscellany, call it maybe $600(£400)/year in wardrobe. That doesn't generally get metered out as a monthly allowance (the monthly amount would barely buy a single dress shirt or pair of slacks), but if you're socking away a savings account and buying new clothes to replace old as you can afford them it's a good average. I generally splurge in months when the utilities companies give me a break and when I get \"\"extra\"\" paychecks (26/year means two months have 3 checks, effectively giving me a \"\"free\"\" check that neither pays the mortgage nor the other major bills). Now, that's just to maintain my own wardrobe at a level of dress that won't get me fired. My wife currently stays home, but when she worked she outspent me, and her work clothes were basic black. To outright replace all the clothes I wear regularly with brand-new stuff off the rack would easily cost a grand, and that's for the average U.S. software dev who doesn't go out and meet other business types on a daily basis. If I needed to show up for work in a suit and tie daily, I'd need a two-week rotation of them, plus dress shirts, and even at the low end of about $350 (£225) per suit, $400 (£275) with dress shirt and tie, for something you won't be embarrassed to wear, we're talking $4000 (£2600) to replace and $800 (£520) per year to update 2 a year, not counting what I wear underneath or on the weekends. And if I wore suits I'd probably have to update the styles more often than that, so just go ahead and double it and I turn over my wardrobe once every 5 years. None of this includes laundering costs, which increase sharply when you're taking suits to the cleaners weekly versus just throwing a bunch of cotton-poly in the washing machine. What hobbies or other entertainment interests do you and your wife have? A movie ticket in the U.S. varies between $7-$15 depending on the size of the screen and 2D vs 3D screenings. My wife and I currently average less than one theater visit a month, but if you took in a flick each weekend with your wife, with a decent $50 dinner out, that's between $260-$420 (£165-270) monthly in entertainment expenses. Not counting babysitting for the little one (the going rate in the US is between $10 and $20 an hour for at-home child-sitting depending on who you hire and for how long, how often). Worst-case, without babysitting that's less than 5% of your gross income, but possibly more than 10% of your take-home depending on UK effective income tax rates (your marginal rate is 40% according to the HMRC, unless you find a way to deduct about £30k of your income). That's just the traditional American date night, which is just one possible interest. Playing organized sports is more or less expensive depending on the sport. Soccer (sorry, football) just needs a well-kept field, two goals and and a ball. Golf, while not really needing much more when you say it that way, can cost thousands of dollars or pounds a month to play with the best equipment at the best courses. Hockey requires head-to-toe padding/armor, skates, sticks, and ice time. American football typically isn't an amateur sport for adults and has virtually no audience in Europe, but in the right places in the U.S., beginning in just a couple years you'd be kitting your son out head-to-toe not dissimilar to hockey (minus sticks) and at a similar cost, and would keep that up at least halfway through high school. I've played them all at varying amateur levels, and with the possible exception of soccer they all get expensive when you really get interested in them. How much do you eat, and of what?. My family of three's monthly grocery budget is about $300-$400 (£190-£260) depending on what we buy and how we buy it. Americans have big refrigerators (often more than one; there's three in my house of varying sizes), we buy in bulk as needed every week to two weeks, we refrigerate or freeze a lot of what we buy, and we eat and drink a lot of high-fructose corn-syrup-based crap that's excise-taxed into non-existence in most other countries. I don't have real-world experience living and grocery-shopping in Europe, but I do know that most shopping is done more often, in smaller quantities, and for more real food. You might expect to spend £325 ($500) or more monthly, in fits and starts every few days, but as I said you'd probably know better than me what you're buying and what it's costing. To educate myself, I went to mysupermarket.co.uk, which has what I assume are typical UK food prices (mostly from Tesco), and it's a real eye-opener. In the U.S., alcohol is much more expensive for equal volume than almost any other drink except designer coffee and energy drinks, and we refrigerate the heck out of everything anyway, so a low-budget food approach in the U.S. generally means nixing beer and wine in favor of milk, fruit juices, sodas and Kool-Aid (or just plain ol' tap water). A quick search on MySupermarkets shows that wine prices average a little cheaper, accounting for the exchange rate, as in the States (that varies widely even in the U.S., as local and state taxes for beer, wine and spirits all differ). Beer is similarly slightly cheaper across the board, especially for brands local to the British Isles (and even the Coors Lite crap we're apparently shipping over to you is more expensive here than there), but in contrast, milk by the gallon (4L) seems to be virtually unheard of in the UK, and your half-gallon/2-liter jugs are just a few pence cheaper than our going rate for a gallon (unless you buy \"\"organic\"\" in the US, which carries about a 100% markup). Juices are also about double the price depending on what you're buying (a quart of \"\"Innocent\"\" OJ, roughly equivalent in presentation to the U.S. brand \"\"Simply Orange\"\", is £3 while Simply Orange is about the same price in USD for 2 quarts), and U.S.-brand \"\"fizzy drinks\"\" are similarly at a premium (£1.98 - over $3 - for a 2-liter bottle of Coca-Cola). With the general preference for room-temperature alcohol in Europe giving a big advantage to the longer unrefrigerated shelf lives of beer and wine, I'm going to guess you guys drink more alcohol and water with dinner than Americans. Beef is cheaper in the U.S., depending on where you are and what you're buying; prices for store-brand ground beef (you guys call it \"\"minced\"\") of the grade we'd use for hamburgers and sauces is about £6 per kilo in the UK, which works out to about $4.20/lb, when we're paying closer to $3/lb in most cities. I actually can't remember the last time I bought fresh chicken on the bone, but the average price I'm seeing in the UK is £10/kg ($7/lb) which sounds pretty steep. Anyway, it sounds like shopping for American tastes in the UK would cost, on average, between 25-30% more than here in the US, so applying that to my own family's food budget, you could easily justify spending £335 a month on food.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e5f422023e165364beb530f63b9b19c", "text": "Given the universal crisis and how difficult it’s to gross money these days, people are reconsidering allowances and wise money management. Louis vuitton online sale are virtually each where, however sadly, only a certain folks are able to purchase them with the costly rate tags that come along with them. But, designer bargains really are the stuffs to scout for when it’s the matter of new designer fashion at a much more reasonable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6931d197725d642af6e205046315f1b0", "text": "Get ready to impress people around you. Just opt for Men’s linen vests that never go out of fashion& make you look smart every time you wear them. Go for smart, casual tailored look this summer. There are a number of choices available, reflect your best style with Men’s linen vest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3943b7471b6efa9074161cf5168f967", "text": "Smart. Add in daily necessities like toothpaste, disposable razors and toilet paper and you've got Walmart and Costco by the balls. Most people are spending their money on consumables and are much more conservative these days. If I were them I'd stick to food and the daily needs and not even bother with clothing and furniture and such. Keep it simple I think. In and out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0d07234351928020532712416bfd150", "text": "Years ago, Costco had amazing quality made in italy wool pants. The quality to price ratio was unbelievable. They stopped getting them from the italian manufacturer and they suck now. I imagine that Costco did what you were talking about. In the end, it was bad for the customer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00c7990716b67fbb8f3fc247169a0789", "text": "You're missing out by not buying shirts online. I guess it depends on the type of shirt, but I'll never buy a men's dress shirt in a store again outside of an emergency. In store shirts are always crazy expensive, poor quality, and a terrible fit. Online I can get the precise size, fabric, and construction I want, for about a third cheaper than in store.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f45108e61b6b73dc098892517e82086a", "text": "\"Best strategy that has worked for me is to remember first of all that you hardly ever need anything \"\"right now\"\". Try this: if you see something you want to buy, leave it for at least two weeks, better yet a month. If after that time you have hardly thought about it, then you almost certainly don't need it. But if you've thought quite a lot about owning it and how it will be beneficial, then perhaps it's worth picking up. You will probably find that a small percentage of things you'd like to buy make it through that screening period.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84a39ac68628341d9ed01aaf95797520", "text": "I speak as a person without kids, but I'll give this a shot anyway, using my memory of the perspective I had when I was a kid. My advice is, if the kids are young enough to not care much, don't be afraid of the thrift store. My parents got a bunch of clothes from the thrift store as I was growing up (around elementary school age) and I didn't care at all. When I got to be older, (middle school age) shopping at Target and K-mart didn't seem bad either. By the time the kids are old enough to really care beyond, they are probably old enough to get their own part-time jobs and get their own clothing. I however, am probably naive, as I still care little for such things, and judging from popular culture, most care about them a great deal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c8d3cc94e14c1df6018f1436806179e", "text": "Fining fitting plus size clothes for men can be quite a frustrating process. Most stores will only stock regular sizes for clothes. However, there are options that a plus size wearer can pursue. For years XXLLENT have pride in producing well made large men's plus size clothing for big and curvy men.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40d286a9dc6a851f6aaffc86d1ef4c92", "text": "With our “Budget Closeouts” you can save a lot of money as we are agents and Buy closeout Apparel have a more affordable Towels and Bath items than other closeout sources. All products are below general costs. Purchase a few plenty and get even larger discounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f744b5ad272acd5f438d51544aaee43", "text": "Fashioncornerstone.com is an amazing online store in the USA from where you can purchase the most stylish stuffs for men and women at very reasonable prices. Free Delivery Available in the USA! Get up to 80% off all summer!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c09e215e6a32255c048d38b6554d40d4", "text": "Long term taxation cannot by itself surpress GDP if those same taxes are being used on goods and services. It can surpress growth, and cause a fall off if people are leaving the area or closing businesses but at some point it'll hit an equilibrium point. GDP does include government spending after all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35d91a387845c71bad1e0be0ab7a2293", "text": "\"Only you can decide whether it's wise or not given your own personal circumstances. Brexit is certainly a big risk, and noone can really know what will happen yet. The specific worries you mention are certainly valid. Additionally you might find it hard to keep your job or get a new one if the economy turns bad, and in an extreme \"\"no deal\"\" scenario you might find yourself forced to leave - though I think that's very unlikely. House prices could also collapse leaving you in \"\"negative equity\"\". If you're planning on staying in the same location in the UK for a long time, a house tends to be a worthwhile investment, particularly as you always need somewhere to live, so owning it is a \"\"hedge\"\" against prices rising. Even if prices do fall, you do still have somewhere to live. If you're planning on going back to your home country at some point, that reduces the value of owning a house. If you want to reduce your risk, consider getting a mortgage with a long-term fixed rate. There are some available for 10 years, which I'd hope would be enough to get us over most of the Brexit volatility.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
8de932ffe4020879ee6f6b0e4cec2585	What assets would be valuable in a post-apocalyptic scenario?	[ { "docid": "eb6cf381a81bcc5bf1f0ada803b42b6f", "text": "Gold and silver are for after the crisis, not during. Gold and silver are far more likely to be able to be exchanged for things you need, since they are rare, easily divided, etc. Getting land away from where the crap is happening is also good, but it's more than that. Say you have land somewhere. How will the locals view you if you move there to hunker down only when things go bad? They won't really trust you, and you'll inherit a new set of problems. Building relationships in an off-the-beaten-path area requires a time investment. Investing in lifestyle in general is good. Lifestyle isn't just toys, but it's privacy, peace of mind, relationships with people with whom you can barter skills, as well as the skills you might think you'd need to do more than just get by in whatever scenario you envision. For the immediate crisis, you'd better have the things you'll need for a few months. Stores probably won't be supplied on any regular basis, and the shelves will be bare. Trying to use gold or silver during the crisis just makes you a target for theft. With regard to food, it's best to get acclimated to a diet of what you'd have on hand. If you get freeze-dried food, eat it now, so that it's not a shock to your system when you have to eat it. (Can you tell I've been thinking about this? :) )", "title": "" }, { "docid": "575030f448925974f3fa677897b9fe52", "text": "This is going to be a list of some things that will likely be of value immediately after some apocalyptic event. However, note that I am not answering your question of what you should invest in now to take advantage of such an event. That is a pretty ridiculous notion. Preparing oneself for such a possibility is certainly a good idea. That said, there are some realistic limitations to how you could take advantage of such a situation. Namely, the very real requirement of physical security. Unless you have a huge posse -- armed to the teeth -- to defend your cache, someone will come along with a bigger and better armed group to take it. (Not to mention that I am the type of person that would -- at least -- consider organizing such a group to take you down; if only as a matter of principle.) Guns & ammo (Also, knives; ideally ones that can be used as weapons and for food preparation/hunting.) Alcohol. Especially liquor. It's concentrated and easier to store than beer or wine. Beside for getting inebriated, it is useful as a sedative and antiseptic. Non-perishable foods. Canned goods are obvious. Though, grains and cereals can be stored with relative ease under some circumstances. (Obviously, not so easily done in an urban area.) Methods of starting a fire. Preferably rugged ones, such as flint and steel. (Lighters would only be of limited use. Matches are bulky and require water-tight storage.) Salt and/or salt-licks. (Possibly, other forms of non-perishable bait.) As bstpierre puts it, hunting will be about survival not sport. Hand-tools. Textiles, fabrics, thread and needles. Medicines of all sorts, though especially antibiotics, antiseptics and painkillers. Books of a practical nature. Topics such as: wilderness survival, cooking, carpentry, etc. The list is mostly ordered in terms of value & practicality. Ultimately, I doubt there is much that will provide a practical investment idea for such a scenario. The physical security issue is a big limiting factor. In a post-apocalyptic scenario it goes back to who is bigger, stronger and better armed. One thing does come to mind: knowledge. Prepare yourself with the skills and knowledge you need to survive in such a scenario and you will be invaluable. Also, as bstpierre notes in the comments, connections will likely also be important. (Probably local or nearby connections.) No one person can do it all alone. It will come down to cooperation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c77b5f83deb90b892d8f58e51b08249", "text": "Bullets, canned goods, and farm supplies that don't need gas (e.g. seed, feed, plows).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07fc07ef99b20b8babc5659d64b930b9", "text": "This is a long term investment but can be very useful during tough times. Be prepared not only to take but to give as well. Moreover:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "894b7a0f3c3a8af10d0e9f07ae32fc46", "text": "I find these type of questions silly, but I'll bite:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "049304ac4dbd80b55fd4c9ef6e7bcf26", "text": "Guns. Without them, any other conceivable asset would be taken from you. By someone with guns.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd635c4552c760a3c33deb1f1b4ff579", "text": "A book on the power of persuasion. The people will need you to lead them to the glory land like the Deacon* from Waterworld *Dennis Hopper. Study up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec6afc1397f4c85fbf66584762ce4b9e", "text": "Apocalyptic like MAD MAX, huh? Well, no one so far has mentioned Gasoline, not paper gasoline futures but the real thing in barrels or tankers. Guns, ammo, sure... but if everyone on the ground is shooting each other I'd prefer an ultralight helicopter. You all have watched MAD MAX, right? On a more serious note, there is a country in the South Pacific that never saw fighting in world war 2 due to its remoteness, but is large and developed enough to be agriculturally pretty much self sufficient, and with a low population has plenty of space. Might be good to squirrel away something down there...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c81a552c36f71fd5895519436975081", "text": "Barton Biggs's book Wealth, War and Wisdom aims to answer the question of what investments are best-suited to preserving value despite large-scale catastrophes by looking at how various investments and assets performed in countries affected by WWII. In Japan, stocks and urban land turned out to be good investments; in France, farm land and gold did better. Stocks outperformed bonds in nearly every country. Phil Greenspun recently wrote a review of the book.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c69d09b34eabd583b8c1df493606605c", "text": "Assuming that the financial system broke down, not enough supply of essential commodities or food but there is political and administrative stability and no such chaos that threatens your life by physical attacks. The best investment would then be some paddy fields, land, some cows, chickens and enough clothing , a safe house to stay and a healthy life style that enables you to work for food and some virtue at heart and management skills to get people work for you on your resources so that they can survive with you (may be you earn some profit -that is up to your moral standards to decide, how much). It all begins to start again; a new Financial System has to be in place….!", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "100c16089b98c6da4bdec9e3d52ba91b", "text": "\"The raw question is as follows: \"\"You will be recommending a purposed portfolio to an investment committee (my class). The committee runs a foundation that has an asset base of $4,000,000. The foundations' dual mandates are to (a) preserve capital and (b) to fund $200,000 worth of scholarships. The foundation has a third objective, which is to grow its asset base over time.\"\" The rest of the assignment lays out the format and headings for the sections of the presentation. Thanks, by the way - it's an 8 week accelerated course and I've been out sick for two weeks. I've been trying to teach myself this stuff, including the excel calculations for the past few weeks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "332c7311f705acec1dd28a25e372bdce", "text": "I'd have anything you would need for maybe 3-6 months stored up: food, fuel, toiletries, other incidentals. What might replace the currency after the Euro collapses will be the least of your concerns when it does collapse.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8d5cf282efac11e79e96e042aacb9f1", "text": "\"... until they collapse too!!! This is \"\"Luft Gesheft\"\": German/Yiddish for \"\"making money out of thin air\"\". Money should be made by making things and building things - adding value to something. Apple Computers is one example - they make real money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca0fd39e8414dd94c6d787fd00e425f7", "text": "Taking into account your POV I would recommend mostly goods that will be harder to obtain, precious metals (not only gold) and forex (although the forex aproach depends on some other country not having troubles with it's own economy which in a world as interconnected as ours by internet and all the new technologies doesn't seem likely) i highly recommend silver which is cheaper than gold and is stable enough in the long term", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b61cd51d2cc4371f170a880274c6812", "text": "Investing for your future through stocks isn’t for the faint of heart. While there are stocks that can withstand our volatile market, there are few that can guarantee their business will still be a business 20 or 30 years from now. [Compound Stock Earnings](http://www.compoundstockearnings.com) Report Benigans would always be with us, but they no longer exist.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5847f3eccb16327595bb29b661629dc5", "text": "Cash can be a lifesaver after a natural disaster. I was in central Mississippi in 2005 after Katrina. There were a few things selling for cash only (generators for one). The banks opened pretty quick (1 day) where I was; south of me it took much longer (days or weeks).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab8e2c4f62e90b429e52348b090e65d3", "text": "\"First of all, metals are commodities. So if you're phrasing that as metals and/or commodities, then that's poorly worded. If you're phrasing that as \"\"metal commodity reports\"\" then say as such. Second, and more importantly: what commodities? Power is very different than coffee. Different places specialize in different things, all banks are good in some and weak in others. There's no generic \"\"commodity\"\" market but rather a huge range of specifically different products traded in the future.You learn more than a small fraction of this universe so pick one or two specific products from the macro buckets (i.e. energy, grains, metals) and focus on those.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a577accc4d151f7a1e3550a1b212d49", "text": "Vehicles (plural, because I'd be filling multiple roles, and also because I'd really prefer to have spare parts). Self-sufficient farm with machine shop, heavy-duty fabric production/sewing capacity. Hunting/camping gear. That kind of thing. I have about $600 in student loan debt remaining, which should be gone in the next year. No car loan (own my truck outright), don't own a house, carry 0 balance on my credit card. I suspect I'm a bit older than you (28) and I'm finding increasingly that I'm feeling financially strained by both current needs and projected needs. Moreso future than current, as a matter of fact, though I am unemployed right now. No matter how I look at it, barring some exceptional luck, there's no good way to obtain what I feel is needed to ensure that I can retire in safety. The current system basically forces you to take on nigh-crippling debt and hope like hell you can remain employed almost constantly through the most productive years of your life so that you may retire with some degree of security. 75K would make me feel a lot closer, but it only really deals with the immediate concerns and gives me room to hope to rectify the future ones in the next decade. If it were a completely foolproof 75K with no chance of vanishing, it'd go a lot further -- but still wouldn't alleviate my worries entirely.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ff176eb7c422c1fc2cc9399e488d3c1", "text": "I think what the person meant to say is that Gold is not a one stop solution. There's nothing wrong with having Gold in an otherwise diversified portfolio but you need to be aware about the potential downsides: The problem with gold is that its value nowadays depends mainly on investor confidence, or the lack of it (actual demand for gold cannot explain the rise in value gold had after the crisis). If people are afraid the world and currencies with it will go to hell, the gold price will go up. Why? Because if currencies seize to exist, Gold will still be accepted. It can replace currencies. What many people tend to forget: let's consider the extreme example and currencies really cease to exist and all hell breaks lose. What good are gold bars at the bank, or even at home, for that matter? You'll be better off with gold coins to use in barter and to pay off marauders. But that's not about investing anymore, that's survivalism.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b72db17639d8369ec3dcb5b7f060b69f", "text": "\"Buying gold, silver, palladium, copper and platinum. The first two I am thinking about new currencies. The last three for the perpetual need for the metals in industry. I also have invested in Numismatic coins. They are small portable and easy to hide around the house. I only collect silver coins, so even if the world really blows up and numismatics goes out the window, I can depend on them forming a barter system through the content value of the silver. The problem with collectable items is that they are easy to see. For example, a nice painting just shouts out \"\"steal me!\"\". I don't buy large gold coins. As long as the coin is below 1/4 Oz gold I collect it. If the dollar does finaly collapse, to be honest it will be so bad that I think weapons will be order of the day. Do I think it will collapse...nah never.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3920dc7fad00ba1d6cb961f24716c96a", "text": "Yes, because you cannot have an exponential growth rate that is faster than the rate at which the economy grows on the long term. 100% growth is much more than the few percent at which the economy grows, so your share in the World economy would approximately double every year. Today the value of all the assets in the World economy is about $200 trillion. If you start with an investment of just $1000 and this doubles every year, then you'll own all the World's assets in 37.5 years, assuming this doesn't grow. You can, of course, take into account that it does grow, this will yield a slightly larger time before you own the entire World.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bfb22c159524565b6c9b3c92161645a8", "text": "\"In addition to the \"\"The Time Machine\"\"-type society you're talking about where the working class basically end up devolving into hunting game for elites, i'd worry that the enhancement for the skilled-labor jobs you describe would include some dog collars. If I'm an enhanced engineer I'll start my own company, not make money for someone else. If I'm a super soldier I'd hit up academi (blackwater), not get treated like shit in the army. If these technologies can enhance intelligence, it can probably also steer traits like loyalty, ambition, etc to ensure that the person acts more like an appliance rather than a genius.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "648dc0f65d1f823e09181327ef4871ea", "text": "I'm not sure I'd say the assets they had were worthless. One of the big controversies was whether it was a solvency crisis (bad assets) or a liquidity crisis (fine assets, but if everyone sells illiquid assets there's a fire sale problem). The US and Buffett bet it was a liquidity crisis, and they were proven right.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "726fbdba1e79487a1d8064202473751e", "text": "But how valuable is it in the Star Trek world? How much gold is available and how much do they need?Are there alternatives? Will they ever find another element that replaces it? These all affect the actual value... Nothing has value without demand, so how can anything be intrinsically valuable?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d9723d9c0973eba47a049d0c9b17649", "text": "Different risks require different hedges. You won't find a single hedge that will protect you against any risk. The best way to think about this is who would benefit if those events occurred? Those are the people you want to invest in. So if a war broke out, who would benefit? Defense contractors. Security companies. You get the idea. You also need to think about if you really need to hedge against those things now or not. For example, I wouldn't bother to hedge against global warming or peak oil. It's not like one morning you're going to wake up, turn on CNNfn and see that the stock market is down 500 points because global warming or peak oil just hit. These are things that happen gradually and you can react to them gradually as they happen.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
a62a4484a7bc46e7966448a76f721e38	How to compare the value of a Masters to the cost?	[ { "docid": "46b990bd8697459f7756d5e3f0c2227e", "text": "I wasn't 100% on which columns of the scale you were referring to, but think I captured the correct ones in this comparison, using the scale for BA and MA (MA scale starting 2 years later, with decreased income reflected for first two years), applying a 1% cost of living increase each year to the scale or to prior year after the scale maxes out and assuming you borrow 40k and repay years 3-10, then the difference and cumulative difference between each scenario: So it would be about 16 years to start coming out ahead, but this doesn't account for the tax deduction of student loan interest. Some things in favor of borrowing for a MA, there are loan forgiveness programs for teachers, you might only make 5-years of minimum payments before having the remainder forgiven if you qualify for one of those programs. Not sure how retirement works for teachers in WA, but in some states you can get close to your maximum salary each year in retirement. Additionally, you can deduct student loan interest without itemizing your tax return, so that helps with the cost of the debt. Edit: I used a simple student loan calculator, if you financed the full 40k at 6% you'd be looking at $444 monthly payments for 10 years, or $5,328/year (not calculating the tax deduction for loan interest).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "506f090761968559e27081091a070e64", "text": "I am a bit unsure of why the interest rate is relevant. Are you intending on borrowing the money to go to school? If you cannot pay cash, then it is very likely a bad idea. Many people are overcome by events when seeking higher education and such a loan on a such a salary could devastate you financially. So I find the cost of the program as a total of 76.6K counting a loss in salary during the program and the first year grant. That is a lot of money, do you intend to borrow that much? Especially when you consider that your salary, after you graduate, will be about equal to where you are now. For that reason I am leaning toward a no, even if you had the cash in hand to do so. There is nothing to say that you will enjoy teaching. Furthermore teaching in low income school is more challenging. All that said, is there a way you can raise your income without going back to school? Washington state can be a very expensive place to live and is one of the reason why I left. I am a WWU alumni (Go Vikings!). Could you cash flow a part time program instead? I would give this a sound no, YMMV.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e0c5868d2119d0da3a222c213eb08af", "text": "Just looking at your question I can tell it's not worth it financially, even if you didn't borrow the money to do it. At your current rate, you'll be making 54,384 in 5 years, which is roughly a growth of 2.5% per year. If you go for the masters, in 5 years you'll be making 55,680, with roughly the same growth rate (2.5%). So it's costing you $70,000 (the cost of school plus the 2 years of reduced income) to raise your salary by $1,300. The payback period would be about 25 years. It would be MUCH worse if you borrowed the money to do it. Not a chance.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b43743e858132b99004d6b4fb30a5151", "text": "\"I speak from a position of experience, My BS and MS are both in Comp Sci. I know very little about loans or finances. That is very unfortunate as you are obviously an intelligent human being. Perhaps this is a good time to pause your formal education and get educated in personal finance. To me, it is that important. I study computer science, and am thus confident that I will be able to find work after I finish school. This kind of attitude can lead to trouble. You will likely have a high salary, but that does not always translate into prosperity. Personal finance is more about behavior then mathematics. I currently work with people that have high salaries in a low cost of living area. Some have lost homes due to foreclosure some are very limited in their options because of high student loan balances. Some are millionaires without hitting the IPO/startup lotto. The difference is behavior. It's possible that someone in my family will be able to cosign and help me out with this loan. This is indicative of lack of knowledge and poor financial behavior. This kind of thing can lead to strained relationships to the point where people don't talk to each other. Never co-sign for anyone, and if you value the relationship with a person never ask them to co-sign. I'll be working as a TA again for a $1000 stipend. Yikes! Why in the world would you work for 1K when you need 4K? You should find a way to earn 6K this semester so you can save some and put some toward the loans you already acquired. Accepting this kind of situation \"\"raises red flags\"\" on your attitude towards personal finance. And yes it is possible, you can earn that waiting tables and if you can find a part time programming gig you can make a lot more then that. Consider working as a TA and wait tables until you find that first programming gig. I am just about done with my undergraduate degree, and will be starting graduate school at the same university next semester. To me this is a recipe for failure in most cases. You have expended all your financing options to date and are planning to go backwards even more. Why not get out of school with your BS, and go to work? You can save up some of your MS tuition and most companies will provide tuition reimbursement. Computer Science/Software Engineering can be a fickle market. Right now things are going crazy and times are really good. However that was not always the case during my career and unlikely for yours. For example, Just this year I bypassed my highest rate of pay that occurred in 2003. I was out of work most of 2004, and for part of 2005 I actually made less then when I was working while in college. In 2009 my company cut our salaries by 5%, but the net cost to me was more like a 27% cut. In 2001 I worked as a contractor for a company that had a 10% reduction in full time employees, yet they kept us contractors working. Recently I talked with a recruiter about a position doing J2EE, which is what I am doing now. It required a high level security clearance which is not an easy thing to get. The rub was that it was located in a higher cost of living area and only paid about 70% of what I am making now. They required more and paid less, but such is the market. You need to learn about these things! Good luck.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b424c046dbafe620ac0c5aa18fcb993", "text": "I'm finishing up a PhD in econ this year. I did a similar route to you. M.A. in finance / econ - split with business school and economics department then moved into a PhD. If I had to do it over again, I would go straight into the PhD program. I'd say skip the MA, especially since you have an interest in academia. The MA was more or less a waste of time and you get the MA as you're doing your PhD work anyway.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e497bb3040ac36c1692bb5c8513e247", "text": "Fair enough, but the MSF program is still quant heavy. Probably not to the same degree, but I would imagine it would challenge you in some ways, particularly if you got into a top tier institution (i.e. Princeton or MIT).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "352b921f62a82c64dfe8f3d3bf86c4c8", "text": "Hmmm. I assume to be accepted into a PhD/masters program without a masters one would have to be an absolute stud though. I come from a school that isn't too hot on academics. It is a large public research institution, but it's not a UT or Notre Dame type school. I guess I should talk to my professors about the whole process.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8f5c67f878e8aa0682ee18e0675e321", "text": "IRR is subjective, if you could provide another metric instead of the IRR; then this would make sense. You can't spend IRR. For example, you purchase a property with a down payment; and the property provides cash-flow; you could show that your internal rate of return is 35%, but your actual rate of importance could be the RoR, or Cap Rate. I feel that IRR is very subjective. IRR is hardly looked at top MBA programs. It's studied, but other metrics are used, such as ROI, ROR, etc. IRR should be a tool that you visually compare to another metric. IRR can be very misleading, for example it's like the cash on cash return on an investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52a6ddf06be78ea86054232dbf615837", "text": "What should I do? Weigh your options and decide which education investment lines up better with your goals. Some of the costs from pursuing a degree at the more reputable university may include: However there are probably some benefits to pursuing a degree at this university: You will know best which of these apply to you in addition to any pros or cons not mentioned. You need to evaluate each one in order to make a decision.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa9dd2eb08493ef9110388d88f5b7f85", "text": "What is your goal? I would, under most circumstances, not recommend the Masters. I did it because I studied engineering in undergrad but wanted to transition to finance right away. The reality is that a good undergrad will give you most of the tools you need for success in a junior finance role. The critical piece is networking with professionals and working in the markets to elevate your stance before graduation. I am not an advocate for a lot of investment in education as the payback is less than most alternatives (IB analyst training, CFA, internships, etc.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbee5019ab0ce46cad0addc381d33d86", "text": "\"I met two MBA graduates from Harvard - both made VPs at large Canadian companies (i.e. $1B or greater annual revenue) after working 2-5 years as management consultants post-graduation - one is now a divisional president making over $500K in salary along. When I asked one of them (one that is not yet making $500K in salary) about the Harvard MBA difference, he said the brand-name and the network probably set it apart from others, since most MBA schools now uses the same material as Harvard's. I tend to agree with his thoughts - I never did felt the caliber of my professor had much to do with my ability to apply what I learn to practical use. In my own MBA education, the professor did more facilitation than \"\"teaching\"\". Apparently that is the norm, as MBA is less about being fed information than it is about demonstrating the ability to analyze and present information. Back to M.Attia's question, I would go with the highest ranked MBA education I could afford (both financially and lifestyle). A friend of mine was able to get his employer to pay for the $90K tuition fee from Rotman, along with job security for 5 years (not a bad idea in this economy). I settled for Lansbridge University in Fedricton because the flexibility of distance learning and cost was important to me, though I was able to get my employer to pay for the MBA after I started (I switched group within the company shortly after I started my MBA and my new boss was able to get the approval without locking me in).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83045d9a218cfdfe1e721a351c3f6f2e", "text": "I'm currently a senior finance student in Pittsburgh graduating in May. I get pretty good grades (3.2) and have had a few internships. I've recently decided I want to go to grad school as soon as possible, but am unsure of the next steps in my process. Could someone point me in the right direction?", "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": "9d084c222587f5a3e4e5407b93e6d04a", "text": "when you consider the cost of living and the restrictions on working it is nearly the same. I'm able to work part time in the US and go to a state school so my total debt is only around 40k. The biggest problem is that for the degree plans i looked at in public administration and education are not recognized. Of course, I will gladly read any sources you are willing to share that report otherwise.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5117ae499bb638cb572adcbf65bef376", "text": "Thanks for explaining added value - I do not think professors are much, if any part of the problem, it really does come down to cost in my eyes. Year over year costs go up. As a country we are pricing ourselves out of education. It will continue to create disparity and eventually you will have a large segment of the population saying no way on college (I can get a lot of free courseware on edx.org and other sites). As numbers drop colleges are going to be hard pressed to really make money. I often ponder what that money is spent for. I know a chunk goes to sports and other not necessarily academic activities. I have advocated for years to people who cannot afford to go to a 4yr college to attend community college, get an Associates and make their decision from there. With exception of the Ivy league schools I do not think there is enough value in 4 yr degree's in the job market. I am in IT and the number of people I have worked with who have had degrees since the early days of my career has dropped greatly. Many of them had non-computer degrees and jumped job fields to fill gaps early on. Just my two cents. I really believe that most professors are not the problem (unless they are paid huge sums and even that's dependent on a lot of things)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e8002a8483e94f44f69a314c387ea4a", "text": "I believe @Dilip addressed your question alread, I am going to focus on your second question: What are the criteria one should use for estimating the worth of the situation? The criteria are: I hope this helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "259db994dcd2e808930fe40d0f155490", "text": "\"The best advice I can give you is that you need to start on math now. I made the same mistake as OP and didn't realize that going up in finance would require as much math as it does. Granted, I was undergrad finance not marketing like him, so maybe it was a little better for me, but if you really want to do upper level finance do NOT skimp on math. It's easy to fall into the trap doing cal 2 your sophomore year and thinking \"\"I won't really need this\"\" and just doing the minimum to get through it. For undergrad, that's true. For Master's you'll need it. This happened to me, and I suffered a LOT because of it. Your professors in the master's program will likely give you a crash course in what you need to know, but you won't have a real understanding of it unless you took (and did really well in) those math classes beforehand. To answer your question, 1. Maybe. You should definitely take cal 1 early. Depending on how you can hold on to the information, cal 2 can wait a bit, so it's fresher when you start doing upper level finance your second half of junior year/senior year. 2. Upper level finance is a whole different beast from lower level finance. Same with economics. If you're not good at math, if you don't enjoy math, it might not be the best choice. I'm not good at math, and the undergrad finance wasn't too bad. However, the master's program was very very not fun. EDIT: YMMV, but I don't recommend going straight into the master's program straight out of undergrad. Work (in industry!) for a bit first. The jobs you need to a master's for won't hire you straight out of undergrad, so it'll be dead weight. Experience is what you need.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b0bb7134b4976d519582afd0b2420571", "text": "The context actually was higher education and student debt load (which extends to cost). You can try to broaden it but the title of the thread, the linked article, the comment I replied to and my comments all reference higher education and costs. Once again, your comment is correct in a broader context, just not in the one we were in, at least not to all readers clearly. You want to be right but what you need to accept is that you just flubbed your post (tbh I agree with you on most points here) and should likely add some more detail to your statements.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
7b1c6c67d0136a9c35b9f88900c21ef1	How to fill the IRS Offer In Compromise with an underwater asset?	[ { "docid": "d3e856d7e6912de3291f0bf813915525", "text": "\"You're supposed to be filling form 433-A. Vehicles are on line 18. You will fill there the current fair value of the car and the current balance on the loans. The last column is \"\"equity\"\", which in your case will indeed be a negative number. The \"\"value\"\" is what the car is worth. The \"\"equity\"\" is what the car is worth to you. IRS uses the \"\"equity\"\" value to calculate your solvency. Any time you fill a form to the IRS - read the instructions carefully, for each line and line. If in doubt - talk to a professional licensed in your state. I'm not a professional, and this is not a tax advice.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "102706bf51207ed9bb9cb202b105b87e", "text": "If you have both consumer debt and IRS debt, you can file Chapter 7 bankruptcy to get rid of all of it. The trick is your taxes have to be at least 3 years old from the due date in order to be considered for bankruptcy. So newer taxes, like 2010 and on, can't be discharged yet (and earlier ones may not be yet, there are rules which toll the time) You'll definitely want to talk to a bankruptcy attorney in your area who focusing on discharge in tax debts. You may be able to kill two birds with one stone. My other concern is are you current? Typically people routinely run up a new debt when trying to settle up on 9old debt. So the OIC route may be a waste of your time. Also, $6000 isn't a lot of money, so there's not a lot of room to negotiate down. It's all how you fill out the 656-OIC. I've seen way to many people not fill it out incorrectly. The IRS has a limited amount of time to collect on a debt, so if there are old taxes, you may be better off getting into CNC status, which it seems like you would qualify for and let the debt expire on your own. That may be another viable solution. Unfortunately, this is really complicated to get the best result. And good tax debt attorneys fees start at the amount of taxes you owe! So that's not really cost effective to hire one.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "6027cb737ec41a6e7f3c7e28a65a29cf", "text": "Unfortunately, it's a simple 'no'. Once the IRS has your money, you need to wait until early next year to settle up. He can increase his allowances via form W4, and have less money withheld from pay checks the rest of this year, but no chance for a lump sum return before tax time. For sake of a comprehensive answer, early withdrawals are subject to a 10% penalty along with regular income tax. It sounds like the son is in the 15% bracket, and a total 25% would have been the right number to choose.", "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": "ea582ead73b55789e8dd68ef14643254", "text": "I don't believe you can do that. From the IRS: Finally, certain types of property are specifically excluded from Section 1031 treatment. Section 1031 does not apply to exchanges of: I highlighted the relevant items for emphasis.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9230b874441939256ea7912de4cf896b", "text": "\"No, you cannot. ISO are given to you in your capacity as an employee (that's why it is \"\"qualified\"\"), while your IRA is not an employee. You cannot transfer property to the IRA, so you cannot transfer them to the IRA once you paid for them as well. This is different from non-qualified stock options (discussed in this question), which I believe technically can be granted to IRA. But as Joe suggests in his answer there - there may be self-dealing issues and you better talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) if this is something you're considering to do.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fe426c439a37a460272b846aba18e5c", "text": "\"If he DOES get money, the minimum amount of time will be 20-25 years from now. The money comes from the IRS and has to be signed off by a bunch of elected folks AND has to be pushed by the individual agent. Everybody will see multi-millions as \"\"too much\"\" and opt for something reasonable.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "730f045c86fb1fd0f70292b5f620bc95", "text": "\"I'm not 100% certain on boats, since they aren't typically sold for a gain, but the tax base of an asset is typically the cost of the asset plus the cost of any improvements, so your $15,000 gain looks right (check with a CPA to be certain, though, if you can). Your \"\"cost basis\"\" would be $50,000 + $25,000 = $75,000, and your net gain would be $90,000 - $75,000 = $15,000. The result is the same, but the arithmetic is organized a little differently. I am fairly confident you cannot include your time in the \"\"cost of improvements\"\". If you incorporated and \"\"paid yourself\"\" for the time, then the payment would be considered income (and taxed), if it was even allowed. Depending on your tax bracket that may be a WORSE option for you. You can look at it this way - you only pay the tax on the $15k gain versus paying someone else $15k to do the labor.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4a1738922520dca65133b950a2f75df", "text": "\"There are different schools of thought. You can ask the IRS - and it would not surprise me if you got different answers on different phone calls. One interpretation is that a put is not \"\"substantially identical\"\" to the disposed stock, therefore no wash is triggered by that sale. However if that put is exercised, then you automatically purchase the security, and that is identical. As to whether the IRS (or your brokerage firm) recognizes the identical security when it falls out of an option, I can't say; but technically they could enforce it because the rule is based on 30 days and a \"\"substantially identical\"\" stock or security. In this interpretation (your investor) would probably at least want to stay out of the money in choosing a strike price, to avoid exercise; however, options are normally either held or sold, rather than be exercised, until at or very close to the expiration date (because time value is left on the table otherwise). So the key driver in this interpretation would be expiration date, which should be at least 31 days out from the stock sale; and it would be prudent to sell an out of the money put as well, in order to avoid the wash sale trigger. However there is also a more unfavorable opinion - see fairmark.com/capgain/wash/wsoption.htm where they hold that a \"\"deep in the money\"\" option is an immediate trigger (regardless of exercise). This article is sage, in that they say that the Treasury (IRS) may interpret an option transaction as a wash if it's ballpark to being exercisable. And, if the IRS throws paper, it always beats each of paper, rock and scissors :( A Schwab article (\"\"A Primer on Wash Sales\"\") says, if the CUSIPs match, bang, wash. This is the one that they may interpret unfavorably on in any case, supporting Schwab's \"\"play it safe\"\" position: \"\"3. Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities...\"\" . This certainly nails buying a call. As to selling a put, well, it is at least conceivable that an IRS official would call that a contract to buy! SO it's simply not a slam dunk; there are varying opinions that you might describe as ranging from \"\"hell no\"\" to \"\"only if blatant.\"\" If you can get an \"\"official\"\" predetermination, or you like to go aggressive in your tax strategy, there's that; they may act adversely, so Caveat Taxfiler!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e6eb756cc10517e78138928fe576fa8", "text": "\"Depositum irregulare is a Latin phrase that simply means \"\"irregular deposit.\"\" It's a concept from ancient Roman contract law that has a very narrow scope and doesn't actually apply to your example. There are two distinct parts to this concept, one dealing with the notion of a deposit and the other with the notion of irregularity. I'll address them both in turn since they're both relevant to the tax issue. I also think that this is an example of the XY problem, since your proposed solution (\"\"give my money to a friend for safekeeping\"\") isn't the right solution to your actual problem (\"\"how can I keep my money safe\"\"). The currency issue is a complication, but it doesn't change the fact that what you're proposing probably isn't a good solution. The key word in my definition of depositum irregulare is \"\"contract\"\". You don't mention a legally binding contract between you and your friend; an oral contract doesn't qualify because in the event of a breach, it's difficult to enforce the agreement. Legally, there isn't any proof of an oral agreement, and emotionally, taking your friend to court might cost you your friendship. I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess that the absence of a contract implies that even though in the eyes of you and your friend, you're giving him the money for \"\"safekeeping,\"\" in the eyes of the law, you're simply giving it to him. In the US, you would owe gift taxes on these funds if they're higher than a certain amount. In other words, this isn't really a deposit. It's not like a security deposit, in which the money may be held as collateral in exchange for a service, e.g. not trashing your apartment, or a financial deposit, where the money is held in a regulated financial institution like a bank. This isn't a solution to the problem of keeping your money safe because the lack of a contract means you incur additional risk in the form of legal risk that isn't present in the context of actual deposits. Also, if you don't have an account in the right currency, but your friend does, how are you planning for him to store the money anyway? If you convert your money into his currency, you take on exchange rate risk (unless you hedge, which is another complication). If you don't convert it and simply leave it in his safe, house, car boot, etc. you're still taking on risk because the funds aren't insured in the event of loss. Furthermore, the money isn't necessarily \"\"safe\"\" with your friend even if you ignore all the risks above. Without a written contract, you have little recourse if a) your friend decides to spend the money and not return it, b) your friend runs into financial trouble and creditors make claim to his assets, or c) you get into financial trouble and creditors make claims to your assets. The idea of giving money to another individual for safekeeping during bankruptcy has been tested in US courts and ruled invalid. If you do decide to go ahead with a contract and you do want your money back from your friend eventually, you're in essence loaning him money, and this is a different situation with its own complications. Look at this question and this question before loaning money to a friend. Although this does apply to your situation, it's mostly irrelevant because the \"\"irregular\"\" part of the concept of \"\"irregular deposit\"\" is a standard feature of currencies and other legal tender. It's part of the fungibility of modern currencies and doesn't have anything to do with taxes if you're only giving your friend physical currency. If you're giving him property, other assets, etc. for \"\"safekeeping\"\" it's a different issue entirely, but it's still probably going to be considered a gift or a loan. You're basically correct about what depositum irregulare means, but I think you're overestimating its reach in modern law. In Roman times, it simply refers to a contract in which two parties made an agreement for the depositor to deposit money or goods with the depositee and \"\"withdraw\"\" equivalent money or goods sometime in the future. Although this is a feature of the modern deposit banking system, it's one small part alongside contract law, deposit insurance, etc. These other parts add complexity, but they also add security and risk mitigation. Your arrangement with your friend is much simpler, but also much riskier. And yes, there probably are taxes on what you're proposing because you're basically giving or loaning the money to your friend. Even if you say it's not a loan or a gift, the law may still see it that way. The absence of a contract makes this especially important, because you don't have anything speaking in your favor in the event of a legal dispute besides \"\"what you meant the money to be.\"\" Furthermore, the money isn't necessarily safe with your friend, and the absence of a contract exacerbates this issue. If you want to keep your money safe, keep it in an account that's covered by deposit insurance. If you don't have an account in that currency, either a) talk to a lawyer who specializes in situation like this and work out a contract, or b) open an account with that currency. As I've stated, I'm not a lawyer, so none of the above should be interpreted as legal advice. That being said, I'll reiterate again that the concept of depositum irregulare is a concept from ancient Roman law. Trying to apply it within a modern legal system without a contract is a potential recipe for disaster. If you need a legal solution to this problem (not that you do; I think what you're looking for is a bank), talk to a lawyer who understands modern law, since ancient Roman law isn't applicable to and won't pass muster in a modern-day court.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8f2a0b3957abc9cff84a66aee8918af", "text": "\"First - Welcome to Money.SE. You gave a lot of detail, and it's tough to parse out the single question. Actually, you have multiple issues. $1300 is what you need to pay the tax? In the 25% bracket plus 10% penalty, you have a 65% net amount. $1300/.65 = Exactly $2000. You withdraw $2000, have them (the IRA holder) withhold $700 in federal tax, and you're done. All that said, don't do it. Nathan's answer - payment plan with IRS - is the way to go. You've shared with us a important issue. Your budget is running too tight. We have a post here, \"\"the correct order of investing\"\" which provides a great guideline that applies to most visitors. You are missing the part that requires a decent sized emergency fund. In your case, calling it that, may be a misnomer, as the tax bill isn't an unexpected emergency, but something that should have been foreseeable. We have had a number of posts here that advocate the paid in full house. And I always respond that the emergency fund comes first. With $70K of income, you should have $35K or so of liquidity, money readily available. Tax due in April shouldn't be causing you this grief. Please read that post I linked and others here to help you with the budgeting issue. Last - You are in an enviable position, A half million dollars, no mortgage, mid 40s. Easily doing better than most. So, please forgive the soapbox tone of the above, it was just my \"\"see, that's what I'm talking about\"\" moment from my tenure here.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca4f820b9bdb5a53b055950641355db2", "text": "Do not try to deposit piece wise. Either use the system in complete transparence, or do not use it at all. The fear of having your bank account frozen, even if you are in your rights, is justified. In any case, I don't advise you to put in bank before reaching IRS. Also keep all the proof that you indeed contacted them. (Recommended letter and copy of any form you submit to them) Be ready to also give those same documents to your bank to proove your good faith. If they are wrong, you'll be considered in bad faith until you can proove otherwise, without your bank account. Do not trust their good faith, they are not bad people, but very badly organized with too much power, so they put the burden of proof on you just because they can. If it is too burdensome for you then keep cash or go bitcoin. (but the learning curve to keep so much money in bitcoin secure against theft is high) You should declare it in this case anyway, but at least you don't have to fear having your money blocked arbitrarily.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25faeedfce4fc9db142bcf1af0d49817", "text": "Assuming that what you want to do is to counter the capital gains tax on the short term and long term gains, and that doing so will avoid any underpayment penalties, it is relatively simple to do so. Figure out the tax on the capital gains by determining your tax bracket. Lets say 25% short term and 15% long term or (0.25x7K) + (0.15*8K) or $2950. If you donate to charities an additional amount of items or money to cover that tax. So taking the numbers in step 1 divide by the marginal tax rate $2950/0.25 or $11,800. Money is easier to donate because you will be contributing enough value that the IRS may ask for proof of the value, and that proof needs to be gathered either before the donation is given or at the time the donation is given. Also don't wait until December 31st, if you miss the deadline and the donation is counted for next year, the purpose will have been missed. Now if the goal is just to avoid the underpayment penalty, you have two other options. The safe harbor is the easiest of the two to determine. Look at last years tax form. Look for the amount of tax you paid last year. Not what was withheld, but what you actually paid. If all your withholding this year, is greater than 110% of the total tax from last year, you have reached the safe harbor. There are a few more twists depending on AGI Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers. If at least two-thirds of your gross income for tax year 2014 or 2015 is from farming or fishing, substitute 662/3% for 90% in (2a) under the General rule, earlier. If your AGI for 2014 was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if your filing status for 2015 is married filing a separate return), substitute 110% for 100% in (2b) under General rule , earlier. See Figure 4-A and Publication 505, chapter 2 for more information.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1c755a38f3d7640be1c7375a29c4961", "text": "I wouldn't do this. There is a chance that your check could get lost/misdirected/misapplied, etc. Then you would need to deal with the huge bureaucracy to try to get it fixed while interest and penalties pile up. What you can do is have the IRS withdraw the money themselves by providing the rounting number and account number of your bank. This should work whether is it a traditional brick and mortar bank or an online bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c3daf02c2828ef1b7739fe35ac39d2e0", "text": "\"After much research, the answer is \"\"a\"\": recompute the tax return using the installment sales method because (1) the escrow payment was subject to \"\"substantial restrictions\"\" by virtue of the escrow being structured to pay buyer's indemnification claims and (2) the taxpayer did not correctly elect out of the installment method by reporting the entire gain including the escrow payments on the return in the year of the transaction.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b271a049ae22fd6bdb2c111d0e1dc938", "text": "\"Here's what's going to happen: At the last minute, he's going to \"\"discover\"\" that for some reason first you must send him $10,000. He'll tell you not to worry, as he's still going to send you $40,000... now $50,000. In fact, he's going to tell you that he'll send you $60,000 and tell you to keep the $10,000 as a \"\"finders fee\"\". Then you will send him, $10,000 and he will walk away with your $10,000. You'll never hear from him again. This is a very common scam. The best way to avoid it is not to tell him you won't do it for IRS reasons. The best thing to do is to stop accepting email from him and (optionally) report him to law enforcement.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c6a8eb3d7260ce7cff353c73588f5f2", "text": "\"Your assertion that you will not be selling anything is at odds with the idea that you will be doing tax loss harvesting. Tax loss harvesting always involves some selling (you sell stocks that have fallen in price and lock in the capital losses, which gives you a break on your taxes). If you absolutely prohibit your advisor from selling, then you will not be able to do tax loss harvesting (in that case, why are you using an advisor at all?). Tax loss harvesting has nothing to do with your horizon nor the active/passive difference, really. As a practical matter, a good tax loss harvesting plan involves mechanically selling losers and immediately putting the money in another stock with more-or-less similar risk so your portfolio doesn't change much. In this way you get a stable portfolio that performs just like a static portfolio but gives you a tax benefit each year. The IRS officially prohibits this practice via the \"\"wash sale rule\"\" that says you can't buy a substantially identical asset within a short period of time. However, though two stocks have similar risk, they are not generally substantially similar in a legal sense, so the IRS can't really beat you in court and they don't try. Basically you can't just buy the same stock again. The roboadvisor is advertising that they will perform this service, keeping your portfolio pretty much static in terms of risk, in such a way that your tax benefit is maximized and you don't run afoul of the IRS.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
c3974a64b0c87e01abfcfec402042842	What will be the capital gains tax after we sell a rental home?	[ { "docid": "691f379e386fc1183176cdae0adf3072", "text": "This will be a complex issue and you will need to sit down with a professional to work through the issues: When the house was put up for rent the initial year tax forms should have required that the value of the house/property be calculated. This number was then used for depreciation of the house. This was made more complex based on any capital improvements. If the house wasn't the first he owned, then capital gains might have been rolled over from previous houses which adds a layer of complexity. Any capital improvements while the house was a rental will also have to be resolved because those were also depreciated since they were placed in service. The deprecation will be recaptured and will be a part of the calculation. You have nowhere near enough info to make a calculation at this time.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a286e4563e4d15f6300f7e8ac67849fd", "text": "\"Yes, you're correct and yes they will. Note that it will be considered as \"\"sale\"\" with gains being taxable income to you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1e92a6e17ba78551b7fd1703fae444c", "text": "\"Are these all of the taxes or is there any additional taxes over these? Turn-over tax is not for retail investors. Other taxes are paid by the broker as part of transaction and one need not worry too much about it. Is there any \"\"Income tax\"\" to be paid for shares bought/holding shares? No for just buying and holding. However if you buy and sell; there would be a capital gain or loss. In stocks, if you hold a security for less than 1 year and sell it; it is classified as short term capital gain and taxes at special rate of 15%. The loss can be adjusted against any other short term gain. If held for more than year it is long term capital gain. For stock market, the tax is zero, you can't adjust long term losses in stock markets. Will the money received from selling shares fall under \"\"Taxable money for FY Income tax\"\"? Only the gain [or loss] will be tread as income not the complete sale value. To calculate gain, one need to arrive a purchase price which is price of stock + Brokerage + STT + all other taxes. Similar the sale price will be Sales of stock - Brokerage - STT - all other taxes. The difference is the gain. Will the \"\"Dividend/Bonus/Buy-back\"\" money fall under taxable category? Dividend is tax free to individual as the company has already paid dividend distribution tax. Bonus is tax free event as it does not create any additional value. Buy-Back is treated as sale of shares if you have participated. Will the share-holder pay \"\"Dividend Distribution Tax\"\"? Paid by the company. What is \"\"Capital Gains\"\"? Profit or loss of buying and selling a particular security.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eed532144938a0446170198dc5d2e6cc", "text": "I don't see anything in this forum on the leverage aspect, so I'll toss that out for discussion. Using generic numbers, say you make a $10k down payment on a $100,000 house. The house appreciates 3% per year. First year, it's $103,000. Second year, $106090, third it's 109,272.70. (Assuming straight line appreciation.) End of three years, you've made $9,272.70 on your initial $10,000 investment, assuming you have managed the property well enough to have a neutral or positive cash flow. You can claim depreciation of the property over those rental years, which could help your tax situation. Of course, if you sell, closing costs will be a big factor. Plus... after three years, the dreaded capital gains tax jumps in as mentioned earlier, unless you do a 1031 exchange to defer it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2298623d7f59f87288ce808fd76d4706", "text": "The capital gain is either short-term or long-term and will be indicated on the 1099-DiV. You pay taxes on this amount as the capital gain was received in a taxable account (assuming since you received a 1099-DIV). More info here: https://www.mutualfundstore.com/brokerage-account/capital-gains-distributions-taxable", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6474f9e233c80bd3d4a1c35ff0746bcd", "text": "Your question is best asked of a tax expert, not random people on the internet. Such an expert will help you ask the right questions. For example you did not point out the country or state in which you live. That matters. First point is that you will not pay tax on 60K, its expensive to transact real estate, so your net proceeds will be closer to 40K. Also you can probably the deduct the costs of improvements. You implied that you really like this rental property. If that is the case, why would you sell...ever? This home could be a central part of your financial independence plan. So keep it until you die. IIRC when it passes to your heirs, a new cost basis is formed thereby not passing the tax burden onto them. (Assuming the property is located in the US.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8458e6ebcc66911b291d37d15bc50a86", "text": "To start, I hope you are aware that the properties' basis gets stepped up to market value on inheritance. The new basis is the start for the depreciation that must be applied each year after being placed in service as rental units. This is not optional. Upon selling the units, depreciation is recaptured whether it's taken each year or not. There is no rule of thumb for such matters. Some owners would simply collect the rent, keep a reserve for expenses or empty units, and pocket the difference. Others would refinance to take cash out and leverage to buy more property. The banker is not your friend, by the way. He is a salesman looking to get his cut. The market has had a good recent run, doubling from its lows. Right now, I'm not rushing to prepay my 3.5% mortgage sooner than it's due, nor am I looking to pull out $500K to throw into the market. Your proposal may very well work if the market sees a return higher than the mortgage rate. On the flip side I'm compelled to ask - if the market drops 40% right after you buy in, will you lose sleep? And a fellow poster (@littleadv) is whispering to me - ask a pro if the tax on a rental mortgage is still deductible when used for other purposes, e.g. a stock purchase unrelated to the properties. Last, there are those who suggest that if you want to keep investing in real estate, leverage is fine as long as the numbers work. From the scenario you described, you plan to leverage into an already pretty high (in terms of PE10) and simply magnifying your risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d7423ee99001152e36ba7d033e5edef", "text": "When you sell the spec home, you will owe taxes on the sales price minus the cost of the home, including the land, materials, paid labor, and other expenses. The fact that you pay for this with with the inheritance in the money market account won't affect the taxes you owe when you sell the spec house.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccee1d130a4cefa6b31916dd78b4f0b3", "text": "\"Appreciation of a Capital Asset is a Capital Gain. In the United States, Capital Gains get favorable tax treatment after being held for 12 months. From the IRS newsroom: Capital gains and losses are classified as long-term or short-term, depending on how long you hold the property before you sell it. If you hold it more than one year, your capital gain or loss is long-term. If you hold it one year or less, your capital gain or loss is short-term. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2009, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%. The IRS defines a Capital Asset as \"\"most property you own\"\" with a list of exclusions found in Schedule D Instructions. None of the exclusions listed relate to Bond ETFs.\"", "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": "d0924928f7f5f7194bd15333e140dbae", "text": "\"In 2014 the IRS announced that it published guidance in Notice 2014-21. In that notice, the answer to the first question describes the general tax treatment of virtual currency: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property. General tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency. As it's property like any other, capital gains if and when you sell are taxed. As with any capital gains, you're taxed on the \"\"profit\"\" you made, that is the \"\"proceeds\"\" (how much you got when you sold) minus your \"\"basis\"\" (how much you paid to get the property that you sold). Until you sell, it's just an asset (like a house, or a share of stock, or a rare collectible card) that doesn't require any reporting. If your initial cryptocurrency acquisition was through mining, then this section of that Notice applies: 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. That is to say, when it was mined the market value of the amount generated should have been included in income (probably on either Line 21 Other Income, or on Schedule C if it's from your own business). At that point, the market value would also qualify as your basis. Though I doubt there'd be a whole lot of enforcement action for not amending your 2011 return to include $0.75. (Technically if you find a dollar bill on the street it should be included in income, but usually the government cares about bigger fish than that.) It sounds like your basis is close enough to zero that it's not worth trying to calculate a more accurate value. Since your basis couldn't be less than zero, there's no way that using zero as your basis would cause you to pay less tax than you ought, so the government won't have any objections to it. One thing to be careful of is to document that your holdings qualify for long-term capital gains treatment (held longer than a year) if applicable. Also, as you're trading in multiple cryptocurrencies, each transaction may count as a \"\"sale\"\" of one kind followed by a \"\"purchase\"\" of the other kind, much like if you traded your Apple stock for Google stock. It's possible that \"\"1031 like kind exchange\"\" rules apply, and in June 2016 the American Institute of CPAs sent a letter asking about it (among other things), but as far as I know there's been no official IRS guidance on the matter. There are also some related questions here; see \"\"Do altcoin trades count as like-kind exchanges?\"\" and \"\"Assuming 1031 Doesn't Apply To Cryptocurrency Trading\"\". But if in fact those exchange rules do not apply and it is just considered a sale followed by a purchase, then you would need to report each exchange as a sale with that asset's basis (probably $0 for the initial one), and proceeds of the fair market value at the time, and then that same value would be the basis of the new asset you're purchasing. Using a $0 basis is how I treat my bitcoin sales, though I haven't dealt with other cryptocurrencies. As long as all the USD income is being reported when you get USD, I find it unlikely you'll run into a lot of trouble, even if you technically were supposed to report the individual transactions when they happened. Though, I'm not in charge of IRS enforcement, and I'm not aware of any high-profile cases, so it's hard to know anything for sure. Obviously, if there's a lot of money involved, you may want to involve a professional rather than random strangers on the Internet. You could also try contacting the IRS directly, as believe-it-or-not, their job is in fact helping you to comply with the tax laws correctly. Also, there are phone numbers at the end of Notice 2014-21 of people which might be able to provide further guidance, including this statement: The principal author of this notice is Keith A. Aqui of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax & Accounting). For further information about income tax issues addressed in this notice, please contact Mr. Aqui at (202) 317-4718\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "398402f51ec457500408822627b1c4f2", "text": "Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ab357979737b8b271ff89429bd966c3", "text": "\"I was told by the lawyers there was no tax consequence because the two numbers were the same. That is correct. However, a tax professional tells me that since the start-up stock was \"\"realized\"\" there invokes a taxable event now. That is correct. I'm now led to believe I owe cap-gains tax on the entire 4 year vest this year That is incorrect. You owe capital gains tax on the sale of your startup stock. Which is accidentally the exact same amount you \"\"paid\"\" for the new unvested stocks. There's no taxable event with regards to the new stocks because the amount you paid for them was the amount you got for the old stocks. But you did sell the old stocks, and that is a taxable event.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58a27b9898fc1b6ef26969f3623b4ee2", "text": "Ah, I did some more research and apparently Rental Income is considered Passive Income, and as such the IRS does not allow a net loss to exist, but you can carry the loss over into the next year. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc425.html Generally, losses from passive activities that exceed the income from passive activities are disallowed for the current year. You can carry forward disallowed passive losses to the next taxable year. A similar rule applies to credits from passive activities. So in the event in a loss on my rental business activity, I simply pay no tax on it, and deduct the remainder in income in 2017 from taxes. I don't make any changes to my Consulting income at all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8394b41dc5e16d17c616139c687e014c", "text": "If it is US, you need to take tax implications into account. Profit taken from sale of your home is taxable. One approach would be to take the tax hit, pay down the student loans, rent, and focus any extra that you can on paying off the student loans quickly. The tax is on realized gains when you sell the property. I think that any equity under the original purchase price is taxed at a lower rate (or zero). Consult a tax pro in your area. Do not blindly assume buying is better than renting. Run the numbers. Rent Vs buy is not a question with a single answer. It depends greatly on the real estate market where you are, and to a lesser extent on your personal situation. Be sure to include maintenance and HOA fees, if any, on the ownership side. Breakeven time on a new roof or a new HVAC unit or an HOA assessment can be years, tipping the scales towards renting. Include the opportunity cost by including the rate of return on the 100k on the renting side (or subtracting it on the ownership side). Be sure to include the tax implications on the ownership side, especially taxes on any profits from the sale. If the numbers say ownership in your area is better, then try for as small of a mortgage as you can get in a growing area. Assuming that the numbers add up to buying: buy small and live frugally, focus on increasing discretionary spending, and using it to pay down debt and then build wealth. If they add up to renting, same thing but rent small.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c631614d19b6880eef1e66e950b7b172", "text": "Loans are not taxable events. The equity you took out is not income. It's a loan, and you pay it back with interest. You pay taxes on the capital gain of the home when you sell it. The tax does not take into account any mortgages, HELOCs, or other loans secured by the house. Instead the tax is calculated based on the price you sold it for, minus the price you bought it for, which is known as the capital gain. You can exclude $250k of that gain for a single person, $500k for a married couple. (There are a few other wrikles as well.) That would be true regardless of the loan balance at the time.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
ca9ccbfee61283a0817aa09982ff9c2c	Can you explain the mechanism of money inflation?	[ { "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": "f791ea47391e980f4185fbb60046f1e9", "text": "Assuming constant velocity, inflation is caused by the difference between the growth in the money supply and growth in real output. In other words, this means that the money supply growing faster than output is expanding causes inflation to arise.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12c8e47442cbc448841fe41ffb3cdb45", "text": "In simple terms, inflation is a result of too much money chasing too few goods, i.e. there is an imbalance between demand and supply. The demand exceeds the supply. With all other things being constant it leads to increase in price, i.e. inflation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfc8159b5632cc4cc11c53b4744a9d71", "text": "I don't think this can be explained in too simple a manner, but I'll try to keep it simple, organized, and concise. We need to start with a basic understanding of inflation. Inflation is the devaluing of currency (in this context) over time. It is used to explain that a $1 today is worth more than a $1 tomorrow. Inflation is explained by straight forward Supply = Demand economics. The value of currency is set at the point where supply (M1 in currency speak) = demand (actual spending). Increasing the supply of currency without increasing the demand will create a surplus of currency and in turn weaken the currency as there is more than is needed (inflation). Now that we understand what inflation is we can understand how it is created. The US Central Bank has set a target of around 2% for inflation annually. Meaning they aim to introduce 2% of M1 into the economy per year. This is where the answer gets complicated. M1 (currency) has a far reaching effect on secondary M2+ (credit) currency that can increase or decrease inflation just as much as M1 can... For example, if you were given $100 (M1) in new money from the Fed you would then deposit that $100 in the bank. The bank would then store 10% (the reserve ratio) in the Fed and lend out $90 (M2) to me on via a personal loan. I would then take that loan and buy a new car. The car dealer will deposit the $90 from my car loan into the bank who would then deposit 10% with The Fed and his bank would lend out $81... And the cycle will repeat... Any change to the amount of liquid currency (be it M1 or M2+) can cause inflation to increase or decrease. So if a nation decides to reduce its US Dollar Reserves that can inject new currency into the market (although the currency has already been printed it wasn't in the market). The currency markets aim to profit on currency imbalances and in reality momentary inflation/deflation between currencies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9aabe7143c93b50c64bded075fdfaca7", "text": "Your question asks about the mechanism of money inflation - not price inflation. Money inflation occurs when new money is introduced into an economy. The value of money is subject to supply and demand like other items in the economy. The effects of new money can be difficult to predict. One of the results of additional money can be rising prices. These rising prices can be concentrated in one particular area - stocks, homes, food - or they can be spread out over many items. This is true regardless of the form of money being inflated - gold, silver, or paper money. There were times in history when large discoveries of gold and silver were found that caused prices to rise as a result. Of course, the large discoveries of gold and silver pale in comparison to the gigantic discoveries by central banks of new fiat currency.", "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": "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 1.11.1-1 = 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": "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": "c0bac9a98e7ae3f01a8f47c2fd878128", "text": "\"Krugman argues (and I agree with him on this one) that this is a telltale sign that the US is in a [liquidity trap](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_trap). Basically interest rates are near 0 and the banks are very risk adverse right now, so they sit on reserves instead of lending them out. In this scenario, the government \"\"printing\"\" money has no effect on inflation (or much of anything) because it just sits in bank reserves. A more right wing economist might spin a different story though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3b43cf3295733598b990a5018066188", "text": "I was being sarcastic in response to you saying that hyperinflation happens every 30-50 years in a finance subreddit.. where the second lesson (right after time value of money) is that past results in general tell us nothing about the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c8e7acad35ce67b154a8450760f5891", "text": "The fed has $2 trillion m0, and they loan out $1.9 trillion which then is eventually makes it way back to their banksagain, which they loan out another $1.8 trillion. The money goes to whoever they are loaning it to. The m0 is determined by the treasury directly printing 0's and 1s, and putting it into the Fed's bank which then they loan out. That's last part is what quantitative easing is. In short, the treasurys at the top, then the fed, then the branch banks, then corporations then the executives then the middle/lower class. Generally. When the treasury prints the money it trickles down. Problem is the higher up in the tree the more purchasing power you have, the lower the less. Comparing it to the spanish inquisition wouldn't be far off. Perhaps someday the government will let the people choose their own currency.", "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": "46fc56b57f9a533b640a055c9c4e14ad", "text": "It can take a while for inflation to seep into all aspects an economy and be felt by a consumer. Often, things that consumers use the most (like gasoline, wheat products, corn products, soy products, and sugar), are commodities spread across global markets with their own pricing which may be impacted by inflation in any given country. Also, inflation can be beneficial in some ways. A $500/month mortgage payment was a big deal 30 years ago, and now would be considered trivial. That's entirely because of inflation. Run-away inflation, where people are burning the currency to stay warm, is a different beast altogether. Be wary of people who conflate inflation, consumer pricing, and destructive currency devaluation, because they're not the same things.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb5a410b9e36929b6216d4dcf618dd7e", "text": "\"Disregarding the particular example and focusing on the actual questions: YES, definitely, the whole concept of \"\"pump and dump scheme\"\" refers to the many cases when this was intentionally done; Everything has a limit, but the limit can be quite high, especially if starting from a low value (a penny stock) and if the stock is low volume, then inflating ten or hundred times over a real value may be possible; and any value might be infinitely times overvalued for a company that turns out to have a value of zero. Yes, unless it's done very blatantly, you should expect that the \"\"inflator\"\" has much more experience in hiding the signs of inflation than the skill of average investor to notice them.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5cb701b6cfca2174077ccca271b9fb1", "text": "let's define inflation as an increase in m1 relative to the goods and services in the dollar economy. twist doesn't change m1 because it is sterilized. it does make tsys attractive since it supports their prices. that means de-risking flows are to the u.s. that means dollar goes up. that means gold goes down.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c147ee4797cb064aa705248103a9bd3", "text": "> I fail to see how moderate inflation is a bad thing* The purchasing power of the currency slowly erodes, which means people's savings melt away. So people are forced to invest into something they don't really understand and something that is completely rigged, instead of just having their savings in a currency. [USD purchasing power](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mAg6FMpNGpM/Ta9ICcEMonI/AAAAAAAABBM/UoQG8vxtBX0/s1600/U.S.%2BDollar%2BPurchasing%2BPower.jpg).", "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": "fc929fa4355c3dd27f4ca55f52c55e68", "text": "\"And where does, say, Federal reserve, gets the money to buy those [2.5 trillions](https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-debt-3306124)? As for \"\"inflationary pressure\"\" - we don't really know it. Those money circulate between various financial instruments - so it is a very big question whether or not they spill out to affect consumer prices.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25acfc12627b8bc956a648b3eb673eb5", "text": "So this method makes sense and is reasonable and possible. The money multiplier effect ends up capped by the fact that the bank can only lend a percent of its 'cash'. My issue understanding this is I've been told that banks actually don't hold 10% of the cash and lend the other 90% but instead hold the full 100% in cash and lend 900%. Is this accurate? The issue I see with it is that it becomes exponential growth that is uncapped. If the bank lends 900%, it has created this money from nothing, which by itself isn't different that the bank loaning 90% and keeping 10%. The issue comes because the next bank who gets that money deposited will treat that amount as cash as well, so they loan 900% of the 900%. And so on and so forth. How does the system prevent this from happening?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf8c5a3d72f99e79d0eee15526e05b00", "text": "This is similar to the overnight lending rate set by the US Federal Reserve Board. If money is more expensive to borrow (higher interest rate) then less will be borrowed. Commercial and consumer loan rates follow up or down via market pressures (though possibly to a lesser extent in China) to adjust to the new central bank rate. Money creation is driven in part by fractional reserve banking: banks are required to have but a small percentage of deposits on hand in cash, and the rest can be lent out, deposited in another bank that has the same fractional reserve requirement, and that money can be lent out, etc. Higher interest rates dampen this lending activity, so inflation is toned down.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ad570b519c3229f5443070b43fbbf39", "text": "You need a blog, or a thread of your own. I want to learn about this, and you appear to be quite knowledgeable and thorough in your explanations. Would it be possible for you to make a thread, or reply, or pm explaining some of the pro's and cons of fiat money?", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
41a3f8bd2ab64a559c00cd961e60c551	Should I consider my investment in a total stock market fund “diverse”?	[ { "docid": "e4cbddfaee0024ce7a0ec84c4ca73a32", "text": "You are diversified within a particular type of security. Notably the stock market. A truly diversified portfolio not only has multiple types of holdings within a single type of security (what your broad market fund does) but between different types. You have partially succeeded in doing this with the international fund - that way your risk is spread between domestic and international stocks. But there are other holdings. Cash, bonds, commodities, real estate, etc. There are broad index funds/ETFs for those as well, which may reduce your risk when the stock market as a whole tanks - which it does on occasion.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b8358eb696ce30a48a2ee9c9109438ec", "text": "\"Typically investing in only two securities is not a good idea when trying to spread risk. Even though you are in the VTI which is spread out over a large amount of securites it should in theory reduce portfolio beta to zero, or in this case as close to it as possible. The VTI however has a beta of 1.03 as of close today in New York. This means that the VTI moves roughly in exact tandem as \"\"the market\"\" usually benched against the S&P 500, so this means that the VTI is slightly more volatile than that index. In theory beta can be 0, this would be akin to investing in T-bills which are 'assumed' to be the risk free rate. So in theory it is possible to reduce the risk in your portfolio and apply a more capital protective model. I hope this helps you a bit.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "4235c550d5320e788346bb69d057967b", "text": "\"In general, I'd try to keep things as simple as possible. If your plan is to have a three-fund portfolio (like Total Market, Total International, and Bond), and keep those three funds in general, then having it separated now and adding them all as you invest more is fine. (And upgrade to Admiral Shares once you hit the threshold for it.) Likewise, just putting it all into Total Market as suggested in another answer, or into something like a Target Retirement fund, is just fine too for that amount. While I'm all in favor of as low expense ratios as possible, and it's the kind of question I might have worried about myself not that long ago, look at the actual dollar amount here. You're comparing 0.04% to 0.14% on $10,000. That 0.1% difference is $10 per year. Any amount of market fluctuation, or buying on an \"\"up\"\" day or selling on a \"\"down\"\" day, is going to pretty much dwarf that amount. By the time that difference in expense ratios actually amounts to something that's worth worrying about, you should have enough to get Admiral Shares in all or at least most of your funds. In the long run, the amount you manage to invest and your asset allocation is worth much much more than a 0.1% expense ratio difference. (Now, if you're going to talk about some crazy investment with a 2% expense ratio or something, that's another story, but it's hard to go wrong at Vanguard in that respect.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8eb242062af3deb1b43b4460f7fe2ce", "text": "As these all seem to be US Equity, just getting one broad based US Equity index might offer similar diversification at lower cost. Over 5 years, 20 basis points in fees will only make about 1% difference. However, for longer periods (retirement saving), it is worth it to aim for the lowest fees. For further diversification, you might want to consider other asset classes, such as foreign equity, fixed income, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "817db6a727dc0ed4825fbb46bf03671e", "text": "In a word, no. Diversification is the first rule of investing. Your plan has poor diversification because it ignores most of the economy (large cap stocks). This means for the expected return your portfolio would get, you would bear an unnecessarily large amount of risk. Large cap and small cap stocks take turns outperforming each other. If you hold both, you have a safer portfolio because one will perform well while the other performs poorly. You will also likely want some exposure to the bond market. A simple and diversified portfolio would be a total market index fund and a total bond market fund. Something like 60% in the equity and 40% in the bonds would be reasonable. You may also want international exposure and maybe exposure to real estate via a REIT fund. You have expressed some risk-aversion in your post. The way to handle that is to take some of your money and keep it in your cash account and the rest into the diversified portfolio. Remember, when people add more and more asset classes (large cap, international, bonds, etc.) they are not increasing the risk of their portfolio, they are reducing it via diversification. The way to reduce it even more (after you have diversified) is to keep a larger proportion of it in a savings account or other guaranteed investment. BTW, your P2P lender investment seems like a great idea to me, but 60% of your money in it sounds like a lot.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ca0a5beb8be371556344354ecbd1a26", "text": "\"First - yes, take the 2.5%. It could be better, but it's better than many get. Second - choosing from \"\"a bunch\"\" can be tough. Start by looking at the expenses for each. Read a bit of the description, if you can't tell your spouse what the fund's goal is, don't buy it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cd57b14478334506368024bba017f72", "text": "If you are comfortable with the risk etc, then the main thing to worry about is diversity. For some folks, picking stocks is beyond them, or they have no interest in it. But if it's working for you, and you want to keep doing it, more power to you. If you are comfortable with the risk, you could just as well have ALL your equity position in individual stocks. I would offer only two pieces of advice in that respect. 1) no more than 4% of your total in any one stock. That's a good way to force diversity (provided the stocks are not clustered in a very few sectors like say 'financials'), and make yourself take some of the 'winnings off the table' if a stock has done well for you. 2) Pay Strong attention to Taxes! You can't predict most things, but you CAN predict what you'll have to pay in taxes, it's one of the few known quantities. Be smart and trade so you pay as little in taxes as possible 2A)If you live someplace where taxes on Long term gains are lower than short term (like the USA) then try really really hard to hold 'winners' till they are long term. Even if the price falls a little, you might be up in the net compared to paying out an extra 10% or more in taxes on your gains. Obviously there's a balancing act there between when you feel something is 'done' and the time till it's long term.. but if you've held something for 11 months, or 11 months and 2 weeks, odds are you'd be better off to hold till the one year point and then sell it. 2B) Capture Losses when you have them by selling and buying a similar stock for a month or something. (beware the wash sale rule) to use to offset gains.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2dcdbae126273b8c67efff484a1b52aa", "text": "Your question is very widely scoped, making it difficult to reply to, but I can provide my thoughts on at least the following part of the question: I have a 401k plan with T. Rowe Price, should I use them for other investments too? Using your employer's decision, on which 401k provider they've chosen, as a basis for making your own decision on a broker for investing $100k when you don't even know what kind of investments you want seems relatively unwise to me, even if one of your focuses is simplicity. That is, unless your $100k is tax-advantaged (e.g. an IRA or other 401k) and your drive for simplicity means you'd be happy to add $100k to any of your existing 401k investments. In which case you should look into whether you can roll the $100k over into your employer's 401k program. For the rest of my answer, I'll assume the $100k is NOT tax-advantaged. I assume you're suggesting this idea because of some perceived bundling of the relationship and ease of dealing with one company & website? Yes, they may be able to combine both accounts into a single login, and you may be able to interact with both accounts with the same basic interface, but that's about where the sharing will end. And even those benefits aren't guaranteed. For example, I still have a separate site to manage my money in my employer's 401k @ Fidelity than I do for my brokerage/banking accounts @ Fidelity. The investment options aren't the same for the two types of accounts, so the interface for making and monitoring investments isn't either. And you won't be able to co-mingle funds between the 401k and non-tax-advantaged money anyway, so you'll have two different accounts to deal with even if you have a single provider. Given that you'll have two different accounts, you might as well pick a broker/provider for the $100k that gives you the best investment options, lowest fees, and best UI experience for your chosen type/goal of investments. I would strongly recommend figuring out how you want to invest the $100k before trying to figure out which provider to use as a broker for doing the investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6733d9bb2f5cf453abc85a901eb8cb9f", "text": "It's a good question, I am amazed how few people ask this. To summarise: is it really worth paying substantial fees to arrange a generic investment though your high street bank? Almost certainly not. However, one caveat: You didn't mention what kind of fund(s) you want to invest in, or for how long. You also mention an “advice fee”. Are you actually getting financial advice – i.e. a personal recommendation relating to one or more specific investments, based on the investments' suitability for your circumstances – and are you content with the quality of that advice? If you are, it may be worth it. If they've advised you to choose this fund that has the potential to achieve your desired returns while matching the amount of risk you are willing to take, then the advice could be worth paying for. It entirely depends how much guidance you need. Or are you choosing your own fund anyway? It sounds to me like you have done some research on your own, you believe the building society adviser is “trying to sell” a fund and you aren't entirely convinced by their recommendation. If you are happy making your own investment decisions and are merely looking for a place to execute that trade, the deal you have described via your bank would almost certainly be poor value – and you're looking in the right places for an alternative. ~ ~ ~ On to the active-vs-passive fund debate: That AMC of 1.43% you mention would not be unreasonable for an actively managed fund that you strongly feel will outperform the market. However, you also mention ETFs (a passive type of fund) and believe that after charges they might offer at least as good net performance as many actively managed funds. Good point – although please note that many comparisons of this nature compare passives to all actively managed funds (the good and bad, including e.g. poorly managed life company funds). A better comparison would be to compare the fund managers you're considering vs. the benchmark – although obviously this is past performance and won't necessarily be repeated. At the crux of the matter is cost, of course. So if you're looking for low-cost funds, the cost of the platform is also significant. Therefore if you are comfortable going with a passive investment strategy, let's look at how much that might cost you on the platform you mentioned, Hargreaves Lansdown. Two of the most popular FTSE All-Share tracker funds among Hargreaves Lansdown clients are: (You'll notice they have slightly different performance btw. That's a funny thing with trackers. They all aim to track but have a slightly different way of trading to achieve it.) To hold either of these funds in a Hargreaves Lansdown account you'll also pay the 0.45% platform charge (this percentage tapers off for portolio values higher than £250,000 if you get that far). So in total to track the FTSE All Share with these funds through an HL account you would be paying: This gives you an indication of how much less you could pay to run a DIY portfolio based on passive funds. NB. Both the above are a 100% equities allocation with a large UK companies weighting, so won't suit a lower risk approach. You'll also end up invested indiscriminately in eg. mining, tobacco, oil companies, whoever's in the index – perhaps you'd prefer to be more selective. If you feel you need financial advice (with Nationwide) or portfolio management (with Nutmeg) you have to judge whether these services are worth the added charges. It sounds like you're not convinced! In which case, all the best with a low-cost passive funds strategy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02e718f291f54d6f336279987e4dc450", "text": "First off, I think you are on the right path not paying 3% to a broker; that sort of fee reduces the money you earn significantly in the long term. For your fund investing approach, 10 funds seems like a lot; one of the point of funds is that they are diversified, so I would expect that the 10th fund would give relatively little diversification over the other 9. I would think about targeting only 5 funds. To invest in the funds, rather than trying to invest in all funds every month, put all of the money into a single fund, and rotate the fund month to month. That reduces your transaction costs significantly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "173ef301437d7f08e22684184e2cd0b5", "text": "\"There's already an excellent answer here from @BenMiller, but I wanted to expand a bit on Types of Investments with some additional actionable information. You can invest in stocks, bonds, mutual funds (which are simply collections of stocks and bonds), bank accounts, precious metals, and many other things. Discussing all of these investments in one answer is too broad, but my recommendation is this: If you are investing for retirement, you should be investing in the stock market. However, picking individual stocks is too risky; you need to be diversified in a lot of stocks. Stock mutual funds are a great way to invest in the stock market. So how does one go about actually investing in the stock market in a diversified way? What if you also want to diversify a bit into bonds? Fortunately, in the last several years, several products have come about that do just these things, and are targeted towards newer investors. These are often labeled \"\"robo-advisors\"\". Most even allow you to adjust your allocation according to your risk preferences. Here's a list of the ones I know about: While these products all purport to achieve similar goals of giving you an easy way to obtain a diversified portfolio according to your risk, they differ in the buckets of stocks and funds they put your money into; the careful investor would be wise to compare which specific ETFs they use (e.g. looking at their expense ratios, capitalization, and spreads).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac22618341c07a2678f24e43e1aad47a", "text": "Personally I'm not a huge fan of rebalancing within an asset class. I would vote for leaving the HD shares alone and buying other assets until you get to the portfolio you want. Frequent buying and selling incurs costs and possible tax consequences that can really hurt your returns.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf1d1ea0e3677666ea9f6e49220977f5", "text": "\"RED FLAG. You should not be invested in 1 share. You should buy a diversified ETF which can have fees of 0.06% per year. This has SIGNIFICANTLY less volatility for the same statistical expectation. Left tail risk is MUCH lower (probability of gigantic losses) since losses will tend to cancel out gains in diversified portfolios. Moreover, your view that \"\"you believe these will continue\"\" is fallacious. Stocks of developed countries are efficient to the extent that retail investors cannot predict price evolution in the future. Countless academic studies show that individual investors forecast in the incorrect direction on average. I would be quite right to objectively classify you as a incorrect if you continued to hold the philosophy that owning 1 stock instead of the entire market is a superior stategy. ALL the evidence favours holding the market. In addition, do not invest in active managers. Academic evidence demonstrates that they perform worse than holding a passive market-tracking portfolio after fees, and on average (and plz don't try to select managers that you think can outperform -- you can't do this, even the best in the field can't do this). Direct answer: It depends on your investment horizon. If you do not need the money until you are 60 then you should invest in very aggressive assets with high expected return and high volatility. These assets SHOULD mainly be stocks (through ETFs or mutual funds) but could also include US-REIT or global-REIT ETFs, private equity and a handful of other asset classes (no gold, please.) ... or perhaps wealth management products which pool many retail investors' funds together and create a diversified portfolio (but I'm unconvinced that their fees are worth the added diversification). If you need the money in 2-3 years time then you should invest in safe assets -- fixed income and term deposits. Why is investment horizon so important? If you are holding to 60 years old then it doesn't matter if we have a massive financial crisis in 5 years time, since the stock market will rebound (unless it's a nuclear bomb in New York or something) and by the time you are 60 you will be laughing all the way to the bank. Gains on risky assets overtake losses in the long run such that over a 20-30 year horizon they WILL do much better than a deposit account. As you approach 45-50, you should slowly reduce your allocation to risky assets and put it in safe haven assets such as fixed income and cash. This is because your investment horizon is now SHORTER so you need a less risky portfolio so you don't have to keep working until 65/70 if the market tanks just before retirement. VERY IMPORTANT. If you may need the savings to avoid defaulting on your home loan if you lose your job or something, then the above does not apply. Decisions in these context are more vague and ambiguous.\"", "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": "6ae1356d942a1f11b3d2191aadab1c0b", "text": "Placing bets on targeted sectors of the market totally makes sense in my opinion. Especially if you've done research, with a non-biased eye, that convinces you those sectors will continue to outperform. However, the funds you've boxed in red all appear to be actively managed funds (I only double-checked on the first.) There is a bit of research showing that very few active managers consistently beat an index over the long term. By buying these funds, especially since you hope to hold for decades, you are placing bets that these managers maintain their edge over an equivalent index. This seems unlikely to be a winning bet the longer you hold the position. Perhaps there are no sector index funds for the sectors or focuses you have? But if there were, and it was my money that I planned to park for the long term, I'd pick the index fund over the active managed fund. Index funds also have an advantage in costs or fees. They can charge substantially less than an actively managed fund does. And fees can be a big drag on total return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "48e2f01a68bd1964bc05f9ee1691c54e", "text": "\"Usually it makes sense to invest in individual companies when you're investing in a \"\"hot\"\" sector. Secular funds have their own risks that can be difficult to measure. First Solar is one of the premier PV players. The fund gives you a false sense of diversification. If you bought a mutual fund in 2000 in the computer space, you'd have pieces of HP, Dell, Apple, IBM, EMC, Cisco, Intel etc. Did the sector perform the same as the companies in it? Nooo. As for renewable energy, IMO that ship has sailed for the \"\"pure play\"\" renewable stocks. I'd look at undervalued companies with exposure to renewables that haven't been hyped up. (or included in a sector mutual fund) Examples for this area? The problem with this sector is that the industry is dependent on government subsidies, and the state of government budgets make that a risky play. Proceed with caution!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68ca8ce246d0e966543105f3cfd308d4", "text": "Yes, it is unreasonable and unsustainable. We all want returns in excess of 15% but even the best and richest investors do not sustain those kinds of returns. You should not invest more than a fraction of your net worth in individual stocks in any case. You should diversify using index funds or ETFs.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
9bc6a7b9c51915269bbf42b399651755	Is it unreasonable to double your investment year over year?	[ { "docid": "68ca8ce246d0e966543105f3cfd308d4", "text": "Yes, it is unreasonable and unsustainable. We all want returns in excess of 15% but even the best and richest investors do not sustain those kinds of returns. You should not invest more than a fraction of your net worth in individual stocks in any case. You should diversify using index funds or ETFs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3920dc7fad00ba1d6cb961f24716c96a", "text": "Yes, because you cannot have an exponential growth rate that is faster than the rate at which the economy grows on the long term. 100% growth is much more than the few percent at which the economy grows, so your share in the World economy would approximately double every year. Today the value of all the assets in the World economy is about $200 trillion. If you start with an investment of just $1000 and this doubles every year, then you'll own all the World's assets in 37.5 years, assuming this doesn't grow. You can, of course, take into account that it does grow, this will yield a slightly larger time before you own the entire World.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27aa45737bb833845898f3a5a750f43f", "text": "\"Wealth gained hastily will dwindle but whoever gathers little by little will increase it. Proverbs 13:11 (ESV) Put another way... \"\"Easy come, easy go\"\" You cannot sustain 100% annual ROI. Sooner than you think you will hit a losing streak. Casinos depend on this truth. You may win a few rolls of the dice. But betting your winnings will eventually cause you to lose all.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f1551afd1abb120bab92dc358d48309", "text": "One thing I like to do every once in a while is look at the day's market movers. It's a list of symbols that had huge movement. There tend to be a couple of 50+% movers every time I look. In fact today I see ATV moved up 414.48%: So there it is—doubling your investment in one day and then some is technically possible. The problem is that the market movers chart also has an equal number of symbols that had major movements in the other direction. Today's winner is: SPCB lost 40% in one day, and thats the problem. If you invest in anything that can double your investment in one year, it can also halve your investment in one year. Or do better. Or do worse. You really don't know because the volatility is so high.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9d0671f97e043bc4c5aab149a7f419b", "text": "It is not unheard of. Celebrity investors such as Warren Buffet and Carl Icahn gained notoriety by more than doubling investments some years, with a few very stellar trades and bets. Doubling, as in a 100% gain, is actually conservative if you want to play that game, as 500%, 1200% and greater gains are possible and were achieved by the two otherwise unrelated people I mentioned. This reality is opposite of the comparably pitiful returns that Warren Buffet teaches baby boomers about, but compounding on 2-5% gains annually is a more likely way to build wealth. It is unreasonable to say and expect that you will get the outcome of doubling an investment year over year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ce800bdc507c542f7639aa0286f04b8", "text": "\"Nobody has consistently doubled their investment year after year, not even the \"\"greats\"\" like George Soros and Warren Buffett. Mr. Buffett's average annual returns have been over 20% for over 50 years. That's about twice the American average of 10%-11% a year. So Mr. Buffett has been \"\"twice as good as average\"\" for his adult life. That's like having a 200 IQ. And in a poll taken in 2000, he was rated the greatest portfolio manager of all time. No lesser person could hope to do better. What has happened is that people may double their investment in ONE year, then \"\"give some back\"\" the following year. Or else go through several years of \"\"average\"\" 10%-15% returns. The reason is that they will have an investment style that works for one particular market, but not for all markets, so they will have to wait for their \"\"best\"\" market, to have their \"\"best\"\" year.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d2417fd1e8eb8a7ede06951fc8de9c8", "text": "\"Yes. The definition of unreasonable shows as \"\"not guided by or based on good sense.\"\" 100% years require a high risk. Can your one stock double, or even go up three fold? Sure, but that would likely be a small part of your portfolio. Overall, long term, you are not likely to beat the market by such high numbers. That said, I had 2 years of returns well over 100%. 1998, and 1999. The S&P was up 26.7% and 19.5%, and I was very leverage in high tech stock options. As others mentioned, leverage was key. (Mark used the term 'gearing' which I think is leverage). When 2000 started crashing, I had taken enough off the table to end the year down 12% vs the S&P -10%, but this was down from a near 50% gain in Q1 of that year. As the crash continued, I was no longer leveraged and haven't been since. The last 12 years or so, I've happily lagged the S&P by a few basis points (.04-.02%). Also note, Buffet has returned an amazing 15.9%/yr on average for the last 30 years (vs the S&P 11.4%). 16% is far from 100%. The last 10 year, however, his return was a modest 8.6%, just .1% above the S&P.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d98a1a97eb6179caef1f1e5c9c6958c7", "text": "\"Not at all impossible. What you need is Fundamental Analysis and Relationship with your investment. If you are just buying shares - not sure you can have those. I will provide examples from my personal experience: My mother has barely high school education. When she saw house and land prices in Bulgaria, she thought it's impossibly cheap. We lived on rent in Israel, our horrible apartment was worth $1M and it was horrible. We could never imagine buying it because we were middle class at best. My mother insisted that we all sell whatever we have and buy land and houses in Bulgaria. One house, for example, went from $20k to EUR150k between 2001 and 2007. But we knew Bulgaria, we knew how to buy, we knew lawyers, we knew builders. The company I currently work for. When I joined, share prices were around 240 (2006). They are now (2015) at 1500. I didn't buy because I was repaying mortgage (at 5%). I am very sorry I didn't. Everybody knew 240 is not a real share price for our company - an established (+30 years) software company with piles of cash. We were not a hot startup, outsiders didn't invest. Many developers and finance people WHO WORK IN THE COMPANY made a fortune. Again: relationship, knowledge! I bought a house in the UK in 2012 - everyone knew house prices were about to go up. I was lucky I had a friend who was a surveyor, he told me: \"\"buy now or lose money\"\". I bought a little house for 200k, it is now worth 260k. Not double, but pretty good money! My point is: take your investment personally. Don't just dump money into something. Once you are an insider, your risk will be almost mitigated and you could buy where you see an opportunity and sell when you feel you are near the maximal real worth of your investment. It's not hard to analyse, it's hard to make a commitment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb7a295dd66a62cf18a6b8763ed80268", "text": "I know it may not last longer but i was able to 2.5x my wealth over last 2 years.(2016, 2017 cont) I was successfully able to convert 70k into 452k in 21months. Now at this amount, I am really worried and want to take all the profit. I agree that I have been lucky with these returns but it was not all outright luck. Now my plan is to take 100k of it and try high risk investments while investing 350k in index funds.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "bbeb069f1de0e2d785f8e9e064473933", "text": "Your initial investment in this case is $9 on the first morning. Every other morning you are using part of your profits to buy the new piece of jewelry, so you are actually not investing any new funds. So each day you are effectively keeping $1 of your profits and re_re-investing $9. But your initial investment of your own funds is only the first $9. In other words if you only had $9 in the bank at the start of the year you could make $365 profits during the year and finish up with $374 in the the bank at the end of the year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13d54dbd5a6b33f419ebeafe4f977782", "text": "\"I read the book, and I'm willing to believe you'd have a good chance of beating the market with this strategy - it is a reasonable, rational, and mechanical investment discipline. I doubt it's overplayed and overused to the point that it won't ever work again. But only IF you stick to it, and doing so would be very hard (behaviorally). Which is probably why it isn't overplayed and overused already. This strategy makes you place trades in companies you often won't have heard of, with volatile prices. The best way to use the strategy would be to try to get it automated somehow and avoid looking at the individual stocks, I bet, to take your behavior out of it. There may well be some risk factors in this strategy that you don't have in an S&P 500 fund, and those could explain some of the higher returns; for example, a basket of sketchier companies could be more vulnerable to economic events. The strategy won't beat the market every year, either, so that can test your behavior. Strategies tend to work and then stop working (as the book even mentions). This is related to whether other investors are piling in to the strategy and pushing up prices, in part. But also, outside events can just happen to line up poorly for a given strategy; for example a bunch of the \"\"fundamental index\"\" ETFs that looked at dividend yield launched right before all the high-dividend financials cratered. Investing in high-dividend stocks probably is and was a reasonable strategy in general, but it wasn't a great strategy for a couple years there. Anytime you don't buy the whole market, you risk both positive and negative deviations from it. Here's maybe a bigger-picture point, though. I happen to think \"\"beating the market\"\" is a big old distraction for individual investors; what you really want is predictable, adequate returns, who cares if the market returns 20% as long as your returns are adequate, and who cares if you beat the market by 5% if the market cratered 40%. So I'm not a huge fan of investment books that are structured around the topic of beating the market. Whether it's index fund advocates saying \"\"you can't beat the market so buy the index\"\" or Greenblatt saying \"\"here's how to beat the market with this strategy,\"\" it's still all about beating the market. And to me, beating the market is just irrelevant. Nobody ever bought their food in retirement because they did or did not beat the market. To me, beating the market is a game for the kind of actively-managed mutual fund that has a 90%-plus R-squared correlation with the index; often called an \"\"index hugger,\"\" these funds are just trying to eke out a little bit better result than the market, and often get a little bit worse result, and overall are a lot of effort with no purpose. Just get the index fund rather than these. If you're getting active management involved, I'd rather see a big deviation from the index, and I'd like that deviation to be related to risk control: hedging, or pulling back to cash when valuations get rich, or avoiding companies without a \"\"moat\"\" and margin of safety, or whatever kind of risk control, but something. In a fund like this, you aren't trying to beat the market, you're trying to increase the chances of adequate returns - you're optimizing for predictability. I'm not sure the magic formula is the best way to do that, focused as it is on beating the market rather than on risk control. Sorry for the extra digression but I hope I answered the question a bit, too. ;-)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa9651ecd8b5e06c2bca0c7386e774cc", "text": "To answer your precise question, your plans are not at all misguided, and are in fact very reasonable. You are clearly financially very comfortable, and from the tone of your post it sounds like you value security and simplicity over maximizing your investment return over the coming years. If money was the most important thing to you then you would stay shackled to your high paying jobs. @JoeTaxpayer's answer has some great information for a person who is interested in maximizing their investment return. If you followed that advice, you might increase your return on investments by up to 1%/year (I'm just throwing a ball park number out there). So your choice is simple. Peace of mind on one hand and perhaps 1% additional return on investments on the other hand.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5e1360f3a804475b28a1f26149f104b", "text": "Anybody that offers a bigger return than a deposit claiming 100% safe is a fraud. There is always a risk: Yes, you can gain 30% in a year, but nobody can guarantee that you'll repeat that gain the next. My own experience (and I do take risks), one year I go up, the next year I go down...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4fd3346b362b43bc4afa5ecfc367ae3", "text": "\"I'd agree that this can seem a little unfair, but it's an unavoidable consequence of the necessary practicality of paying out dividends periodically (rather than continuously), and differential taxation of income and capital gains. To see more clearly what's going on here, consider buying stock in a company with extremely simple economics: it generates a certain, constant earnings stream equivalent to $10 per share per annum, and redistributes all of that profit as periodic dividends (let's say once annually). Assume there's no intrinsic growth, and that the firm's instrinsic value (which we'll say is $90 per share) is completely neutral to any other market factors. Under these economics, this stock price will show a \"\"sawtooth\"\" evolution, accruing from $90 to $100 over the course of a year, and resetting back down to $90 after each dividend payment. Now, if I am invested in this stock for some period of time, the fair outcome would be that I receive an appropriately time-weighted share of the $10 annual earnings per share, less my tax. If I am invested for an exact calendar year, this works as I'd expect: the stock price on any given day in the year will be the same as it was exactly one year earlier, so I'll realise zero capital gain, but I'll have collected a $10 taxed dividend along the way. On the other hand, what if I am invested for exactly half a year, spanning a dividend payment? I receive a dividend payment of $10 less tax, but I make a capital loss of -$5. Overall, pre-tax, I'm up $5 per share as expected. However, the respective tax treatment of the dividend payment (which is classed as income) and the capital gains is likely to be different. In particular, to benefit from the \"\"negative\"\" taxation of the capital loss I need to have some positive capital gain elsewhere to offset it - if I can't do that, I'm much worse off compared to half the full-year return. Further, even if I can offset against a gain elsewhere the effective taxation rates are likely to be different - but note that this could work for or against me (if my capital gains rate is greater than my income tax rate I'd actually benefit). And if I'm invested for half a year, but not spanning a dividend, I make $5 of pure capital gains, and realise a different effective taxation rate again. In an ideal world I'd agree that the effective taxation rate wouldn't depend on the exact timing of my transactions like this, but in reality it's unavoidable in the interests of practicality. And so long as the rules are clear, I wouldn't say it's unfair per se, it just adds a bit of complexity.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53dd714fdcde93886c79bef5635ec6a9", "text": "\"First, please allow me to recommend that you do not try gimmickry when financials do give expected results. It's a sure path to disaster and illegality. The best route is to first check if accounts are being properly booked. If they are then there is most likely a problem with the business. Anything out of bounds yet properly booked is indeed the problem. Now, the reason why your results seem strange is because investments are being improperly booked as inventory; therefore, the current account is deviating badly from the industry mean. The dividing line for distinguishing between current and long term assets is one year; although, modern financial accounting theorists & regulators have tried to smudge that line, so standards do not always adhere to that line. Therefore, any seedlings for resale should be booked as inventory while those for potting as investment. It's been some time since I've looked at the standards closely, but this used to fall under \"\"property, plant, & equipment\"\". Generally, it is a \"\"capital expenditure\"\" by the oldest definition. It is not necessary to obsess over initial bookings because inventory turnover will quickly resolve itself, so a simple running or historical rate can be applied to the seedling purchases. The books will now appear more normal, and better subsequent strategic decisions can now be made.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2698016794b852de38938d5a5e422209", "text": "No, you can't. The limits are contribution limits, not limits on the value of the investment. If you contributed $5,500 for 2015, you are done contributing for that tax year. You are free to contribute another $5,500 for 2016.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f4b4c9c8645edfa232b9beab747db47", "text": "\"This post may be old anyhow here's my 2 cents. Real world...no. Compounding is overstated. I have 3 mutual funds, basically index funds, you can go look them up. vwinx, spmix, spfix in 11 years i've made a little over 12,000 on 50,000 invested. That averages 5%. That's $1,200 a year about. Not exactly getting rich on the compounding \"\"myth?\"\". You do the math. I would guess because overly optimistic compounding gains are based on a straight line gains. Real world...that aint gonna happen.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbe9180f1cff5262fcf27862358c007a", "text": "\"I have heard that investing more money into an investment which has gone down is generally a bad idea*. \"\"Throwing good money after bad\"\" so to speak. Is investing more money into a stock, you already have a stake in, which has gone up in price; a good idea? Other things being equal, deciding whether to buy more stocks or shares in a company you're already invested in should be made in the same way you would evaluate any investment decision and -- broadly speaking -- should not be influenced by whether an existing holding has gone up or down in value. For instance, given the current price of the stock, prevailing market conditions, and knowledge about the company, if you think there is a reasonable chance that the price will rise in the time-period you are interested in, then you may want to buy (more) stock. If you think there is a reasonable chance the price will fall, then you probably won't want to buy (more) stock. Note: it may be that the past performance of a company is factored into your decision to buy (e.g was a recent downturn merely a \"\"blip\"\", and long-term prospects remain good; or have recent steady rises exhausted the potential for growth for the time being). And while this past performance will have played a part in whether any existing holding went up or down in value, it should only be the past performance -- not whether or not you've gained or lost money -- that affects the new decision. For instance: let us suppose (for reasons that seemed valid at the time) you bought your original holding at £10/share, the price has dropped to £2/share, but you (now) believe both prices were/are \"\"wrong\"\" and that the \"\"true price\"\" should be around £5/share. If you feel there is a good chance of this being achieved then buying shares at £2, anticipating they'll rally to £5, may be sound. But you should be doing this because you think the price will rise to £5, and not because it will offset the loses in your original holding. (You may also want to take stock and evaluate why you thought it a good idea to buy at £10... if you were overly optimistic then, you should probably be asking yourself whether your current decisions (in this or any share) are \"\"sound\"\"). There is one area where an existing holding does come into play: as both jamesqf and Victor rightly point out, keeping a \"\"balanced\"\" portfolio -- without putting \"\"all your eggs in one basket\"\" -- is generally sound advice. So when considering the purchase of additional stock in a company you are already invested in, remember to look at the combined total (old and new) when evaluating how the (potential) purchase will affect your overall portfolio.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bae2ad702ebc1440fa3a7f006e568fe8", "text": "\"The problem with the proposed plan is the word \"\"inevitable\"\". There is no such thing as a recovery that is guaranteed (though we may wish it to be so), and even if there was there is no telling how long it will take for a recovery to occur to a sufficient degree. There are also no foolproof ways to determine when you have hit the bottom. For historical examples, consider the Nikkei. In 2000 the value fell from 20000 to 15000 in a single year. Had you bought then, you would have found the market still fell and didn't get back to 15k until 2005...where it went up and down for years, when in 2008 it fell again and would not get back to that level again until 2014. Lest you think this was an isolated international incident, the same issues happened to the S&P in 2002, where things went up until they fell even lower in 2009 before finally climbing again. Will there be another recession at some point? Surely. Will there be a single, double, or triple dip, and at what point is the true bottom - and will it take 5, 10, or 20+ years for things to get back above when you bought? No one really knows, and we can only guess. So if you want to double down after a recession, you can, but it's important you not fool yourself into thinking you aren't greatly increasing your risk exposure, because you are.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0964d9db32ade538d1fd0fdb8d764ecf", "text": "Something really does seem seedy that if I invest $2500, that I'll make above 50k if the stock doubles. Is it really that easy? You only buy or sell on margin. Think of when the stock moves in the opposite direction. You will loose 50k. You probably didn't look into that. Investment will vanish and then you will have debt to repay. Holding for long term in CFD accounts are charged per day. Charges depends on different service providers. CFD isn't and should not be used for long term. It is primarily for trading in the short term, maybe a week at the maximum. Have a look at the wikipedia entry and educate yourself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c007d2f764ed54de2b635b1ceb950c4", "text": "\"(Leaving aside the question of why should you try and convince him...) I don't know about a very convincing \"\"tl;dr\"\" online resource, but two books in particular convinced me that active management is generally foolish, but staying out of the markets is also foolish. They are: The Intelligent Asset Allocator: How to Build Your Portfolio to Maximize Returns and Minimize Risk by William Bernstein, and A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Time Tested-Strategy for Successful Investing by Burton G. Malkiel Berstein's book really drives home the fact that adding some amount of a risky asset class to a portfolio can actually reduce overall portfolio risk. Some folks won a Nobel Prize for coming up with this modern portfolio theory stuff. If your friend is truly risk-averse, he can't afford not to diversify. The single asset class he's focusing on certainly has risks, most likely inflation / purchasing power risk ... and that risk that could be reduced by including some percentage of other assets to compensate, even small amounts. Perhaps the issue is one of psychology? Many people can't stomach the ups-and-downs of the stock market. Bernstein's also-excellent follow-up book, The Four Pillars of Investing: Lessons for Building a Winning Portfolio, specifically addresses psychology as one of the pillars.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6550eb8b1f267dd995068f20e63ae48f", "text": "My super fund and I would say many other funds give you one free switch of strategies per year. Some suggest you should change from high growth option to a more balance option once you are say about 10 to 15 years from retirement, and then change to a more capital guaranteed option a few years from retirement. This is a more passive approach and has benefits as well as disadvantages. The benefit is that there is not much work involved, you just change your investment option based on your life stage, 2 to 3 times during your lifetime. This allows you to take more risk when you are young to aim for higher returns, take a balanced approach with moderate risk and returns during the middle part of your working life, and take less risk with lower returns (above inflation) during the latter part of your working life. A possible disadvantage of this strategy is you may be in the higher risk/ higher growth option during a market correction and then change to a more balanced option just when the market starts to pick up again. So your funds will be hit with large losses whilst the market is in retreat and just when things look to be getting better you change to a more balanced portfolio and miss out on the big gains. A second more active approach would be to track the market and change investment option as the market changes. One approach which shouldn't take much time is to track the index such as the ASX200 (if you investment option is mainly invested in the Australian stock market) with a 200 day Simple Moving Average (SMA). The concept is that if the index crosses above the 200 day SMA the market is bullish and if it crosses below it is bearish. See the chart below: This strategy will work well when the market is trending up or down but not very well when the market is going sideways, as you will be changing from aggressive to balanced and back too often. Possibly a more appropriate option would be a combination of the two. Use the first passive approach to change investment option from aggressive to balanced to capital guaranteed with your life stages, however use the second active approach to time the change. For example, if you were say in your late 40s now and were looking to change from aggressive to balanced in the near future, you could wait until the ASX200 crosses below the 200 day SMA before making the change. This way you could capture the majority of the uptrend (which could go on for years) before changing from the high growth/aggressive option to the balanced option. If you where after more control over your superannuation assets another option open to you is to start a SMSF, however I would recommend having at least $300K to $400K in assets before starting a SMSF, or else the annual costs would be too high as a percentage of your total super assets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50d441273b7652a20071b085a53fb989", "text": "they are, but they aren't regulated so they're great for the people underwriting, brokering, clearing, and facilitating the trading. doesn't matter that the 50+ yo guys selling it don't understand blockchain, or even the fundamental reason why these coins supposedly have value, the customers don't either.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ad772daa2134a1fcd7ebaee7cdc0945", "text": "The one whose order gets to the exchange first. The exchange receives the orders and arranges them in First-In-First-Out order, by which they're then executed. At some point it is synchronized and put into a list. Whoever gets to that point first - gets the deal.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
81c86c77f0ea70ddd9075ba953e20837	What are “headwinds” and “tailwinds” in financial investments?	[ { "docid": "8c347bd23308d51e38217338e2ca3de9", "text": "\"The term \"\"tailwinds\"\" describes some condition or situation that will help move growth higher. For example, falling gas prices will help a delivery company be more profitable. Lower gas prices is said to be a tailwind for the freight services industry. \"\"Headwinds\"\" are just the opposite. Its a situation what will make growth more difficult. For example, if the price of beef goes much higher, McDonald's is facing headwinds. It's a nautical term. If the wind is at your back (tailwind), that will help you move forward more quickly. If you are moving into a headwind, that will only make progress more difficult.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "360199722b7757b67c64d9a4b3e15b61", "text": "Headwinds in an economic situation represent events or conditions e.g. a credit crisis, rising costs, natural disasters, etc, that slow down the growth of an economy. So headwinds are negative. Tailwinds are the opposite and help to increase growth of an economy.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "eb0299e0e2742cda3ef07689492964a8", "text": "I used to trade power for a closed end hedge fund. Yes, weather derivatives are very important. They help power traders / utilities hedge for unaccountable variables, IE weather. For example, lets say it costs a utility $50 an hour to produce power for the load when it is 80 degrees outside. Lets say I trade the contract with them to guarantee the weather will be under 80 degrees. If the weather is higher than 80 degrees, more people turn in their AC, the load on the grid goes up, and the utility has to start generating power at $70 an hour. Under this contract, I would be liable to pay the utility the net difference in their cost (the additional $20 per hour they generate per mw). In that case I am a loser. If the power comes in under 80 degrees, I make money as I priced (sold) the contract at a premium according to the risk I calulated for offereing the contract. This has many many applications, but yes, its not a weird thing to trade. Hope this helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b354cfcaa22f3ae30140295627b99872", "text": "The point of derivatives is to get rid of the risk you don't want so you can acquire exposure only to the risk you want. Who wants weather/temperature risk -- speculators. Who doesn't want that risk? Anyone who's core business is adversely affected by bad weather. It's the same reason multinational firms will hedge FX and interest rates. All a speculator is typically doing is taking the other side of the trade based on what they feel is the true price of the risk they are assuming", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a94b5eecca6ba3b05164821c00dcc103", "text": "\"https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/07/30/2-types-of-risk-2-types-of-bubbles.aspx (mirror): The Wall Street Journal reviews: What Mr. Bernstein calls \"\"shallow risk\"\" is a temporary drop in an asset's market price; decades ago, the great investment analyst Benjamin Graham referred to such an interim decline as \"\"quotational loss.\"\" \"\"Deep risk,\"\" on the other hand, is an irretrievable real loss of capital, meaning that after inflation you won't recover for decades -- if ever. So quotational loss = loss not explained by change of actual value of a firm.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cedf0f6d3eda7cab6a6d873a80e54033", "text": "Mostly some custom work i've done myself, bayesian and time series models, but there is some pattern matching. Most TA functions such as MA's, MACD's, BollingerBands, are simple ways of doing time series analysis. MA's are basic filters. MACD is essentially a way of viewing acceleration, as its the informational difference between filters. BB's are mean reverters based on standard deviation/ RSI is a ratio of filtered up to down moves basically generating an indicator based on how strong the market has moved.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff8f7a486adf61b296339b15fb9d2700", "text": "Thanks for that, it did help. I think my issue is I don't work in finance itself, I'm a lawyer, and 'capital' generally has a very specific meaning in English company law, where it refers exclusively to shareholder capital. I realise capital in finance terms includes both debt and equity investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3a1c1a22b4ef798a3315cc961bded21", "text": "In your other question about these funds you quoted two very different yields for them. That pretty clearly says they are NOT tracking the same index.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0fec26dbfb1b86a689440b4b9b859ead", "text": "\"Well there are a few comments that need to be made here I suppose. Though at work now so this will be short. First there is the difference between banking, which indeed mostly looks at capital adequacy ratios and uses VaR as one of the methods to get to the risk-weighted assets. Then there is the buy side which is more interested in \"\"how much would I stand to lose in portfolio X if markets head south, and how does that relate to what a have promised my client?\"\" In the first situation it is the bank itself taking on the risk, in the second the risk lies entirely with the client. An asset manager could lose 100% on your regular old equity mandate and it wouldn't hit him except for loss in fees, whereas a significant trading loss for a bank can put it out of business.. My personal view is that all of these metrics are merely useful instruments and for a large part they all tell me the same thing. A higher duration on a fixed income mandate will give a higher VaR, a higher shortfall, more negative results on rates stress scenarios etcetera. They only really become useful when imposing limits on them, or using them to steer based on whatever the prevailing risk appetite is at a certain point in time. Or when looking at trends, or relative risk of portfolio A vs B Don't get me wrong, I too can debate for hours about VaR parameters. Confidence intervals, look back periods, return frequency, decay factors, parametric or historical / monte carlo simulation, etcetera. But I think in practise that is really of limited use. If you take any ex ante risk measure and you thoroughly understand it, make an informed choice about risk appetite and steer on it, you basically have done your job as a risk manager. Sorry I know I am not answering your questions in a structured way but am on my phone so it's hard to keep overview. PM me if you want to discuss things in detail.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1aa8e87a1881bf344bdfee7c4c4e4eb5", "text": "For a time period as short as a matter of months, commercial paper or bonds about to mature are the highest returning investments, as defined by Benjamin Graham: An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and a satisfactory return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative. There are no well-known methods that can be applied to cryptocurrencies or forex for such short time periods to promise safety of principal. The problem is that with $1,500, it will be impossible to buy any worthy credit directly and hold to maturity; besides, the need for liquidity eats up the return, risk-adjusted. The only alternative is a bond ETF which has a high probability of getting crushed as interest rates continue to rise, so that fails the above criteria. The only alternative for investment now is a short term deposit with a bank. For speculation, anything goes... The best strategy is to take the money and continue to build up a financial structure: saving for risk-adjusted and time-discounted future annual cash flows. After the average unemployment cycle is funded, approximately six or so years, then long-term investments should be accumulated, internationally diversified equities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c849f182aee1eb0b098b8e7111a4a1b7", "text": "I think you may be confused on terminology here. Financial leverage is debt that you have taken on, in order to invest. It increases your returns, because it allows you to invest with more money than what you actually own. Example: If a $1,000 mutual fund investment returns $60 [6%], then you could also take on $1,000 of debt at 3% interest, and earn $120 from both mutual fund investments, paying $30 in interest, leaving you with a net $90 [9% of your initial $1,000]. However, if the mutual fund 'takes a nose dive', and loses money, you still need to pay the $30 interest. In this way, using financial leverage actually increases your risk. It may provide higher returns, but you have the risk of losing more than just your initial principle amount. In the example above, imagine if the mutual fund you owned collapsed, and was worth nothing. Now, you would have lost $1,000 from the money you invested in the first place, and you would also still owe $1,000 to the bank. The key take away is that 'no risk' and 'high returns' do not go together. Safe returns right now are hovering around 0% interest rates. If you ever feel you have concocted a mix of options that leaves you with no risk and high returns, check your math again. As an addendum, if instead what you plan on doing is investing, say, 90% of your money in safe(r) money-market type funds, and 10% in the stock market, then this is a good way to reduce your risk. However, it also reduces your returns, as only a small portion of your portfolio will realize the (typically higher) gains of the stock market. Once again, being safer with your investments leads to less return. That is not necessarily a bad thing; in fact investing some part of your portfolio in interest-earning low risk investments is often advised. 99% is basically the same as 100%, however, so you almost don't benefit at all by investing that 1% in the stock market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4fe71dad8b6df9ac042bb484b3097c02", "text": "I use two measures to define investment risk: What's the longest period of time over which this investment has had negative returns? What's the worst-case fall in the value of this investment (peak to trough)? I find that the former works best for long-term investments, like retirement. As a concrete example, I have most of my retirement money in equity, since the Sensex has had zero returns over as long as a decade. Since my investment time-frame is longer, equity is risk-free, by this measure. For short-term investments, like money put aside to buy a car next year, the second measure works better. For this purpose, I might choose a debt fund that isn't the safest, and has had a worst-case 8% loss over the past decade. I can afford that loss, putting in more money from my pocket to buy the car, if needed. So, I might choose this fund for this purpose, taking a slight risk to earn higher return. In any case, how much money I need for a car can only be a rough guess, so having 8% less than originally planned may turn out to be enough. Or it may turn out that the entire amount originally planned for is insufficient, in which case a further 8% shortfall may not be a big deal. These two measures I've defined are simple to explain and understand, unlike academic stuff like beta, standard deviation, information ratio or other mumbo-jumbo. And they are simple to apply to a practical problem, as I've illustrated with the two examples above. On the other hand, if someone tells me that the standard deviation of a mutual fund is 15%, I'll have no idea what that means, or how to apply that to my financial situation. All this suffers from the problem of being limited to historical data, and the future may not be like the past. But that affects any risk statistic, and you can't do better unless you have a time machine.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f7068685da6d41e4de33c1724134345", "text": "From Wikipedia: Investment has different meanings in finance and economics. In Finance investment is putting money into something with the expectation of gain, that upon thorough analysis, has a high degree of security for the principal amount, as well as security of return, within an expected period of time. In contrast putting money into something with an expectation of gain without thorough analysis, without security of principal, and without security of return is speculation or gambling. The second part of the question can be addressed by analyzing the change in gold price vs inflation year by year over the long term. As Chuck mentioned, there are periods in which it didn't exceed inflation. More important, over any sufficiently long length of time the US stock market will outperform. Those who bought at the '87 peak aren't doing too bad, yet those who bought in the last gold bubble haven't kept up with inflation. $850 put into gold at the '80 top would inflate today to $2220 per the inflation calculator. You can find with a bit of charting some periods where gold outpaced inflation, and some where it missed. Back to the definition of investment. I think gold fits speculation far better than it does investment. I've heard the word used in ways I'd disagree with, spend what you will on the shoes, but no, they aren't an investment, I tell my wife. The treadmill purchase may improve my health, and people may use the word colloquially, but it's not an investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d6f870f48d0f4bf8e0c576af96e9095", "text": "\"I'd argue the two words ought to (in that I see this as a helpful distinction) describe different activities: \"\"Investing\"\": spending one's money in order to own something of value. This could be equipment (widgets, as you wrote), shares in a company, antiques, land, etc. It is fundamentally an act of buying. \"\"Speculating\"\": a mental process in which one attempts to ascertain the future value of some good. Speculation is fundamentally an act of attempted predicting. Under this set of definitions, one can invest without speculating (CDs...no need for prediction) and speculate without investing (virtual investing). In reality, though, the two often go together. The sorts of investments you describe are speculative, that is, they are done with some prediction in mind of future value. The degree of \"\"speculativeness\"\", then, has to be related to the nature of the attempted predictions. I've often seen that people say that the \"\"most speculative\"\" investments (in my use above, those in which the attempted prediction is most chaotic) have these sorts of properties: And there are probably other ideas that can be included. Corrections/clarifications welcome! P.S. It occurs to me that, actually, maybe High Frequency Trading isn't speculative at all, in that those with the fastest computers and closest to Wall Street can actually guarantee many small returns per hour due to the nature of how it works. I don't know enough about the mechanics of it to be sure, though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9031cd641767c4fa0b9f66906157836f", "text": "I think by definition there aren't, generally speaking, any indicators (as in chart indicators, I assume you mean) for fundamental analysis. Off the top of my head I can't think of one chart indicator that I wouldn't call 'technical', even though a couple could possibly go either way and I'm sure someone will help prove me wrong. But the point I want to make is that to do fundamental analysis, it is most certainly more time consuming. Depending on what instrument you're investing in, you need to have a micro perspective (company specific details) and a macro perspective (about the industry it's in). If you're investing in sector ETFs or the like, you'd be more reliant on the macro analysis. If you're investing in commodities, you'll need to consider macro analysis in multiple countries who are big producers/consumers of the item. There's no cut and dried way to do it, however I personally opt for a macro analysis of sector ETFs and then use technical analysis to determine my entry and/or exit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6bf11b0627d73cbea9659cfedae9210", "text": "\"The calculation and theory are explained in the other answers, but it should be pointed out that the video is the equivalent of watching a magic trick. The secret is: \"\"Stock A and B are perfectly negatively correlated.\"\" The video glasses over that fact that without that fact the risk doesn't drop to zero. The rule is that true diversification does decrease risk. That is why you are advised to spread year investments across small-cap, large-cap, bonds, international, commodities, real estate. Getting two S&P 500 indexes isn't diversification. Your mix of investments will still have risk, because return and risk are backward calculations, not a guarantee of future performance. Changes that were not anticipated will change future performance. What kind of changes: technology, outsourcing, currency, political, scandal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c34675e34f7f86936d7cbd88072c7cc", "text": "In practice momentum and trend following are two different ideas, albeit similar and often ocurr simultaneously. I don’t know if the book makes a clear disctinction between the two but keep this in mind: 1) Momentum trading is a trade where prices are increasing/decreasing and an increasing rate usually confirmed by heavy volume. Like you said, this can often be at the top of a bubble or nearing a bottom of a crash but not necessarily. It may also occur when trend trading is violated (switching directions or a new trend emerging) 2) Trend following is a trade where one could draw a disctinct linear line in a chart (up or down at some angle). Being able to draw a line into the future would be your projected ‘trend’ target. You could buy now and say “the trend is up, in 365 days the S&P 500 will trade at 2,based on the trend we’ve seen in the past year", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
dff1b8cbb6012a2ecbb570f1114697e8	Why can't the Fed lower interest rates below zero?	[ { "docid": "8581237521e013efb99dba1ca0c48598", "text": "Because giving someone a loan and paying them to take it isn't a loan anymore. I'll grant you, some of the treasury bill auctions did slip below 0% -- people paid in slightly more than what the bill would pay out. In as much as this was done by actual investors (and not afore-mentioned helicopter Ben Bernanke keeping the printing presses running hot all night), it was major accounts fearful of the euro disintegrating and banks crashing, and so on, and needing a safe spot to stick their cash for a couple months. Where the Fed is concerned, that interest rate he's referring to is lending they do to banks. So, how much would you take if you ran a bank and the Fed offered to pay you to take their money? A billion? A trillion? As much as you could cram in your vaults, shove in your pockets, and stuff down your favorite teller's blouse? Yea, me too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28187df0941807dfabb9cb1a848d3531", "text": "\"Keep in mind that the Federal Reserve Chairman needs to be very careful with his use of words. Here's what he said: It is arguable that interest rates are too high, that they are being constrained by the fact that interest rates can't go below zero. We have an economy where demand falls far short of the capacity of the economy to produce. We have an economy where the amount of investment in durable goods spending is far less than the capacity of the economy to produce. That suggests that interest rates in some sense should be lower rather than higher. We can't make interest rates lower, of course. (They) only can go down to zero. And again I would argue that a healthy economy with good returns is the best way to get returns to savers. So what does that mean? When he says that \"\"we can't make interest rates lower\"\", that doesn't mean that it isn't possible. He's saying that our demand for goods is lower than our ability to produce them. Negative interest would actually make that problem worse -- if I know that things will cost less in a month, I'm not going to buy anything. The Fed is incentivizing spending by lowering the cost of capital to zero. By continuing this policy, they are eventually going to bring on inflation, which will reduce the value of the currency -- which gives people and companies that are sitting on money an dis-incentive to continue hoarding it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25294ecedfdae6c44ced49fb23f14779", "text": "\"If the Federal Reserve were to pay banks to hold money, they would need to get the money from somewhere to do so. They would have three options: Go to Congress, and request and authorization of funds. As an quasi-independent entity, however, it would be both highly unorthodox for an institution to diminish its own authority by requesting funding, and politically difficult for the Congress to appropriate it. Transfer held-assets After QE & QE2, the Fed is now the holder of several assets (mortgages and the like) that are already unorthodox for it to hold. It acquired these assets in the first place to soak up excess demand. If these assets were transferred back to banks, it would have exactly the opposite effect - increasing supply and further suppressing the value of the assets they would be trying to shore up by lowering the interest rate. \"\"Print money\"\" The fed could raise the money supply by issuing new bonds. This is inherently inflationary, and while pretty much everyone agrees this isn't bad in the short run, there is already widespread fear that in the long run, QE by itself is going to unleash massive inflation once growth returns anyway. To keep \"\"pushing on this string\"\" would only excerabate these fears, and quite likely turn it into a self-fufilling prophecy. In short, the Fed \"\"could\"\" pay banks to hold money, but the political and economic consequences of raising the needed funds to do so would all undermine the institution or the desired effect.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afcfaa3930781982e106f63f9e89ae04", "text": "Why can't the Fed simply bid more than the bond's maturity value to lower interest rates below zero? The FED could do this but then it would have to buy all the bonds in the market since all other market participants would not be willing to lend money to the government only to receive less money back in the future. Not everyone has the ability to print unlimited amounts of dollars :)", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "7573e4ed4182d7fe0dec027f67145669", "text": "\"Wiki's not entirely accurate. My conspiracy theorist answer is because the Fed is not a government entity, it gives them increased flexibility with decreased transparency and the ability to do what is necessary to keep the currency/economy afloat under the fiat money system. A good book I found on this is Ron Paul's \"\"End the Fed\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "629a1e69f2804a85212260c726c6c200", "text": "This is a good point. The problem is that we still use the central bank and interest rates to try to control the economy. This is the part that has failed. I would suggest adjusting government spending based on the economic situation (down in good times, up in bad times). I do believe this would prevent recessions but it has never been tried. only in desperate times like the japanese recession and our great depression does this get tried and in both times has been effective. This is the difference between monetary and fiscal policy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aacc8dd785b7393fa395266b83fcde03", "text": "I agree. Since the Fed has been pursing all kinds of aggressive policies for years it saying things have gotten worse damages their reputation. This means it's either so clear it can't be ignored or is the first step in some other strong measures (leaving QE in place?). Either way, the fact the Fed is saying this is significant.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cba82135c4def9b57bde82806051cac8", "text": "Next year, the Fed plans on unwinding the Bonds and MBS. They'll ramp up to $50 billion a month. At the same time we'll be selling Bonds on the market to finance the debt at a rate of $70 billion a month. I wonder who's going to have the cash to buy the Toxic MBS and the low yield Bonds they'll be unloading on top of the usual Bonds for future debt. Those Bonds will have to pay double digit rates before anyone will buy them. Future generations will just get even more screwed the way the Fed has it planned.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f76bbd6a16d8ffce02efdb14a4d6b3a4", "text": "If such an investment existed, then why would the banks be parking their overnight funds with the Federal Reserve at an interest rate of pretty much nothing?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98098c944f7f21877eeeea7dfc8c7610", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-26/what-you-should-know-about-r) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** > As the Federal Reserve gradually normalizes its monetary policy, market participants will hear a lot more about r, the &quot;Neutral rate of interest,&quot; which helps equilibrate financial markets when the economy is growing at potential and inflation remains contained and stable. > A gradual convergence of the policy rate to that level would allow, to adapt the phrase of Bridgewater Associates&#039; Ray Dalio, a &quot;Beautiful normalization&quot; of monetary policies that is consistent with market stability and soundness. > While the r concept is more relevant for advanced countries with mature financial systems, many emerging economies cannot avoid the consequences of related policy shortfalls even though these would be well beyond their borders. *** [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6k3ex6/what_you_should_know_about_r/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~154803 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: financial^#1 policy^#2 market^#3 rate^#4 interest^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08ae45c25bb27e5167d571d0f6f23ba3", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/business/dealbook/libor-fca-banks-andrew-bailey.html) reduced by 82%. (I'm a bot) *** > The one-year Libor, which represents the rate of interest on a loan between banks to be paid back within a year, is the most commonly used index for mortgages in the United States, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. > &quot;And while we have given our full support to encouraging panel banks to continue to contribute and maintaining Libor over recent years, we do not think markets can rely on Libor continuing to be available indefinitely.\"\" > Mr. Bailey said that the regulator had agreed with the panel banks to sustain Libor through 2021 to smooth a transition to new rates. * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6r14fz/libor_brought_scandal_greatest_financial_scandal/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~180937 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: Libor^#1 rate^#2 bank^#3 over^#4 Financial^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91c691f7277145c079dcdfed47e71aba", "text": "Your thinking is a little extreme! V could go under... but chances are very remote. Similarly I can't answer if someone asks if the Feds can go under. Looking at our awesome debt levels and no way to dig out of it, that is definitely a possibility. But will it happen? Probably no.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4091a8bdaae487c454b2b0066b7b8a36", "text": "I disagree with his point about taking too long to tighten. With rates near zero and asset purchasing programs in place, if there were another crisis what tools does the FRB have? Establishing a broad clear path forward is the best course of action so that confidence is restored in the marketplace. Unfortunately things have moved very far very fast and it has increased inequality. If we tightened sooner and a crisis were to occur the FRB (and the US by proxy) would have been hamstrung for a decades; it took us 1 decade on the current path.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd93fb09596bdc0a25f25d6c4d426b78", "text": "First of all, that link is nonsense. I recommend you read the actual GAO audit report, which has 16T in revolving loans with only (if I recall) about 1.8T in actual loans at any one time. Secondly, every time I check the details of a claim from Bernie Sanders he has stretched the truth far beyond reasonable, mostly to keep his name in the news I expect. Now, there was nothing that secret about anything in that report that was not reported in GAO reports from earlier. This audit was done for political purposes mostly, and the Fed has audits done regularly, as I stated earlier. This too can be checked, and I recommened you do so rather than believe me or that story. That incident, as you call it, is already exceeding rare. You have to weigh the pros/cons of that incident (which as I pointed out is not really an incident) with the problems that arise when you make more transparent and governmental control of the Fed. If the Fed has a role in stabilizing the economy (which is it's mandate) and if many of the tools do not work as well with more transparency and if there is evidence across many countries that doing such things to the Fed will likely result in certain problems, then one should make that call. However, to want those changes made while being ignorant of the issues is a terrible idea, and it is the least informed that usually yell the loudest for such changes. This would not be a problem except then certain politicians realize they can get votes by pandering to the ignorant masses, which really leads to tanked economies. Find how many economies have been tanked by an independent central banks versus how many have been tanked by political forces meddling with their respective economies. Finally, I highly recommend anytime you read a story that sounds outrageous, track down the source material and read it yourself. If you cannot find source material, or they do not list it, then distrust them. You'll find 99/100 times the outrageousness is created by selectively pulling information from the actual reports. Then track down report sources, wherever possible. Etc. Seriously, read the actual report.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf3a242bd5867bd1ea8d2adf71e360c9", "text": "It's called carry-trade. They can borrow from governments that have 0% int rates, exchange it for dollars, and then buy u.s. treasuries. Japan would never ever raise their interest rates as their economy runs on keynesian fumes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "318d8f36eb6e2ab8c6c7ecbd948c3e6f", "text": "One important answer is still missing: governments may not be able to do print money because of international agreements. This is in fact a very important reason: it applies to the entire Eurozone. (I admit that many Eurozone countries also not allowed to borrow as much as they do now, but somehow that's considered a far lesser sin).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e383f03888247ea2380a334c0f3734c", "text": "\"Haha now there's two of you. I have two twits parrot squawking in my ears in stereo. Okay, so maybe you aren't from the US, in which case I can forgive your confusion and completely circular logic. You must have gone back to Wikipedia or something, because the IS and LM curves are not, in your words, operating without \"\"control by powerful offices in government.\"\" The IS and LM curve indeed cross at a level that is consistent with an equilibrium between income and expenditure's equilibirium with the money market. But that's just the label slapped on it, it's not determinative as some sort of naturally occurring law of economics in our society. No, these things don't just happen on their own. If what you're inartfully implying were true, then there would be no such thing as an expansionary or contractionary monetary policy. Manipulating and controlling the money supply is the entire reason for the existence of the Federal Reserve! What is wrong with you? Go read a book or something on it, fuck me. The Federal Reserve, by setting interest rates mainly, and by open market operations, and by less frequently changing the reserve requirements which directly controls the MONEY MULTIPLIER (you know, that thing that creates money out of thin air you seem to not be able to understand exists?) is constantly changing AGGREGATE DEMAND in the economy. Aggregate demand is what the ISLM curve is about. It's about the equilibrium between price levels and the level of economic OUTPUT DEMANDED. But not supplied. That's aggregate supply, and the Federal Reserve effects that less. But yes, you've simply expanded the scope of things I could talk about that are fucked up about banks and the Fed in particular, because the Federal Reserve, in manipulating aggregate demand for money, actually is destroying money and the efficient use of money at the same time, because the LM curve in particular really represents the relationship between REAL income and the REAL money supply. Real means not nominal, but in actual purchasing terms. The Fed is manipulating an LM curve that at its base is a piece of logic built on the assumption that what's going into it are real numbers, and yet by definition, the Fed acting to manipulate it makes those numbers not determined by purely market forces, but also by the Fed. That makes them less than real. Basically the Federal Reserve pumps up artificial levels of demand in the economy, which lasts for a bit to generate growth numbers, but in the long term it simply results in inflation and a continually delayed (at least for now) reckoning where the artificial demand (i.e. the government's ability to borrow) cannot be further expanded, and something has to give. This down the road would be a monetary crisis involving the US dollar being knocked off its perch as the world's primary reserve currency, and the yields on Treasuries skyrocketing to the point that the government is either forced to behave or else print so much money to actually cover interest payments on the debt that the flood of money into the economy causes catastrophic inflation. But anyway, my point is that you're making a circular argument, because you're saying that the Fed doesn't interfere in or exert tremendous control over the economy, because there's something that we know shows the given price level of money in an economy called the ISLM curve, falsely implying that everything's fine with money because it's determined by mechanical, natural laws, almost like gravity, when in fact the Federal Reserve's whole purpose is to manipulate the inputs that go into that curve. It reduces interest rates which artificially increases income. It also increases the velocity of money, an input for the LM curve, by increasing nominal economic output, etc. etc. The IS and LM curves are not these things that just sort of happen on their own. This may come as a shock, but the US has a central bank which has as its sole purpose the manipulation of these curves. Its central mandate is control of price levels. Its unspoken mandate is to preserve the status of the big banks on the top of society, which is why the big banks created it in the first place, and why they own all the branches (this is the root fact behind why some people say that the Federal Reserve is in fact not federal and is instead privately owned, which isn't completely literally true, but true enough in the sense that it has a clear conflict of interest between the public good it's supposed to be upholding and the private interests of the banks that own its branches and exert control over the financial system, mainly through the New York branch). But that's not the whole story about the total money supply. There's also the pyramiding effect of the money multiplier. It's as if you're just pretending these things don't exist. It's real, I assure you. Banks create money out of thin air when they extend credit to you. To pay the obligation to them, you use the real money you in fact earned through your own labor, or from some real asset you might have. They get the better end of the deal, and almost all the money in the economy is spawned by this process, this insanely exorbitant privilege they have. And yes, I have a problem with it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "735cdacb94f03923d7db3c732b06db0f", "text": "\"These rates are so low because the cost of money is so low. Specifically, two rates are near zero. The Federal Reserve discount rate, which is \"\"the interest rate charged to commercial banks and other depository institutions on loans they receive from their regional Federal Reserve Bank's lending facility--the discount window.\"\" The effective federal funds rate, which is the rate banks pay when they trade balances with each other through the Federal Reserve. Banks want to profit on the loans they make, like mortgage loans. To do so, they try to maximize the difference between the rates they charge on mortgages and other loans (revenue), and the rates they pay savings account holders, the Federal Reserve or other banks to obtain funds (expenses). This means that the rates they offer to pay are as close to these rates as possible. As the charts shows, both rates have been cut significantly since the start of the recession, either through open market operations (the federal funds rate) or directly (the discount rate). The discount rate is set directly by the regional Federal Reserve banks every 14 days. In most cases, the federal funds rate is lower than the discount rate, in order to encourage banks to lend money to each other instead of borrowing it from the Fed. In the past, however, there have been rare instances where the federal funds rate has exceeded the discount rate, and it's been cheaper for banks to borrow money directly from the Fed than from each other.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e400ac547517161dca92438aa601eba3", "text": "\"Thanks for the quick reply. I'd like to point out the post that triggered me to make this request in public is - Reddit post: http://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/naboa/fears_persist_that_the_us_labor_market_cannot_be/ Specific response: http://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/naboa/fears_persist_that_the_us_labor_market_cannot_be/c37kj2t The sidebar says that political debate is not permitted in this forum, and until recently I would say this request had been adhered to. But this particular FT article, like others, can be dissected politically, and therefore shouldn't be in r/finance. It belongs in r/economics. Unfortunately, any posts that relate to current macroeconomic circumstances, especially central banking and global unemployment, will invite the Ron-Paulites and they really don't add any sort of value to r/finance, and they do politicize the forum and debate. I don't think ZeroHedge _ever_ has a place in this forum. The source is not credible and always has too much of a political angle to be in a forum that has declared itself as \"\"not a place for politics.\"\"\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
7e8e00e396b4789fb850141b6e857e6f	Query regarding international transaction between governments	[ { "docid": "295d1fc6625802aa6d59929026e4f2a7", "text": "$USD, electronic or otherwise, are not created/destroyed during international transactions. If India wants to buy an F-16s, at cost $34M USD, they'll have to actually acquire $34M USD, or else convince the seller to agree to a different currency. They would acquire that $34M USD in a few possible ways. One of which is to exchange INR (India Rupees) at whatever the current exchange rate is, to whomever will agree to the opposite - i.e., someone who has USD and wants INR, or at least is willing to be the middleman. Another would be to sell some goods or services in the US (for USD), or to someone else for USD. Indian companies undoubtedly do this all the time. Think of all of those H1B workers that are in the news right now; they're all earning USD and then converting those to INRs. So the Indian government can just buy their USD for INR, directly or more likely indirectly (through a currency exchange market). A third method would be to use some of their currency stores. Most countries have significant reserves of various foreign currencies on hand, for two reasons: one to simplify transactions like this one, and also to stabilize the value of their own currency. A less stable currency can be stabilized simply by the central bank of that country owning USD, EUR, Pounds Sterling, or similar stable-value currencies. The process for an individual would be essentially the same, though the third method would be less likely available (most individuals don't have millions in cash on hand from different currencies - although certainly some would). No government gets involved (except for taxes or whatnot), it's just a matter of buying USD in exchange for INRs or for goods or services.", "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": "a0fd3892b5b4a6ff7c51355d21f1b976", "text": "For the US government, they've just credited Person B with a Million USD and haven't gained anything (afterall, those digits are intangible and don't really have a value, IMO). Two flaws in this reasoning: The US government didn't do anything. The receiving bank credited the recipient. If the digits are intangible, such that they haven't gained anything, they haven't lost anything either. In practice, the role of governments in the transfer is purely supervisory. The sending bank debits the sender's account and the receiving bank credits the recipient's account. Every intermediary makes some money on this transaction because the cost to the sender exceeds the credit to the recipient. The sending bank typically receives a credit to their account at a correspondent bank. The receiving bank typically receives a debit from their account at a correspondent bank. If a bank sends lots of money, eventually its account at its correspondent will run dry. If a bank receives lots of money, eventually its account at its correspondent will have too much money. This is resolved with domestic payments, sometimes handled by governmental or quasi-governmental agencies. In the US, banks have an account with the federal reserve and adjust balances there. The international component is handled by the correspondent bank(s). They also internally will credit and debit. If they get an imbalance between two currencies they can't easily correct, they will have to sell one currency to buy the other. Fortunately, worldwide currency exchange is extremely efficient.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "33f8ccc33e64dc2d35f0ca02ffeb95c4", "text": "Ok, its been over a week, I think I am done with this. If you feel answering last makes you a winner, GJ. You are, though, incorrect in showing any example of a country that simultaneously purchased and sold its own debt. Also, I rule.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "48b53ceb967c84617f5899bbf19d2dc8", "text": "Usually, your situation is a generalized form of import/export, with you as the net exporter of goods/services and the individual consuming your goods/service as net importer. Import export laws vary from country to country but following are the general tariffs/taxes applicable: Export tax/duty: From your sovereign jurisdiction (read country/region/EU region), there could be export restriction or tariffs applicable to your exported goods/services on the other hand there may not be any, check with EU export law on this and then your country specific law. If there is any tax/tariff payable, you shall have to pay the same on the transactions. Import tax/duty: This is more related to your customer who is purchasing the goods/services from you, however, you should know this. Your customer will be liable to pay any import tax/duty as applicable for importing of your goods/services in that country/region, if it is applicable. Shipping Insurance: If it is a physical goods, there would be shipping and with shipping comes insurance and indemnity (if applicable). So there is a cost to it, you need to be aware of this. Sales Tax: There is no Govt. on earth or history which does not or did not charge sales tax in some form or the other. EU/country will also have sales tax, you should be aware of this as per transaction you may have to pay sales tax to the Govt. This would add to the cost. Credit of Foreign Currency Payments: Some countries have tax/tariffs attached to foreign currency credits/transfers or bank charges attached to the same, you may have to open specific type of bank A/C to receive the credits. These laws are specific to country/region, you should be aware of the same. The above are generic considerations and not specific to EU and to a greater/lesser extent applicable to all countries/regions. Best would be to search the net on the above points for EU region and get answers or approach a chartered accountant who will give you all the information.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7b97f8d1e7cef7a371db32488ca1d52", "text": "Yes it is possible. It would depend on Banks policies whether they would lend. Quite a few large corporations borrow money in one country for business needs in other country", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac0fb7596fc865512efa670b65d98db4", "text": "\"No it is not \"\"Normal\"\" the normal process is that the money is transferred to your account with out issue. This would be an exception. That does not mean that there is anything to worry about. It could be that the transaction met some criteria that triggered closer examination, or it could be that yours is just one randomly being reviewed. And it could just be that your husbands partner misunderstood or lied. Step 1 would be contact the bank and find out what is going on and if there is any action you need to take. Assuming that the bank confirms the status and the amount is significant enough I would probably give my lawyer a heads up of what is going on. If Homeland Security is involved there is a reasonable chance that you will need that representation anyway so getting the lawyer involved early might save you a headache in the end. The lawyer is probably the only person that will be able to get any answers for your anyway. from comments: My husband is a consultant that works for another company - as a consultant. That company received a contract from a government south of the US (Free Trade approved). That government first wired the overall government contract to the company account in that originating country, then... the funds were wired to the US counterpart company ... then then consultants gets paid. It sounds like the contract is not your normal business to business international contract. So normal goes out the window there. When you start getting foreign governments involved things get... lets use the word \"\"interesting.\"\" If the contract involves anything with military or restricted technology applications (even if they are not directly military) then HSA wants to make sure that no one is circumventing export restrictions. With out knowing more specifics it is difficult to guess whether or not there is anything for your husband to worry about. The bottom line for him is that he does not have his money so he should keep that in mind when delivering services to the Prime Contractor.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a48564da87b5eb0b0cc3034531aa5dd7", "text": "The money is transferred through an electronic funds transfer, which is an umbrella term that encompasses wire transfers, direct debits, etc. The application form for Key Trade Bank (the only place I can find that uses that exact phrasing) lists a SWIFT number. This usually indicates that the transfer of funds is done through an international wire transfer. In the most basic sense, the process works like this: Key Trade Bank uses the SWIFT number to notify your current bank of the transfer. Your bank instructs the settlement bank, e.g. the central bank of your country, where your bank is located, to transfer funds to Key Trade. If Key Trade is in another country from your current country, your central bank will send money to the central bank where Key Trade is located, which will in turn send the money to Key Trade. Otherwise, your central bank deposits the money into the account that Key Trade also has with them, and the transfer is complete.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2210ac514c3dce54d6f12496a35e9a2d", "text": "If both bank accounts are in your name, it appears that NS&I have a free International Payments Service. The Post office international payments are apparently free if you transfer at least £250. In both cases, I have not used the services and I'm not sure if there is some catch that I have missed. Perhaps they only appear free due to an unfavourable exchange rate — I don't know. See also: UK fee-free foreign transfer to own account", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2010171848c9f2ed7905095c9d3428af", "text": "\"You might want to read about about the Coase Theorem. \"\"In law and economics, the Coase theorem, attributed to Ronald Coase, describes the economic efficiency of an economic allocation or outcome in the presence of externalities. The theorem states that if trade in an externality is possible and there are no transaction costs, bargaining will lead to an efficient outcome regardless of the initial allocation of property rights. In practice, obstacles to bargaining or poorly defined property rights can prevent Coasian bargaining.\"\" This is similar to what you are asking. Each country has an endowment of gold, and they must create a set amount of money to represent their endowment of gold. This will establish an exchange rate. If I have 5 tons of gold and you have 5 tons, and I print 10 dollars and you print 20, then one of my dollars is worth two of your dollars. Thus, the amount of money is not relevant- it's the exchange rate between the countries. If all the nations know each other's gold endowment, then we will have a perfect exchange rate. If we don't, then currency printing will vary but arbitrage should drive it to an accurate price. Gold and diamonds are both valuable in part due to scarcity, but gold has been used as a measure of value because it's been historically used as a medium of exchange. People just realized that swapping paper was safer and cheaper than physically transporting gold, but the idea of gold as a measure of value is present because \"\"that's how it's always been.\"\" Nobody \"\"creates/supervises\"\" these procedures, but organizations like the IMF, ECB, Fed Reserve, etc implement monetary policy to regulate the money supply and arbitrage drives exchange rates to fair values.\"", "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": "c0568dee1a562b5ddf66be45c0d8fcde", "text": "\"One option would be to physically ship the money from Israel to the US. I quickly ran the numbers for shipping different amounts of $100 bills (One pound equals 454 bills) using a popular shipping company. Here are the results: The \"\"sweet\"\" spot is $100,000. That would only cost you $76 to ship which is just 0.08% of the amount being transferred. Of course, the shipping company's website says international shipments of money are prohibited. Their website, however, let me categorize the shipment as \"\"money\"\". Strange.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e31045050a5d96241b49790eec6f013", "text": "Currently many countries (and non-government bodies) hold dollars to facilitate trade. If the dollar is no longer used in their trade, then they no longer have a reason to hold those dollars. If every other country starts to dump their dollar holdings into the world currency markets, the number of dollars floating around in those market would shoot up. The massive supply increase of dollars (we're assuming these other countries are holding massive amounts of dollars) would lead to a large drop in value of the dollar - lots more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. Every purchase will become much more expensive for anyone still buying with dollars, including the American government trying to buy expensive military equipment - unless the US government also switches to using something else to purchase military supplies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e07d5b3f580cca005fc97c88282ef40", "text": "\"An US person could be liable for corruption charges in the US for paying a bribe in a foreign country, because of [FCPA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act). Quoting: \"\"The anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA make it unlawful for a U.S. person [...] to make a payment to a foreign official for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14dc8a9c4d042aa2886edc440c53c496", "text": "It is non-binding. I'm not positive of China receiving money but I know they wouldn't have to give money. They also don't need to cut their carbon emissions in the near future where the U.S. who competes with China economically would have to cut their emissions by over 20%.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5eb519a294ef6b48089d860918f02d49", "text": "Politics matter when these types of things are being initially negotiated. Otherwise an early proposal that is intended to be just a bargaining position will be reported as OBAMA IS TAKING OUR FREEDOMS, and they will be forced to remove the bargaining position by politics instead of good policy. This will be voted on by the Senate, and will have to be ratified by 67 Senators. Trust me, this treaty will have its day in front of the people.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bac039338b7d35deb88310614fc1cdde", "text": "Swaps form backstop to a shit load of int'l trade. Liquidity of currency is a huge factor in being a govt reserve currency, which USD currently has the VAST majority of holdings. This agreement is a shove against USE dominance in trade settlements, which is negative. Also challenges us general capital markets dominance a bit", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06238bcde4f209948bd74386f6b222c0", "text": "\"I've bought ISO stock over they years -- in NYSE traded companies. Every time I've done so, they've done what's called \"\"sell-to-cover\"\". And the gubmint treats the difference between FMV and purchase price as if it's part of your salary. And for me, they've sold some stock extra to pay estimated taxes. So, if I got this right... 20,000 shares at $3 costs you 60,000 to buy them. In my sell-to-cover at 5 scenario: did I get that right? Keeping only 4,000 shares out of 20,000 doesn't feel right. Maybe because I've always sold at a much ratio between strike price and FMV. Note I made some assumptions: first is that the company will sell some of the stock to pay the taxes for you. Second is your marginal tax rate. Before you do anything check these. Is there some reason to exercise immediately? I'd wait, personally.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
c3c2024773b9831212d510f724663b44	What will be the long term impact of the newly defined minimum exchange rate target from francs to euro?	[ { "docid": "5ed06b4b485a29dc989f8c087d98d527", "text": "The total size of the eurozone economy is $13 trillion, whereas Switzerland'd GDP is about $0.5 trillion, so the eurozone is about 26 times larger. As such, I would not expect this move to have a large effect on the eurozone economy. On the margins, this may decrease somewhat eurozone exports to Switzerland and increase imports from Switzerland, so this would be a slight negative for eurozone growth. Switzerland accounts for 5.2% of the EU's imports, and these imports will now be slightly cheaper, which puts some deflationary pressure on the EU, particularly in the Swiss-specialized industries of chemicals, medicinal products, machinery, instruments and time pieces. But overall, 5.2% is a rather small proportion. Bottom line, most common eurozone countries' people should probably not fret too much about this announcement. What it means for Switzerland and Swiss citizens, however, is a totally different (and much more interesting) question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7577e9124a4a8752111a7e91e5033a0", "text": "The idea behind this move is to avoid or mitigate long-term deflationary pressure and to boost the competitiveness of Swiss exporters. This is primarily a Swiss-based initiative that does not appear likely to have a major impact on the broader Eurozone. However, some pressure will be felt by other currencies as investors look to purchase - ie. this is not a great scenario for other countries wanting to keep their currencies weak. In terms of personal wealth - if you hold Swiss f then you are impacted. However, 1.2 is still very strong (most analysts cite 1.3 as more realistic) so there seems little need for a reaction of any kind at the personal level at this time, although diversity - as ever - is good. It should also be noted that changing the peg is a possibility, and that the 1.3 does seem to be the more realistic level. If you hold large amounts of Swiss f then this might cause you to look at your forex holdings. For the man in the street, probably not an issue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4d799f952082cf6768813a8df4b3127", "text": "The Swiss franc has appreciated quite a bit recently against the Euro as the European Central Bank (ECB) continues to print money to buy government bonds issues by Greek, Portugal, Spain and now Italy. Some euro holders have flocked to the Swiss franc in an effort to preserve the savings from the massive Euro money printing. This has increased the value of the Swiss franc. In response, the Swiss National Bank (SNB) has tried to intervene multiple times in the currency market to keep the value of the Swiss franc low. It does this by printing Swiss francs and using the newly printed francs to buy Euros. The SNB interventions have failed to suppress the Swiss franc and its value has continued to rise. The SNB has finally said they will print whatever it takes to maintain a desired peg to the Euro. This had the desired effect of driving down the value of the franc. Which effect will this have long term for the euro zone? It is now clear that all major central bankers are in a currency devaluation war in which they are all trying to outprint each other. The SNB was the last central bank to join the printing party. I think this will lead to major inflation in all currencies as we have not seen the end of money printing. Will this worsen the European financial crisis or is this not an important factor? I'm not sure this will have much affect on the ongoing European crisis since most of the European government debt is in euros. Should this announcement trigger any actions from common European people concerning their wealth? If a European is concerned with preserving their wealth I would think they would begin to start diverting some of their savings into a harder currency. Europeans have experienced rapidly depreciating currencies more than people on any other continent. I would think they would be the most experienced at preserving wealth from central bank shenanigans.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "e1efb7090aedbe05bd825078862807e9", "text": "It's not necessary to convert it back for the changes to affect value. Lets say you have a euro account with 1000 euro and a gbp account with 920 gbp (the accounts are equal in value given current exchange rates). You could exchange either account for ~$1180 usd. If you exchange the euro account for USD, and say the euro gets stronger against the pound and dollar (and subsequently the pound and dollar are weaker against the euro); then if you would've kept the 1000 euro it would now be worth more than 920 gbp and more than 1180 usd, and you would've been better off exchanging the gbp account for usd. Barring some cataclysmic economic event; exchange rates between well established currencies don't radically change over a few weeks trip, so I wouldn't really worry about it one way or the other.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5887589fd2f004e5ffadf2a922b01929", "text": "Im creating a 5-year projection on Profit and loss, cash flow and balance sheet and i\\m suppose to use the LIBOR (5 year forward curve) as interest rate on debt. This is the information i am given and it in USD. Thanks for the link. I guess its the USD LIBOR today, in one year, in two years, three years, four years and five years", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a829b0cd8b0cae7deedf77c992b58af3", "text": "It's impossible to determine which event will cause a major shift for a certain currency pair. However, this does not mean that it's not possible to identify events that are important to the overall market sentiment and direction. There are numerous sites that provide a calendar for upcoming and past events and their impact which is most of the time indicated as low, medium and high. Such sites are: Edit: I would like to add to that, that while these are major market movers, you cannot forget that they mainly provide a certain direction for the market but that it's not always clear in which direction the market will go. A recent and prime example of a major event that triggered opposite effects of what you would expect, is the ECB meeting that took place the 3rd of December. Due to the fact that the market already priced in further easing by the ECB the euro strengthened instead of weakening compared to the dollar. This strengthening happened even though the ECB did in fact adjust the deposit by 10 base points to -0.30 % and increased the duration of the QE. Taking above example into consideration it's important to always remember that fundamentals are hard to grasp and that it will take a while to make it a second nature and become truly successful in this line of trading. Lastly, fundamentals are only a part of the complete picture. Don't lose sight of support and resistance levels as well as price action to determine when and how to enter a trade.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3336d6fc35d673959c37b0dcb67d246c", "text": "It's not. If you look at the page you link to and change dates, it's clear the rate changes a bit. 120.15 120.1 per hundred. The Swiss can keep the 1.200 as a target and if it's higher, sell agingst the euro to bring it down, if lower, buy. If the swiss experienced a serious financial crisis and their currency fell, they may not have the power to control it, if the rest of the world said it was worth less, you can be sure it will fall.", "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": "cef4fa3efefe86f85f703ff4e020704f", "text": "\"If there is a very sudden and large collapse in the exchange rate then because algorithmic trades will operate very fast it is possible to determine “x” immediately after the change in exchange rate. All you need to know is the order book. You also need to assume that the algorithmic bot operates faster than all other market participants so that the order book doesn’t change except for those trades executed by the bot. The temporarily cheaper price in the weakened currency market will rise and the temporarily dearer price in the strengthened currency market will fall until the prices are related by the new exchange rate. This price is determined by the condition that the total volume of buys in the cheaper market is equal to the total volume of sells in the dearer market. Suppose initially gold is worth $1200 on NYSE or £720 on LSE. Then suppose the exchange rate falls from r=0.6 £/$ to s=0.4 £/$. To illustrate the answer lets assume that before the currency collapse the order book for gold on the LSE and NYSE looks like: GOLD-NYSE Sell (100 @ $1310) Sell (100 @ $1300) <——— Sell (100 @ $1280) Sell (200 @ $1260) Sell (300 @ $1220) Sell (100 @ $1200) ————————— buy (100 @ $1190) buy (100 @ $1180) GOLD-LSE Sell (100 @ £750) Sell (100 @ £740) ————————— buy (200 @ £720) buy (200 @ £700) buy (100 @ £600) buy (100 @ £550) buy (100 @ £530) buy (100 @ £520) <——— buy (100 @ £500) From this hypothetical example, the automatic traders will buy up the NYSE gold and sell the LSE gold in equal volume until the price ratio \"\"s\"\" is attained. By summing up the sell volumes on the NYSE and the buy volumes on the LSE, we see that the conditions are met when the price is $1300 and £520. Note 800 units were bought and sold. So “x” depends on the available orders in the order book. Immediately after this, however, the price of the asset will be subject to the new changes of preference by the market participants. However, the price calculated above must be the initial price, since otherwise an arbitrage opportunity would exist.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "634ae536b1c98d917d05eebcab734301", "text": "Operation twist is just an asset swap. The balance sheet isn't being expanded, money isn't being printed to buy treasuries. The fed is just selling short term assets and buying longer term assets. If more longer term treasuries are bought this brings the yield down (for bonds the more you buy them, the lower the yield goes). Lower long term interest rates means people can borrow at low rates and this is supposed help the economy. No printing of money means that gold doesn't get more precious. I do think gold will do well though, if the ECB wants to save the EU they're going to have to print, and print a lot. The Bank of England is doing some QE too. Lots of countries will be/ are easing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12b36b072e86700840072c0c1575631c", "text": "Well, you could just deposit the Euros in your French bank. In the US, you'll have to deal with foreign exchange services, unless you're talking large amounts for banks to want to handle (they'll handle small amounts too, of course, but not without a significant fee). Best thing I can think of is keeping them in a drawer with your passport. You'll use them on your next flight. Being French national, you're undoubtedly bound to visit the Euro zone again.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d87984f8fd0b68c76fb7161190f20fd", "text": "\"The risk is that greece defaults on it's debts and the rest of the eurozone chose to punish it by kicking it out of the Eurozone and cutting off it's banks from ECB funds. Since the greek government and banks are already in pretty dire straits this would leave greece with little choice but to forciblly convert deposits in those banks to a \"\"new drachma\"\". The exchange rate used for the forced conversions would almost certainly be unfavorable compared to market rates soon after the conversion. There would likely be capital controls to prevent people pulling their money out in the runup to the forced conversion. While I guess they could theoretically perform the forced conversion only on Euro deposits this seems politically unlikely to me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a49a74eb5a5c0016c80d3cba33b34eb", "text": "The real, short-term effect is that prices will go up a bit, have no effect on the amount of actual travel, and the government(s) that impose this tax will rake in more money to waste. This is what the governments actually want, but CO2 emissions is a good way to sell it. The long-term effect is that people will be just a bit more, on the margin, likely to avoid interacting with the European economy, which sucks for everyone.", "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": "381ec914798b6e7bd9ca5a71455574e1", "text": "Their biggest problem is that their main industry is shipping. Anything they could do to their currency wouldn't help the shipping industry at all. They can't even raise taxes, they aren't the only convenience flag in the world and ships are obviously very easy to move out. The only industry they have that could get any benefit from a devaluation would be tourism, but that would be mostly negated by moving out of the euro.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78c84c5efcb07192d4a37d43f50b678c", "text": "I think the point is that m2 is 13.7 trillion usd, the Swiss investment is not even half a percent. The us equities marker valuation is larger at 22.5 trillion USD. Dumping an extra 100 bil usd is too little to do anything. Even dumping a trillion USD is a relatively small number.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ea314b3dbeec651d17d4d45e178c4b9", "text": "Balanced out might be a better way to put it. Imports become cheaper, driving down inflation, which should permit companies to operate at a lower cost, which should eventually work to limit or eliminate the impact of the shift. These balancing factors generally occur in the long term and specific sectors of the economy will be impacted to different degrees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9584a6f6554b2d2367ec417532961f0", "text": "e.g. a European company has to pay 1 million USD exactly one year from now While that is theoretically possible, that is not a very common case. Mostly likely if they had to make a 1 million USD payment a year from now and they had the cash on hand they would be able to just make the payment today. A more common scenario for currency forwards is for investment hedging. Say that European company wants to buy into a mutual fund of some sort, say FUSEX. That is a USD based mutual fund. You can't buy into it directly with Euros. So if the company wants to buy into the fund they would need to convert their Euros to to USD. But now they have an extra risk parameter. They are not just exposed to the fluctuations of the fund, they are also exposed to the fluctuations of the currency market. Perhaps that fund will make a killing, but the exchange rate will tank and they will lose all their gains. By creating a forward to hedge their currency exposure risk they do not face this risk (flip side: if the exchange rate rises in a favorable rate they also don't get that benefit, unless they use an FX Option, but that is generally more expensive and complicated).", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
77004043cf25c26dd4a10258e2142286	Pros & cons in Hungary of investing retirement savings exclusively in silver? What better alternatives, given my concerns?	[ { "docid": "438545110087a3379434531a7350b942", "text": "\"To be honest, I think a lot of people on this site are doing you a disservice by taking your idea as seriously as they are. Not only is this a horrible idea, but I think you have some alarming misunderstandings about what it means to save for retirement. First off, precious metals are not an \"\"investment\"\"; they are store of value. The old saying that a gold coin would buy a suit 300 years ago and will still buy a suit today is pretty accurate. Buying precious metals and expecting them to \"\"appreciate\"\" in the future because they are \"\"undervalued\"\" is just flat-out speculation and really doesn't belong in a well-planned retirement account, unless it's a very small part for the purposes of diversification. So the upshot to all of this is the most likely outcome is you get zero return after inflation (maybe you'll get lucky or maybe you'll be very unlucky). Next you would say that sure, you're giving up some expected return for a reduction in risk. But, you've done away with diversification which is the most effective way to minimize risk... And I'm not sure what scenario you're imagining that the stock market or any other reasonable investment doesn't make any returns. If you invest in a market wide index fund, then the expected return is going to be roughly in proportion with productivity gains. To say that there will be no appreciation of the stock market over the next 40 years is to say that technological progress will stop and/or we will have large-scale economic disruptions that will wipe out 40 years of progress. If that happens, I would say it's highly questionable whether silver will actually be worth anything at all. I'd rather have food, property, and firearms. So, to answer your question, practically any other retirement savings plan would be better than the one that you currently outlined, but the best plan is just to put your money in a very low-cost index fund at Vanguard and let it sit until you retire. The expense ratios are so stupidly small, that it's not going to meaningfully affect your return.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4bf9d247623ce514a12a958cb59e780", "text": "\"This sound like a very bad idea. If you invest exclusively in silver, your investment is not diversified in any way. This is what I would call risky. Have a look at index funds and ETFs and build a diversified portfolio. It does not take much time, and you don't need to let it do by someone else. They are risky too, but I see \"\"silver only\"\" as much riskier. You reduce the risk by holding on to the funds for a long time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7014291a54c94cf4f0041e20974babf", "text": "I think precious metals as an investment might set one up for disappointment. Why does it seem to continually decline despite the variance? As many have noted, there isn't much productive use for precious metals, and no major wars are taking place, so they aren't being used as currency substitutes, not to mention that more is being pulled out of the ground every day. The real reason why this graph shows silver to decline in real value over time is because its using a suboptimal price index. An optimal one would most likely show a stable price over the long run. Silver is a great speculation if one can determine with high confidence the direction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f9847f7b6ee037d2b5ce638f730adb0", "text": "First is storage which is a big and a detrimental headache. Security is another big headache. Investing in precious metal has always been an investment opportunity in the countries in the east i.e. India and China because of cultural reason and due to absence of investment opportunities for the less fortunate ones. It isn't the case so in the West. Secondly what is the right an opportune moment is open to question. When the worlwide economy is up and running, that is probably the time to buy i.e. people would like to put money in use rather than store. The saying goes the other way when the economy is stagnating. Then there is also the case of waiting out the bad periods to sell your gold and silver. If you do want to buy precious metals then use a service like BullionVault, rather than doing those yourself. It takes care of the 2 big headaches, I mentioned earlier.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cdffb915d0dd1bd742154da933a60b2b", "text": "The points given by DumbCoder are very valid. Diversifying portfolio is always a good idea. Including Metals is also a good idea. Investing in single metal though may not be a good idea. •Silver is pretty cheap now, hopefully it will be for a while. •Silver is undervalued compared to gold. World reserve ratio is around 1 to 11, while price is around 1 to 60. Both the above are iffy statements. Cheap is relative term ... there are quite a few metals more cheaper than Silver [Copper for example]. Undervalued doesn't make sense. Its a quesiton of demand and supply. Today Industrial use of Silver is more widespread, and its predecting future what would happen. If you are saying Silver will appreciate more than other metals, it again depends on country and time period. There are times when even metals like Copper have given more returns than Silver and Gold. There is also Platinum to consider. In my opinion quite a bit of stuff is put in undervalued ... i.e. comparing reserve ratio to price in absolute isn't right comparing it over relative years is right. What the ratio says is for every 11 gms of silver, there is 1 gm of Gold and the price of this 1 gm is 60 times more than silver. True. And nobody tell is the demand of Silver 60 times more than Gold or 11 times more than Gold. i.e. the consumption. What is also not told is the cost to extract the 11 gms of silver is less than cost of 1 gm of Gold. So the cheapness you are thinking is not 100% true.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c7a11941b50af2b1317846c5b706ab0", "text": "\"Because most of the posters have disparaged the pursuit of silver without a reflection upon what you wrote in the question - your concern about Hungary and its government, I'll weigh in it. In a stable and solid political and economic environment, this advice against silver would be generally correct. As you commented, though, this has not been the case and thus it is difficult for some to understand this. Given your concerns, here's a question to reflect upon - what can the government of Hungary not confiscate? Or what have they not confiscated in the past? If silver is on that list, then very few people here will understand because statements like, To be honest, I think a lot of people on this site are doing you a disservice by taking your idea as seriously as they are, are completely predicated on an environment that has been relatively stable over the years. I know my fellow Americans (and some Europeans) don't get this, but some countries have seen disasters - for instance, Brazil has been hyperinflation even when interest rates with insane interest rates (over 1000%). So this answer won't be popular, but depending on your environment, silver may be an excellent choice. If the government of Hungary has confiscated silver in the past (or you suspect they might), though, I'd stay far away from it. In reading and listening to people in these environments, citizens typically want something the government does want to take inventory of that tend to hold their value or rise during times of crisis. Most Americans (if they were honest) really can't relate to this and the few that can would agree. Another popular item to have, which doesn't physically exist, is a rare, but valuable skill that will be needed in a crisis. For instance, being highly skilled at negotiation and knowing the right people both come in handy at difficult times. Can you pay for learning or increasing those skill sets now? Never forget that self-investment can go far. And as a financial note and word of advice from someone who's been a financial adviser for over half a decade, a good financial adviser always seeks to get the person's information before providing advice and almost never says that a particular choice is always bad or always good; I would seldom say that a person should do one thing and it will always be good advice because that may not work in their country/state/environment/situation/etc. As they say in the SQL Server community - \"\"it depends\"\" and that holds true for finance. In the long run, those items which we may not think of as good investments or stores of value may end up having their day. To paraphrase Solomon, \"\"There's a time and place for everything under the sun.\"\" Even in my short life, I've witnessed a period of gold and silver routing the stock market and the stock market routing gold and silver. I suspect I'll see both again if I live a few more decades. tl;dr\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a5261fd35e60a67b52827496240db6b", "text": "\"Like Jeremy T said above, silver is a value store and is to be used as a hedge against sovereign currency revaluations. Since every single currency in the world right now is a free-floating fiat currency, you need silver (or some other firm, easily store-able, protect-able, transportable asset class; e.g. gold, platinum, ... whatever...) in order to protect yourself against government currency devaluations, since the metal will hold its value regardless of the valuation of the currency which you are denominating it in (Euro, in your case). Since the ECB has been hesitant to \"\"print\"\" large amounts of currency (which causes other problems unrelated to precious metals), the necessity of hedging against a plummeting currency exchange rate is less important and should accordingly take a lower percentage in your diversification strategy. However, if you were in.. say... Argentina, for example, you would want to have a much larger percentage of your assets in precious metals. The EU has a lot of issues, and depreciation of hard assets courtesy of a lack of fluid currency/capital (and overspending on a lot of EU governments' parts in the past), in my opinion, lessens the preservative value of holding precious metals. You want to diversify more heavily into precious metals just prior to government sovereign currency devaluations, whether by \"\"printing\"\" (by the ECB in your case) or by hot capital flows into/out of your country. Since Eurozone is not an emerging market, and the current trend seems to be capital flowing back into the developed economies, I think that diversifying away from silver (at least in overall % of your portfolio) is the order of the day. That said, do I have silver/gold in my retirement portfolio? Absolutely. Is it a huge percentage of my portfolio? Not right now. However, if the U.S. government fails to resolve the next budget crisis and forces the Federal Reserve to \"\"print\"\" money to creatively fund their expenses, then I will be trading out of soft assets classes and into precious metals in order to preserve the \"\"real value\"\" of my portfolio in the face of a depreciating USD. As for what to diversify into? Like the folks above say: ETFs(NOT precious metal ETFs and read all of the fine print, since a number of ETFs cheat), Indexes, Dividend-paying stocks (a favorite of mine, assuming they maintain the dividend), or bonds (after they raise the interest rates). Once you have your diversification percentages decided, then you just adjust that based on macro-economic trends, in order to avoid pitfalls. If you want to know more, look through: http://www.mauldineconomics.com/ < Austrian-type economist/investor http://pragcap.com/ < Neo-Keynsian economist/investor with huge focus on fiat currency effects\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "5affdedc6246219e3093477fd999126e", "text": "Reddit doesn't have a ton of resources to offer you as you learn about where to invest, you want to start reading up on actual investing sites. You might start with Motley Fool, StockTwits, Seeking Alpha, Marketwatch, etc. I agree with hipster's take, if all countries are going to keep printing money and expanding their debts and craziness, gold has a bright future. Land, petroleum, commodities, and precious metals have an intrinsic worth that will still be there regardless of what currencies are doing, versus bonds which are merely promises to pay, which will be paid off in devalued money, or stocks which are just promises of future earnings. Think about spreading your risk in a few different places, one chunk here, one chunk there. Some people in the US now are big on dividend paying stocks in lieu of bonds which only pay a percent, which is negative return after inflation. Some people buy 'royalty trust' units, which throw off income from oil leases as dividends. You might want to park a portion in a different currency, but dollar funds aren't going to pay interest and Switzerland plans to keep devaluing its currency as people keep bidding the price up. I don't know if you are allowed to buy CEF, a bullion-backed fund out of Canada in your country, but that's one way to own gold & silver. But with the instability out there, you might prefer a bit of the real thing stashed in a safe place. Or if you have a bit of family land, maybe just be sure you can pay the taxes to keep it; or pursue any other way to own 'real stuff' that will still be worth something after all hell breaks loose.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4562815066c5bab4d0cdee26be14c660", "text": "\"There is no zero risk option! There is no safe parking zone for turbulent times! There is no such thing as a zero-risk investment. You would do well to get this out of your head now. Cash, though it will retain its principle over time, will always be subject to inflation risk (assuming a positive-inflation environment which, historically in the US anyway, has always been the case since the Great Depression). But I couldn't find a \"\"Pure Cash - No investment option\"\" - what I mean by this is an option where my money is kept idle without investing in any kind of financial instrument (stocks, bonds, other MFs, currencies, forex etc etc whatever). Getting back to the real crux of your question, several other answers have already highlighted that you're looking for a money market fund. These will likely be as close to cash as you will get in a retirement account for the reasons listed in @KentA's answer. Investing in short-term notes would also be another relatively low-risk alternative to a money market fund. Again, this is low-risk, not no-risk. I wanted such kinda option because things may turn bad and I may want nothing invested in the stock markets/bond markets. I was thinking that if the market turns bear then I would move everything to cash Unless you have a the innate ability to perfectly time the market, you are better off keeping your investments where they are and riding out the bear market. Cash does not generate dividends - most funds in a retirement account do. Sure, you may have a paper loss of principle in a bear market, but this will go away once the market turns bull again. Assuming you have a fairly long time before you retire, this should not concern you in the slightest. Again, I want to stress that market timing does not work. Even the professionals, who get paid the big bucks to do this, on average, get it right as often as they get it wrong. If you had this ability, you would not be asking financial questions on Stack Exchange, I can tell you that. I would recommend you read The Four Pillars of Investing, by William Bernstein. He has a very no-nonsense approach to investing and retirement that would serve you (or anybody) well in turbulent financial markets. His discussion on risk is especially applicable to your situation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0081fa5ad1190bd93454b9dd8ca49d4", "text": "Gold is a good investment when central bank money printers can’t take their thumbs off the print button. Over the last 3 years the US Federal Reserve printed a ton of dollars to bail out banks and to purchase US federal debt. Maybe I should exchange my dollars for euros? The European Central Bank (ECB) is following the FED plan and printing money to buy Greek, Italian, and now Spanish bonds. This, indirectly, is a bailout of French and German banks. Maybe I should exchange my euros for yen? The Bank Of Japan (Japan’s central bank) is determined not to let the yen rise against other currencies so they too are printing money to keep the yen weak. Maybe I should exchange my yen for swiss francs? The Swiss National Bank (Switzerland’s central bank) is also determined not to let the franc rise against other currencies so they too are printing money. You quickly begin to realize that your options are dwindling for places to put your money where the government central bank isn’t working hard to dilute your savings. Physical gold is also a good investment for several other situations: What situations would lead to a drop in gold prices? What are the alternatives? Silver has traditionally been used more as money than gold. Silver is usually used for day-to-day purchases while gold is used for savings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a55bf800e3b8318039ed73b974c6f75", "text": "Advantages of Gold IRA (regardless of where you're holding it): Disadvantages of Gold IRA: Instead, you can invest in trust funds like SLV (The ETF for silver) or GLD in your regular brokerage IRA. These funds negotiate their prices of storage, are relatively liquid, and shield you from the dangers of owning physical metal while providing opportunity to invest in it at market prices.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "263e89f9838c5e3af00d6b60d70cb784", "text": "As I tell all my clients... remember WHY you are investing in the first. Make a plan and stick to it. Find a strategy and perfect it. A profit is not a profit until you take it. the same goes with a loss. You never loose till you sell for less than what you paid. Stop jumping for one market to the next, find one strategy that works for you. Making money in the stock market is easy when you perfect your trading strategy. As for your questions: Precious metal... Buying or selling look for the trends and time frame for your desired holdings. Foreign investments... They have problem in their economy just as we do, if you know someone that specializes in that... good for you. Bonds and CD are not investments in my opinion... I look at them as parking lots for your cash. At this moment in time with the devaluation of the US dollar and inflation both killing any returns even the best bonds are giving out I see no point in them at this time. There are so many ways to easily and safely make money here in our stock market why look elsewhere. Find a strategy and perfect it, make a plan and stick to it. As for me I love Dividend Capturing and Dividend Stocks, some of these companies have been paying out dividends for decades. Some have been increasing their payouts to their investors since Kennedy was in office.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eefe526e99c585f680907b8039439560", "text": "Best thing to do is convert your money into something that will retain value. Currency is a symbol of wealth, and can be significantly devalued with inflation. Something such as Gold or Silver might not allow you to see huge benefit, but its perhaps the safest bet (gold in particular, as silver is more volatile), as mentioned above, yes you do pay a little above spot price and receive a little below spot when and if you sell, but current projections for both gold and silver suggest that you won't lose money at least. Safe bet. Suggesting it is a bad idea at this time is just silly, and goes against the majority of advisers out there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ead1dede2e47b352659caf9da89e7ee", "text": "This kid gives a good summary of the silver market as it currently stands, and why you should own the physical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAK9ohz9h7M But yes, you will do well to have bank accounts in China and Switzerland, diversifying into yuan and francs... and also jurisdictionally diversifying.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5625496dedd8862d5e88416d729fc2de", "text": "\"First off, the answer to your question is something EVERYONE would like to know. There are fund managers at Fidelity who will a pay $100 million fee to someone who can tell them a \"\"safe\"\" way to earn interest. The first thing to decide, is do you want to save money, or invest money. If you just want to save your money, you can keep it in cash, certificates of deposit or gold. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. For example, gold tends to hold its value over time and will always have value. Even if Russia invades Switzerland and the Swiss Franc becomes worthless, your gold will still be useful and spendable. As Alan Greenspan famously wrote long ago, \"\"Gold is always accepted.\"\" If you want to invest money and make it grow, yet still have the money \"\"fluent\"\" which I assume means liquid, your main option is a major equity, since those can be readily bought and sold. I know in your question you are reluctant to put your money at the \"\"mercy\"\" of one stock, but the criteria you have listed match up with an equity investment, so if you want to meet your goals, you are going to have to come to terms with your fears and buy a stock. Find a good blue chip stock that is in an industry with positive prospects. Stay away from stuff that is sexy or hyped. Focus on just one stock--that way you can research it to death. The better you understand what you are buying, the greater the chance of success. Zurich Financial Services is a very solid company right now in a nice, boring, highly profitable business. Might fit your needs perfectly. They were founded in 1872, one of the safest equities you will find. Nestle is another option. Roche is another. If you want something a little more risky consider Georg Fischer. Anyway, what I can tell you, is that your goals match up with a blue chip equity as the logical type of investment. Note on Diversification Many financial advisors will advise you to \"\"diversify\"\", for example, by investing in many stocks instead of just one, or even by buying funds that are invested in hundreds of stocks, or indexes that are invested in the whole market. I disagree with this philosophy. Would you go into a casino and divide your money, putting a small portion on each game? No, it is a bad idea because most of the games have poor returns. Yet, that is exactly what you do when you diversify. It is a false sense of safety. The proper thing to do is exactly what you would do if forced to bet in casino: find the game with the best return, get as good as you can at that game, and play just that one game. That is the proper and smart thing to do.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec199cf207762c464059adad4d27fd60", "text": "Withdraw your savings as cash and stuff them into your mattress? Less flippantly, would the fees for a safe deposit box at a bank big enough to hold CHF 250'000 be less than the negative interest rate that you'd be penalized with if you kept your money in a normal account?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa01502eec01a6f65c85bb2e05377b52", "text": "I assume you've looked into gold as an asset class (which is considered to be a good diversifier in your portfolio at about 5% of investments) because there are a lot of opinions around about that. But in terms of physical vs paper gold investment, my experience has been that they'll absolutely kill you on fees if you're not careful. I had a broker try and charge me $80/oz. They do it in the margins though, so they'll just sell at say $1,350 but buy at $1,200. Just make sure you either know the market price when you walk in and stick to your guns or lock in a price ahead of time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88637e2af57ebc9fb599d840f9745fb0", "text": "Estonia is one of the few countries where you can purchase silver tax-free. You may wish to hedge your risk by investing a percentage of your Estonian currency into this tangible asset. Silver can be stored securely at a place of your choosing rather than in a financial institution. Plus you can purchase a small amount with only minor transaction costs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbff14d0604cfd236b9c40dcd9f54084", "text": "\"A credit card is basically a \"\"revolving\"\" loan, in which you're allowed to borrow up to a certain amount (the limit), and any time you borrow, you pay interest. If you were to borrow $100 to pay for something via a credit card, you'd have a $100 balance on the card. If you then pay $70 cash to the card, there would be $30 remaining. That $30 balance could accrue interest. The timing of that interest charge could vary. The 20% you've quoted is almost certainly \"\"APR,\"\" of which the \"\"A\"\" stands for \"\"annual,\"\" so that 20% would be an annual rate. It makes the most sense, mind you, to keep a minimal balance on a credit card, as the interest rate is higher than most other loans.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eacc0213a87e88848b0b53f9b49d628e", "text": "\"This model would work fine under a couple of assumptions: that market interest rates never change, and that the borrower will surely make all the payments as agreed. But neither of those assumptions are realistic. Suppose Alice loans $1,000,000 to Bob at 4% under the terms you describe. Bob chooses to make interest-only payments of $40,000 per year. Some time later, prevailing interest rates go up to 10%. Now Alice would really like Bob to repay the entire principal as quickly as possible, because that money could be earning her $100,000 per year instead of only $40,000, but under the contract she has no way to force Bob to do so. And Bob has no incentive to repay any of the principal, because he can earn more interest on it than he has to pay to Alice. So Alice is not going to be very happy about this. You might say, but at least Alice is only losing \"\"potential\"\" money; she's still turning a profit of $10,000 per year, since her bank only charges her 3% interest. Ah, but you're assuming that Alice can get a bank loan with a rate of 3% fixed forever. The bank doesn't want to make such a loan either, for exactly the same reasons. So in practice, any loan like this would be expected to have a variable interest rate. There's a flip side, too. Suppose instead that market rates drop to 1%. Now Alice would like Bob to repay the principal as slowly as possible, because she's earning 4% on that money, which is better than any other options available to her. But Bob now has every incentive to repay it as fast as he can - or even to refinance by taking out another loan at, say, 2%, and using the proceeds to repay the entire principal to Alice. (This risk still applies with most traditional loans, since the borrower usually always has the right to pay early, but some loans include a \"\"prepayment penalty\"\" in such cases to help compensate the lender.) Thus, when Bob has all the power to decide when to pay, Alice is sure to lose no matter which way interest rates move. A loan with a fixed term helps insulate Alice against this risk. She may be able to make a guess about the likelihood of interest rates going up to 10% in the next 15 or 30 years, and increase Bob's fixed rate to account for this; that's much easier than trying to account for the possibility of interest rates going up to 10% ever. (And if she does have to try to account for this, she's probably going to have to set the interest rate extremely high; so Bob might accept a fixed term of repayment in exchange for a more reasonable rate.) Even if we suppose that Alice has done the best possible credit check and that Bob is a perfectly trustworthy fellow who would never dream of defaulting on his loan, catastrophes do happen. Maybe Bob is robbed of all his money by an evil accountant, or has a mid-life crisis and spends it all on opera tickets. Whatever, Bob is now bankrupt and Alice is never going to get her principal back, nor any further interest payments either. Even if the loan is secured by some collateral, there's still a risk since the collateral might lose value. Alice has some chance of estimating the risk of this happening in the next 15 or 30 years, and can set the interest rate to compensate for it. But it is harder for her to estimate the risk of this happening ever, and if she tries, she'll have to set the rate so high that Bob might prefer a fixed term and a lower rate. (There's a side issue as to what happens if Bob dies with the loan still outstanding. If it's an unsecured loan, typically Alice can try to collect the principal from Bob's estate, but if there isn't enough, too bad for Alice; she can't force Bob's heirs to continue making payments. If it's a secured loan, Alice may be able to have Bob's heirs continue paying or else she seizes the collateral; but she still has the risk of the collateral losing value.)\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d6db226c04568131dab14b6f0125c085	I'm thinking of getting a new car … why shouldn't I LEASE one?	[ { "docid": "a5b7a01c6f647e9a59ef22f7f031ff54", "text": "If you are looking to build wealth, leasing is a bad idea. But so is buying a new car. All cars lose value once you buy them. New cars lose anywhere between 30-60% of their value in the first 4 years of ownership. Buying a good quality, used car is the way to go if you are looking to build wealth. And keeping the car for a while is also desirable. Re-leasing every three years is no way to build wealth. The American Car Payment is probably the biggest factor holding many people back from building wealth. Don't fall into the trap - buy a used car and drive it for as long as you can until the maintenance gets too pricey. Then upgrade to a better used car, etc. If you cannot buy a car outright with cash, you cannot afford it. Period.", "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": "0d1c2177217b814358420c28431553fb", "text": "Here are the reasons I did not lease my current car. When you lease, you're tied in at a monthly payment for 48 months or more. The only way to get out of that payment is to transfer the lease or buy out the lease. If you buy/finance, you can always sell the car or trade it in to get out of the payments. Or you can pay down more of the vehicle to lower the payments. Most leases calculate the cost of leasing based on the 'residual value' of the vehicle. Often these values are far lower than the actual worth of the vehicle if you owned it for those months and sold it yourself. So when you do the math, the lease costs you more -especially with today's low financing rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae0abea7d2a2f457b0cf080bb3e85bd6", "text": "\"Also consider how cars fare under your ownership: Does your current car... If any of the answers to these questions are \"\"Yes\"\", you're probably going to get hosed with fees when you return the car.\"", "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": "63c200f9812b79185eda09b2cf23f12d", "text": "I never understood why people lease rather than buy or finance. I'm financing a new civic 09 @ 0.9%. At the end of the 5 year terms I will have paid less than $800 in interest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d077d3d3bf8b5ce59bace67a1779dfee", "text": "I have an eight year old Kia Spectra that my wife is after me to replace -- but it hadn't been giving me any trouble at all. Soon after she started telling me I should replace it soon it started having problems; compressor, tires, and so on. How did she know? Anyway, so now I'm looking -- not ready to buy yet, but I'm looking. The reason I won't be leasing is mileage. I live 45 miles from where I work, so with incidental driving, I put at least 100 miles a day on a car. That's about 26,000 miles a year if I do nothing but drive back and forth to work. On a monthly basis the lease is advertised as being less than most payments, but that is with a mileage limitation. Since most leases I've looked at top out the mileage well below that mark I won't be leasing. I am looking at the new cars that are available now -- but I don't plan on buying until next year, and buying a lightly used car that is only a year to two old. So I'm looking at what I will be buying while I can still find information about them. So yeah, mileage is a strong reason why I'm not considering leasing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e8f5eacbea687c71855d6d66b1e28e1", "text": "\"It's a very simple equation. If we forget about the stress and limitations that come with the so-called \"\"lease\"\", and make the following assumptions: Then after 3 years of using this new car: I will never understand why people still \"\"lease\"\" a car. Even for very low income people who have to have a car, financing a per-owned decent car would do, but it's just \"\"show off\"\" seduction and lure that either unknowing minded or idiot teenagers fall for.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "833192fa2624bd4fca23f6210fe60398", "text": "It is almost never going to be more economical to buy a new car versus repairing your current car. If you want a new car, that is justification enough.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49a980478d54768a73d86779c42b737e", "text": "\"One reason I have heard (beside to keep you paying rent) is the cost of maintenance and improvements. If you hire someone else to do all the work for you, then it may very well be the case, though it is not as bad as a car. Many factors come into play: If you are lucky, you may end up with a lot that is worth more than the house on it in a few decades' time. Personally, I feel that renting is sometimes better than owning depending on the local market. That said, when you own a home, it is yours. You do have to weigh in such factors as being tied down to a certain location to some extent. However, only the police can barge in -- under certain circumstances -- where as a landlord can come in whenever they feel like, given proper notice or an \"\"emergency.\"\" Not to mention that if someone slams a door so hard that it reverberates through the entire place, you can actually deal with it. The point of this last bit is the question of home ownership vs renting is rather subjective. Objectively, the costs associated with home ownership are the drags that may make it a bad investment. However, it is not like car ownership, which is quite honestly rarely an invesment.\"", "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": "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": "56c679204005a8d67e24e64cb2aeaed7", "text": "I'm a finance manager at a dealership. The thing that I tell people about leasing: It's good if you plan to make more money in the future. You can get a new car. The downside of leasing. When you get out of your lease you will either pay straight cash, get another loan for the unit, or get a new unit. 3 years down the road you have no idea what interest rates will be. If you lock in your rate today you are guaranteed that rate. With the government increasing rates we could see higher rates that could cost you more. Also if you get a loan today it will be 5-6 years. Leasing will have a 3 year lease with another 5-6 year loan on top of that. Causing to pay more in the long run If your brother doesn't have straight cash to pay for it at the end of 3 years I recommend buying new", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b792851016cf8ff3dd6156ff029a2333", "text": "\"So this has been bugging me for a while, because I am facing a similar dilemma and I don't think anyone gave a clear answer. I bought a 2012 kia soul in 2012. 36 months financing at 300/mo. Will be done with my car loan in 2015. I plan on keeping it, while saving the same amount of money 300/mo until I buy my next car. But, I also have an option of trading it in for the the next car. Question: should I trade it in in 2015. should I keep it for 2 years more? 3 years more, before I buy the next car? What makes most financial sense and savings. I tried to dig up some data on edmunds - the trade-in value and \"\"true cost to own\"\" calculator. The make and model of my car started in 2010, so I do not have historical data, as well as \"\"cost to own\"\" calculator only spans 5 years. So - this is what I came up with: Where numbers in blue are totally made up/because I don't have the data for it. Granted, the trade-in values for the \"\"future\"\" years are guesstimated - based on Kia Soul's trade-in values from previous years (2010, 2011, 2012) But, this is handy, and as it gets closer to 2015 and beyond, I can re-plug in the data where it is available and have a better understanding of the trade-in vs keep it longer decision. Hope this helps. If the analysis is totally off the rocker, please let me know - i'll adjust it/delete it. Thank you\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20ce18a718c5c3163fe63f2a2e04f3a1", "text": "Leasing is not exactly a scam, but it doesn't seem to be the right product for you. The point of leasing over buying is that it turns the capital purchase of a car which needs to be depreciated for tax purposes into what is effectively a rental expense. Rent is an expense that can be deducted directly without depreciation. If you are not operating a business where you can take advantage of leasing's tax advantages, leasing is probably not for you. Because of the tax advantages, a lease can be more profitable for the car dealer. They can get a commission or finder's fee on the lease as well as the commission on the car sale. That extra profit comes from somewhere, presumably from you. If a business, you can then pass part of that to the government. As an individual, you lose that advantage. At this point, the best financial decision that you could make would be to buy out the lease on your current car. Lease prices are set based on the assumption that the car will have been abused during the course of the lease. If you are driving the car less than expected, its value is probably higher than the cost of buying out the lease. If you buy that car, you can drive it for years. Save up some money and buy your next car for cash rather than using financing. Of course, if you really want a new car and can afford it, you may not want to buy out the lease. That is of course your decision. You don't have to maximize your current financial position if buying a new car would return more satisfaction for the money in the long run. I would try to avoid financing for what is essentially a pleasure purchase though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d981886fcd3d12405655510fc4a88ff", "text": "There are many reasons for buying new versus used vehicles. Price is not the only factor. This is an individual decision. Although interesting to examine from a macro perspective, each vehicle purchase is made by an individual, weighing many factors that vary in importance by that individual, based upon their specific needs and values. I have purchased both new and used cars, and I have weighted each of these factors as part of each decision (and the relative weightings have varied based upon my individual situation). Read Freakonomics to gain a better understanding of the reasons why you cannot find a good used car. The summary is the imbalance of knowledge between the buyer and seller, and the lack of trust. Although much of economics assumes perfect market information, margin (profit) comes from uncertainty, or an imbalance of knowledge. Buying a used car requires a certain amount of faith in people, and you cannot always trust the trading partner to be honest. Price - The price, or more precisely, the value proposition of the vehicle is a large concern for many of us (larger than we might prefer that it be). Selection - A buyer has the largest selection of vehicles when they shop for a new vehicle. Finding the color, features, and upgrades that you want on your vehicle can be much harder, even impossible, for the used buyer. And once you have found the exact vehicle you want, now you have to determine whether the vehicle has problems, and can be purchased at your price. Preference - A buyer may simply prefer to have a vehicle that looks new, smells new, is clean, and does not have all the imperfections that even a gently used vehicle would exhibit. This may include issues of pride, image, and status, where the buyer may have strong emotional or psychological needs to statisfy through ownership of a particular vehicle with particular features. Reviews - New vehicles have mountains of information available to buyers, who can read about safety and reliability ratings, learn about problems from the trade press, and even price shop and compare between brands and models. Contrasted with the minimal information available to used vehicle shoppers. Unbalanced Knowledge - The seller of a used car has much greater knowledge of the vehicle, and thus much greater power in the negotiation process. Buying a used car is going to cost you more money than the value of the car, unless the seller has poor knowledge of the market. And since many used cars are sold by dealers (who have often taken advantage of the less knowledgeable sellers in their transaction), you are unlikely to purchase the vehicle at a good price. Fear/Risk - Many people want transportation, and buying a used car comes with risk. And that risk includes both the direct cost of repairs, and the inconvenience of both the repair and the loss of work that accompanies problems. Knowing that the car has not been abused, that there are no hidden or lurking problems waiting to leave you stranded is valuable. Placing a price on the risk of a used car is hard, especially for those who only want a reliable vehicle to drive. Placing an estimate on the risk cost of a used car is one area where the seller has a distinct advantage. Warranties - New vehicles come with substantial warranties, and this is another aspect of the Fear/Risk point above. A new vehicle does not have unknown risk associated with the purchase, and also comes with peace of mind through a manufacturer warranty. You can purchase a used car warranty, but they are expensive, and often come with (different) problems. Finance Terms - A buyer can purchase a new vehicle with lower financing rate than a used vehicle. And you get nothing of value from the additional finance charges, so the difference between a new and used car also includes higher finance costs. Own versus Rent - You are assuming that people actually want to 'own' their cars. And I would suggest that people want to 'own' their car until it begins to present problems (repair and maintenance issues), and then they want a new vehicle to replace it. But renting or leasing a vehicle is an even more expensive, and less flexible means to obtain transportation. Expense Allocation - A vehicle is an expense. As the owner of a vehicle, you are willing to pay for that expense, to fill your need for transportation. Paying for the product as you use the product makes sense, and financing is one way to align the payment with the consumption of the product, and to pay for the expense of the vehicle as you enjoy the benefit of the vehicle. Capital Allocation - A buyer may need a vehicle (either to commute to work, school, doctor, or for work or business), but either lack the capital or be unwilling to commit the capital to the vehicle purchase. Vehicle financing is one area banks have been willing to lend, so buying a new vehicle may free capital to use to pay down other debts (credit cards, loans). The buyer may not have savings, but be able to obtain financing to solve that need. Remember, people need transportation. And they are willing to pay to fill their need. But they also have varying needs for all of the above factors, and each of those factors may offer value to different individuals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c67a88c4227e0bf04bf2a770ce04fe61", "text": "When getting a car always start with your bank or credit union. They are very likely to offer better loan rate than the dealer. Because you start there you have a data point so you can tell if the dealer is giving you a good rate. Having the loan approved before going to the dealer allows you to negotiate the best deal for the purchase price for the car. When you are negotiating price, length of loan, down payment, and trade in it can get very confusing to determine if the deal is a good one. Sometimes you can also get a bigger rebate or discount because to the dealer you are paying cash. The general advice is that a lease for the average consumer is a bad deal. You are paying for the most expensive months, and at the end of the lease you don't have a car. With a loan you keep the car after you are done paying for it. Another reason to avoid the lease. It allows you to purchase a car that is two or three years old. These are the ones that just came off lease. I am not a car dealer, and I have never needed a work visa, but I think their concern is that there is a greater risk of you not being in the country for the entire period of the lease.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5edb07a608b5d2a227f966321bf0d408", "text": "Generally speaking, buying a fancy new car out of college is dumb. Buying a 3 year old flashy car with a 60 month loan is going to eat up your income, and when the thing starts breaking down, you'll get sick of buying $900 mufflers and $1,000 taillights pretty quickly. Buy a car that nobody wants for cheap and save up some money. Then buy yourself your dream car. Edit based on question update. You're posting to a Q&A site about money, and you're asking if spending over $30k (don't forget taxes) on a luxury car when you're making $60k is a good idea. You have car fever, and you're trying to sell this transaction as a good deal from a financial POV. At the end of the day, there is no scenario where buying an expensive car is a good financial transaction. For example, since you're planning on driving too many miles for a lease to make sense, the certified pre-owned warranty is a non-factor, because you'll have no warranty when the car breaks down in 4 years. The only reason CPO programs exist is to boost residual values to make leases more attractive -- luxury car makers are in the car leasing (as opposed to selling) business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "411b2d4d2e5d9415dbd97a8e83cba938", "text": "\"Two reasons: Many people make lots of financial decisions (and other kinds of decisions) without actually running any numbers to see what is best (or even possible). They just go with their gut and buy things they feel like buying, without making a thoroughgoing attempt to assess the impact on their finances. I share your bafflement at this, but it is true. A sobering example that has stuck with me can be found in this Los Angeles Times story from a few years ago, which describes a family spending $1000 more than their income every month, while defaulting on their mortgage and dipping into their 7-year-old daughter's savings account to cover the bills --- but still spending $275 a month on \"\"beauty products and services\"\" and $200 a month on pet expenses. Even to the extent that people do take finances into account, finances are not the only thing they take into account. For many people, driving a car that is new, looks nice and fresh, has the latest features, etc., is something they are willing to pay money for. Your question \"\"why don't people view a car solely as a means of transportation\"\" is not a financial question but a psychological one. The answer to \"\"why do people buy new cars\"\" is \"\"because people do not view cars solely as a means of transportation\"\". I recently bought a used car, and while looking around at different ones I visited a car lot. When the dealer heard which car I was interested in, he said, \"\"So, I guess you're looking for a transportation car.\"\" I thought to myself, \"\"Duh. Is there any other kind?\"\" But the fact that someone can say something like that indicates that there are many people who are looking for something other than a \"\"transportation car\"\".\"", "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": "9ac3b585e1aba3033687d8d3489308d3", "text": "Leasing is never a good idea. A car is a depreciating asset -- it loses money over time. Pay cash for your car and buy used ones until your net worth reaches at least $1M.", "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": "4efbccc6cb586ee462049893dea8a984", "text": "Regarding the opportunity cost comparison, consider the following two scenarios assuming a three-year lease: Option A: Keep your current car for three years In this scenario, you start with a car that's worth $10,000 and end with a car that's worth $7,000 after three years. Option B: Sell your current car, invest proceeds, lease new car Here, you'll start out with $10,000 and invest it. You'll start with $10,000 in cash from the sale of your old car, and end with $10,000 plus investment gains. You'll have to estimate the return of your investment based on your investing style. Option C: Use the $10k from proceeds as down payment for new car In this scenario you'll get a reduction in finance charges on your lease, but you'll be out $10,000 at the end. Overall Cost Comparison To compare the total cost to own your current car versus replacing it with a new leased car, first look up the cost of ownership for your current car for the same term as the lease you're considering. Edmunds offers this research and calls it True Cost to Own. Specifically, you'll want to include depreciation, fuel, insurance, maintenance and repairs. If you still owe money you should also factor the remaining payments. So the formula is: Cost to keep car = Depreciation + Fuel + Insurance + Maintenance + Repairs On the lease side consider taxes and fees, all lease payments, fuel, and maintenance. Assume repairs will be covered under warranty. Assume you will put down no money on the lease and you will finance fees, taxes, title, and license when calculating lease payments. You also need to consider the cost to pay off your current car's loan if applicable. Then you should subtract the gains you expect from investing for three years the proceeds from the sale of your car. Assume that repairs will be covered under warranty. The formula to lease looks like: Lease Cost = Fuel + Insurance + Maintenance + Lease payments - (gains from investing $10k) For option C, where you use the $10k from proceeds as down payment for new lease, it will be: Lease Cost = Fuel + Insurance + Maintenance + Lease payments + $10,000 A somewhat intangible factor to consider is that you'll have to pay for body damage to a leased car at the end of the lease, whereas you are obviously free to leave damage unrepaired on your own vehicle.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
dc784988ee8a48cf14f0944211caaaf2	When will Canada convert to the U.S. Dollar as an official currency?	[ { "docid": "b4ef1dbf2f750fdcaca0ac264fa7116e", "text": "I don't see countries switching to the USD, I see countries moving away from it. The US has the largest peace time debt ever, is not being even close to fiscally responsible (approving ~4 trillion budget!) and is faced with 100 trillion in future commitments (social security, medicare) with a workforce (tax base) that is decreasing as the baby boomers retire. When the US cannot meet those obligations (and most experts agree there is no hope of that anymore) they will have to print money and devalue the currency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1fd0bb6a3f88f00c291dcd7952a80c3", "text": "\"The conspiracy buffs think this is already in the works. If you are interested, Google this fictional currency called the \"\"Amero.\"\" Or you could just look up the snopes article on Amero.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37e57867183532d34c9794f50a5563dc", "text": "I would say at about the same time as the US converts to having a public health system that covers everyone with very few people with private insurance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "efdd508b2d8c7ae1db92ab0be6b5085a", "text": "\"Canada would most likely not convert any time in the near future. The challenge for Canada converting to the US Dollar or the fictional \"\"Amero\"\" mentioned by JohnFX is that : Some of the benefits would be: The challenge right now for any government would be to sell the pros over the cons and from that viewpoint the cons would appear to have more negative impact to voters. Considering that Canada currently has a minority government with no expected change to that status for some time the risk would be very high. For more details see Pros and Cons of Canadian Monetary Union and to see the Mexican impact see North American Currency Union It is interesting to note that currency union was first proposed in 1999 when the Canadian Dollar fluctuated between $0.64 to $0.69 US. The Canadian Dollar is closer to par with the US Dollar currently (in fact it rose to $1.10 US in Nov. 2007). Look-up historical rates at the Bank of Canada\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "3d950755a8b61ed3e9d7451cdd84b0b3", "text": "\"Im not sure, but let me try. \"\"That person\"\" won't affect the value of currency, after two (or three) years (maybe months), agencies will report anomalies in country. Will be start the end of market. God bless FBI and NSA for prevent this. Actually, good \"\"hypothetical\"\" question.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ba17ab85beb48e86ad616ac75c3e6fe", "text": "\"The United Nations is already working on stripping us of our world reserve currency status. So are the BRICs. People think we need to maintain the status quo and give a specific country the world reserve currency. There are serious discussions to create a \"\"neutral\"\" global currency so no country has an edge. I found a lot of posts on the topic, but am linking to a really interesting post from a well known publication http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/how_us_debt_risks_dollar_doomsday_j8dxHSYWUa22QpSN7ttOIL: >The US dollar is getting perilously close to losing its status as the world’s reserve currency. Should it cross the line, the 2008 financial crisis could look like a summer storm. Yes, worries about insolvency in Europe dominate the headlines. Last week, Standard & Poor’s cut Spain’s bond rating to BBB+ — a clear sign that Europe’s financial crisis is far from over. But America’s escalating debt problem is far more likely to precipitate a truly global crisis, because the dollar has for decades played such a central role in the world economy. How bad is the US problem? Former Treasury official Lawrence Goodman recently pointed out that investors are shunning US bonds and notes; the lack of other buyers forced the Federal Reserve to buy “a stunning . . . 61 percent of the total net issuance of US government debt” last year. Like many others, he warns that ballooning debt puts the US economy at risk for a sharp correction. REUTERS The greenback’s losing to the yuan. But the even larger risk is the potential loss of the dollar’s “reserve currency” status — a key support of the world economy for the last four decades. It started with the 1973 Saudi commitment to accept only US dollars as payment for oil, followed by OPEC’s 1975 agreement to trade only in dollars. Trading of other commodities came to be priced in dollars, reinforcing the dollar’s “reserve” status. As a result, central banks worldwide have held onto large reserves of dollars to facilitate trade. That, in turn, has enabled the US to print much larger amounts of its currency, with seemingly little inflationary consequences. It’s also made it easier for Americans to import more than they export, to consume more than they produce, and to spend more than they earn. But all that is changing rapidly. A number of countries are abandoning the dollar for the Chinese yuan. Last December, Japan and China agreed to trade in yen and yuan. In January, the 10 nations of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations finalized a non-dollar credit agreement equivalent to $240 billion, strengthening their economies’ links with China, Japan and South Korea. That same month, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao signed a currency-swap agreement with the United Arab Emirates, which holds 7 percent of the world’s oil reserves. Iran has agreed to accept rubles and yuan in trade with Russia and China, and now is trading oil with India in rupees and gold. In late March, the China Development Bank agreed with its counterparts in Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa to eschew dollar lending and extend credit to each other in their own respective currencies. With global demand for dollars falling, central banks around the world will inevitably reduce their dollar reserves. That selloff further weakens the dollar against other currencies and in turn drives up inflation. All this comes as US federal debt is soaring, adding to concerns about the future value of that debt and of the dollar. It’s suddenly much easier to imagine a dollar collapse — which would be a highly unexpected occurrence, known as a “black swan” event. This would precipitate unprecedented disruption, because the dollar remains the world’s most important currency. Let’s hope we can avert a global crisis triggered by reckless US government spending. What’s needed is new leadership in Washington with the courage to get our fiscal house in order and to defend the dollar against attack in a competitive global market. Here is another opinion on the topic http://seekingalpha.com/article/475381-reserve-currency-china-sun-rises-u-s-sun-sets. Edit: Let me add if we are constantly adding stimulus from the central banks, we are going to be seriously jeopardizing the faith the rest of the world has in us as well. The Fed was the buyer of what like 10% of our bonds before the crisis? Now they are buying 60%. We have using quantitative easing and stimulus for three years to fix the economy. If we were suddenly having a riproarding recovery that would be fine because people would know we would be ready to start paying down our debts. However, we have spent trillions and our GDP growth is about two thirds the average since 1947. That's a sign that there is something perilously wrong with our economy right now. Clearly not an argument to end stimulus, because without it we would be in a major depression. The problem is that once people realize that they will question how stable our economy really is. Your argument that we are the most stable economy in the world and deserve the reserve currency status is circular logic. We have had the reserve currency status since 1944. That has helped us maintain the stability the rest of the world hasn't enjoyed for a very long time. Without it we may never have become anything near the country we are today. It gave us access to tremendous capital which we were able to use to expand our nation incredibly. We have built an empire on our ability to take on massive amounts of debt. I am sure we would have been a superpower without it, but no one can say how much humbler or how harder other recessions would have been if we had never been granted that privilege.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9502308b68e5cffb5c3f0fbd260caeb6", "text": "Chinese suppliers can quote their price in CNY rather than USD (as has been typical), and thus avoid the exchange risk from US dollar volatility- the CNY has been generally appreciating so committing to receive payments in US dollars when their costs are in CNY means they are typically on the losing end of the equation and they have to pad their prices a bit. Canadian importers will have to buy RMB (typically with CAD) to pay for their orders and Canadian exporters can take payment in RMB if they wish, or set prices in CAD. By avoiding the US dollar middleman the transactions are made less risky and incur less costs. Japan did this many decades ago (they, too, used to price their products in USD). This is important in transactions of large amounts, not so much for the tiny amounts associated with tourism. Two-way annual trade between China and Canada is in excess of $70bn. Of course Forex trading may greatly exceed the actual amounts required for trade- the world Forex market is at least an order of magnitude greater than size of real international trade. All that trading in currency and financial instruments means more jobs on Bay Street and more money flowing into a very vital part of the Canadian economy. Recent article from the (liberal) Toronto Star here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f064c96487ba818e346514e5d7967f4", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-14/poloz-sees-canada-growth-moderating-while-sanguine-on-inflation) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) *** > Canadian growth will moderate in the second half of the year, as the Bank of Canada remains in &quot;Intense data-dependent mode&quot; in its consideration of whether to raise interest rates again at a time inflation is sluggish, Governor Stephen Poloz said. > Poloz, speaking to reporters Saturday in Washington, said there&#039;s a sense of &quot;Comfort&quot; that the global economy continues to improve while adding that Canada, which is leading the Group of Seven in growth, has not seen all citizens benefit equally. > The so-called Canada Child Benefit has had a &quot;Pretty significant&quot; impact on the Canadian economy, Poloz said, adding it could be one of the reasons Canada has seen rising labor-force participation. * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/76wh0r/poloz_sees_canada_growth_moderating/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~229685 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: Poloz^#1 economy^#2 Canada^#3 growth^#4 Canadian^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d3077586f1ca10a37851e7b9c4f23a8", "text": "\"It looks like the HST will be in effect in Ontario on July 1st, 2010. As to whether it will replace GST with HST for all services, it looks like some sectors may get special treatment: Ontario may exempt mutual funds from HST (National Post). But it doesn't look final yet. However, I would suggest that most service-based businesses in Ontario need to prepare to start charging 13% HST instead of 5% GST. It will be the law. On the \"\"goods\"\" side of the new harmonized tax, it looks like certain goods will still be exempt from the provincial portion. Here's a quote from the Ontario Budget 2009 News Release: \"\"Books, diapers, children's clothing and footwear, children's car seats and car booster seats, and feminine hygiene products would be exempt from the provincial portion of the single sales tax.\"\" Here's some additional information on the introduction of the HST, from the province: General Transitional Rules for Ontario HST. And finally, another interesting article from the Ottawa Business Journal: Preparing For Ontario Sales Tax Harmonization – It's Not Too Early UPDATE: I just received an insert from Canada Revenue Agency included with my quarterly GST statement. Titled \"\"Harmonization of the Sales Tax in Ontario and British Columbia\"\", it contains a section titled \"\"What this means for you\"\" (as in, you the business owner). Here's an excerpt: [...] All Ontario and B.C. registrants would need to update their accounting and point-of-sale systems to accomodate the change in rate and new point-of-sale rebates for the implementation date of July 1, 2010. The harmonization of the sales tax in Ontario and B.C. may affect the filing requirements of registrants outside of these two provinces. Registrants will report their HST according to their current GST filing frequency. As a result of the harmonization, there will be changes to the rebates for housing and public service bodies. More information will be released as it becomes available. Visit the CRA web site often, at www.cra.gc.ca/harmonization, for the most up-to-date information on the harmonization of the sales tax and how it may affect you. [...] Last, I found some very detailed information on the HST here: NOTICE247 - Harmonized Sales Tax for Ontario and British Columbia - Questions and Answers on General Transitional Rules for Personal Property and Services. Chances are anything you want to know is in there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6764b2393305ba566cb32c631dcaee3", "text": "\"As others have pointed out, the theoretical prices in each exchange rate are identical. However, the cost to you may vary. You need to work out the \"\"opportunity cost\"\" of using each of the three currencies, because you lose money every time you convert between two currencies. Let's supposed for example that you live in Canada and earn and spend CAD there, but also happen to have some HKD. To keep this simple I'll ignore the USD, but you can apply the same reasoning to that. If you're not planning on visiting Hong Kong for a while, then your holdings of HKD are just gathering dust, so your choices are to convert them to CAD and make the GBP purchase in CAD, or to spend the HKD directly on the GBP purchase. Probably the first option will end up costing you more in conversion fees than the second, but you need to look at the precise costs to verify this. If you are planning on visiting Hong Kong soon and will need the HKD, then the choices are somewhat different. You can either spend CAD on the GBP purchase, or you can spend the HKD on the GBP purchase and then soon convert some CAD into more HKD for your trip. In this case the first option will probably end up costing you less in conversion fees.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55a87eedad4ce03ccbaaf80c43cd3869", "text": "Yes, you still need to pay income tax on your capital gain regardless of whether you converted your USD proceeds back into CAD. When you calculate your gains for tax purposes, you'll need to convert all of your gains to Canadian dollars. Generally speaking, CRA will expect you to use a historical USD to CAD exchange rate published by the Bank of Canada. At that page, notice the remark at right: Are the Exchange Rates Shown Here Accepted by Canada Revenue Agency? Yes. The Agency accepts Bank of Canada exchange rates as the basis for calculations involving income and expenses that are denominated in foreign currencies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d74301c7507073d54fb71f94b4126d2d", "text": "General advice for novice investors is to have the majority of your holdings be denominated in your home currency as this reduces volatility which can make people squeamish and, related to your second question, prevents all sorts of confusion. A rising CAD actually decreases the value (for you) of your current USD stock. After all, the same amount of USD now buys you less in CAD. An exception to the rule can be made if you would use USD often in your daily life yet your income is CAD. In this case owning stock denominated in USD can form a natural hedge in your life (USD goes up -> your relative income goes down but stock value goes up and visa versa). Keep in mind —as mentioned in the comments— that an US company with a listing in CAD is still going to be affected by price swings of USD.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f96e863ce27aefa989aa3d5ec68fba9", "text": "\"Moving oil trade out of dollars into yuan will take right now between $600 billion and $800 billion worth of transactions out of the dollar… When this happens, the US dollar should drop to about 50% of it's current value and at that point, the US century will be over. What happens after that is anybodies guess but I expect that the US will have to either use it's military to shore up the dollar in exactly the same way they did when the invaded Iraq to prevent the sale of oil in Juan OR the US will blink and it's expensive military around the world will have to be clawed back. Simply put, the US will no longer be the world's policeman\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90a0c80cb6cc73d6f81b011cd974c1f0", "text": "If we knew for sure that euros are only going to be more expensive in the future, then the answer would be easy: Buy them all at one time, so that we are getting them at the best price. Of course, we can't assume that to be the case, they could get cheaper, so the answer gets more complicated. Focusing strictly on monetary considerations, there are two factors to examine: Using answers to this Travel Stack Exchange question as a reference, you see that the cost of currency conversion can be as low as 1%-2% if you make the transaction with a debit card, but can be as high as 15%. So, buying 1000 euros a month would cost between 20 and 150 euros. Examining a two year chart of the Euro-Canadian Dollar exchange rate gives us an idea of how much the currency fluctuates. Over the past two years, a euro has cost has much as $1.54 CAD and as little as $1.26 CAD, a 22% spread. Looking at it on a month-to month basis, we see that monthly changes have been as high as .05 to .07 (4-5%). As such, buying 1000 euros a month could cost 50 CAD more (or less) on a monthly basis due to variance in the exchange rate. If we anticipate our overhead cost of currency conversion to be more than 5%, it doesn't make sense to do multiple transactions; the costs are likely to outweigh the benefits. If we can keep them under that amount, then multiple transactions are advantageous when the euro is cheaper. The problem is somewhat analagous to that of someone who wants to make an annual investment in a mutual fund and is unsure of whether to make the purchase all at once, or to divide it over multiple purchases. One can't know for sure which way the mutual fund price is going to move over the time period Dollar cost averaging, spreading the purchase over regular intervals, is the generally accepted solution to this problem. As such, so long as we can keep the overhead cost of currency transactions low (<5%), doing transactions on a regular basis positions ourselves to take advantage of possible drops in the price of euros and reduces the risk of buying euros when they are most expensive. If we can't keep the cost low, then currency fees would be greater than potential price drops and we would be better off doing a single transaction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc6e266b59ecc292bde5266b4226db53", "text": "\"The solution I've come up with is to keep income in CAD, and Accounts Receivable in USD. Every time I post an invoice it prompts for the exchange rate. I don't know if this is \"\"correct\"\" but it seems to be preserving all of the information about the transactions and it makes sense to me. I'm a programmer, not an accountant though so I'd still appreciate an answer from someone more familiar with this topic.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7167ec18e71daaffb58292000094dc2c", "text": "Would I have to pay some kind of capital gains tax? And if so, when? Converting Tax paid USD into CAD is not a taxable event. A taxable even will occur if you convert back the CAD into USD. If you receive interest on the CAD then the interest is also a taxable event. Also, is there any reason this is a terrible idea? That will only be known in future. Its like predicting that in future this will turn out to be advantageous, however it may turn out the other way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3fda19ff0c537aafefcb9589ece944d", "text": "Aren't we in /r/economy worried more about all of Canada and the entire oil sector? Sure evaluations are arbitrary, but carbon will be utterly worthless in a few ~~decades~~ years, whereas solving the byzantine generals problems seems to be very helpful.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78749887079fab84bbbbd49b140d08da", "text": "I'm no expert, but this is my understanding. Not necessarily. For example, the Canadian dollar has jumped up recently because people are expecting a rate hike at the central bank this week some time. That is, the Canadian dollar is being traded for more because people expect that the currency will be harder to get later. This deflation (or decelerated inflation) is being priced in before it even happens. For inflation to propagate through an entire domestic supply chain of a good or service takes time. Raises aren't tied to inflation, nor the price of a Big Mac or price of a movie ticket or toaster that has been sitting on the shelf for a month. The price of the good in foreign currency will however hit the export as soon as it crosses the border.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b36c234151124c34fb9189a4356e13d3", "text": "Either way you'll be converting to US Dollars somewhere along the line. You are seeking something that is very redundant", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
174b7e268eacd406417357a9e0bb0b8e	What does the Fed do with the extra money it is printing?	[ { "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": "5cc8717bf37eb28f7ca4ed32d22b878c", "text": "\"Usually the FED uses newly printed money to buy US treasuries from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc.. These banks then lend out the new cash which expands the money supply. During the height of the crisis the FED printed over $1.0 Trillion and bought....well...almost anything the banks couldn't offload elsewhere. Mortgage Backed Securities, Credit Default Swaps, you name it - they bought it. Must be nice to always have a customer to sell your junk investments to. They also bought these securities at face value - not at market value. Chart from here. The FED announced in early November, 2010 that they will print another $600 billion and buy US Treasuries. They will be buying ALL the debt that will be sold by the US government for the next 8 months. This was admitted by the Dallas FED chairman in this article: For the next eight months, the nation’s central bank will be monetizing the federal debt. \"\"Monetizing\"\" is a fancy word for printing money. I think this was done because the US government ran out of customers for its debt. China has reduced its purchases of US debt and the Social Security Trust Fund is no longer buying US debt since it is running a deficit.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1979927d31a02180125fb2ab9be92ef5", "text": "I'm not sure that the deflation will occur regardless of policy choice. There is a clear choice: inflation through printing or some sort of sustained deflation/deleveraging. I'd actually venture to guess that the powers-that-be are clearly on the side of printing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d7882c298cb26a09da949ad3a233ca7", "text": "\"Its definitely not a stupid question. The average American has absolutely no idea how this process works. I know this might be annoying, but I'm answering without 100% certainty. The Fed would increase the money supply by buying back government bonds. This increased demand for bonds would raise their price and therefore lower the interest return that they deliver. Since U.S. treasury bonds are considered to be the very safest possible investment, their rate is the \"\"risk free\"\" rate upon which all other rates are based. So if the government buys billions of these bonds, that much money ends up in the hands of whoever sold them. These sellers are the large financial organizations that hold all of our money (banks and large investment vehicles). Now, since bond rates are lower, they have an incentive to put that money somewhere else. It goes into stocks and investment in business ventures. I'm less certain about how this turns into inflation that consumers will recognize. The short answer is that there is only a finite number of goods and services for us to buy. If the amount of money increases and there are still the same number of goods and services, the prices will increase slightly. Your question about printing money to pay off debts is too complex for me to answer. I know that the inflation dynamic does play a role. It makes debts easier to pay off in the future than they seem right now. However, causing massive inflation to pay off debts brings a lot of other problems.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24207e8002e469fc9ae131448ac96ded", "text": "I've wondered the same thing. And, after reading the above replies, I think there is a simpler explanation. It goes like this. When the bank goes to make a loan they need capital to do it. So, they can get it from the federal reserve, another bank, or us. Well, if the federal reserve will loan it to them for lets say 0.05%, what do you think they are going to be willing to pay us? Id say maybe 0.04%. Anyway, I could be wrong, but this makes sense to me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7f27dfffa398fe03986c118eb595efc", "text": "The Fed controls the base interest rate for lending to banks. It raises this rate when the economy is doing well to limit inflation, and lowers this rate when the economy is doing poorly to encourage lending. Raising the interest rate signals that the Fed believes the economy is strong/strengthening. Obviously it's more complicated than that but that's the basic idea.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51f8c1c0babf7b53f836d7e4acc07b74", "text": "Inflation follows the money, chases the money. All the money in the past few years has been directed into the banking system, and so we have an inflation in banking investments -- an investment bubble. The Fed makes a big mistake putting all the money into these investment banks. Better to put it into the population directly than let these buggering bankers control it. But then, the Fed is the buggering bankers, just wearing a different hat. It's Wyle E. Coyote time yet again as we wait to see how long it takes these bastards to realize there isn't anything substantial under their feet and it's a long way down to the canyon floor. Again.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc929fa4355c3dd27f4ca55f52c55e68", "text": "\"And where does, say, Federal reserve, gets the money to buy those [2.5 trillions](https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-debt-3306124)? As for \"\"inflationary pressure\"\" - we don't really know it. Those money circulate between various financial instruments - so it is a very big question whether or not they spill out to affect consumer prices.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "634ae536b1c98d917d05eebcab734301", "text": "Operation twist is just an asset swap. The balance sheet isn't being expanded, money isn't being printed to buy treasuries. The fed is just selling short term assets and buying longer term assets. If more longer term treasuries are bought this brings the yield down (for bonds the more you buy them, the lower the yield goes). Lower long term interest rates means people can borrow at low rates and this is supposed help the economy. No printing of money means that gold doesn't get more precious. I do think gold will do well though, if the ECB wants to save the EU they're going to have to print, and print a lot. The Bank of England is doing some QE too. Lots of countries will be/ are easing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afed2260187e757dc89cdc56403f68da", "text": "The money created by the Federal government is spent on public programs increasing the wealth of the general population. Banks loan money to the general population and make back more money in interests, thus gaining a part of the increased money created by the government. The bank can now pay back more that what the borrowed from the government.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5f0e1b9220aee83ca06c6ba197f50e6", "text": "\"Regardless of what they are doing, you can't \"\"kill inflation..\"\" Every single dollar created by the federal reserve is done so out of debt through a promissory note loaned by the US Treasury. The note which is essentially debt, is created & loaned with the understanding that the federal reserve will one day pay off it off. However, this is impossible because more money would have to be created to pay of these notes which in turn creates more debt. But wait, let's not forget to factor in tax! The debt can never be paid off, it is literally impossible through our current system of currency circulation carried out by the Federal Reserve. In other words, due to our crippling debt that cannot be alleviated, inflation will continue to occur because our currency will continue to devalue. Those that created the Federal Reserve (in what? the 20's) knew all of this to be true. There goal was to destabilize the economy and they succeeded, they being large influential families such as the Rockefellers and the Morgans. This is the exact reason Andrew Jackson shut down the original central bank.. They are a foundation for corruption and anyone who tells you otherwise is either ill informed or in on it. It is impossible to kill inflation & the notion that one company or one man can do so is preposterous and simply click bait.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "901f2c8cb32f9bbb3b3737c43cd6f6fd", "text": "\"The Federal Reserve is not the only way that money can be \"\"printed.\"\" Every bank does fractional reserve banking, thereby increasing the money supply every time they make a new loan. There's a number called the reserve requirement which limits how much money each bank can create. Lowering the reserve requirement allows banks to create more money. Raising it will destroy money. But banks can also destroy money by calling in loans or being less willing to make new loans. So when you look at the number of banks in the US, and the number of loans they all have, it's impossible to figure out exactly how much the money supply is expanding or contracting.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a0fd3892b5b4a6ff7c51355d21f1b976", "text": "For the US government, they've just credited Person B with a Million USD and haven't gained anything (afterall, those digits are intangible and don't really have a value, IMO). Two flaws in this reasoning: The US government didn't do anything. The receiving bank credited the recipient. If the digits are intangible, such that they haven't gained anything, they haven't lost anything either. In practice, the role of governments in the transfer is purely supervisory. The sending bank debits the sender's account and the receiving bank credits the recipient's account. Every intermediary makes some money on this transaction because the cost to the sender exceeds the credit to the recipient. The sending bank typically receives a credit to their account at a correspondent bank. The receiving bank typically receives a debit from their account at a correspondent bank. If a bank sends lots of money, eventually its account at its correspondent will run dry. If a bank receives lots of money, eventually its account at its correspondent will have too much money. This is resolved with domestic payments, sometimes handled by governmental or quasi-governmental agencies. In the US, banks have an account with the federal reserve and adjust balances there. The international component is handled by the correspondent bank(s). They also internally will credit and debit. If they get an imbalance between two currencies they can't easily correct, they will have to sell one currency to buy the other. Fortunately, worldwide currency exchange is extremely efficient.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ec0d1a98960a242e0e709bf32c09507", "text": "The problem with that is that banks create the money they lend, thus they are able to lend far more. Individuals can only lend money that has already been created, and are at a big disadvantage. If it weren't for the federal reserve money printing machine, it would be a viable lending scheme.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b4e41c69874fd33f60e3e23225eb736", "text": "A central bank typically introduces new money into the system by printing new money to purchase items from member banks. The central bank can purchase whatever it chooses. It typically purchases government bonds but the Federal Reserve purchased mortgage-backed-securities (MBS) during the 2008 panic since the FED was the only one willing to pay full price for MBS after the crash of 2008. The bank, upon receipt of the new money, can loan the money out. A minimum reserve ratio specifies how much money the bank has to keep on hand. A reserve ratio of 10% means the bank must have $10 for every $100 in loans. As an example, let's say the FED prints up some new money to purchase some office desks from a member bank. It prints $10,000 to purchase some desks. The bank receives $10,000. It can create up to $100,000 in loans without exceeding the 10% minimum reserve ratio requirement. How would it do so? A customer would come to the bank asking for a $100,000 loan. The bank would create an account for the customer and credit $100,000 to the customer's account. There is a problem, however. The customer borrowed the money to buy a boat so the customer writes a check for $100,000 to the boat company. The boat company attempts to deposit the $100,000 check into the boat company's bank. The boat company's bank will ask the originating bank for $100,000 in cash. The originating bank only has $10,000 in cash on hand so this demand will immediately bankrupt the originating bank. So what actually happens? The originating bank actually only loans out reserves * (1 - minimum reserve ratio) so it can meet demands for the loans it originates. In our example the bank that received the initial $10,000 from the FED will only loan out $10,000 * (1-0.1) = $9,000. This allows the bank to cover checks written by the person who borrowed the $9,000. The reserve ratio for the bank is now $1,000/$9,000 which is 11% and is over the minimum reserve requirement. The borrower makes a purchase with the borrowed $9,000 and the seller deposits the $9,000 in his bank. The bank that receives that $9,000 now has an additional $9,000 in reserves which it will use to create loans of $9,000 * (1 - 0.1) = $8100. This continual fractional reserve money creation process will continue across the entire banking system resulting in $100,000 of new money created from $10,000. This process is explained very well here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e7ddf36b836da978493b73d74558388", "text": "You need to read up on how QE works. Banks are not reinvesting deposits at the Fed in Equities. They are earning interest and sitting there, hence why the velocity of any money supply measure is far below where it used to be.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8592a563001667b5d7ee8dc2edd53b11", "text": "If Jack owns all of the one million founding shares (which I assume you meant), and wants to transfer 250,000 shares to Venturo, then he is just personally selling shares to Venturo and the corporation gains nothing. If Jack does not own all of the founding shares, and the corporation had retained some, then the corporate shares could be sold to raise cash for the corporation. Usually in situations like this, the corporation will create more shares, diluting existing shareholders, and then sell the new shares on the open market to raise cash.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
1e5143366f7a2525e629744446117e1d	Please help me understand reasons for differences in Government Bond Yields	[ { "docid": "a8223f0b0ca62d0a0e94b73439519834", "text": "\"The real question is what does FT mean by \"\"Eurozone Bond\"\". There is no central European government to issue bonds. What they seem to be quoting is the rate for German Bunds. Germany has a strong economy with a manageable debt load, which means it is a safe Euro denominated investment. Bunds are in high demand across the Eurozone, which drives their price up, and their yield down. Greek 10yr bonds, which are Euro denominated, are yielding over 8%.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aab39fc5fd7ac4fe676e73fe70b167da", "text": "These are yields for the government bonds. EuroZone interest rates are much lower (10 times lower, in fact) than the UK (GBP zone) interest rates. The rates are set by the central banks.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "34665581461e0a8d5d33457ae25d7895", "text": "The question in my view is going into Opinion and economics. Why would I buy a bond with a negative yield? I guess you have answered yourself; Although the second point is more relevant for high net worth individual or large financial institutions / Governments where preserving cash is an important consideration. Currently quite a few Govt Bonds are in negative as most Govt want to encourage spending in an effort to revive economy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edfaea8b74131376f39df1847e966ad5", "text": "It's misleading news. Comparing debt levels in nominal terms is completely pointless over a period of more than a few months. The article you responded to quite literally quoted extracts from the article you subsequently posted and explained why they were misleading or incorrect.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e6602bd884bae5981aa067b8b0c3763", "text": "\"Bonds might not be simple, but in general there are only a few variables that need to be understood: bid, coupon (interest) rate, maturity, and yield. Bond tables clearly lay those out, and if you're talking about government bonds a lot of things (like convertibles) don't apply (although default is still a concern). This might be overly simplistic, but I view ETF's primarily as an easy way to bring somewhat esoteric instruments (like grain futures) into the easily available markets of Nasdaq and the NYSE. That they got \"\"enhanced\"\" with leveraged funds and the such is interesting, but perhaps not the original intent of the instrument. Complicating your situation a bit more is the fee that gets tacked onto the ETF. Even Vanguard government bond funds hang out north of 0.1%. That's not huge, but it's not particularly appealing either considering that (unlike rounding up live cattle futures), it's not that much work to buy US government bonds, so the expense might not seem worth it to someone who's comfortable purchasing the securities directly. I'd be interested to see someone else's view on this, but in general I'd say that if you know what you want and know how to buy it, the government bond ETF becomes a lot less relevant as the liquidity offered (including the actual \"\"ease of transacting\"\") seem to to be the biggest factors in favor. From Investopedia's description: The bond ETF is an exciting new addition to the bond market, offering an excellent alternative to self-directed investors who, looking for ease of trading and increased price transparency, want to practice indexing or active bond trading. However, bond ETFs are suitable for particular strategies. If, for instance, you are looking to create a specific income stream, bond ETFs may not be for you. Be sure to compare your alternatives before investing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "484865bc376aca15ff872884d30cce0a", "text": "The Government doesn't borrow money. It in fact simply prints it. The bond market is used for an advanced way of controlling the demand for this printed money. Think about it logically. Take 2011 for example. The Govt spent $1.7 trillion more than it took in. This is real money that get's credited in to people's bank accounts to purchase real goods and services. Now who purchases the majority of treasuries? The Primary Dealers. What are the Primary Dealers? They are banks. Where do banks get their money? From us. So now put two and two together. When the Govt spends $1.7 trillion and credits our bank accounts, the banking system has $1.7 trillion more. Then that money flows in to pension funds, gets spent in to corporation who then send that money to China for cheap products... and eventually the money spent purchases up Govt securities for investments. We had to physically give China 1 trillion dollars for them to be able to purchase 1 trillion dollars in securities. So it makes sense if you think about how the math works in the real world.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e72a9e53a04c6d504a9d521f8f8eb891", "text": "Haven't there been examples of governments defaulting, delaying payment and imposing haircuts on investors? Greece and Argentina come to mind. Quite a few Govt have defaulted in the past or were very of default or crisis. Most 3rd world countries or developing countries have under gone stress at some point. Greece was amongst the first example of Developed country going bankrupt. am I not better off if the fund invests solely in AAA corporate bonds, avoiding government bonds? Well that depends. Corporate bonds are not safer than Government Bonds. There have been instances of Corporate bonds not giving the required returns.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a0324b0cdfebc89bc0461b5ea87187f", "text": "Yield is the term used to describe how much income the bond will generate if the bond was purchased at a particular moment in time. If I pay $100 for a one year, $100 par value bond that pays 5% interest then the bond yields 5% since I will receive $5 from a $100 investment if I held the bond to maturity. If I pay $90 for the same one year bond then the bond yields 17% since I will receive $15 from a $90 investment if I held the bond to maturity. There are many factors that affect what yield creditors will accept: It is the last bullet that ultimately determines yield. The other factors feed into the creditor’s desire to hold money today versus receiving money in the future. I desire money in my hand more than a promise to receive money in the future. In order to entice me to lend my money someone must offer me an incentive. Thus, they must offer me more money in the future in order for me to part with money I have. A yield curve is a snapshot of the yields for different loan durations. The x-axis is the amount of time left on the bond while the y-axis is the yield. The most cited yield curve is the US treasury curve which displays the yields for loans to the US government. The yield curve changes while bonds are being traded thus it is always a snapshot of a particular moment in time. Short term loans typically have less yield than longer term loans since there is less uncertainty about the near future. Yield curves will flatten or slightly invert when creditors desire to keep their money instead of loaning it out. This can occur because of a sudden disruption in the market that causes uncertainty about the future which leads to an increase in the demand for cash on hand. The US government yield curve should be looked at with some reservation however since there is a very large creditor to the US government that has the ability to loan the government an unlimited amount of funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4dfadeeefad1c3988f5f9ae9342142f", "text": "Why does selling a bond drive up the yield? The bond will pay back a fixed amount when it comes due. The yield is a comparison of what you pay for the bond and what will be repaid when it matures (assuming no default). Why does the yield go up if the country is economically unstable? If the country's economy is unstable, that increases the chance that they will default and not pay the full value of the bonds when they mature. People are selling them now at a loss instead of waiting for a default later for a greater loss. So if you think Greece is not going to default as it's highly likely a country would completely default, wouldn't it make sense to hold onto the bonds? Only if you also think that they will pay back the full value at maturity. It's possible that they pay some, but not all. It's also possible that they will default. It's also possible that they will get kicked out of the Euro and start printing Drachmas again, and try to pay the bonds back with those which could devalue the bonds through inflation. The market is made of lots of smart people. If they think there are reasons to worry, there probably are. That doesn't mean they can predict the future, it just means that they are pricing the risk with good information. If you are smarter than the herd, by all means, bet against them and buy the bonds now. It can indeed be lucrative if you are right, and they are wrong.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9419a87ad91b67ff8b186bc3e8ba3e11", "text": "Your question asked about a specific time the yield curve flattened or inverted. There are other times when the yield curve inverted or flattened. You also imply in your question that investors were flocking to long term bonds which lowered their yields. I don't believe this is the case. I believe investors were fleeing from short term bonds causing the yields on short term bonds to rise to meet those of long term bonds. The chart below shows the history of yields on US bonds over time. The shaded areas are where the yield curve flattened or inverted. Notice that after 1982 it is the short term yields that rise sharply to meet or cross the yields on longer term bonds. The yields on longer term bonds move little compared to the movement in yields on the short term bonds. Thus it is investors moving out of short term bonds that cause the yield curve to flatten or invert. These investors are not moving into longer term bonds since the yields on the longer term bonds do not move much at all at these times. In fact, in 2006 the longer term bond market was only 25% of the total US public debt while short term bonds made up 75%. It would take less money to move the yields on longer term bonds than it would on short term bonds yet the longer term yields did not move near as much as short term yields. So why are investors or banks moving out of short term bonds causing their yields to rise? I believe this happens for one of two reasons: they are moving into higher yielding investments or they need to raise cash to cover bad investments. Charts and more information here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "192c5739c61012360fe2e4aa33adabe8", "text": "The forward curve for gold says little, in my opinion, about the expected price of gold. The Jan 16 price is 7.9% (or so) higher than the Jan 12 price. This reflects the current cost of money, today's low interest rates. When the short rates were 5%, the price 4 years out would be about 20% higher. No magic there. (The site you linked to was in German, so I looked and left. I'm certain if you pulled up the curve for platinum or silver, it would have the identical shape, that 7.9% rise over 4 years.) The yield curve, on the other hand, Is said to provide an indication of the direction of the economy, a steep curve forecasting positive growth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "731bd197a7cbfbb1f1d38f9348447847", "text": "\"Its because of the economic uncertainty in the world. They are the \"\"risk-free\"\" investment as it is an almost guaranteed return if you exclude inflation and US gov't defaulting. A lot of people are afraid to invest elsewhere given the current economic climate. The yield on bonds is also low due to government intervention. Quantitative easing 1 and 2 and operation twist has forced yield this low, as that is what the government wants.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55a7bd36c545fb5229e6d80425af33a9", "text": "This is a perfect example of why bonds are confusing at first glance. Think about it this way... You buy a 30-year Russian Bond at 4%. An event happens that makes Russia risky to invest in. You want to buy another bond but fuck 4%, you and the rest of the market want 6% to compensate you for the risk. Now let's say you want to sell your 4% bond... Well you're going to have to drop the price of that bond in order for it to appeal to an investor that could go out and get a 6%. On a 30-year bond of that kind, you're looking at about 75% of what you bought it for. So to wrap it up, high bond yields are great for buyers that don't already own them, but bad for sellers who want to get rid of their old ones. It is the opposite intuition as stocks and almost everything else.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ececac6321b8ffaeba94cd84491d095d", "text": "Public Securities Association Standard Prepayment Model is what the acronym psa stands for. My understanding is that it allows for adjustments in monthly pre-payment amounts, which will then affect the yield of the bond. Not really sure what the most important bond measure would be... but if I had to guess I'd say its the mechanical bond price/ bond yield relationship. Yields go down, prices go up and vice versa.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "acd9a181cdb5204856ef8ff054d77951", "text": "A bond fund has a 5% yield. You can take 1/.05 and think of it as a 20 P/E. I wouldn't, because no one else does, really. An individual bond has a coupon yield, and a YTM, yield to maturity. A bond fund or ETF usually won't have a maturity, only a yield.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b33cbf727f004a084bf7f74b3a932a74", "text": "\"Bingo, great question. I'm not the original poster, \"\"otherwiseyep\"\", but I am in the economics field (I'm a currency analyst for a Forex broker). I also happen to strongly disagree with his posts on the origin of money. To answer your question: the villagers are forced to use the new notes by their government, which demands that their income taxes be paid with the new currency. This is glossed over by otherwiseyep, which is unfortunate because it misleads people who are new to economics into believing the system of fiat money we have now is natural/emergent (created from the bottom-up) and not enforced from the top-down. Legal tender laws enforced in each nation's courts mean that all contracts can be settled in the local fiat currency, regardless of whether the receiver of the money wants a different currency. These laws (and the income tax) create an artificial \"\"root demand\"\" for the fiat currency, which is what gives it its value. We don't just decide that green paper has value. We are forced to accumulate it by the government. Fiat currencies are not money. We call them money, but in fact they are credit derivatives. Let me explain: A currency's value is inextricably tied to the nation's bond market. When investors buy a nation's bonds, they are loaning that nation money. The investor expects to receive interest payments on the bonds. The interest rate naturally rises as the bonds are perceived to be more-risky, and naturally falls as the bonds are perceived to be less-risky. The risk comes from the fact that governments sometimes get really close to not being able to pay their interest payments. They get into so much debt, and their tax-revenue shrinks as their economy worsens. That drives up the interest rate they must pay when they issue new bonds (ie add debt). So the value of a currency comes from tax revenue (interest payments). If a government misses an interest payment, or doesn't fully pay it, the market considers this a \"\"credit event\"\" and investors sell their bonds and freak out. Selling bonds has the effect of driving interest rates even higher, so it's a vicious cycle. If the government defaults, there's massive deflation because all debt denominated in that currency suddenly skyrockets due to the higher interest rates. This creates a chain of cascading defaults - one person defaults, which leads another person, and another, and so on. Everyone was in debt to everyone else, somewhere along the chain. In order to counteract this deflation (which ultimately leads to the kind of depression you saw in 1930's US), governments will print print print, expanding the credit supply via the banks. So this is what you see happening today - banks are constantly being bailed out all over the Western world, governments are cutting programs to be able to meet their interest payments, and central banks are expanding credit supplies and bailing out their buddies. Real money has ZERO counterparty risk. What is counterparty risk? It's just the risk that the guy who owes you something won't honor his debt. Gold and silver and salt and oil aren't IOU's. So they can be real money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb87135e92e9f9687b5bcd31ce84598b", "text": "Option liquidity and underlying liquidity tend to go hand in hand. According to regulation, what kinds of issues can have options even trading are restricted by volume and cost due to registration with the authorities. Studies have shown that the introduction of option trading causes a spike in underlying trading. Market makers and the like can provide more option liquidity if there is more underlying and option liquidity, a reflexive relationship. The cost to provide liquidity is directly related to the cost for liquidity providers to hedge, as evidenced by the bid ask spread. Liquidity providers in option markets prefer to hedge mostly with other options, hedging residual greeks with other assets such as the underlying, volatility, time, interest rates, etc because trading costs are lower since the two offsetting options hedge most of each other out, requiring less trading in the other assets.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
de3e1e3e142c6f11bf178aed981e82dd	Does it make sense to buy a house in my situation?	[ { "docid": "e66894e2c15886345a1ef19e137189b6", "text": "Personally I would hold off on buying a house until you have the credit card paid down even more or paid off completely so that it is one less bill you have to worry about and once it is paid off you free up that much more money to maintain the home. Likewise, you also have a lot of variables right now and the resolution of those variables will affect how much you can afford in the way of a home. The less surprises the better. As I'm sure you know, being a home owner can be quite expensive and if something ends to be repaired then you have to pay for it out of your own pocket, at least when you are renting that falls onto someone else. Likewise, unless you are confident that the market has bottomed out by you, you might find that you are underwater on the mortgage once everything is said and done. If you want to start making process towards buying a home though, you could check to see if any of the local banks or credit unions have some sort of savings program where you get higher interest rates in exchange for designating the savings for the down payment on a mortgage. Likewise, you could just find a high yield savings account and start making automatic transfers into it every month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d221a69223e936c8bb1b06b84d2a01c", "text": "I wouldn't buy a house at this time. Your credit card debt is the most expensive thing you have. Which is to say that you want to get rid of it as soon as possible. The lawyer isn't cheap, and your personal situation is not fully resolved. Congratulations on paying off the IRS, and getting up the 401k to 17.5k. Take care of the two things in paragraph 1, first,and then think about buying a house. You're doing too much good work to have it possibly be derailed by home payments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da1eab3f51253af88bd0bb0f14b9257c", "text": "There are many other good answers here, but I just wanted to note that it could be dangerous to rely on the changes in alimony and child support that you've mentioned. You have no way of predicting if your ex will lose her job or take the kids back more of the time. If you already have a house and mortgage and all of a sudden alimony and child support go up again, you could be in big trouble. Congrats on everything getting better, it sounds like you're dealing well with a crappy situation. Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1274937bc6f58659e9d90fb5e93861c0", "text": "\"Short answer: NO. Do NOT buy a house. Houses are a \"\"luxury\"\" good (see Why is a house not an investment?). Although the experience of the early 2000s seemed to convince most people otherwise, houses are not an investment. Historically, it has usually been cheaper to rent, because owning a house has non-pecuniary benefits such as the ability to change things around to exactly the way you like them. Consult a rent vs. buy calculator for your area to see if your area is exceptional. I also would not rely on the mortgage interest deduction for the long term, as it seems increasingly likely the Federal government will do away with it at some point. The first thing you must do is eliminate your credit card and other debts. Try to delay paying your lawyers and anyone else who is not charging you interest (or threatening to harm you in other ways) as long as possible. Save enough money to maintain your current standard of living for 6 months should you lose your job, then put the rest in your 401(k). Another word of advice: learn to live with less. Your kids do not need separate bedrooms. Hopefully one day the time will come when you can afford a larger house, but it should not be your highest priority. You and your kids will all be worse off in the end should you have unexpected financial difficulties and you have overextended yourself to buy a house. Now that your credit score is up, see if you can renegotiate your credit card loans or negotiate a new loan with lower interest.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b68e494bf8a664103589c1f240d388f4", "text": "The $3K includes property tax, right? It looks like the mortgage alone will be about $2150 or so. If your (cal) state tax is enough to put you into itemized deductions, your mortgage and property tax are a write off, and the $3k will actually be closer to the $2K you are considering for rent. The wild card as I see it is that your budget is so tight that any unforeseen expenses will be charged. As a long time homeowner, I know these expenses sometime appear to be high, and regular, despite their random nature. The money earmarked for credit card payments will go a long way to cover the tight budget you seem to have. This and your decreasing support makes this look tight but not impossible. The condition of the house would make or break the deal, in my opinion.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5a1055554174a3a49e1319ac76ef8e6", "text": "My opinion is to hold off. I don't see housing market rising anytime soon, possibly even going lower, so you don't have to worry about getting in before it rises. Pay off the credit card debt, maybe even earlier if possible, then that flexibility will be there, the divorce proceedings may have an end in sight, and therefore you'll know more about any outcomes from that. The economy is still shaky, the flexibility of renting may come in real handy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "92f2653684d88975ae329e1a54900c99", "text": "I think your best course of action depends on the likely outcome of the divorce proceedings. The alimony/child support payments are controlled externally. I don't like to plan around things that I have no control over. In your shoes, I would probably avoid buying until things are settled down.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba86c7f1bf3e182b2c65610c2a93369b", "text": "Just echoing the other answers here. You're not ready yet. 3% down, or no money down loans are what got so many of us into trouble these last few years. It sounds like you make a pretty good living and are able to squirrel away money despite paying rent. Let me suggest something that I haven't seen here yet. Save up for a 20% down payment. You will get better rates, won't have to buy mortgage insurance and it will give you enough of a cushion on your payment that you could better weather a job loss or other loss of income. Your priority for saving are, in order: Home prices aren't going up any time soon, so you're not going to miss out on a great deal. Keep your expenses low, treat yourself and your kids once in a while and keep saving.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4868ceb88a6bd253ef1d6e26028246ad", "text": "I'm confused why you think you need a $450k house. That seems extremely high in today's market except perhaps in certain major urban locations. If you're going to live in suburbia or a smaller town/city, you should be able to find a nice 3br house for well under $300k. Before you rule out buying a house, I'd spend some time researching the real estate listings in your area, foreclosures, properties owned by bankruptcy court, etc. - you might be surprised to find a great home for as low as $150-200k. Of course if you live in a place where what I'm saying is completely off-base, please disregard my answer.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "4ec027c43f61f7abba959c4f54093321", "text": "Seems pretty stupid to buy when switching jobs every 2-4 years yields the greatest gains in salary. Why would you want to grow roots in an area for 15-30 years when you might be better off changing jobs/locales? Sure you don't have to keep your house that long but with all the extra costs and risks renting is a fine option for an upwardly mobile citizen.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "167b251597ca2ddfdfb431069e0cb380", "text": "The simple answer is that you are correct. You should not purchase a house until you are financially stable enough to do so. A house is an asset that you must maintain, and it can be expensive to do so. Over the long term, you will generally save money by purchasing. However, in any given year you may spend much more money than a similar rental situation - even if the rent is higher than your mortgage payment. If you are financially stable with good cash savings or investments plus a 20% down payment, then anytime is a good time to buy if that is part of your financial plan. As of now in 2016, is is safe to assume that mortgage rates would/should not get back to 10%? Does this mean that one should always buy a house ONLy when mortgage rates are low? Is it worth the wait IF the rates are high right now? The mortgage rates are not the primary driver for your purchase decision. That might be like saying you should buy everything on sale at Target... because it's on sale. Don't speculate on future rates. Also, keep in mind that back when rates were high, banks were also giving much better savings/CD rates. That is all connected. Is refinancing an option on the table, if I made a deal at a bad time when rates are high? You need to make sure you get a loan that allows it. Always do a break-even analysis, looking at the money up-front you spend to refi vs the savings-per-year you will get. This should give you how many years until the refi pays for itself. If you don't plan on being in the house that long, don't do it. How can people afford 10% mortgage? Buying a house they can afford, taking into consideration the entire payment+interest. It should be a reasonable amount of your monthly income - generally 25% or less. Note that this is much less than you will be 'approved' for by most lenders. Don't let good rates suck you into a deal you will regret. Make sure you have the margin to purchase and maintain a home. Consider where you want to be living in 5 years. Don't leave so little financial breathing room that any bump will place you at risk of foreclosure. That said, home ownership is great! I highly recommend it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4afa45e3f9c7762c55cd7b3460f6b61", "text": "In the situation you describe, I would strongly consider purchasing. Before purchasing, I would do the following: Think about your goals. Work with good people. Set a budget. Be able to handle surprises. If buying a home makes sense, you can do the following after buying:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "289ffa029d75f9233a18c3ccc3b0671f", "text": "\"I recommend reading What's the catch in investing in real estate for rent? and making a list of expenses. You have a known expense, the rent, and the assumption that it will rise a bit each year. If not each year, eventually the landlord will bump it, and on average, the rent should track inflation. The buy side is the complete unknown, especially to us here. The mortgage and taxes are just the beginning. My ongoing issue in the buy/rent debate is that it's easy to buy \"\"too big\"\" or at least far bigger that what you are renting. One extreme - a couple moves from their one bedroom apartment into their purchased 3BR home with far more space than they ever use. No need to paint the full picture of numbers, the house is a money pit, and they live for the house. Other end - Couple already renting a nice sized home, and they buy a similar one. They rent out the two spare bedrooms for 5 years until they have kids and want their privacy back. They bought smart, for less than market price, and from day one, the mortgage was lower than the rent they paid. By year 5, having sent the extra income to pay down the mortgage, they've paid down half the loan. As the kids come along, they refi to a new 30 yr fixed at 3.5%, and the payment is tiny compared to the rest of their budget. Simply put, the ratio of house price to rent for that same house is not a constant. When the ratio is high, it's time to rent. When it swings very low, it's worth considering a purchase. But the decision is never clear until every detail is known. The time may be perfect, and the day after you close, you lose your job, or in a good scenario, get a raise and are relocated. Just because you bought low yesterday, doesn't mean the market will pay you a good price today, it takes time for out-of-whack pricing to come back to normal. A simple question? Maybe. But we first need a lot of details to help you understand what you are considering.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9f76816678c0a267f047910b324fe99", "text": "With an investment, you tend to buy it for a very specific purpose, namely to make you some money. Either via appreciation (ie, it hopefully increases value after you take all the fees and associated costs into account, you sell the investment, realise the gains) or via a steady cashflow that, after you subtracted your costs, leaves you with a profit. Your primary residence is a roof over your head and first and foremost has the function of providing shelter for yourself and your family. It might go up in value, which is somewhat nice, but that's not its main purpose and for as long as you live in the house, you cannot realise the increase in value as you probably don't want to sell it. Of course the remortgage crowd would suggest that you can increase the size of the mortgage (aka the 'home atm') but (a) we all know how that movie ended and (b) you'd have to factor in the additional interest in your P&L calculation. You can also buy real estate as a pure investment, ie with the only objective being that you plan to make money on this. Normally you'd buy a house or an apartment with a view of renting it out and try to increase your wealth both due to the asset's appreciation (hopefully) and the rent, which in this scenario should cover the mortgage, all expenses and still leave you with a bit of profit. All that said, I've never heard someone use the reasoning you describe as a reason not to buy a house and stay in an apartment - if you need a bigger place for your family and can afford to buy something bigger, that falls under the shelter provision and not under the investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05a2138741e77745d300937c6e2e859a", "text": "\"I assume you've no debt - if you do then pay that off. I'd be tempted to put the money into property. If you look at property prices over the past 20 years or so, you can see returns can be very good. I bought a house in 1998 and sold it in 2003 for about 110% of the purchase price. Disclaimer, past performance is no guarantee of future returns! It's a fairly low risk option, property prices appear to be rising currently and it's always good to get your foot on the housing ladder as quickly as you can as prices can rise to the stage where even those earning quite a good salary cannot afford to buy. Of course you don't have to live in the house, a rental income can be very handy without tying you down too much. There are plenty of places in the UK where £60k will buy you a reasonable property with a rental income of £400-£500, it doens't have to be near where you live currently. Just to put a few more figures in - if you get a house for £50k and rent it for £400 a month (perfectly feasible where I live) then that's very close to a 10% return year on year. Plus any gains made by the price of the house. The main downside is you won't have easy access to the money and you will have to look after a tenant if you decide to rent it out. Also if you do buy a property make sure it is in a good state of repair, you don't want to have to pay for a new roof for example in a couple of years time. Ideally you would then sell the house around the time property prices peak and buy another when they bottom out again. Not easy to judge though! I'd review the Trust Fund against others if you decide to keep it there as 12% over 6 years isn't great, although the stock market has been depressed so it may compare favouribly. Keep some \"\"rainy day\"\" money spare if you can.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b214c21bfffcc07a9824cab573471df1", "text": "That is a decision you need to make, but some of the pros and cons you could consider to help your decision making include: Pros: If bought at the right time in the property cycle and in a good growth area, it can help you grow your net worth much quicker than having money in the bank earning near zero interest. You would be replacing rent payments with mortgage payments and if your mortage payments are less than your current rent you will have additional money to pay for any expenses on the property and have a similar cashflow as you do now. You will be able to deduct your interest payments on the mortgage against your income if you are in the USA, thus reducing the tax you pay. You will have the security of your own house and not have to worry about moving if the landlord wants you out after your lease expires. Cons: If bought in a bad area and at the top of the property cycle you may never make any capital gains on the property and in fact may lose money on it long term. If the mortgage payments are more than your current rent you may be paying more especially at the start of your mortgage. If you buy a house you are generally stuck in one spot, it will be harder to move to different areas or states as it can cost a lot of money and time to sell and buy elsewhere, if renting you can generally just give notice and find a new place to rent. Property maintenance costs and taxes could be a drain on your finances, especially if the mortgage repayments are more than your current rent. If your mortgage payments and property expenses are way more than your current rent, it may reduce what you could be investing in other areas to help increase your net worth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "932da761aed6d1f0a6fa2e8efc6af74f", "text": "If you expect a significant increase in future income, then you should wait until that future income is assured, and then buy based on that decision. Buying more house than you can afford is what caused you to have to sell; you don't want to do that again. Instead of buying more house now, buy the right house for what you have now. Better yet, though, you might rent instead of buying until the future income comes onboard. Then you can get the best of both worlds - you get to buy the house you can afford in a year or two, but also don't overspend your income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80a726c21dbb5d848137fbfb2678c2d0", "text": "Another factor not mentioned are the rent prices in the area you are looking to live. I'd recommend buying a house of which the total monthly costs (mortgage, insurance, repairs, etc) are equal to or less than renting a house in the same area. If you can't find a property for sale that meets this requirement, you might actually be better off keep on renting, at least for a while, because you risk paying too much for your living expenses. A second point is, if possible, to buy when the mortgage interest rates are low, and then go for a mortgage with fixed interest and fixed repayments. While such a mortgage will be more more expensive than one with variable interest, and house prices are higher when mortgage rates are lower, future inflation is almost a certainty. And if your interest rate was fixed, and you are confident that you'll be able to negotiate salary raises in pace with the inflation, then inflation will gradually whittle down the rate between the mortgage payment and your income. Conversely, if interest rates are historically high, with no lowering in sight, then a variable loan might be more interesting. And do shop around for mortgages, there are many banks out there, the competition between them is heavy, and many banks, especially the smaller banks, will often be willing to give you a mortgage at better conditions than their competitors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ae3cb543558e6c150f706998416094c", "text": "You want to buy a house for $150,000. It may be possible to do this with $10,000 and a 3.5% downpayment, but it would be a lot better to have $40,000 and make a 20% downpayment. That would give you a cushion in case house prices fall, and there are often advantages to a 20% downpayment (lower rate; less mandatory insurance). You have an income of $35,000 and expenses of $23,000 (if you are careful with the money--what if you aren't?). You should have savings of either $17,500 or $11,500 in case of emergencies. Perhaps you simply weren't mentioning that. Note that you also need at least $137 * 26 = $3562 more to cover mortgage payments, so $15,062 by the expenses standard. This is in addition to the $40,000 for downpayment and closing costs. What do you plan to do if there is a problem with the new house, e.g. you need a new roof? Or smaller expenses like a new furnace or appliance? A plumbing problem? Damages from a storm? What if the tenants' teenage child has a party and trashes the place? What if your tenants stop paying rent but refuse to move out, trashing the place while being evicted? Your emergency savings need to be able to cover those situations. You checked comps (comparable properties). Great! But notice that you are looking at a one bathroom property for $150,000 and comparing to $180,000 houses. Consider that you may not get the $235 for that house, which is cheaper. Perhaps the rent for that house will only be $195 or less, because one bathroom doesn't really support three bedrooms of people. While real estate can be part of a portfolio, balance would suggest that much more of your portfolio be in things like stocks and bonds. What are you doing for retirement? Are you maxing out any tax-advantaged options that you have available? It might be better to do that before entering the real estate market. I am a 23 year old Australian man with a degree in computer science and a steady job from home working as a web developer. I'm a bit unclear on this. What makes the job steady? Is it employment with a large company? Are you self-employed with what has been a steady flow of customers? Regardless of which it is, consider the possibility of a recession. The company can lay you off (presumably you are at the bottom of the seniority). The new customers may be reluctant to start new projects while their cash flow is restrained. And your tenants may move out. At the same time. What will you do then? A mortgage is an obligation. You have to pay it regardless. While currently flush, are you the kind of flush that can weather a major setback? I would feel a lot better about an investment like this if you had $600,000 in savings and were using this as a complementary investment to broaden your portfolio. Even if you had $60,000 in savings and would still have substantial savings after the purchase. This feels more like you are trying to maximize your purchase. Money burning a hole in your pocket and trying to escape. It would be a lot safer to stick to securities. The worst that happens there is that you lose your investment (and it's more likely that the value will be reduced but recover). With mortgages, you can lose your entire investment and then some. Yes, the price may recover, but it may do so after the bank forecloses on the mortgage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db30f9ff88078772375651cf85355306", "text": "House as investment is not a good idea. Besides the obvious calculations don't forget the property tax, home maintenance costs and time, insurance costs, etc. There are a lot of hidden drains on the investment value of the house; most especially the time that you have to invest in maintaining it. On the other hand, if you plan on staying in the area, having children, pets or like do home improvements, landscaping, gardening, auto repair, wood/metal shopping then a house might be useful to you. Also consider the housing market where you are. This gets a bit more difficult to calculate but if you have a high-demand rental market then the house might make sense as an investment if you can rent it out for more than your monthly cost (including all of those factors above). But being a landlord is not for everyone. Again more of your time invested into the house, you have to be prepared to go months without renting it, you may have to deal with crazy people that will totally trash your house and threaten you if you complain, and you may need to part with some of the rent to a management company if you need their skills or time. It sounds like you are just not that interested right now. That's fine. Don't rush. Invest your money some other way (i.e.: the stock market). More than likely when you are ready for a house, or to bail your family out of trouble (if that's what you choose to do), you'll have even more assets to do either with.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d352dd687331678cf1e9b26bddfc96b", "text": "\"1) Don't buy a house as an investment. Buy a house because you've reached the point in your life where you don't expect to move in the next five years and you'd prefer to own a house (with its advantages/disadvantages) than to rent (with its advantages/disadvantages). Thinking of houses primarily as investments is what caused the housing bubble, crash, and Great Recession. 2) Before buying a house for cash, look at the available mortgage interest rates versus market rate of return. Owning the house outright is slightly lower stress, but using the house as the basis for a \"\"leveraged investment\"\" may be financially wiser. (I compromised; I paid 50% down and took a mortgage for the other 50%.) 3) 1 year is short-term. Your money doesn't belong in the market if you're going to need it in the short term. If you really intend to pull it back out that soon, I'd stick with CD/money-market kinds of instruments. 4) Remember that while a house is illiquid, it is possible to take out home equity loans... so money you put into a house isn't completely inaccessible. You just can't move elsewhere as easily.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f87fe8e98e124dc629edf77abcd2f338", "text": "Considering your question, I have been in the market for a house to buy. There is a house that I like and I wanted to know if I could afford it. You state your Assets: Awesome! Current Income: Great job putting $1000/month into your 401k! That is $12,000/year saved for retirement. Excellent! Current expenses: Why do you want to buy a house for more than 4x your gross income, and 3x median house price (U.S.)? Are you planning on living in the house for at least 5-7 years? There is a risk that interest rates will rise, and that will affect your ability to sell the house. Expected expenses: Adding your other essentials, You are considering increasing your expenses by $1000-1200/month. Looking at the amounts you quoted for direct housing expenses, you will have committed $2600/month to a mortgage payment. Adding your other estimated essentials, you will spend over $3700/month (leaving $2200/month for everything else). You may have higher utilities for a house than an apartment, you are doing well with your food budget, and your cellphone is lower than many. You anticipate $650/month ($7800/year) tax savings (be careful, congress is looking for ways to increase tax revenue). You want to keep your essential expenses under 50% (much more than 50% is difficult, and I am trying to get to 40%). You may live in an area where housing costs are an out-sized expense. But an option would be to save more, and a larger down payment could lower the monthly expenses below that 50% mark.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79ecf644625863c23f86774ee6e00f66", "text": "\"When I was 23, the Toronto housing market was approaching a record high, and I thought, \"\"I must buy a place or I'll be locked out.\"\" And I did. Bad decision. I should have waited and saved my money. For the record, I thought I would never recover, but I did. Patience grasshopper. In actual fact the U.K. housing market is probably approaching a low, and you have a job that is paying you well enough. BUT the lesson I learned wasn't about buying at a high or a low, it was about the need never to let external factors rush your decision making. Your decisions have to make sense for your own unique situation. If you're living at home and you have domestic bliss, mum and dad aren't crimping your style (if you know what I mean), then, enjoy it. Your credit balance sounds understandable. It's not fatal. But it's a budget killer. Make adjustments (somehow/anyhow) so that you are paying it down month by month. Take it down to £0. You will feel amazing once you do it. After that, use the money that you were paying onto your credit card and start saving it. Whether you ultimately use the money for a house down-payment or your retirement, doesn't matter. Just get into the situation where you're saving.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97fd99a51984de3474ad8e5da3acae09", "text": "Buying a house may save you money compared with renting, depending on the area and specifics of the transaction (including the purchase price, interest rates, comparable rent, etc.). In addition, buying a house may provide you with intangibles that fit your lifestyle goals (permanence in a community, ability to renovate, pride of ownership, etc.). These factors have been discussed in other answers here and in other questions. However there is one other way I think potential home buyers should consider the financial impact of home ownership: Buying a house provides you with a natural 'hedge' against possible future changes in your cost of living. Assume the following: If these two items are true, then buying a home allows you to guarantee today that your monthly living expenses will be mostly* fixed, as long as you live in that community. In 2 years, if there is an explosion of new residents in your community and housing costs skyrocket - doesn't affect you, your mortgage payment [or if you paid cash, the lack of mortgage payment] is fixed. In 3 years, if there are 20 new apartment buildings built beside you and housing costs plummet - doesn't affect you, your mortgage payment is fixed. If you know that you want to live in a particular place 20 years from now, then buying a house in that area today may be a way of ensuring that you can afford to live there in the future. *Remember that while your mortgage payment will be fixed, other costs of home ownership will be variable. See below. You may or may not save money compared with rent over the period you live in your house, but by putting your money into a house, you have protected yourself against catastrophic rent increases. What is the cost of hedging yourself against this risk? (A) The known costs of ownership [closing costs on purchase, mortgage interest, property tax, condo fees, home insurance, etc.]; (B) The unknown costs of ownership [annual and periodic maintenance, closing costs on a future sale, etc.]; (C) The potential earnings lost on your down payment / mortgage principal payments [whether it is low-risk interest or higher risk equity]; (D) You may have reduced savings for a long period of time which would limit your ability to cover emergencies (such as medical costs, unexpected unemployment, etc.) (E) You may have a reduced ability to look for a better job based on being locked into a particular location (though I have assumed above that you want to live in a particular community for an extended period of time, that desire may change); and (F) You can't reap the benefits of a rental market that decreases in real dollars, if that happens in your market over time. In short, purchasing a home should be a lifestyle-motivated decision. It financially reduces some the fluctuation in your long-term living costs, with the trade-off of committed principal dollars and additional ownership risks including limited mobility.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
02441ef1ce6a4764f5ccd22dbf59af96	Are variable rate loans ever a good idea?	[ { "docid": "5b7e69c4462182ca6b9aaf0ccf110ab1", "text": "First, let me fill in the gaps on your situation, based on the numbers you've given so far. I estimate that your student loan balance (principal) is $21,600. With the variable rate loan option that you've presented, the maximum interest rate you could be charged would be 11.5%, which would bring your monthly payment up to that $382 number you gave in the comments. Your thoughts are correct about the advantage to paying this loan off sooner. If you are planning on paying off this loan sooner, the interest rate on the variable rate loan has less opportunity to climb. One thing to be cautious of with the comparison, though: The $1200 difference between the two options is only valid if your rate does not increase. If the rate does increase, of course, the difference would be less, or it could even go the other way. So keep in mind that the $1200 savings is only a theoretical maximum; you won't actually see that much savings with the variable rate option. Before making a decision, you need to find out more about the terms of this variable rate loan: How often can your rate go up? What is the loan rate based on? I'm not as familiar with student loan variable rate loans, but there are other variable rate loans I am familiar with: With a typical adjustable rate home mortgage, the rate is locked for a certain number of years (perhaps 5 years). After that, the bank might be allowed to raise the rate once every period of months (perhaps once every year). There will be a limit to how much the rate can rise on each increase (perhaps 1.0%), and there will be a maximum rate that could be charged over the life of the loan (perhaps 12%). The interest rate on your mortgage can adjust up, inside of those parameters. (The actual formula used to adjust will be found in the fine print of your mortgage contract.) However, the bank knows that if they let your rate get too high above the current market rates, you will refinance to a different bank. So the mortgage is typically structured so that it will raise your rate somewhat, but it won't usually get too far above the market rate. If you knew ahead of time that you would have the house paid off in 5 years, or that you would be selling the house before the 5 years is over, you could confidently take the adjustable rate mortgage. Credit cards, on the other hand, also typically have variable rates. These rates can change every month, but they are usually calculated on some formula determined ahead of time. For example, on my credit card, the interest rate is the published Prime Rate plus 13.65%. On my last statement, it said the rate was 17.15%. (Of course, because I pay my balance in full each month, I don't pay any interest. The rate could go up to 50%, for all I care.) As I said, I don't know what determines the rate on your variable rate student loan option, and I don't know what the limits are. If it climbs up to 11.5%, that is obviously ridiculously high. I recommend that you try to pay off this student loan as soon as you possibly can; however, if you are not planning on paying off this student loan early, you need to try to determine how likely the rate is to climb if you want to pick the variable rate option.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eedf6da91e9b2f131f37f1f643d7a0e7", "text": "Fixed You are confirming the amount you are going t pay over the term of the loan. Variable: 3.79% over 82mo. The total difference over the life of the loan comes to around $1200 That is the wrong way to calculate the variable portion. The variable is primarily set with a margin over a certain benchmark i.e. Fed rate. Assuming the Fed rate doesn't change over or only goes lower the variable rate is the one to go. If it rises then your payment will increase. And the margin they take over the benchmark rate may increase, so the total amount you pay might increase too. I would assume a read through the T&Cs should clarify that for you. Is it ever a good idea to choose a variable rate loan? Only if you think we are in a low interest rate environment i.e. the economy is in doldrums and the Feds are trying to simulate the economy by decreasing the benchmark rates. And you are sure that the lender isn't going to increase his margins if the rate remains low for quite a substantial amount of time. And I might assume there will be penalties for paying off a loan quicker.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b266b5b1531c97bf669ad11172c24e73", "text": "\"It all has to do with risk and reward. The risk is that interest rates will rise. To entice you to go with the variable, they make it so it is cheaper if interest rates never rise. Your job is to guess whether interest rates are likely to go up or not. In a first approximation, you should go fixed. The bank employs very smart people whose entire job is to know whether interest rates will go up or not. Those people chose the price difference between the two, and it's sure to favour the bank. That is, the risk of extra payments you'll make on the variable is probably more than the enticement. But, some people can't sleep at night if their payments (or more realistically, the interest part of their payments) might double. If that's you, go fixed. If that's not you, understand that the enticement actually has to be turned up a bit, to get more people to go variable, because of the sleeping-at-night feature. Think long and hard about your budget and what would happen if your payment jumped. If you could handle it, variable might be the better choice. Personally, I have been taking \"\"variable\"\" on my mortgage for decades (and now I don't have one) and never once regretted it. I also counselled my oldest child to take variable on her mortgage. Over this century so far, if rates ticked up, they didn't tick up to the level the fixed was offered at. Mostly they have sat flat. But if ever there was a world in which \"\"past performance does not predict future results\"\" it would be interest rate trends. Do your own research.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "530d44ec6a3ba57ef978b22dbab78778", "text": "It is often the case (more commonly in countries other than the USA) that a fixed-term loan has an early redemption penalty, because the lender themselves will incur a cost for settling the loan early, while a variable-rate loan does not. If this is the situation and you think you might want to pay off the loan early, you should definitely consider the variable rate rather than then fixed rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aafdddb3091909bfbfb4540db55893ac", "text": "I have an example that may be interesting for your question. My grandfather had a tennis club around 35 years ago, and some other businesses. Some investments went bad and he was heading for bankruptcy due to the tennis club's expensive payments. So he asked to renegotiate a variable rate rather than a fixed rate, even though the interest rates were going up, not down. The idea was that if the current situation is going to bankrupt you, taking a chance might be better. As an analogy, if you can't swim and you'll drown in 6 feet of water, it doesn't matter that you're taking the risk to go deeper. You might have to take that chance to survive. He did keep the tennis club in the end but that's irrelevant here. For student loans, if I'm not mistaken, declaring bankruptcy doesn't free you of all their debt, so it may not be applicable. And this situation is when renegotiating, not when negotiating the first time. because obviously if you're in trouble financially, taking a loan you know you can't repay is suicide.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35928dafa56c06450919a6377df27744", "text": "The earlier you are in your career, the more willing you should be to take a better opportunity even if it has a short-term financial cost. You go to college even if McDonald's has an opening. After college you may take an entry level job with better long-term prospects even if a higher paying job is available. You may train for some professional qualification. Having expenses you have to pay limits your flexibility to do this. A variable rate loan that goes up later may give you the freedom to make better decisions early on. Thus in this case it may be worthwhile. That said - be very wary of variable rate loans. Unless you have iron discipline, they give the opportunity to bury yourself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "472fc2692d89395312d6f3c100ccbf5e", "text": "The simple answer is absolutely. With the parameters you quote, if you will pay off the loan in 82 months or less, you will be ahead taking the variable rate. You have put your finger on the important question as well. The higher initial interest is buying insurance against rates rising if you don't pay off the loan within 82 months. I suspect the contract loan term is much longer than that, because otherwise a variable rate does not make sense. You need to assess whether the insurance you are buying is worth the premium. You can look at what the formula for the variable rate would set the rate at today. It is probably somewhat higher than the 3.79%. That will tell you how much rates have to rise to make the variable rate go above 5.02%. Note that if the loan term is around 160 months (and it could well be 180 months, 15 years) you can afford the interest to rise to about 6.2% for the last half and you will still be dollars ahead. It could even rise higher if you discount expenses in the future. You could also hope that if inflation rises to make interest rates rise like that you will get cost of living raises that make this easy to pay.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4341e7af6a7e63c4b43e2569cb114102", "text": "Up to some degree, a higher or lower interest rate means a bit less or a bit more money in your pocket. If the interest rate gets too high, you may be in trouble. So you first look at the situation and ask yourself: At what interest rate would I be in trouble? If this is a $20,000 student loan, then even a very high rate wouldn't be trouble. It would be unfortunate and unpleasant, but not fatal. For a $800,000 mortgage, that's different. Each percent more is $8,000 a year. Going from 3% to 10% would change the interest from $24,000 to $80,000 a year, which would be fatal for many people. In a situation where you can afford increasing variable payments without problems you can go for it. If your variable rate would vary over time between 4% and 6% you would still be even. In that situation, go for variable (taking into account where you think interest rates will go in the future). For a mortgage, the security would likely be more important. (On the other hand, if your dad is a multi-millionaire who would help you out, then that big rate increase wouldn't be fatal, and you could go for a variable rate mortgage). In some countries, you can cancel any loan contract when the interest rate is raised. So raising a variable mortgage interest rate would allow you to look elsewhere without early repayment penalties. Check out if that is the case for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd525f6bcaa0f7817bf2cd18b8aecb57", "text": "What's going on here is that the variable rate loan is transferring some of the risk from the bank to you. In a reasonable deal taking on risk brings with it reward. It's the same thing as deductibles on insurance--they're transferring some risk to you and thus your expected total cost goes down. Thus the proper evaluation of such deals is whether you can afford the outcome if you draw the short straw. If you feel you can afford the highest payment that can result then the variable rate is a good deal. If you're near your limit then stay with the safe option of the fixed rate. For a house this is easy enough to evaluate--run the calculations assuming the highest payment and see what the debt-to-income ratio is. Note that when we were getting mortgages there was another factor involved: the variable rate loans had a higher initiation cost. Combined with the very low difference between fixed and ARM rates at the time we went fixed but given the rates you quote going variable would have been a no-brainer for us.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a4777ce9064e80c707b0fc4fbf7440d7", "text": "It's complicated. Really, there's no solid answer for your question. Everybody's risk tolerance and time horizon is going to be different. Those who can take on more risk can take on lower-grade C-G loans at Lending Club. Those with less risk tolerance should emphasize As and Bs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0dd467f067a26cb6d8483c39f8ba980e", "text": "\"I started with lending club about a year ago. I love it. It has been insightful. Off topic, but I am in a loan to a guy who make 120K a year and is regularly late and has a pretty high interest rate. Crazy. You gain some economies of scale by going with a bigger note. I have $100 notes that I get hit for 2 or 3 cents for a fee, where $25 notes are always a penny. However, I don't think that should be your deciding factor. I scale my note purchases based on how much I like the status of the borrower. For example, I did $100 (which is currently my max) for a guy with a reasonable loan amount 16K, a stable work history (15+ years), a great credit history, and a great interest rate (16.9%). If one of those things were a bit out of \"\"whack\"\". I might go $50, two $25. I prefer 36 month notes, really 5 years to get out of debt? It is unlikely to happen IMHO. Keep in mind that if you invest $100 in a loan, then you get one $100 note. You can't break them up into 4 $25 notes. For that reason, if you are likely to want to sell the note prematurely, keep it at $25. The market is greater. I've had a lot of success using the trading account, buying further discounted notes for people who want out of lending club, or get spooked by a couple of late payments and a change in billing date. Another advantage of using the trading account is you start earning interest day 1. I've had new notes take a couple of weeks to go through. To summarize: There are some other things, but that is the main stuff I look at.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a29abe8bc565c446b56b3aa8d4130e1", "text": "I was active in Prosper when it started up. It was very easy to get attracted to the high risk loans with big interest rates and I lost about 14% after all my loans ran their course. (There's 10 still active, but it won't change the figure by much). Prosper has wider standards than Lending club, so more borrowers with worse credit scores could ask for loans. Lenders could also set interest rates far lower, so they could end up having loans with rates lower than the risk implied. This was set up with the idea of a free market where anyone could ask to borrow and anyone could loan money at whatever interest rate they wanted, It turns out a lot of lenders were not as smart as they thought they were. (Aside: it's funny how people will clamor for a free market, but when they lose money will suddenly be against the free market they said they wanted, this seems to apply to both individual p2p lenders up to massive multinational banks.). Since then Prosper has tightened their standards on who can borrow and the interest rates are now fixed. So I expect going forward it will be less easy to lose a bunch of money. The key is that one bad loan will erase the return of many good ones. So it's best to examine the loans carefully and stick with the high quality. Simplified Example If you have 10 1 yr loans of $100 each paying 10% interest/year, you get 10% return at the end of the year, so $100 (10% of $1000.). BUT if one loan goes bad at the start, you have lost money. So a 90% success rate in picking borrowers leads to a loss. You want to diversity over quite a few loans and you want to fund quality loans. I think really enjoyed investing through Prosper, because it gave me an insight into lending and loss ratios that I had not had before. It also caused me to look at the banks with even more incredulity when the case of the no-doc loans and neg-am loans came to light.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84da15fcc9d360379289e1a748504713", "text": "The loan is very likely to be syndicated, yes. I only state 7-10 because all of our loans to this point have been 7 year terms. And in many ways, this loan is just one of those loans, multiplied out in a modular sense.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7515b32ac0cc666f93929353cfda8291", "text": "\"A) Yes, it does accomplish the goal of adding more money, but the money is in lieu of any return you can earn while the loan is outstanding. If you somehow knew exactly which periods where going to run negative, and you took a 401k loan during that time, you'd be in pretty good shape, but if you had that information you'd probably be ruling the world in short order and wouldn't care much about a measly 401k. B) It's a nice idea, but unfortunately you are not allowed to set your own interest rate. (If you could your idea would work perfectly.) The interest rate is bank specific, and is typically 1-2 points over prime. But if your plan was to leave your money sitting in cash or low interest bearing accounts anyway, the loan does actually achieve the goal of \"\"getting more money in there\"\". Though it's your money; you aren't \"\"earning\"\" it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f656a547ba7391fa53d8bd4e208f2e4", "text": "If you get your income in the currency you have the new loan in, there is no exchange risk for the future. Assuming that you are able to get and serve that loan, it reduces your cost, so go for it. Yes, if the currency exchange rate changes the right way over the next years, you could have made a better deal - but consider it could also go the other way. If you really want to play this game, do it separately, by trading calls/puts on the currency exchange rate. See it as a separate and decoupled investment option.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "473bea867c1ec882bb7dd4adaa25a42a", "text": "Variable Annuities would be one option though there are SEC warnings about them, for an option that is tax-deferred and intended to be used for long-term investing such as retirement. There is a bit of a cost to gain the tax-deferral which may not always make them worthwhile.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de4312884f19663ad7e0d0e07b86898f", "text": "You're talking about floating rate loans. It's so that the bond is marked back to market every 90 days. Any more often would be a hassle to deal with for everyone involved, any less often and they would be significant variance from LIBOR vs. the loan's specific rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bad7733c71b5c618301ebf612cd85e05", "text": "Usually that is the case that when fixed rates are lower than the variable rates, it is an indication that the banks feel the next movement in rates could be down. You also need to look at the fixed rates for different periods, for example 1 year fixed compared to 3 year fixed and 5 year fixed rates. If you find the 3 and 5 year fixed rates are higher than the 1 year fixed rates this could be an indication that the banks feel rates will fall in the short term but the falls won't last long and will continue to rise after a year or so. If the 3 year fixed rates are also low in comparison, then the banks may feel that the economy is heading for a longer term down trend. The banks won't want to lose out, so will change their fixed rates on their perception of where they feel the economy is headed. Since your post in May 2011, the standard variable rate has since dropped twice (in November and December) to be at 7.30%. You will also find that fixed rates have also been dropped further by the banks, indicating additional future cuts in the variable rates. Regards, Victor", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3666af20f9bb3570574b277a7faccb3", "text": "Unless you are getting the loan from a loan shark, it is the most common case that each payment is applied to the interest accrued to date and the rest is applied towards reducing the principal. So, assuming that fortnightly means 26 equally-spaced payments during the year, the interest accrued at the end of the first fortnight is $660,000 x (0.0575/26) = $1459.62 and so the principal is reduced by $2299.61 - $1459.62 = $839.99 For the next payment, the principal still owing at the beginning of that fortnight will be $660,000-$839.99 = $659,160.01 and the interest accrued will be $659,160.01 x (0.0575/26) = $1457.76 and so slightly more of the principal will be reduced than the $839.99 of the previous payment. Lather, rinse, repeat until the loan is paid off which should occur at the end of 17.5 years (or after 455 biweekly payments). If the loan rate changes during this time (since you say that this is a variable-rate loan), the numbers quoted above will change too. And no, it is not the case that just %5.75 of the $2300 is interest, and the rest comes off the principle (sic)? Interest is computed on the principal amount still owed ($660,000 for starters and then decreasing fortnightly). not the loan payment amount. Edit After playing around with a spreadsheet a bit, I found that if payments are made every two weeks (14 days apart) rather than 26 equally spaced payments in one year as I used above, interest accrues at the rate of 5.75 x (14/365)% for the 14 days rather than at the rate of (5.75/26)% for the time between payments as I used above each 14 days, $2299.56 is paid as the biweekly mortgage payment instead of the $2299.61 stated by the OP, then 455 payments (slightly less than 17.5 calendar years when leap years are taken into account) will pay off the loan. In fact, that 455-th payment should be reduced by 65 cents. In view of rounding of fractional cents and the like, I doubt that it would be possible to have the last equal payment reduce the balance to exactly 0.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93fddc3431f0813570784cd3d9c55486", "text": "\"If the interest rate on the student loan is lower than inflation, then the student loan will be \"\"cheaper\"\" the longer you take to pay it. This is now a very rare instance, but there were programs and loan consolidation opportunities in the mid-200x's that allowed savvy student's to convert their loans to have an interest rate of around 1.5%. Right now the inflation rate is actually quite low, but it's not expected to stay there, and wasn't that low just a few years ago, so in the long run this type of debt will only be cheaper the longer it takes to pay off. It is risky, as others point out, as it can't be written off in bankruptcy, but there are other situations where it can be written off more easily than other debts, so on balance the risks aren't better or worse than other loans in general. For specific individual situations the risk equation might work out differently, though. Further, student loans aren't considered traditional debt by some lenders for specific lending opportunities, thus allowing you to go into greater debt for certain types of purchases. Whether this is good for you or not depends on the importance of the purchase. If you need to buy a house and the interest rate is higher than your student loan rate, it will be better, financially, to pay off the house first, while paying the minimum on the student loans. If you have no other debt with a higher interest, and the student loan interest is higher than inflation, there is no reason to delay paying off the student loan.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "feb21810230b9f43fca6b46a596cab28", "text": "\"I am lucky enough to have chosen a flexible mortgage that allows me to change payment amounts at certain, very lenient intervals (to a minimum amount). So when I was laid off, the first thing I did was call my bank to lower my payments to a level that allowed me some breathing room, at my new, lower income. If and when my family's income increases, I'll re-adjust my payments to a higher amount. But if you're concerned about the \"\"what if\"\"s in this economy, I'd definitely choose a mortgage that allows for flexibility so that you don't lose your house if you don't have to, particularly if your situation is temporary.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb9efb537062f9e9ff6780d279fb71ca", "text": "\"I figured that there must be some people in a corporate office somewhere who sign $100M loans for lunch. :) The banks have that experience (but I'm not interested in asking them for a sample), and our consultants definitely have that experience, but I'm looking to evaluate the consultants with this exercise. If they provide the sample, then deliver to that sample, I'm still blind as to whether that sample is \"\"good\"\" as compared to something that the corporate world would use on the daily. I'd take your advice for the $1M loan, but I can't help but think as the factors of 10 increase, the data required to properly negotiate also increases. I don't want to go in blind, and provide a proposal that looks like a high school project.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06c1e18ad6b65885137491764fa1b147", "text": "The CBOE had a great article on this. I will search for it and edit. The normal dividends are not adjusted. Which is why you see early exercise of just out of the money options sometimes. To get that dividend. A special dividend, say a $50 stock with $1/yr dividend but now has a $3 one time dividend would likely result in an option strike adjustment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3edee93de0c92fab5e9154b80cd002ea", "text": "If you find a particular stock to be overvalued at $200 for example and a reasonable value at $175, you can place a limit order at the price you want to pay. If/when the stock price falls to your desired purchase price, the transaction takes place. Your broker can explain how long a limit order can stay open. This method allows you to take advantage of flash crashes when some savvy stock trader decides to game the market. This tactic works better with more volatile or low-volume stocks. If it works for an S&P500 tracking ETF, you have bigger problems. :) Another tactic is to put money into your brokerage cash account on a regular basis and buy those expensive stocks & funds when you have accumulated enough money to do so. This money won't earn you any interest while it sits in the cash account, but it's there, ready to be deployed at a moment's notice when you have enough to purchase those expensive assets.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
599367355d8e70d2ce307a9fc3537187	Adjusting a value for inflation each month using rolling 12-monthly inflation figures	[ { "docid": "40e6216fd5028fb210f768d5786defe2", "text": "In the style of the Bank of England's Inflation Calculator, you can do the calculation like so. The third column is an index made from the inflation figures and the forth column shows the inflation-adjusted values. Using the index to calculate the difference in costs, for example: The formulas used to produce the table above are shown below.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ab85fd6f741cf68b186595808edbb84", "text": "\"The actual increase in the cost of living for one month over the previous month cannot be calculated from the annualized increase in cost over the entire previous year. Consider the hypothetical case of a very stable economy, where prices stay constant for decades. Nevertheless, the authorities issue monthly statements, reporting that the change in the cost of living, for the last month, year over year, is 0.00%. Then they go back to sleep for another month. Then, something happens, say in August, 2001. It causes a permanent large increase in the cost of many parts of the cost of living components. So, in September, the authorities announce that the cost of living for the end of August, 2001, compared to August a year ago, was up 10%. Great consternation results. Politicians pontificate, unions agitate on behalf of their members, etc... The economy returns to its customary behavior, except for that one-time permanent increase from August, 2001. So for the next eleven months, each month, the authorities compare the previous months prices to the prices from exactly a year ago, and announce that inflation, year over year, is still 10%. Finally, we reach September, 2002. The authorities look at prices for the end of August, 2002, and compare them to the prices from the end of August, 2001 (post \"\"event\"\"). Wonder of wonders, the inflation rate is back to 0.00%!! Absolutely nothing happened in August 2002, yet the rate of inflation dropped from 10% to 0%.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "bee1b08bfad94bfa962c90eff9c6f1bc", "text": "The question lacks specificity, i.e. when does the initial investment occur, now or one period from now? If now then it is a perpetuity due. I will consider under 2 scenarios, A and B, relating to the size of the initial investment. A. Assuming that the initial investment (C_0) occurs now and each payment thereafter has the relationship (1+g) with this investment then the relevant base equation is that for the present value of a growing perpetuity due, expressed in terms of C_0, i.e. PVGPD= [C_0(1+g)(1+i)]/(i-g). Now, to suit the question asked, we can see that i=fixed rate of return (f) and g = expected inflation rate (e) such that we can rewrite the equation as PVGPD = [C_0(1+e)(1+i)]/(i-e]. We know that f = is a fixed nominal rate and must be adjusted for e to calculate the real rate (r) according to the equation f=(1+r)(1+e)-1. Therefore PVGPD = [C_0(1+e)(1+(1+r)(1+e)-1)]/((1+r)(1+e)-1-e] Tidying up PVGPD = {C_0(1+r)(1+e)^2}/[r(1+e)] PVGPD = [C_0(1+r)(1+e)]/r B. Assuming that the initial investment (X) is not equal to each subsequent perpetual payment (C_1) then the relevant base equation is that for the the initial investment plus the present value of a growing perpetuity, i.e. PVGP= X + [C_1/(i-g)] Rewriting PVGP = X + [C_1/(f-e)] Substituting PVGPD = X + {C_1/[(1+r)(1+e)-1-e]} Tidying up PVGPD = X + C_1/[r(1+e)]", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a145b5ee9ce9c6ae6b82003ba3e842a", "text": "If you have a lump sum, you could put it into a low risk investment (which should also have low fluctuations) right away to avoid the risk of buying at a down point. Then move it into a higher risk investment over a period of time. That way you'll buy more units when the price is lower than when it's higher. Usually I hear dollar cost averaging applied to the practice of purchasing a fixed dollar amount of an investment every week or month right out of your salary. The effect is pretty minimal though, except on the highest growth portfolios, and is generally just used as a sales tool by investment councilors (in my opinion).", "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": "" }, { "docid": "3d5a8298c41dbfe1d3ded257f82ae06b", "text": "The Finance functions in spreadsheet software will calculate this for you. The basic functions are for Rate, Payment, PV (present value), FV (Future value), and NPER, the number of periods. The single calculation faces a couple issues, dealing with inflation, and with a changing deposit. If you plan to save for 30 years, and today are saving $500/mo, for example, in ten years I hope the deposits have risen as well. I suggest you use a spreadsheet, a full sheet, to let you adjust for this. Last, there's a strange effect that happens. Precision without accuracy. See the results for 30-40 years of compounding today's deposit given a return of 6%, 7%, up to 10% or so. Your forecast will be as weak as the variable with the greatest range. And there's more than one, return, inflation, percent you'll increase deposits, all unknown, and really unknowable. The best advice I can offer is to save till it hurts, plan for the return to be at the lower end of the range, and every so often, re-evaluate where you stand. Better to turn 40, and see you are on track to retire early, than to plan on too high a return, and at 60 realize you missed it, badly. As far as the spreadsheet goes, this is for the Google Sheets - Type this into a cell =nper(0.01,-100,0,1000,0) It represents 1% interest per month, a payment (deposit) of $100, a starting value of $0, a goal of $1000, and interest added at month end. For whatever reason, a starting balance must be entered as a negative number, for example - =nper(0.01,-100,-500,1000,0) Will return 4.675, the number of months to get you from $500 to $1000 with a $100/mo deposit and 1%/mo return. Someone smarter than I (Chris Degnen comes to mind) can explain why the starting balance needs to be entered this way. But it does show the correct result. As confirmed by my TI BA-35 financial calculator, which doesn't need $500 to be negative.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "552c97f6a717f65fe5560ea03fd90c76", "text": "\"I think we'd need to look at actual numbers to see where you're running into trouble. I'm also a little confused by your use of the term \"\"unexpected expenses\"\". You seem to be using that to describe expenses that are quite regular, that occur every X months, and so are totally expected. But assuming this is just some clumsy wording ... Here's the thing: Start out by taking the amount of each expense, divided by the number of months between occurrences. This is the monthly cost of each expense. Add all these up. This is the amount that you should be setting aside every month for these expenses, once you get a \"\"base amount\"\" set up. So to take a simple example: Say you have to pay property taxes of $1200 twice a year. So that's $1200 every 6 months = $200 per month. Also say you have to pay a water bill once every 3 months that's typically $90. So $90 divided by 3 = $30. Assuming that was it, in the long term you'd need to put aside $230 per month to stay even. I say \"\"in the long term\"\" because when you're just starting, you need to put aside an amount sufficient that your balance won't fall below zero. The easiest way to do this is to just set up a chart where you start from zero and add (in this example) $230 each month, and then subtract the amount of the bills when they will hit. Do this for some reasonable time in the future, say one year. Find the biggest negative balance. If you can add this amount to get started, you'll be safe. If not, add this amount divided by the number of months from now until it occurs and make that a temporary addition to your deposits. Check if you now are safely always positive. If not, repeat the process for the next biggest negative. For example, let's say the property tax bills are April and October and the water bills are February, May, August, and November. Then your chart would look like this: The biggest negative is -370 in April. So you have to add $370 in the first 4 months, or $92.50 per month. Let's say $93. That would give: Now you stay at least barely above water for the whole year. You could extend the chart our further, but odds are the exact numbers will change next year and you'll have to recalculate anyway. The more irregular the expenses, the more you will build up just before the big expense hits. But that's the whole point of saving for these, right? If a $1200 bill is coming next week and you don't have close to $1200 saved up in the account, where is the money coming from? If you have enough spare cash that you can just take the $1200 out of what you would have spent on lunch tomorrow, then you don't need this sort of account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6fa632a4fe912a3d78b7a6592e82079", "text": "\"I wrote a little program one time to try to do this. I think I wrote it in Python or something. The idea was to have a list of \"\"projected expenses\"\" where each one would have things like the amount, the date of the next transaction, the frequency of the transaction, and so on. The program would then simulate time, determining when the next transaction would be, updating balances, and so on. You can actually do a very similar thing with a spreadsheet where you basically have a list of expenses that you manually paste in for each month in advance. Simply keep a running balance of each row, and make sure you don't forget any transactions that should be happening. This works great for fixed expenses, or expenses that you know how much they are going to be for the next month. If you don't know, you can estimate, for instance you can make an educated guess at how much your electric bill will be the next month (if you haven't gotten the bill yet) and you can estimate how much you will spend on fuel based on reviewing previous months and some idea of whether your usage will differ in the next month. For variable expenses I would always err on the side of a larger amount than I expected to spend. It isn't going to be possible to budget to the exact penny unless you lead a very simple life, but the extra you allocate is important to cushion unexpected and unavoidable overruns. Once you have this done for expenses against your bank account, you can see what your \"\"low water mark\"\" is for the month, or whatever time period you project out to. If this is above your minimum, then you can see how much you can safely allocate to, e.g. paying off debt. Throwing a credit card into the mix can make things a bit more predictable in the current month, especially for unpredictable amounts, but it is a bit more complicated as now you have a second account that you have to track that has to get deducted from your first account when it becomes due in the following month. I am assuming a typical card where you have something like a 25 day grace period to pay without interest along with up to 30 days after the expense before the grace period starts, depending on the relationship between your cut-off date and when the actual expense occurs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76e622fc225406dbd70fb144752364dc", "text": "\"You could use any of various financial APIs (e.g., Yahoo finance) to get prices of some reference stock and bond index funds. That would be a reasonable approximation to market performance over a given time span. As for inflation data, just googling \"\"monthly inflation data\"\" gave me two pages with numbers that seem to agree and go back to 1914. If you want to double-check their numbers you could go to the source at the BLS. As for whether any existing analysis exists, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I don't think you need to do much analysis to show that stock returns are different over different time periods.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dcfb167b3a1e18a2fb2ee716b90a66c4", "text": "Here's a good inflation calculator based on official US government sources: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ You can get a good idea of the affect of productivity gains on prices by comparing price differences between different commodities. For example, eggs sold for $0.50-0.60/dozen in 1920, and are usually about $2.50/doz where I live. In real terms, the price actually declined from 1920 to 2010.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a70568de6258ac4ff20caf60647f630e", "text": "\"First, a clarification. No assets are immune to inflation, apart from inflation-indexed securities like TIPS or inflation-indexed gilts (well, if held to maturity, these are at least close). Inflation causes a decline in the future purchasing power of a given dollar1 amount, and it certainly doesn't just affect government bonds, either. Regardless of whether you hold equity, bonds, derivatives, etc., the real value of those assets is declining because of inflation, all else being equal. For example, if I invest $100 in an asset that pays a 10% rate of return over the next year, and I sell my entire position at the end of the year, I have $110 in nominal terms. Inflation affects the real value of this asset regardless of its asset class because those $110 aren't worth as much in a year as they are today, assuming inflation is positive. An easy way to incorporate inflation into your calculations of rate of return is to simply subtract the rate of inflation from your rate of return. Using the previous example with inflation of 3%, you could estimate that although the nominal value of your investment at the end of one year is $110, the real value is $100(1 + 10% - 3%) = $107. In other words, you only gained $7 of purchasing power, even though you gained $10 in nominal terms. This back-of-the-envelope calculation works for securities that don't pay fixed returns as well. Consider an example retirement portfolio. Say I make a one-time investment of $50,000 today in a portfolio that pays, on average, 8% annually. I plan to retire in 30 years, without making any further contributions (yes, this is an over-simplified example). I calculate that my portfolio will have a value of 50000 (1 + 0.08)^30, or $503,132. That looks like a nice amount, but how much is it really worth? I don't care how many dollars I have; I care about what I can buy with those dollars. If I use the same rough estimate of the effect of inflation and use a 8% - 3% = 5% rate of return instead, I get an estimate of what I'll have at retirement, in today's dollars. That allows me to make an easy comparison to my current standard of living, and see if my portfolio is up to scratch. Repeating the calculation with 5% instead of 8% yields 50000 * (1 + 0.05)^30, or $21,6097. As you can see, the amount is significantly different. If I'm accustomed to living off $50,000 a year now, my calculation that doesn't take inflation into account tells me that I'll have over 10 years of living expenses at retirement. The new calculation tells me I'll only have a little over 4 years. Now that I've clarified the basics of inflation, I'll respond to the rest of the answer. I want to know if I need to be making sure my investments span multiple currencies to protect against a single country's currency failing. As others have pointed out, currency doesn't inflate; prices denominated in that currency inflate. Also, a currency failing is significantly different from a prices denominated in a currency inflating. If you're worried about prices inflating and decreasing the purchasing power of your dollars (which usually occurs in modern economies) then it's a good idea to look for investments and asset allocations that, over time, have outpaced the rate of inflation and that even with the effects of inflation, still give you a high enough rate of return to meet your investment goals in real, inflation-adjusted terms. If you have legitimate reason to worry about your currency failing, perhaps because your country doesn't maintain stable monetary or fiscal policies, there are a few things you can do. First, define what you mean by \"\"failing.\"\" Do you mean ceasing to exist, or simply falling in unit purchasing power because of inflation? If it's the latter, see the previous paragraph. If the former, investing in other currencies abroad may be a good idea. Questions about currencies actually failing are quite general, however, and (in my opinion) require significant economic analysis before deciding on a course of action/hedging. I would ask the same question about my home's value against an inflated currency as well. Would it keep the same real value. Your home may or may not keep the same real value over time. In some time periods, average home prices have risen at rates significantly higher than the rate of inflation, in which case on paper, their real value has increased. However, if you need to make substantial investments in your home to keep its price rising at the same rate as inflation, you may actually be losing money because your total investment is higher than what you paid for the house initially. Of course, if you own your home and don't have plans to move, you may not be concerned if its value isn't keeping up with inflation at all times. You're deriving additional satisfaction/utility from it, mainly because it's a place for you to live, and you spend money maintaining it in order to maintain your physical standard of living, not just its price at some future sale date. 1) I use dollars as an example. This applies to all currencies.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e579c480f632018d2e79008cd1ccaa4b", "text": "Line one shows your 1M, a return with a given rate, and year end withdrawal starting at 25,000. So Line 2 starts with that balance, applies the rate again, and shows the higher withdrawal, by 3%/yr. In Column one, I show the cumulative effect of the 3% inflation, and the last number in this column is the final balance (903K) but divided by the cumulative inflation. To summarize - if you simply get the return of inflation, and start by spending just that amount, you'll find that after 20 years, you have half your real value. The 1.029 is a trial and error method, as I don't know how a finance calculator would handle such a payment flow. I can load the sheet somewhere if you'd like. Note: This is not exactly what the OP was looking for. If the concept is useful, I'll let it stand. If not, downvotes are welcome and I'll delete.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba2ffd3d9a2721b4e06f7c2d830e42d3", "text": "\"I was afraid of this. If you are using 12 P/Y and 12 C/Y, then your interest rate should not be divided by 12. Also, you should use \"\"END\"\" as this means monthly payments are made at the end of the month - a usual default.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f73c5e2421b687b44ad0d6913311ff7a", "text": "As an expansion on the correct answer: Consider a really boring economy. Nothing changes; wages and prices stay constant for years at a time. Every month the Consumer Price Index stays at 0%. Then, something catastrophic happens, say on July 31, 2000. A cheap local source for a vital resource runs out, and it must be obtained from a higher cost source. Floods cut internal road networks, resulting in higher transportation costs. Whatever. The new situation is permanent. As a result, the next month, August, 2000, prices go up 5%. That is, 5% higher than the previous month, July, 2000, and 5% higher than a year previously, August 1999. There is a lot of consternation, and politicians each promise that they and only they can wrestle inflation to the ground. But, when the figures for September, 2000 come out, inflation stays the same. Prices are the same as in August, 2000, and 5% higher than in September, 1999. This goes on for months. Nothing changes, prices stay the same, and the inflation rate, year over year, stays at 5%. Finally, the figures for August, 2001 come out. Wonder of wonders; prices are the same as in August, 2000, and inflation drops to zero. And the politicians all take the credit. Short version: inflation year over year changes either because of what in now included in the month just past, or what is now excluded from a year ago.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c548c8f369622eaa6e0093a5f0b5d4ea", "text": "\"There has been almost no inflation during 2014-2015. do you mean rental price inflation or overall inflation? Housing price and by extension rental price inflation is usually much higher than the \"\"basket of goods\"\" CPI or RPI numbers. The low levels of these two indicators are mostly caused by technology, oil and food price deflation (at least in the US, UK, and Europe) outweighing other inflation. My slightly biased (I've just moved to a new rental property) and entirely London-centric empirical evidence suggests that 5% is quite a low figure for house price inflation and therefore also rental inflation. Your landlord will also try to get as much for the property as he can so look around for similar properties and work out what a market rate might be (within tolerances of course) and negotiate based on that. For the new asked price I could get a similar apartment in similar condos with gym and pool (this one doesn't have anything) or in a way better area (closer to supermarkets, restaurants, etc). suggests that you have already started on this and that the landlord is trying to artificially inflate rents. If you can afford the extra 5% and these similar but better appointed places are at that price why not move? It sounds like the reason that you are looking to stay on in this apartment is either familiarity or loyalty to the landlord so it may be time to benefit from a move.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7cf50b1d08c74636ecff24bf8c02aa3", "text": "These are the steps I'd follow: $200 today times (1.04)^10 = Cost in year 10. The 6 deposits of $20 will be one time value calculation with a resulting year 7 final value. You then must apply 10% for 3 years (1.1)^3 to get the 10th year result. You now have the shortfall. Divide that by the same (1.1)^3 to shift the present value to start of year 7. (this step might confuse you?) You are left with a problem needing 3 same deposits, a known rate, and desired FV. Solve from there. (Also, welcome from quant.SE. This site doesn't support LATEX, so I edited the image above.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e898bbf75859f38482dd86f748db8f8c", "text": "\"Anyone who has any business looking at growth numbers will know thay are meaningless in the first year, So all they need to know is that it's the first year. It's no different than the Billboard music charts' treatment of the \"\"last week's chart ranking\"\" and \"\"movement up/down\"\" columns. It will help with visual layout if the figure used is about the same size as a percentage number. \"\"New\"\" fits nicely.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
76680ef92dfc257747f1440e339e5bf9	Upward Spike in US Treasuries despite S&P Downgrade in August 2011	[ { "docid": "e35d9bac3a2820b0e39181db4f9718ec", "text": "The only resources or references you need are a chart showing you what happened in those months. The exuberance for US treasuries comes from the fact that there are no better options than them for putting cash. There are better sovereign debt instruments around the world depending on your goals, but they do not offer the same liquidity. US dollars and US Treasuries are equivalents in this context, so no matter if the wealthy speculator removed their cash from the stock market and put it in a bank or directly bought US treasuries (or their futures), this would increase the demand for treasuries. S&P Downgraded US treasures due to political instability in the United States, since inefficiencies in the country's political structure can prevent the Treasury from paying treasury holders (aka a default). Speculators know that this doesn't effect the United States resources and revenue collection schemes, as there is ample wealth public and private available to back the treasury bonds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9cbde01cf5e466b8f1a6ee6fca714dfb", "text": "US government bonds are where money goes when the markets are turbulent and investors are fleeing from risk, and that applies even if the risk is a downgrade of the US credit rating, because there's simply nowhere else to put your money if you're in search of safety. Most AAA-rated governments have good credit ratings because they don't borrow much money (and most of them also have fairly small economies compared with the US), meaning that there's poor liquidity in their scarce bonds.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "36972b22967fcffdfc75b52853522acf", "text": "Too expand on /u/stoneeus, mortgage rates were/are also heavily influenced by the FED QE program, which holds about $4.5T in mortgage-backed securities and treasuries on the FED's balance sheet. The FED has been holding this balance steady since it ended the QE program a couple years ago, purchasing new securities as old ones mature. However, the FED has started signalling that they are going to end these purchases and let their portfolio wind down. Once that happens, you'll start to see mortgage rates rise.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5596b89a7503739bfe1ed3ba97b4b993", "text": "Robert Shiller has an on-line page with links to download some historical data that may be what you want here. Center for the Research in Security Prices would be my suggestion for another resource here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d5900f07a22f9469a20c83d55e0302f", "text": "Your quote from the CBO is talking about a actual subsidy. As stated, there was a cash value difference between what the Treasury purchased troubled assets from banks at and what the market value of those securities were. This (the point mentioned in the article) is not an actual subsidy. As a counter argument to your first paragraph, look at Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "693722f1798694bccfe5812befd2db5d", "text": "That's exactly why they should have tightened faster. A recession now is more likely than it was in 2011-2012 and they can't drop rates of that happens because they never raised them. They're basically buying time before the debt catches up, but they're doing it with more debt so they're treating the immediate symptom and ignoring the long term disease.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c52167af80856de1ae5995c89bb1e1d", "text": "\"This is a speculative question and there's no \"\"correct\"\" answer, but there are definitely some highly likely outcomes. Let's assume that the United States defaults on it's debt. It can be guaranteed that it will lose its AAA rating. Although we don't know what it will drop to, we know it WILL be AA or lower. A triple-A rating implies that the issuer will never default, so it can offer lower rates since there is a guarantee of safety there.People will demand a higher yield for the lower perceived security, so treasury yield will go up. The US dollar, or at least forex rates, will almost certainly fall. Since US treasuries will no longer be a safe haven, the dollar will no longer be the safe currency it once was, and so the dollar will fall. The US stock market (and international markets) will also have a strong fall because so many institutions, financial or otherwise, invest in treasuries so when treasuries tumble and the US loses triple-A, investments will be hurt and the tendency is for investors to overreact so it is almost guaranteed that the market will drop sharply. Financial stocks and companies that invest in treasuries will be hurt the most. A notable exception is nations themselves. For example, China holds over $1 trillion in treasuries and a US default will hurt their value, but the Yuan will also appreciate with respect to the dollar. Thus, other nations will benefit and be hurt from a US default. Now many people expect a double-dip recession - worse than the 08/09 crisis - if the US defaults. I count myself a member of this crowd. Nonetheless, we cannot say with certainty whether or not there will be another recession or even a depression - we can only say that a recession is a strong possibility. So basically, let's pray that Washington gets its act together and raises the ceiling, or else we're in for bad times. And lastly, a funny quote :) I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection. - Warren Buffett\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccf3cfb9666a458cc7a5f694e8138135", "text": "[Japan] had been for some time, but during the recession, China went strongly for US debt as a hedge against a depression occurring. Now that the world economy is rebounding, China can get a bit more aggressive and will probably back off on treasuries.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38aa011258eb268a60e1affa22392333", "text": "No. If you have to ignore a price spike, obviously its value is not constant. Gold is a commodity, just like every other commodity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "682b9e5c188daf75f671e05c6215d32c", "text": "In regards to your title, it's based on product. Rates based products had a late 2016 early 2017 run. It's now summer time and the fed is acting as expected. Clients have already positioned themselves going into the slow season. Distressed bonds and HY loans are still moving. After the latest fed increase and the yield curve flattening, HY loans took a hit. Par loans were trading at a discount. The market has moved back to paying a premium. However, HY bonds have been slowing down since June. New issue has dropped off, and equities have slowed as well. It's summer time. I wouldn't say that traders have it tough as the tittle suggests, it's just that it was a very active first quarter and now volatility has subsided. It's just the quiet season.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2732e9c4c38806c0e89bb2edd6272924", "text": "Supply and demand for a particular bond may be such that the market price exceeds the par value for the bond at maturity. This is when you get a negative yield. Especially when volatility is high, people will actually pay money to park it in treasuries for an amount of time. But when compared to a > 25% vol in the equities market over that same period, taking a 5% or less hit doesn't sound nearly as bad!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b5482cbff8fcd2891bf54fedfd90023", "text": "The math that works at the nation-scale doesn't work the same for an individual or even smaller companies (even though larger companies actually dwarf many whole countries). So while US Treasuries are a good investment for many foreign governments, that isn't universally true for all investors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a22ef484a4de1dc8991ea87a4a86c9fd", "text": "\"The difference between me and Uncle Sam is that Uncle Sam gets the lowest interest rates in the world. If I could borrow money at 1.7% for 10 years you bet your ass I'd do it! Also, the notion that \"\"Uncle Sam is running out of people to borrow from, and is having trouble paying those loans back (and the interest)\"\" is just false. US treasuries are the most sought after debt in the world. If anyone had any doubt uncle sam would pay them back, interest rates would be skyrocketing, not at historic lows. After that quote I turned it off, about two minutes in. This is just more FUD designed to get you to buy gold or whatever. Ignore it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52ef53da2268a37f8563da3280b54011", "text": "Many of the major indices retreated today because of this news. Why? How do the rising budget deficits and debt relate to the stock markets? The major reason for the market retreating is the uncertainty regarding the US Dollar. If the US credit rating drops that will have an inflationary effect on the currency (as it will push up the cost of US Treasuries and reduce confidence in the USD). If this continues the loss of USD confidence could bring an end to the USD as the world's reserve currency which could also create inflation (as world banks could reduce their USD reserves). This can make US assets appear overvalued. Why is there such a large emphasis on the S&P rating? S&P is a large trusted rating agency so the market will respond to their analysis much like how a bank would respond to any change in your rating by Transunion (Consumer Credit Bureau) Does this have any major implications for the US stock markets today, in the short term and in July? If you are a day-trader I'm sure it does. There will be minor fluctuations in the market as soon as news comes out (either of its extension or any expected delays in passing that extension). What happens when the debt ceiling is reached? Since the US is in a deficit spending situation it needs to borrow more to satisfy its existing obligations (in short it pays its debt with more debt). As a result, if the debt ceiling isn't raised then eventually the US will be unable to pay its existing obligations. We would be in a default situation which could have devastating affects on the value of the USD. How hard the hit will depend on how long the default situation lasts (the longer we go without an increased ceiling after the exhaustion point the more we default on). In reality, Congress will approve a raise, but they will drag it out to the last possible minute. They want to appear as if they are against it, but they understand the catastrophic effects of not doing so.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7fd0e843fca80da2dcfa715ff3d71960", "text": "The US Treasury is not directly/transactionally involved, but can affect the junk bond market by issuing new bonds when rates rise. Since US bonds are considered completely safe, changes in yield will affect low quality debt. For example, if rates rose to levels like 1980, a 12% treasury bond would drive the prices of junk bonds issued today dramatically lower. Another price factor is likelihood of default. Companies with junk credit ratings have lousy balance sheets, so negative economic conditions or tight short term debt markets can result in default for many of these companies. Whether bonds in a fund are new issues or purchased on the secondary market isn't something that is very relevant to the individual investor. The current interest rate environment is factored into the market already via prices of bonds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb27312cdf3703a383fa28960ac1908a", "text": "This directly relates to the ideas behind the yield curve. For a detailed explanation of the yield curve, see the linked answer that Joe and I wrote; in short, the yield curve is a plot of the yield on Treasury securities against their maturities. If short-term Treasuries are paying higher yields than long-term debt, the yield curve has a negative slope. There are a lot of factors that could cause the yield curve to become negatively sloped, or at least less steep, but in this case, oil prices and the effective federal funds rate may have played a significant role. I'll quote from the section of the linked answer that describes the effect of oil prices first: a rise in oil prices may increase expectations of short-term inflation, so investors demand higher interest rates on short-term debt. Because long-term inflation expectations are governed more by fundamental macroeconomic factors than short-term swings in commodity prices, long-term expectations may not rise nearly as much as short term expectations, which leads to a yield curve that is becoming less steep or even negatively sloped. As the graph shows, oil prices increased dramatically, so this increase may have increased expectations of short-term inflation expectations substantially. The other answer describes an easing of monetary policy, e.g. a decrease in the effective federal funds rate (FFR), as a factor that could increase the slope of the yield curve. However, a tightening of monetary policy, e.g. an increase in the FFR, could decrease the slope of the yield curve because a higher FFR leads investors to demand a higher rate of return on shorter-term securities. Longer-term Treasuries aren't as affected by short-term monetary policy, so when short-term yields increase more than long-term yields, the yield curve becomes less steep and/or negatively sloped. The second graph shows the effective federal funds rate for the period in question, and once again, the increase is significant. Finally, look at a graph of inflation for the relevant period. Intuitively, the steady increase in inflation from 1975 onward may have increased investors expectations of short-term inflation, therefore increasing short-term yields more than long-term yields (as described above and in the other answer). These reasons aren't set in stone, and just looking at graphs isn't a substitute for an actual analysis of the data, but logically, it seems plausible that the positive shock to oil prices, increases in the effective federal funds rate, and increases in inflation and expectations of inflation contributed at least partially to the inversion of the yield curve. Keep in mind that these factors are all interconnected as well, so the situation is certainly more complex. If you approve of this answer, be sure to vote up the other answer about the yield curve too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c4877759badd49c65120dde596c39fc", "text": "The people who bought when interest rates were higher, do they get anything out of it? The present value just went up of their Bonds just went up, but it probably evened out to the 3% they were going to get right? Do they make more money selling the bond now, or holding on to it till maturity in PV terms?", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
a542e41b4249222d9fd841bbfddb3eec	Why would I buy a bond with a negative yield?	[ { "docid": "23ddebd118921642b4fde7d7b52a8693", "text": "It would be preferable to purchase a bond with a negative yield if the negative yield was the smallest compared to similar financial securities. The purchase or sale of a security is rarely a mutually exclusive event. An individual may have personal reasons or a desire to contribute to the activity the bond is financing. To an entity, the negative yield bond may be part of a cost averaging plan, diversification strategy, a single leg of a multi-leg transaction, or possibly to aid certainty as a hedge in a pairs trade. And of course there may be other unique situations specific to the entity. Said another way, is the Queen of Spades a good card? It depends on the game being played and what is in your hand.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "48c01e8025f37a2255ffd3c048d8b06a", "text": "Perhaps something else comes with the bond so it is a convertible security. Buffett's Negative-Interest Issues Sell Well from 2002 would be an example from more than a decade ago: Warren E. Buffett's new negative-interest bonds sold rapidly yesterday, even after the size of the offering was increased to $400 million from $250 million, with a possible offering of another $100 million to cover overallotments. The new Berkshire Hathaway securities, which were underwritten by Goldman, Sachs at the suggestion of Mr. Buffett, Berkshire's chairman and chief executive, pay 3 percent annual interest. But they are coupled with five-year warrants to buy Berkshire stock at $89,585, a 15 percent premium to Berkshire's stock price Tuesday of $77,900. To maintain the warrant, an investor is required to pay 3.75 percent each year. That provides a net negative rate of 0.75 percent.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34665581461e0a8d5d33457ae25d7895", "text": "The question in my view is going into Opinion and economics. Why would I buy a bond with a negative yield? I guess you have answered yourself; Although the second point is more relevant for high net worth individual or large financial institutions / Governments where preserving cash is an important consideration. Currently quite a few Govt Bonds are in negative as most Govt want to encourage spending in an effort to revive economy.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "14a36d998327e07c3acbbdcfcdb766fe", "text": "\"leverage amplifies gains and losses, when returns are positive leverage makes them more positive, but when returns are negative leverage makes them more negative. since most investments have a positive return in \"\"the long run\"\", leverage is generally considered a good idea for long term illiquid investments like real estate. that said, to quote keynes: in the long run we are all dead. in the case of real estate specifically, negative returns generally happen when house prices drop. assuming you have no intention of ever selling the properties, you can still end up with negative returns if rents fall, mortgage rates increase or tax rates rise (all of which tend to correlate with falling property values). also, if cash flow becomes negative, you may be forced to sell during a down market, thereby amplifying the loss. besides loss scenarios, leverage can turn a small gain into a loss because leverage has a price (interest) that is subtracted from any amplified gains (and added to any amplified losses). to give a specific example: if you realize a 0.1% gain on x$ when unleveraged, you could end up with a 17% loss if leveraged 90% at 2% interest. (gains-interest)/investment=(0.001x-0.020.9x)/(x/10)=-0.01710=-0.17=17% loss one reason leveraged investments are popular (particularly with real estate), is that the investor can file bankruptcy to \"\"erase\"\" a large negative net worth. this means the down side of a leveraged investment is limited for the highly leveraged investor. this leads to a \"\"get rich or start over\"\" mentality common among the self-made millionaire (and failed entrepreneurs). unfortunately, this dynamic also leads to serious problems for the banking sector in the event of a large nation-wide devaluation of real estate prices.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88eb05212e390eb6b77372ec51fdc3ee", "text": "\"Even though the article doesn't actually use the word \"\"discount\"\", I think the corresponding word you are looking for is \"\"premium\"\". The words are used quite frequently even outside of the context of negative rates. In general, bonds are issued with coupons close to the prevailing level of interest rates, i.e. their price is close to par (100 dollar price). Suppose yields go up the next day, then the price moves inversely to yields, and that bond will now trade at a \"\"discount to par\"\" (less than 100 dollar price). And vice versa, if yields went down, prices go up, and the bond is now at a \"\"premium to par\"\" (greater than 100 dollar price)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e03ffaa92d15930d884ee78fd0f02558", "text": "Those are the expected yields; they are not guaranteed. This was actually the bread and butter of Graham Newman, mispriced bonds. Graham's writings in the Buffett recommended edition of Securities Analysis are invaluable to bond valuation. The highest yielder now is a private subsidiary of Société Générale. A lack of financial statements availability and the fact that this is the US derivatives markets subsidiary are probably the cause of the higher rates. The cost is about a million USD to buy them. The rest will be similar cases, but Graham's approach could find a diamond; however, bonds are big ticket items, so one should expect to pay many hundreds of thousands of USD per trade.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f04c95fbe25c806a926f738494f09406", "text": "\"It makes sense if the NPV is positive. But what rate should you use at determining the NPV? A textbook might say \"\"market rate\"\".... and by definition the market rate to use in bond calculations like yours will mean that your NPV will be zero. How can this be? Well it's a bit of a circular definition. You take less capital to earn a higher return. The value of your capital spread over the period of the bond's maturity is the net difference... but the money in your pocket from selling the bond and not purchasing also has value. Banks and traders do this exact swap every day, many many times. The rate at which you can execute this swap is what defines the market rate. Therefore, by definition, the NPV will be zero. Now, this doesn't mean it's a bad idea for you. You can, on your own accord, decide the value you place on the capital versus the yield and make the decision. Do you expect rates to rise or fall? Do you expect higher or lower inflation? In reality you can form whatever opinion you like for your own circumstance, but the market is the net aggregation of formative opinion. You only get to decide whether or not you agree with the market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a098f01bc8fa47e3f9160a018b52c89b", "text": "There are a few other factors possible here: Taxes - Something you don't mention is what are the tax rates on each of those choices. If the 4% gain is taxed at 33% while the 3% government bond is taxed at 0% then it may well make more sense to have the government bond that makes more money after taxes. Potential changes in rates - Could that 4% rate change at any time? Yield curves are an idea here to consider where at times they can become inverted where short-term bonds yield more than long-term bonds due to expectations about rates. Some banks may advertise a special rate for a limited time to try to get more deposits and then change the rate later. Beware the fine print. Could the bond have some kind of extra feature on it? For example, in the US there are bonds known as TIPS that while the interest rate may be low, there is a principal adjustment that comes as part of the inflation adjustment that is part how the security is structured.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe87a107006a1c915292432f35ec1d5c", "text": "Virtually zero risk of default; safety; diversification; guaranteed fixed income albeit very low; portfolio diversifier so it reduces total volatility; plus yields might drop even lower thus increasing the price of the bond. Very unlikely given how obscenely low yields already are but still possible. I thought nobody would ever buy a 10yr @ 3% and now look, rates are almost half as much and those 3% bonds are worth a lot more now on the secondary market. Timing the bond market is really hard.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a6ecc93aaeca700b59696c9e2c3c3d8", "text": "As well as credit risk there's also interest risk. If a bond has a face value of $100, pays 1% and matures in 20 years' time then you expect to receive a total of $120 from buying it now -- $1 per year for 20 years and $100 at the end. But if you can get a 3% return elsewhere, then if you invest your $80 there instead you will get $2.40 per year for 20 years and then $80 at the end, making a total of $128 (and you also get more of the money sooner). So even $80 for the $100 bond is a bad buy, and you should invest elsewhere.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de4312884f19663ad7e0d0e07b86898f", "text": "You're talking about floating rate loans. It's so that the bond is marked back to market every 90 days. Any more often would be a hassle to deal with for everyone involved, any less often and they would be significant variance from LIBOR vs. the loan's specific rate.", "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": "2fafdfc536de79a7ae3d9e9234c7c5d3", "text": "Ponder this. Suppose that a reputable company or government were to come out and say hey, we are going to issue some 10 year bonds at 6.4%. Anyone interested in buying some? Assume that the company or government is financially solid and there is zero chance that they will go bankrupt. Think those bonds would sell? Would you be interested in buying such a bond? Well, I would wager that these bonds would sell like hotcakes, despite the fact that the long term stock market return beats it by a half percent. Heck, vanguard's junk bond fund is hot right now. It only yields 4.9% and those are junk bonds, not rock solid companies (see vanguard high yield corporate bond fund) Every time you make an extra principal payment on your student loan, you are effectively purchasing a investment with a rock solid, guaranteed 6.4% return for 10 years (or whatever time you have left on the loan if make no extra payments). On top of that, paying off a loan early builds your credit reputation, improves your monthly cash flow once the loan is paid, may increase your purchasing power for a house or car, and if nothing else, it frees you from being a slave to that debt payment every month. Edit Improved wording based on Ross's comment", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55a7bd36c545fb5229e6d80425af33a9", "text": "This is a perfect example of why bonds are confusing at first glance. Think about it this way... You buy a 30-year Russian Bond at 4%. An event happens that makes Russia risky to invest in. You want to buy another bond but fuck 4%, you and the rest of the market want 6% to compensate you for the risk. Now let's say you want to sell your 4% bond... Well you're going to have to drop the price of that bond in order for it to appeal to an investor that could go out and get a 6%. On a 30-year bond of that kind, you're looking at about 75% of what you bought it for. So to wrap it up, high bond yields are great for buyers that don't already own them, but bad for sellers who want to get rid of their old ones. It is the opposite intuition as stocks and almost everything else.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ecfa6bb9c8b37781cfa02cab7521ce22", "text": "Negative coupons are not the same as a negative yield. A $1000 bond that you purchase, at a premium, for $2100 that produces 10 annual coupons of $100 and a redemption of $1000 has a real, positive coupon ($100). The holder of the bond gets this coupon, and the maturity value However, you get back less than your initial investment. There is no growth; the original investment shrinks, or has a negative growth rate. Most mortgage or bond calculators choke on this situation...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a215235050247865d3e2f2c75a3b8eb", "text": "From my blog's discussion on 2017 tax rates. This is the final set of numbers. So, if you currently have, say $120K taxable income, every dollar above that starts getting taxed at 25%, until $153K, then 28%. In other words, forecast your taxes based on the day job, but then the 1099 goes on top of that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "972cce8568cc0e5fb62e7e6a4a2e76a8", "text": "The fact that the option is deep in the money will be reflected in the market price of the option so you can just sell it at a profit. If there's a (n almost) guaranteed profit to be had, however, you can always find someone who will lend you the money to cover the exercise... they'll charge you interest, however!", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
91f2e0e9370a20ef90b9555d2123de51	Are you preparing for a possible dollar (USD) collapse? (How?)	[ { "docid": "de65cacded988a766e4187cca6904dd6", "text": "There are two basic ways you can separate your investments from the dollar (or any other currency).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f49d5510429dbbfe5c6ef3a85a18ec30", "text": "I am not preparing for a sudden, major, catastrophic collapse in the US dollar. I am, however, preparing for a significant but gradual erosion of its value through inflation over the space of several years to a decade. To that end, I've invested most of my assets in the stock market (roughly 80%) through major world index funds, and limited my bond exposure (maintaining a small stake in commodity ETFs: gold, silver, platinum and palladium) due to both inflation risk and the inevitability of rising interest rates. I don't think most companies mind overmuch if the dollar falls gradually, as the bulk of their value is in their continuing income stream, not in a dollar-denominated bank account. I also try to keep what I can in tax-deferred accounts: If, after several years, your stocks were up 100% but inflation reduced the dollar's value by 50%, you're still stuck paying taxes on the entire gain, even though it was meaningless. I'm also anticipating tax hikes at some point (though not as a result of the dollar falling). It helps that I'm young and can stand a lot of investment risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4f9b66d1aa4508cfeffa190848a6514", "text": "Depends what kind of expenses you intend to use this money for. If you plan to buy housing in the future (eg you're saving a deposit), then you need to ensure that the value doesn't deteriorate relative to the value of the housing you are likely to buy - so you could buy a Residential REIT, or buy some investment property. If you expect to use this money for food, then you should buy suitable assets (eg Wheat futures, etc). Link the current asset to the future expense, and you will be fine. If you buy Gold, then you are making a bet that Gold will retain its value compared to the thing you want to purchase in future. It doesn't matter what the price of Gold does in $US.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61d4dc5d0d5d24072fd42eeb5e6639bc", "text": "I've thought of the following ways to hedge against a collapsing dollar:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d075b1385612a26e2689c8319ed4177e", "text": "I recently finished reading a book that you may be interested in based on your question, The Ultimate Suburban Survivalist Guide. The author begins with a discussion of why he thinks the US economy and currency could collapse. It gets a little scary. Then he goes into great detail on commodities, specifically gold. The rest of the book is about what you can be doing to prepare yourself and your family to be more self sufficient. To answer your question, I do anticipate problems with US currency in the future and plan to put some money in gold if the price dips.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8f1abe5d6acad4a5681cbee71690432", "text": "\"Invest in other currencies and assets that have \"\"real\"\" value. And personally I don't count gold as something of real value. Of course its used in the industry but besides that its a pretty useless metal and only worth something because everybody else thinks that everybody thinks its worth something. So I would buy land, houses, stocks, ...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "070013f599d17cefeb53cdaa8e8ce532", "text": "I'd like to provide ideas other than gold, stocks, property, bonds on how to prepare for a severe crisis. My suggestions below may even make your life more happy now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b72db17639d8369ec3dcb5b7f060b69f", "text": "\"Buying gold, silver, palladium, copper and platinum. The first two I am thinking about new currencies. The last three for the perpetual need for the metals in industry. I also have invested in Numismatic coins. They are small portable and easy to hide around the house. I only collect silver coins, so even if the world really blows up and numismatics goes out the window, I can depend on them forming a barter system through the content value of the silver. The problem with collectable items is that they are easy to see. For example, a nice painting just shouts out \"\"steal me!\"\". I don't buy large gold coins. As long as the coin is below 1/4 Oz gold I collect it. If the dollar does finaly collapse, to be honest it will be so bad that I think weapons will be order of the day. Do I think it will collapse...nah never.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30152e0feec6c0a9cef953d3c3199026", "text": "The collapse of the US economic system is one of the many things I am preparing for. To answer the how, me personally I am doing some investing in gold and silver. However I am investing more in the tools, goods and gear that will help me be independent of the system around me. In short nothing will change for me if the US dollar goes belly up. A book I recommend is Possum Living (http://www.possumliving.net/). Other than that I am investing in trade goods such as liquor, cigarettes, medical supplies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e1a355598fe228c3a2011f9a52fdfd1", "text": "\"I think it's apt to remind that there's no shortcuts, if someone thinks about doing FX fx: - negative sum game (big spread or commissions) - chaos theory description is apt - hard to understand costs (options are insurance and for every trade there is equivalent option position - so unless you understand how those are priced, there's a good chance you're getting a \"\"sh1tty deal\"\" as that Goldman guy famously said) - averaging can help if timing is bad but you could be just getting deeper into the \"\"deal\"\" I just mentioned and giving a smarter counterparty your money could backfire as it's the \"\"ammo\"\" they can use to defend their position. This doesn't apply to your small hedge/trade? Well that's what I thought not long ago too! That's why I mentioned chaos theory. If you can find a party to hedge with that is not hedging with someone who eventually ends up hedging with JPM/Goldman/name any \"\"0 losing days a year\"\" \"\"bank\"\".. Then you may have a point. And contrary to what many may still think, all of the above applies to everything you can think of that has to do with money. All the billions with 0-losing days need to come from somewhere and it's definitely not coming just from couple FX punters.\"", "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": "0d97f0121812448b1da034da9f68ef43", "text": "While it's possible that the dollar could lose its grip as the global currency, it's unlikely that it will be quickly supplanted by another. The world might simply see a a paradigm shift towards the use of whatever currency suits whichever counterparty at any given moment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71f9d8edc596046cff8cea31387f42ab", "text": "Gold is money. If fiat money fails, only physical assets will count. Gold has been an historic store of wealth. Silver is also historically a good thing to possess when governmental systems fail. Don't buy paper gold, it is based on illusion. No one knows what will happen this time, but fiat money will likely fail again, as it has many times. Good luck to you for at least trying to prepare, you are an inspiriation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86516c0d3489f7e5c5913e2155b60eb1", "text": "But then why wouldn't that be their primary mode to control their currency now/are they starting/hinting at doing so to move away from US treasuries? There must be benefits to Treasury purchasing that seems better to them, maybe that QE can't do alone? And I have to imagine with the tenuous nature of their financial system, the shock alone from losing access to the Dollar (and before they could use QE to devalue the currency back down) would be a major issue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50b52264b9409f57b1b597876e96528a", "text": "Technically, you could improve your odds in this hypothetical pre-apocolyptic economy by diversifying your digital and tangible precious-metal-commodity portfolio by going in with gold, silver, platinum, palladium, and others. That being said I'm not sure if one can access tangible stores of all these metals...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71973b471b6779c847e78549ccae7fb6", "text": "Rather than screwing around with foreign currencies, hop over to Germany and open an account at the first branch of Deutsche or Commerzbank you see. If the euro really does disintegrate, you want to have your money in the strongest country of the lot. Edit: and what I meant to say is that if the euro implodes, you'll end up with deutschmarks, which, unlike the new IEP, will not need to devalue. (And in the meantime, you've still got euros, so you have no FX risk.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2fc3014e53ce66c2041906e87955ae2e", "text": "The ruble was, is and will be very unstable because of unstable political situation in Russia and the economy strongly dependent of the export of raw resources. What you can do? I assume, you want to minimize risk. The best way to achieve that is to make your savings in some stable currency. Euro and Swiss Franc are currently very stable currencies, so storing your surpluses in them is a very good option if you want to keep your money safe. To prevent political risk, you should keep your money in countries with stable political regime, which are unlikely to 'nationalize' the savings of the citizens in predictable future. As for your existing savings in rubles, it's a hard deal. I assume, as the web developer, you have a plenty of money, which have lost a lot of value. If you convert them to euro or francs, you will preserver the current value (after the loss). You'll safe them agaist ruble falling down, but in case the ruble will return to previous value, you'll loose. Keeping savings in instable currencies is, however, speculation, like investing in gold etc. So if you can mentally accept the loss and want to sleep good, convert them. You have also option to invest in properties, for example buy an extra appartment. It's a good way to deal with financial surplus in Europe in US, however you should be aware, in Russland it's connected with the political risk. The real estates can be confiscated in any moment by the state and you can't run away with it (the savings can also be confiscated, but there's a fair chance you'll manage to rescue them if you act quickly).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f0df3b976c5c95311470cb1c41604f2", "text": "They wont let it collapse, they will devalue it over time to some effect via bailouts and borrowing. Invest in commodities so your cash retains its value, physical gold is always strong. Other currencies are an option but this is more of a gamble.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f7e3492cf4cc9b19031d374d516784f", "text": "You have currency risk either way. The only question is deal with it now or later. No one can tell you which action is better until we look at it in hindsight. You could hedge and move some now, some later. Invest your USD in US equities and move some to EUR and invest that in EUR companies. I'd suggest having your money in the same currency as where you are living, since for the most part, you'll be in the same boat as your peers and neighbors. If you have high inflation, so will your friends and neighbors and you won't feel so bad. And if your currency gets stronger, then so will the currency of the people you are hanging out with. It's similar to betting on Don't Pass in craps. If you bet against the rest of the table, you could win when they lose, but then all your friends will be sad and you'll be happy. And vice versa, when your friends are high-fiving, you'll be in the dumps. I'd say it's better to be in the same boat as your peers since that's usually how we judge our happiness when we compare our situation to others.", "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": "3e62c2011d876ce75d484627e68e34ac", "text": "as long as US bonds will keep their status of a safe haven and the dollar will continue to be the world reserve currency the bond rates will stay low. hell, after S&P downgraded the US credit rating, the bond yields actually dropped, indicating an influx on money. the shock will come. sooner or more probably later.. it won't be the end of the world, just another nasty downturn.", "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": "cdb07168dd6bdbfa4ab1f3183deb7b9f", "text": "\"i hate to say it, and i will probably be downvoted to oblivion, but i don't think you can do anything. i'm not an expert, so i might be wrong, but if greece (or any euro country, for that matters) decides to exit the euro, the currency will be dead within the week. that, from what i've read in various newspapers, will be an incredibly bad news for the european economy. which will collapse in a very short period of time. then the collapse would propagate (more or less slowly, more or less significantly) to other economies, especially china and US, possibly middle east, too. at that point, you (well, we) have a major economic cataclysm. would it really matter if you had a tiny bit more money than your neighbour, if production stops, goods don't move that much anymore, and your country is generally in such a deep shit that the potato famine will look like a day in eurodisney? i agree with what other people are saying: they will not allow the euro to fall. \"\"they\"\" sounds like hidden conspiracies, but even if european leaders have taught us that we can expect the worse from them (2 world wars in the last centuries are just the quicker reminder of their stupidity), there's the americans, the chineses, and so on. i think the worst thing you, or anyone else in europe, can do is panicking and moving their money around. if the exchange rate with the euro is not fixed (and nothing is) you still have a chance to lose a significant amount of money in the short-medium run, in a worst case scenario. chill. relax. if you're really desperate and think that things will go bad, try turning a hobby into another job, especially if you can do it online and can bring you a steady income eventually. TL; DR: if the world economy collapse, you will still lose money. live happy. chill.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ddfbde9085a0e2ad770f2767da803855", "text": "> At some point we are going to have abused our global reserve status to the point the world doesn't want to extend it to us anymore. This will happen as soon as there is someplace better to go. This, in turn, will require: * Someone running sound economics * Those sound economics not being dependant on US/dollar hegemony * The US not blowing them up These are not impossible criteria, and absolutely will eventually be met, but I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that that point is a long way away at this point. We have a lot of time, and much of it will be tumultuous & uncertain in many ways- but the dollar & US treasuries will still be the thinnest kid at fat camp until it ends.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31389a73cfb89b48bea2c20e060166c5", "text": "Imagine how foolish the people that bought Apple at $100 must have felt. It was up tenfold for the $10 it traded at just years prior, how could it go any higher? Stocks have no memory. A stock's earnings may grow and justify the new higher price people are willing to pay. When FB came public, I remarked how I'd analyze the price and felt it was overvalued until its earnings came up. Just because it's gone down ever since, doesn't make it a buy, yet.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d7acd37f6579017f1b6c8020ae916007	Why does a stock's price fluctuate so often, even when fresh news isn't available?	[ { "docid": "afc87e138f5ad7836364c72b04e864f2", "text": "News about a company is not the only thing that affects its stock's price. There is also supply and demand. That, of course, is influenced by news, but it is not the only actor. An insider, with a large position in their company's stock, may want to diversify his overall portfolio and thus need to sell a large amount of stock. That may be significant enough to increase supply and likely reduce the stock's price somewhat. That brings me to another influence on stock price: perception. Executives, and other insiders with large positions in their company's stock, have to be careful about how and when they sell some of that stock as to not worry the markets. Many investors watch insider selling to gauge the health of the company. Which brings me to another important point. There are many things that may be considered news which is material to a certain company and its stock. It is not just quarterly filings, earnings reports and such. There is also news related to competitors, news about the economy or a certain sector, news about some weather event that affects a major supplier, news about a major earthquake that will impact the economy of a nation which can then have knock-on effects to other economies, etc... There are also a lot of investors with varying needs which will influence supply and demand. An institutional investor, needing to diversify, may reduce their position in a stock and thus increase supply enough that it impacts the stock's price. Meanwhile, individual investors will make their transactions at varying times during the day. In the aggregate, that may have significant impacts on supply and demand. The overall point being that there are a lot of inputs and a lot of actors in a complicated system. Even if you focus just on news, there are many things that fall into that category. News does not come out at regular intervals and it does not necessarily spread evenly. That alone could make for a highly variable environment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "092b192a49e4d84bb612fc2f63c5ff2f", "text": "\"In addition to what @George Marian said, a very large portion of trades are from computer programs trained to make trades when certain apparent patterns are observed. Since these programs are not all designed in the same way, much of the supply and demand is a result of different algorithms with different \"\"opinions\"\" on what the stock is doing.\"", "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": "8cb8c260e0aa71f1a449689c970c47d6", "text": "\"Investors are \"\"forever\"\" comparing the prices of stocks to other stocks. As others have pointed out, this is done faster and more frequently nowadays with high-speed computer programs. There may be no \"\"fresh\"\" news on stock A, but if there is fresh news on stock B (as there usually is), the news on B affects the COMPARISON with stock A. That could be what causes trading in stock A that has \"\"no news.\"\"\"", "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": "64b54d4e4ecc2bbf9acb2240ed62c300", "text": "Large volume just means a lot of market participants believe they know where the stock price will be (after some amount of time). The fact that the price is not moving just means that about 50% of those really confident traders think the stock will be moving up, and about 50% of those really confident traders think the stock will be moving down.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b42364f8eb819cf045e88bb58afbaca", "text": "Besides overnight news events and auction mechanisms there is a more fundamental reason the price of a stock is always moving. Theoretically the stock price will move slightly even in the unlikely scenario that absolutely nothing of interest happens during the entire night. Let me go into that in some more detail: Stock valuation using Discounted Cash FLow One of the fundamental reasons that stock value is constantly changing is because underneath every stock there is a company that expects to make some kind of profit or loss in the future. We have to go into the fundamentals of stock value to understand why this is important: One popular way to determine the value of a stock is by looking into the future and summing up all the earnings (or cashflows) it has yet to produce. You have to reduce each amount by a certain factor that gets larger for payments that are farther into the future. Think of it this way: a dollar in hand now is better than a dollar that you get tomorrow. This method of valuation is called Discounted Cash Flow (abbr. DCF; see the wikipedia article on DCF) Time's effect on stock value Now take the Close price C, and the open price O. Let's assume that since there has been no news, the expectations for future earnings are the same for C and O. Remember that the discounting factor for these earnings is dependent on the time until the cashflow occurs? For O, this time is slightly shorter than for C, and therefore the value will be slightly higher (or lower, when the company is expected to incur losses). So now you can see that even without all the external forces that continuously push and pull on the stock price, a stock still changes in value over time. Hope this helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "879c0735767dce73815b86de9e6871b6", "text": "\"This is a classic correlation does not imply causation situation. There are (at least) three issues at play in this question: If you are swing- or day-trading then the first and second issues can definitely affect your trading. A higher-price, higher-volume stock will have smaller (percentage) volatility fluctuations within a very small period of time. However, in general, and especially when holding any position for any period of time during which unknowns can become known (such as Netflix's customer-loss announcement) it is a mistake to feel \"\"safe\"\" based on price alone. When considering longer-term investments (even weeks or months), and if you were to compare penny stocks with blue chip stocks, you still might find more \"\"stability\"\" in the higher value stocks. This is a correlation alone — in other words, a stable, reliable stock probably has a (relatively) high price but a high price does not mean it's reliable. As Joe said, the stock of any company that is exposed to significant risks can drop (or rise) by large amounts suddenly, and it is common for blue-chip stocks to move significantly in a period of months as changes in the market or the company itself manifest themselves. The last thing to remember when you are looking at raw dollar amounts is to remember to look at shares outstanding. Netflix has a price of $79 to Ford's $12; yet Ford has a larger market cap because there are nearly 4 billion shares compared to Netflix's 52m.\"", "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": "61dda950b48e704bbd339e847c67df77", "text": "Stock prices are indeed proportional to supply and demand. The greater the demand for a stock, the greater the price. If they are, would this mean that stock prices completely depend on HOW the public FEELS/THINKS about the stock instead of what it is actually worth? This is a question people have argued for decades. Literature in behavioral finance suggests that investors are not rational and thus markets are subject to wild fluctuation based on investor sentiment. The efficient market theory (EMT) argues that the stock market is efficient and that a stock's price is an accurate reflection of its underlying or intrinsic value. This philosophy took birth with Harry Markovitz's efficient frontier, and Eugene Fama is generally seen as the champion of EMT in the 1960's and onward. Most investors today would agree that the markets are not perfectly efficient, and that a stock's price does not always reflect its value. The renowned professor Benjamin Graham once wrote: In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run it is a weighing machine. This suggests that prices in the short term are mainly influenced by how people feel about the stock, while in the long run the price reflects what it's actually worth. For example, people are really big fans of tech stocks right now, which suggests why LinkedIn (stock: LNKD) has such a high share price despite its modest earnings (relative to valuation). People feel really good about it, and the price might sustain if LinkedIn becomes more and more profitable, but it's also possible that their results won't be absolutely stellar, so the stock price will fall until it reflects the company's fundamentals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c8ebeab922a88a6568179e1480ad73d", "text": "\"Prices reflect all available information. (Efficient markets hypothesis) A lot can happen between the time a stock closes on one day and opens on another. Particularly in a heavily traded stock such as IBM. Basically, you have a different \"\"information set\"\" the following day, which implies a different price. The instances where you are most likely to have a stock where the price opens at the same price is at the previous close is a thinly traded stock on which you have little information, meaning that the \"\"information set\"\" changes less from day to day.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c58577f473a1dd7cc724c15df133583", "text": "Yes, but only in a relatively short term. False news or speculations can definitely change the stock price, sometimes even significantly. However, the stock price will eventually (in the long-term) correct itself and head to the right direction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7432ecb42e62b915bdadef23c4d37402", "text": "I think it's because there are a lot of retail investors in this stock. They are the ones that tend to overreact on news cycles, so creating bad press or over-hyping bad press really makes the stock price swing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79761ea709f02e044c94985e3211cab4", "text": "\"The fallacy in your question is in this statement: \"\"The formulas must exist, because prices can be followed real time.\"\" What you see are snapshots of the current status of the stock, what was the last price a stock was traded at, what is the volume, is the price going up or down. People who buy and hold their stock look at the status every few days or even every few months. Day traders look at the status every second of the trading day. The math/formula comes in when people try to predict where the stock is going based on the squiggles in the line. These squiggles move based on how other people react to the squiggles. The big movements occur when big pieces of news make large movements in the price. Company X announces the release of the key product will be delayed by a year; the founder is stepping down; the government just doubled the order for a new weapon system; the insiders are selling all the shares they can. There are no formulas to determine the correct price, only formulas that try to predict where the price may go.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d21510e020a4614e78e632825b4328fa", "text": "It does sometimes open one day the same as it closed the previous day. Take a look at ESCA, it closed October 29th at 4.50, at opened November 1st at 4.50. It's more likely to change prices overnight than it is between two successive ticks during the day, because a lot more time passes, in which news can come out, and in which people can reevaluate the stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "018634fe9681150c8817969ad44b3afd", "text": "During the 12 plus hours the market was closed news can change investors opinion of the stock. When the market reopens that first trade could be much different than the last trade the day before.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "555be60b1c7c421fc2d3104626e6fa19", "text": "\"Most likely because they don't know what they're talking about. They all have a belief without evidence that information set X is internalised into the price but information set Y is not. If there is some stock characteristic, call it y, that belongs to set Y, then that moves the gauge towards a \"\"buy\"\" recommendation. However, the issue is that no evidence has been used to determine the constituents of X and Y, or even whether Y exists in any non-trivial sense.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c0181979f92ee71a72352910947e00d", "text": "\"The \"\"random walk\"\" that you describe reflects the nature of the information flow about the value of a stock. If the flow is just little bits of relatively unimportant information (including information about the broader market and the investor pool), you will get small and seemingly random moves, which may look like a meander. If an important bit of information comes out, like a merger, you will see a large and immediate move, which may not look as random. However, the idea that small moves are a meander of search and discovery and large moves are immediate agreements is incorrect. Both small moves and large moves are instantaneous agreements about the value of a stock in the form of a demand/supply equilibrium. As a rule, neither is predictable from the point of view of a single investor, but they are not actually random. They look different from each other only because of the size of the movement, not because of an underlying difference in how the consensus price is reached.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0390cad631ad3320497385f845dbf1c", "text": "\"At any moment, the price is where the supply (seller) and demand (buyer) intersect. This occurs fast enough you don't see it as anything other than bid/ask. What moves it? News of a new drug, device, sandwich, etc. Earning release, whether above or below expectations, or even dead-on, will often impact the price. Every night, the talking heads try to explain the day's price moves. When they can't, they often report \"\"profit taking\"\" for a market drop, or other similar nonsense. Some moves are simple random change.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8338b9c259879c606314f208ab3d4d19", "text": "\"Firstly, if a stock costs $50 this second, the bid/ask would have to be 49/50. If the bid/ask were 49/51, the stock would cost $51 this second. What you're likely referring to is the last trade, not the cost. The last trading price is history and doesn't apply to future transactions. To make it simple, let's define a simple order book. Say there is a bid to buy 100 at $49, 200 at $48, 500 at $47. If you place a market order to sell 100 shares, it should all get filled at $49. If you had placed a market order to sell 200 shares instead, half should get filled at $49 and half at $48. This is, of course, assuming no one else places an order before you get yours submitted. If someone beats you to the 100 share lot, then your order could get filled at lower than what you thought you'd get. If your internet connection is slow or there is a lot of latency in the data from the exchange, then things like this could happen. Also, there are many ECNs in addition to the exchanges which may have different order books. There are also trades which, for some reason, get delayed and show up later in the \"\"time and sales\"\" window. But to answer the question of why someone would want to sell low... the only reason I could think is they desire to drive the price down.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
4f01908312fa65c70e10e202a8b03547	How can I predict which way mortgage rates are moving?	[ { "docid": "df2f4da41104a279d24c1f9062983c1e", "text": "Obviously you can't predict the future too much, but it's not too hard to figure out what is going to happen to mortgage rates in the short term. Mortgage rates are heavily influenced by 10 year treasury yields. You can find the daily 10 year rates here. It's easy to see the direction they've been moving recently. It usually takes a few days for mortgage rates to follow if the 10 year treasury yield is dropping (although if it's going up, mortgage rates will go up faster than they will fall). Here's a sample of all the 10 year treasury yields for the past 10 years. Looks like a good time to get a mortgage or refinance! You can also take a look at movements in mortgage backed securities. Here you can find a chart for Fannie Mae 3.0% mortgages. As the price goes up, mortgage rates go down. Think of it this way. Right now people are will to pay $103 for $100 worth of 3.0% mortgages. That doesn't really make sense because I could just loan you $100 at 3.0% and turn around and sell it for $103 immediately, pocketing the $3 profit. The reason is because right now, no one would willingly borrow money at 3.0%. Rates have fallen so much that if a bank has a customer paying them 3.0% on a mortgage, other people are willing to pay a premium on that mortgage. New mortgages are probably being written for 2.0%. (There is no current mortgage backed security for 2.0% fannie maes because rates have never been this low before).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9870fc6c5cb390e8cbeca543fbef2f65", "text": "Mortgage rates generally consist of two factors: The risk premium is relatively constant for a particular individual / house combination, so most of the changes in your mortgage rate will be associated with changes in the price of money in the world economy at large. Interest rates in the overall economy are usually tied to an interest rate called the Federal Funds rate. The Federal Reserve manipulates the federal funds rate by buying and/or selling bonds until the rate is something they like. So you can usually expect your interest rate to rise or fall depending on the policies of the Federal Reserve. You can predict this in a couple of ways: The way they have described their plans recently indicates that will keep interest rates low for an extended period of time - probably through 2014 or so - and they hope to keep inflation around 2%. Unless inflation is significantly more than 2% between now and then, they are extremely unlikely to change that plan. As such, you should probably not expect mortgage interest rates in general to change more than infinitesimally small amounts until 2014ish. Worry more about your credit score.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "584de925e50869048ed428309b9d453b", "text": "If economic conditions are weakening, i.e. unemployment rising, business and consummer confidence dropping, etc., you can expect interest rates and thus mortgage rates to drop. If economic conditions are strengthening you can expect interest rates and thus mortgage rates to start rising. As you are in the US, and with official interest rates there at 0.25% there is not much room for these rates to fall further. I am in Australia, with official interest rates at 3.75%, and with the economic weakness in the US and Europe and with China slowing down, we can expect our rates to fall further over the next year. Regarding your timeframe of one to two weeks, unless there is a decision on rates in the US in the next week I don't think there would be much change, especially with rates there at record lows. You are probably best to shop around for the best rates now and refinance once you have found one you are happy with.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f595b1e50b0683b20aa07a69001c969c", "text": "\"One way to think of the typical fixed rate mortgage, is that you can calculate the balance at the end of the month. Add a month's interest (rate times balance, then divide by 12) then subtract your payment. The principal is now a bit less, and there's a snowball effect that continues to drop the principal more each month. Even though some might object to my use of the word \"\"compounding,\"\" a prepayment has that effect. e.g. you have a 5% mortgage, and pay $100 extra principal. If you did nothing else, 5% compounded over 28 years is about 4X. So, if you did this early on, it would reduce the last payment by about $400. Obviously, there are calculators and spreadsheets that can give the exact numbers. I don't know the rules for car loans, but one would actually expect them to work similarly, and no, you are not crazy to expect that. Just the opposite.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc630ecd66dc499dc67deceaf82681ed", "text": "\"In addition to the information in the other answer, I would suggest looking at an economic calendar. These provide the dates and values of many economic announcements, e.g. existing home sales, durable orders, consumer confidence, etc. Yahoo, Bloomberg, and the Wall Street Journal all provide such calendars. Yahoo provides links to the raw data where available; Bloomberg and the WSJ provide links to their article where appropriate. You could also look at a global economic calendar; both xe.com and livecharts.co.uk provide these. If you're only interested in the US, the Yahoo, Bloomberg, and WSJ calendars may provide a higher signal-to-noise ratio, but foreign announcements also affect US markets, so it's important to get as much perspective as possible. I like the global economic calendars I linked to above because they rate announcements on \"\"priority\"\", which is a quick way to learn which announcements have the greatest effect. Economic calendars are especially important in the context of an interview because you may be asked a follow-up question. For example, the US markets jumped in early trading today (5/28/2013) because the consumer confidence numbers exceeded forecasts (from the WSJ calendar, 76.2 vs 2.3). As SRKX stated, it's important to know more than the numbers; being able to analyze the numbers in the context of the wider market and being aware of the fundamentals driving them is what's most important. An economic calendar is a good way to see this information quickly and succinctly. (I'm paraphrasing part of my answer to another question, so you may or may not find some of that information helpful as well; I'm certainly not suggesting you look at the website of every central bank in the morning. That's what an economic calendar is for!)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbb5cf86b6ab4784bc588a20e2d96659", "text": "Regardless of how long the mortgage has left, the return you get on prepayments is identical to the mortgage rate. (What happens on your tax return is a different matter.) It's easier to get a decent financial calculator (The TI BA-35 is my favorite) than to construct spreadsheets which may or may not contain equation errors. When I duplicate John's numbers, $100K mortgage, 4% rate, I get a 60 mo remaining balance of 90,447.51 and with $50 extra, $87132.56, a diff of $3314.95. $314.95 return on the $3000. $315 over 5yrs is $63/yr, over an average $1500 put in, 63/1500 = 4.2%. Of course the simple math of just averaging the payment creates that .2% error. A 60 payment $50 returning $314.95 produces 4.000%. @Peter K - with all due respect, there's nothing for me about time value of money calculations that can be counter-intuitive. While I like playing with spreadsheets, the first thing I do is run a few scenarios and double check using the calculator. Your updated sheet is now at 3.76%? A time vaule of money calculation should not have rounding errors that larger. It's larger than my back of envelope calculation. @Kaushik - if you don't need the money, and would buy a CD at the rate of your mortgage, then pay early. Nothing wrong with that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50c29401d0ad5c19a05ba7f906e56cbe", "text": "I was typing up a long response and lost it to a backspace.. so, I apologize but I don't intend on rewriting it all. You'll have to use a method called bootstrapping to get the forward rates. Essentially you're looking at the spot rate today, and the forward rates, then filling in what must be the rate to make them equal out in the end. Sorry I'm not more help!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a562465e788a271ee8be89b8ddf16870", "text": "This website is based around Ontario mortgage rates trends are similar to the trends in all Canadian provinces. To make the best choice you need to be aware of the best mortgage rates available and of their details. The access to statistics is really beneficial as it provides you with information how rates change over the years... It is the perfect presence for your Business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7b5e49eac72c5c8079a6d70519277a2", "text": "how do these margins vary over time Depends on a lot of factors. The bank's financial health, bank's ongoing business activities, profits generated from it's other businesses. If it is new to mortgages, it mightn't take a bigger margin to grow its business. If it is in the business for long, it might not be ready to tweak it down. If the housing market is down, they might lower their margin's to make lending attractive. If their competitors are lowering their margins, the bank in question might also. Do they rise when the base rate rises, or fall, or are they uncorrelated? When rates rise(money is being sucked out to curb spending), large amount of spending decreases. So you can imagine margins will need to decrease to keep the mortgage lending at previous levels. Would economic growth drive them up or down? Economic growth might make them go up. Like in case 1, base rates are low -> people are spending(chances are inflation will be high) -> margins will be higher(but real value of money will be dependent on inflation) Is there any kind of empirical or theoretical basis to guess at their movement? Get a basic text book on macroeconomics, the rates and inflation portion will be there. How the rates influence the money supply and all. It will much more sense. But the answer will encompass a mixture of all conditions and not a single one in isolation. So there isn't a definitive answer. This might give you an idea of how it works. It is for variable mortgage but should be more or less near to what you desire.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d0b1d2bbd775a5706e0adc420aefddc", "text": "Taking the help of experts is the best possible offer that an individual can look forward to. In that case calculating the current mortgage interest rates in MN becomes more important. Best home refinancing company, MN offers you the scope to deal with mortgage calculators. These are modern and tech savvy tools that take into consideration various factors related to the same.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7ead60eedc175f97ee396c2785e16e2", "text": "You can have a pretty good guess by looking at price pattern and order flow (size of the trades) a) price should be traded in a range b) relatively large size orders, speed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5887589fd2f004e5ffadf2a922b01929", "text": "Im creating a 5-year projection on Profit and loss, cash flow and balance sheet and i\\m suppose to use the LIBOR (5 year forward curve) as interest rate on debt. This is the information i am given and it in USD. Thanks for the link. I guess its the USD LIBOR today, in one year, in two years, three years, four years and five years", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b949e7c4d790bedfd8add9e42eca3b2", "text": "Generically, interest rates being charged are driven in large part by the central bank's rate and competition tends to keep similar loans priced fairly close to each other. Interest rates being paid are driven by what's needed to get folks to lend you their money (deposit in bank, purchase bonds) so it's again related. There certainly isn't very direct coupling, but in general interest rates of all sorts do tend to swing (very) roughly in the same direction at (very) roughly the same time... so the concept that interest rates of all types are rising or falling at any given moment is a simplification but not wholly unreasonable. If you want to know which interest rates a particular person is citing to back up their claim you really need to ask them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccb71fa99e07c304004b78e7c1b9e1a2", "text": "There are few different types of MI you can choose from, they are: Borrower-Paid Monthly (this is what most people think of when they think MI) Borrower-Paid Single Premium (you may have QM issues on this) Lender Paid Single Premium Split Up-front and Monthly The only way to determine which option will ultimately cost you less is to come up with a time estimate or range for how long you anticipate you will hold this mortgage, then look at each option over that time, and see where they fall. To answer your question about the single-premium being added to your loan, this typically does not happen (outside of FHA/VA). The reason for that is you would now have 90%+ financing and fall into a new pricing bracket, if not being disqualified altogether. What is far more typical is the use of premium pricing to pay this up-front premium. Premium pricing is where you take a lender credit in exchange for an elevated rate; it is the exact opposite of paying points to buy down your rate. For example: say a zero point rate is 4.25%, and you have monthly MI of say .8%. Your effective rate would be 5.05%. It may be possible to use premium pricing at an elevated rate of say 4.75% to pay your MI up front--now your effective rate is the note rate of 4.75%. This is how a single premium can save you money. Keep in mind though, the 4.75% will be your rate for the life of the loan, and in the other scenario, once the MI drops off, the effective rate will go back down from 5.05% to 4.25%. This is why it is critical to know your estimated length of financing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05fa12e18a0cfd27bb2b305be522e2f2", "text": "There's a few things going on here. If we fixed rates (and terms) over time we'd expect a pretty tight chart of home prices to income, almost lockstep. Add a layer of growth above that in boom times due to the wealth effect (when stocks are way up, we have extra money to blow on bigger houses) and the opposite when markets are down. Next, the effect of rates. With long term rates dropping from 14% in 1985 to 5% in 2003, the amount that can be bought for the same monthly payment rises dramatically as rates fall. Easy to lose site of that and the fact that the average size house has increased about 1.5% per year over the last 40 years, surely that can't continue. When you normalize all these factors, houses cost fewer hours-worked almost at the peak of the market than 25 years ago. Mike's logical example of extrapolating out is very clever, I like it. In the short term, we'll see periods that are booms and busts, but actual prices will straddle the line representing the borrowing power of a week's pay.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8ab10fa53729a333b3bbac5f5281fc0", "text": "As of now in 2016, is is safe to assume that mortgage rates would/should not get back to 10%? What would the rates be in future is speculation. It depends on quite a few things, overall economy, demand / supply, liquidity in market etc ... Chances are less that rates would show a dramatic rise in near future. Does this mean that one should always buy a house ONLy when mortgage rates are low? Is it worth the wait IF the rates are high right now? Nope. House purchase decision are not solely based on interest rates. There are quite a few other aspects to consider, the housing industry, your need, etc. Although interest rate do form one of the aspect to consider specially affordability of the EMI. Is refinancing an option on the table, if I made a deal at a bad time when rates are high? This depends on the terms of current mortgage. Most would allow refinance, there may be penal charges breaking the current mortgage. Note refinance does not always mean that you would get a better rate. Many mortgages these days are on variable interest rates, this means that they can go down or go up. How can people afford 10% mortgage? Well if you buy a small cheaper [Less expensive] house you can afford a higher interest rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f6b2fead994df1c89e1119432a9e5d9", "text": "\"I think the closest you can come is to buy health insurance, which had the company's bet on trends in healthcare costs already built into it. But as you've posed the question, I agree that the answer is \"\"no\"\" -- at best you might find someone willing to give you short odds that the rate increases over 20% or long odds that it doesn't go up at all, or something of that sort... and that isn't a bet the markets are designed to handle.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd585fa26eeb5e188fb1aad4503d3bda", "text": "Since 1971, mortgage interest rates have never been more than .25% below current rates (3.6%). Even restricting just to the last four years, rates have been as much as .89% higher. Overall, we're much closer to the record low interest rate than any type of high. We're currently at a three-year low. Yes, we should expect interest rates to go up. Eventually. Maybe when that happens, bonds will fall. It hasn't happened yet though. In fact, there remain significant worries that the Fed has been overly aggressive in raising rates (as it was around 2008). The Brexit side effects seem to be leaning towards an easing in monetary policy rather than a tightening.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d1052cdde778ace6ce0fc10bcfe933a6	What is the cause of sudden price spikes in the FOREX market?	[ { "docid": "625c51b04a0f46376f261af653ae8fa1", "text": "If you do not understand the volatility of the fx market, you need to stop trading it, immediately. There are many reasons that fx is riskier than other types of investing, and you bear those risks whether you understand them or not. Below are a number of reasons why fx trading has high levels of risk: 1) FX trades on the relative exchange rate between currencies. That means it is a zero-sum game. Over time, the global fx market cannot 'grow'. If the US economy doubles in size, and the European economy doubles in size, then the exchange rate between the USD and the EUR will be the same as it is today (in an extreme example, all else being equal, yes I know that value of currency /= value of total economy, but the general point stands). Compare that with the stock market - if the US economy doubles in size, then effectively the value of your stock investments will double in size. That means that stocks, bonds, etc. tied to real world economies generally increase when the global economy increases - it is a positive sum game, where many players can be winners. On the long term, on average, most people earn value, without needing to get into 'timing' of trades. This allows many people to consider long-term equity investing to be lower risk than 'day-trading'. With FX, because the value of a currency is in its relative position compared with another currency, 1 player is a winner, 1 player is a loser. By this token, most fx trading is necessarily short-term 'day-trading', which by itself carries inherent risk. 2) Fx markets are insanely efficient (I will lightly state that this is my opinion, but one that I am not alone in holding firmly). This means that public information about a currency [ie: economic news, political news, etc.] is nearly immediately acted upon by many, many people, so that the revised fx price of that currency will quickly adjust. The more efficient a market is, the harder it is to 'time a trade'. As an example, if you see on a news feed that the head of a central bank authority made an announcement about interest rates in that country [a common driver of fx prices], you have only moments to make a trade before the large institutional investors already factor it into their bid/ask prices. Keep in mind that the large fx players are dealing with millions and billions of dollars; markets can move very quickly because of this. Note that some currencies trade more frequently than others. The main currency 'pairs' are typically between USD and / or other G10 country-currencies [JPY, EUR, etc.]. As you get into currencies of smaller countries, trading of those currencies happens less frequently. This means that there may be some additional time before public information is 'priced in' to the market value of that currency, making that currency 'less efficient'. On the flip side, if something is infrequently traded, pricing can be more volatile, as a few relatively smaller trades can have a big impact on the market. 3) Uncertainty of political news. If you make an fx trade based on what you believe will happen after an expected political event, you are taking risk that the event actually happens. Politics and world events can be very hard to predict, and there is a high element of chance involved [see recent 'expected' election results across the world for evidence of this]. For something like the stock market, a particular industry may get hit every once in a while with unexpected news, but the fx market is inherently tied to politics in a way that may impact exchange rates multiple times a day. 4) Leveraging. It is very common for fx traders to borrow money to invest in fx. This creates additional risk because it amplifies the impact of your (positive or negative) returns. This applies to other investments as well, but I mention it because high degrees of debt leveraging is extremely common in FX. To answer your direct question: There are no single individual traders who spike fx prices - that is the impact you see of a very efficient market, with large value traders, reacting to frequent, surprising news. I reiterate: If you do not understand the risks associated with fx trade, I recommend that you stop this activity immediately, at least until you understand it better [and I would recommend personally that any amateur investor never get involved in fx at all, regardless of how informed you believe you are].", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9440f6a0c8c21dafac732d0fc850d408", "text": "It depends on the currency pair since it is much harder to move a liquid market like Fiber (EURUSD) or Cable (GBPUSD) than it is to move illiquid markets such as USDTRY, however, it will mostly be big banks and big hedge funds adjusting their positions or speculating (not just on the currency or market making but also speculating in foreign instruments). I once was involved in a one-off USD 56 million FX trade without which the hedge fund could not trade as its subscriptions were in a different currency to the fund currency. Although it was big by their standards it was small compared with the volumes we expected from other clients. Governments and big companies who need to pay costs in a foreign currency or receive income in one will also do this but less frequently and will almost always do this through a nominated bank (in the case of large firms). Because they need the foreign currency immediately; if you've ever tried to pay a bill in the US denominated in Dollars using Euros you'll know that they aren't widely accepted. So if I need to pay a large bill to a supplier in Dollars and all I have is Euros I may move the market. Similarly if I am trying to buy a large number of shares in a US company and all I have is Euros I'll lose the opportunity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "455e88e38b7b8e116700e28d7c6186c6", "text": "Forex is really not that volatile compared to other major asset classes like stocks and commodities. But still markets are generally unencumbered in the major pairs and therefore spikes in volatility can happen. Take what happened with the Swiss Franc a few years ago for example, or GBPUSD recently with news of Brexit. This is less the case with highly regulated currencies like the Chinese Yuan (CNY) Volatility is caused by excessive buy or sell pressure in relation to the available liquidity at the current price. This is usually caused by large buy or sell orders placed with interbank desks by institutions (often including other banks) and central banks. News can also sometimes have a dramatic impact and cause traders to adjust their prices significantly and very quickly.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "be25c00709dc2f9ad36703697f9aa7c0", "text": "The volume required to significantly move the price of a security depends completely on the orderbook for that particular security. There are a variety of different reasons and time periods that a security can be halted, this will depend a bit on which exchange you're dealing with. This link might help with the halt aspect of your question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_halt", "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": "abe4a232f283d9d04afaebe8eee9c613", "text": "\"No one is quite sure what happened (yet). Speculation includes: The interesting thing is that Procter & Gamble stock got hammered, as did Accenture. Both of which are fairly stable companies, that didn't make any major announcements, and aren't really connected to the current financial instability in Greece. So, there is no reason for there stock prices to have gone crazy like that. This points to some kind of screw up, and not a regular market force. Apparently, the trades involved in this event are going to be canceled. Edit #1: One thing that can contribute to an event like this is automatic selling triggered by stop loss orders. Say someone at Citi makes a mistake and sells too much of a stock. That drives the stock price below a certain threshold. Computers that were pre-programmed to sell at that point start doing their job. Now the price goes even lower. More stop-loss orders get triggered. Things start to snowball. Since it's all done by computer these days something like this can happen in seconds. All the humans are left scratching their heads. (No idea if that's what actually happened.) Edit #2: IEEE Spectrum has a pretty concise article on the topic. It also includes some links to follow. Edit #3 (05/14/2010): Reuters is now reporting that a trader at Waddell & Reed triggered all of this, but not through any wrongdoing. Edit #4 (05/18/2010): Waddell & Reed claims they didn't do it. The House Financial Services Subcommittee investigated, but they couldn't find a \"\"smoking gun\"\". I think at this point, people have pretty much given up trying to figure out what happened. Edit #5 (07/14/2010): The SEC still has no idea. I'm giving up. :-)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "055049ff07087e73c9e065bffc2b48a0", "text": "\"On a longer time scale, the plot thickens: It almost looks random. A large drop in real rates in the mid-70s, a massive spike in the early 80s, followed by a slow multi-decade decline. The chaos doesn't seem to be due to interest rates. They steadily climbed and steadily fell: All that's left is inflation: First, real rates should be expected to pay a moderate rate, so nominal rates will usually be higher than inflation. However, interest rates are very stable over long time periods while inflation is not. Economists call this type of phenomenon \"\"sticky pricing\"\", where the price, interest rates in this case, do not change much despite the realities surrounding them. But the story is a little more complicated. In the early 1970s, Nixon had an election to win and tried to lessen the impacts of recession by increasing gov't spending, not raising taxes, and financing through the central bank, causing inflation. The strategy failed, but he was reelected anyways. This set the precedent for the hyperinflation of the 1970s that ended abruptly by Reagan at the beginning of his first term in the early 1980s. Again, interest rates remained sticky, so real rates spiked. Now, the world is not growing, almost stagnating. Demand for equity is somewhat above average, but because corporate income is decelerating, and the developed world's population is aging, demand for investment income is skyrocketing. As demand rises, so does the price, which for an investor is a form of inverse of the interest rate. Future demand is probably best answered by forecasters, and the monetarist over and undertones still dominating the Federal Reserve show that they have finally learned after 100 years that inflation is best kept \"\"low and stable\"\": But what happens if growth in the US suddenly spikes, inflation rises, and the Federal Reserve must sell all of the long term assets it has bet so heavily on quickly while interest rates rise? Inflation may not be intended, but it is not impossible.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc21709e61f35e1dabf585879d691d0b", "text": "Contrary to Muro's answer which strangely shows a graph of the Fed's balance sheet and not the money supply, the supply of US dollars has never doubled in a few days. This graph from Wikipedia shows M2, which is the wider measure of money supply, to have doubled over approximately 10 years, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Components_of_US_Money_supply.svg The answer to whether gold has a higher chance of experiencing big devaluation has to do with forces outside anyone's control, if a big new mine of gold is discovered that could affect prices, but also if the economy turns around it could lead investors to pull out of gold and back into the stock markets. The USD, on the other hand, is under control of the policy makers at the Fed who have a dual mandate to keep inflation and unemployment low. The Fed seems to have gotten better over the last 30 years at controlling inflation and the dollar has not experienced big inflation since the 70s. Inflation, as measured by Core CPI, has been maintained at less than 4% for the last 20 years and is currently coming off record low levels below 1%.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08f30ae13d4446f5989046359125f7c2", "text": "One interpretation of the above is that Pound (alongside US Dollar, Euro and other major curriencies), which forms the Forex basket of countries has dropped to less than 10% weightage in case of China's Forex holding. Now the question is where did this money go, this money probably have gone into Forex market to buy Yuan against Pound/Dollar etc. to bolster or strengthen Yuan. The currency reserve management is the 'wealth' management part and the 'currency' management part is what is known as 'central bank intervention' to stabilize the currency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f03e476b7d6e3fe770b7bf1b5e8cc65d", "text": "A market correction has been expected for several weeks. It happens all the time, but people need an excuse to panic. Sometimes, I think panic is their usual state and they just look for fuel to keep it going because they can't handle boredom.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4571bbf2ec41f30bc870081d15d4d138", "text": "Summarized article: On Friday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped almost 275 points and wiped out the last of the index's gains for the year. Friday's massive selloff was triggered by a dismal US jobs report and data indicating a European and Chinese economic slowdown. Friday was the worst day of the year for the market. Worried investors moved cash to the US Treasury bond market which also dragged the yield to a record low. Some analysts believe the panic in the market may cause the Federal Reserve to plan for additional stimulus. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is scheduled to speak next week. For more summarized news, subscribe to the [/r/SkimThat](http://www.reddit.com/r/SkimThat) subreddit", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc7af8a1f81a09998e3d6cc4ed623a59", "text": "If you didn't have a stop loss set (or trailing stop loss) then an equally random spike in the other direction could have obliterated your account and put you in debt to the broker, depending on the terms of that broker, as these are highly leveraged positions. Market anomaly? If your currency bet was unrelated to the fed's interest rate decision today, then you should probably just stop trading.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6865746a57c26decfbbe0d0e5b5866d", "text": "Because you are new to forex trading, you would be wise to trade long-term and not short-term. For example, watch the Daily and Weekly charts for trends, not the 15 Minute and 1 Hour. Doing this, there is little concern for the best time of day. You will ideally have trades setup many days in advance, just waiting for them to be triggered. It doesn't really matter if you're present or not.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afab503ca68534f325de3e443e8290a1", "text": "If I understand you correctly, you are noticing that a stock's price can change drastically when the time changes from pre-market trading hours to open market hours. This could occur because a much smaller pool of investors make trades during pre-market and after-market hours. When the regular market opens there is a large influx of trades, causing the prices to jump.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "006c2bb9d3880cc1d341159d8214249a", "text": "Slippage is tied to volatility, so when volatility increases the spread will also increase. There is no perfect formula to figure out slippage but from observations, it might make sense to look at the bar size in relation to previous bars to determine slippage (assuming fixed periods). This is because when there is a sudden spike in price, it's usually due to stop order triggering or a news event and those will increase the volatility dramatically in seconds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "037bd36d6a0e050c19db6fd3b888dfae", "text": "My guess is that both the blue and pinkish lines are hand drawn by someone. The blue line indicates 'higher lows' while the pinkish line represents 'higher highs'. Together they form a trading channel in which you can expect future prices to be (unless there is some unanticipated event that occurs). Edit: since the price broke out above the trading channel at the start of the year (and is verified by the increase in volume at that time) something must have occurred to increase the value of the stock. Edit2: this news likely explains the breakout in price. Edit3: this chart shows that the stock price is now 'seeking equilibrium'. The price will, likely, be volatile over the next few days or weeks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf007fd1605768bee01daa28fa6f97bb", "text": "The market is simply gapping at these times, some news may have come out that makes the market gap on the open from its previous close. Being FX, the market in one country might be trading and then at the start of the hour trading in a different country may commence, causing a small gap in price. Generally many things could cause the price to gap up or down, and these gaps sometime can occur at the start of a new hour or other timeframe you are using. They do tend to happen more often at the start of a new day's trading on a daily chart, especially with stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "003e10251585cd7b5cdf6042ae837ae0", "text": "Step 1: Get a part-time job in sales. Perhaps selling appliances at Sears. Step 2: If you are great at that, then look into becoming a stock broker/investment adviser in Boise ... which is a sales job. Step 3: If you are great at that, then you might be able to become a portfolio manager, perhaps a hedge fund manager for the clients you collected as a stock broker/ investment consultant. That seems to be the steps I have seen from reading the bios of a number of professional investors. The other method seems to be an MBA from a top 10 business school.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
955606b4a9f406c2d90f1988500dc618	What is a good way to save money on car expenses?	[ { "docid": "c2e88035f3a8ad9f0e8fc2b7ce71cb25", "text": "Apparently, if you keep your tires' air filled to the recommended level, your car will burn less gas. I loved this article at WikiHow, which confirmed what I had heard about air in tires, and had others to suggest, such as removing unnecessary items from inside and on your car (such as bike racks, trailer balls) as they can add to your car's overall weight, causing more drag and using more gas.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f29a2d2fb25a537a3b56738b23287499", "text": "Ride a bicycle or walk for short trips (< 5mi–10mi, depending on your level of comfort). Nothing saves as much on car expenses as simply driving less.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "376ee1f75e2e83cfae1588c1c185958c", "text": "It is almost always cheaper to do regular maintenance then to fix problems because you didn't change the oil or check the transmission fluid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f66c18cd048d06dfb1c6f977dfd9bf64", "text": "Do your own oil change! If you are a hands-on person, you could also avoid the cost of the semi-annual oil change, by doing it yourself. Edmunds.com has a great how-to to help you accomplish this. Be prepared for dirty fingernails! But savings, you will realize, as an oil change will run you anywhere from $20 - $200 (if you drive a European car and require a specialized filtre).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "058226d180197297fd1e207f5578b069", "text": "Keep up on routine maintenance. That's the best way to prolong the life of your car, and it'll save you money in the long run because you won't have to replace your car as often. Accelerate gently. The harder you push the gas pedal, the more gas you use. Coast to a stop rather than using your brakes. If you can avoid stopping by slowing down well before a red light so that by the time you actually get to the light it is green again, do so. Avoid high-speed driving. At highway speeds, wind resistance plays a big part in how much gas your car uses. If you can plan your trips to take slower routes, do so. Don't be the guy driving 55 in the left lane on the highway, though. Avoid stop-and-go traffic. Keeping to a constant speed is the most efficient. Plan your trips to avoid areas with lots of traffic, lots of curb-cuts and intersections, etc. Leave lots of space in front of you so you have time to anticipate other drivers intentions and slow down rather than having to slam on your brakes at the last second. Avoid short trips. Cars work best when they can get all the way up to operating temperature, and stay there for a while. If you're just going two miles, ride your bike. Live close to work and a grocery store, so you can walk or ride your bike rather than driving. Use your car for road trips and your quarterly trips to CostCo to restock the larder. If you can get away with not owning a car, sell it. Ride your bike, use public transit, or walk. If you can share a car with a significant other and only one of you has a long car commute, there's no sense in you both owning a car.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de68c5797c748d69617b3d7425db2cda", "text": "Can you tell I'm having fun with this question? Here's another great list, from Finally Frugal, which includes the above items, but also these gems: Avoid idling. Now, this just annoys me. Walking past a line of idling cars at the transit center waiting for their human 'pickup', makes me crazy! It makes me want to knock on the window, shake my finger, and give 'em a piece of my mind. I don't do it, because I don't have a death wish. Turn the car off when you're not driving it. Combine trips. I used to be one of those people who would run to Target, go home, remember something I needed at the grocery store and go out for that, come home again, then run out to the library. All of these places are within a two mile radius of my house. Making lists before leaving the house has helped me to group my errands within one trip, meaning fewer back and forth trips. Slow down. Your parents were right. Slow is better. Not only is it safer to drive the speed limit, you'll be increasing your car's efficiency and reducing the amount of fuel your vehicle uses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdcfa8f11caa5fd97eeb64f62b24e106", "text": "Manage the fuel consumption price: check the pattern of fuel prices if you can for your area. Some areas have weekly changes which are somewhat predictable and some sites will even predict the minimum price for the next day. Some other areas will have a discount fuel day. Switch to diesel: fuel consumption by diesel engines are much better than standard combustion engines. Downside is not as many refueling stations. Switch to a hybrid: fuel consumption is better than comparable combustion engines alone but the downside is that the technology is new and still maturing. Check out this site for more information.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83228c4ed01f9215a3f9ea83f50f81b3", "text": "Don't buy the first model year of a new model unless the fuel economy is much better in the latest model. Buying a car in later years just before the changeover will result in a slightly higher quality vehicle or in some cases dramatically higher quality. Find the best forum for your make/model/year of car. Join the forum, check the FAQ, sticky threads and post questions when you have trouble. Do NOT rely passively on the dealer or even private mechanics as they do not drive the car every day. You are in the best position to identify problems but only if you have some help. Preventive maintenance is the best if you intend to keep the car for a really long time. Forums are a really good place to find the typical problems of a particular model and potentially head them off.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "013ee744b8eb09a45a08e55ae44c0c02", "text": "The obvious answer for savings costs with a car is not to have a car. Of course that must be balanced against other expenses (bicycle, taxi, public transport) to do things. Generally speaking, if you need a car, ways to contain expense are to buy the least expensive vehicle with the most economical engine that meets your needs, keep it undercover (reduces damage or wear due to exposure), proactively maintain it (maintenance is cheaper in the long run than the costs of dealing with a breakdown and cost of repairs, and lack of maintenance accelerates depreciation), and shop around for a good mechanic who will maintain it at a fair price. If you do a lot of milage, or do a lot of towing, or drive under load, consider a diesel. A diesel engine often costs more each service, sometimes has a shorter service interval, but it also gets greater milage. There may be a differential cost of fuel (diesel is often a bit more expensive per volume). For towing, a diesel is often more economical, due to low end power (greater torque at lower revs) which does result in better fuel economy. It is no accident that most large transport vehicles consume diesel. Do the sums based on your usage before you buy. Accelerate as gently as possible to get to speed within traffic conditions (less fuel to get to a speed). Change up to higher gears as soon as possible as - at a given speed - economy will be better, as long as the engine has enough oomph to handle it (so don't try to start from stationary in a high gear). Don't drive faster than necessary, as drag increases with speed, and hurts economy. Similarly, reduce speed gradually, to reduce undue wear on breaks and reduce fuel consumption (sharp breaking with power assisted breaks does affect fuel economy). Drive close to legal limits if conditions permit. This reduces chances of annoying other drivers (who if they get impatient may throw rocks at your car, or collide, or subject you to road rage - which contribute to damage and insurance costs). It also reduces chances of being pulled over by police and fined for obstructing other traffic. Don't tailgate. This both consumes fuel in keeping up, and means needing to slow sharply. And increases chance of accident. Don't idle more than necessary. Allow stop/start systems on your car to operate - particularly if you're in stop/start traffic. However, there is a break-even point where stopping and restarting consumes more fuel than idling, so get to know your vehicle. That depends on how much the engine needs cranking to restart - which is affected both by engine design and maintenance. Maintain it yourself if you have the skills, but account for the cost of parts and equipment, to be sure it is cost effective (modern cars are software driven, so equipment to diagnose and maintain can be expensive). Combine trips (don't get into the car for every little thing - wait until you can do a few things during a single drive) and car pool. If fuel prices vary (e.g some places have regular cycles) try to refuel near the bottom of a pricing cycle. Take unnecessary weight out of the vehicle. Don't load it up with tools unless you need them frequently.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f210ce212ace38ee3318f391070f412", "text": "Replace your own brake pads Disc brake pads are usually snap-in replacement parts. YouTube has tons of videos showing how to do it. Find one with a car similar to your own. And it cannot be over-emphasized... Keep up on the routine maintenance. You can look up the schedule on your car manufacturer's website.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93ab66b3bb15e75adc771a300fd44d12", "text": "\"These cars are generally considered out of date and are less prone to be victims of car theft while being reasonably safe. Make sure you pick a model with a good reliability reputation, see what comes up at your local junk yard (the common old models have survived long enough to not end up there until now). Servicing your car takes some effort and some initial investments, but learning how to fix simple problems by yourself will save you a lot of money in the long run. Start by learning how to locate some simple faults. Diagnosing issues is a very costly process if done professionally, but some you may be able to find by yourself. All cars sold in USA from 1996 are required to have this connection below the steering rack. As a consequence most cars manufactured 1995 will have this connector world wide. If you connect your OBD2 adapter to this port your car will be able to tell you what's wrong through an app on your phone and you will be able to clear fault codes by yourself to make sure the problem really is solved. This is what you mechanic should use when servicing your car. While a new print can be expensive you can find used manuals getting thrown out of service centers or at yard sales. These will include service notes and sometimes had-written notes to help you out. The majority of parts on scrapped cars are still in working condition and may not ever see significant wear and tear. If you put some time into removing the part yourself you will have a good idea of how difficult it is to replace the part on your car and outsource the work to a professional if needed. This of course assumes you bring good parts. The main income should come from the work performed on your car, not the markup of spare parts. Generally speaking specialized mechanics working with one or few brands of cars are preferable as these will not only be familiar with your car but are also more likely to get original spare parts (not \"\"pirate\"\" parts made to be compatible at a cheaper price). This will make sure the part works as intended and not cause wear and tear of other parts. For example you'd much rather replace a broken fuse instead of cleaning up the aftermath of fried electronics. Turn off the AC when it's not needed. There should be a button labeled \"\"ECON\"\" or similar which will disable the AC compressor while keeping the rest of the systems running. The compressor is usually driven by a belt from the crankshaft and will eat up some of the power your engine produces. Just remember that while it saves gas, uncomfortable driving conditions may shorten your patience and reduces your attention. Accelerate up to speed quickly. Contrary to popular belief, this saves more gas than accelerating slowly because the time your engine is under increased load is shorter combined with higher efficiency at medium engine speeds. Allow your speed to decline on uphills, you will regain that speed once the road levels out. Unless you're in heavy traffic driving a bit slower shouldn't harm the flow. Don't let go of the gas pedal, just avoid compensating as much. Your target should be to not lose more than 20% of your speed over the entire ascent and have a constant deceleration or you will start interfering with traffic. Make sure your car is healthy. As obvious as it may sound, worn out parts may harm your mileage. Increased friction in bearings due to broken protective covers or reduced pressure from a broken exhaust are just examples if things that will ruin the efficiency of you driveline. By themselves they may not do much but they add up into both gas consumption and reliability issues. Really do read your owners manual. Nobody knows your car better than the people who built it. What's best for my car may not be best for your car and the best way to make sure your car is working as intended is to take an afternoon with your manual and a cup of your favorite beverage. Afterwards you will know how all the features of your car works. \"\"Take care of your car and it takes care of you\"\" is the principle I'm working with. A car you're happy with will make you more calm behind the wheel and leads to higher quality of your driving decisions. Both you and your fellow commuters will benefit from this, even if they may never take the time to thank you.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1a22b4e9f1b2e4f1d55da6cf1109009d", "text": "I'll read between the lines: you're (justifiably) feeling smart about how you manage your money: debt-free, smart about your spending, saving for retirement, etc. But you're looking at all those fancy cars and feeling a little left out. And Americans especially have a love for automobiles -- it's not just transportation, a car is a status symbol. Yes, some of those people afford their cars just fine. But a lot of people out there are AWFUL about saving and spend recklessly. Americans are notoriously bad at saving for retirement, for example. So if they aren't saving, where does that money go? They buy stuff they don't need. They live paycheck-to-paycheck. They run up debt. They buy cars. Overspending on cars is so easy to do: leases have low payments, or you can get a 6 year loan. There are many financial tricks for people that think only in terms of monthly payments. So instead of lamenting that the grass is greener as all those BMWs whiz by, smile deeply and enjoy that feeling of sleeping well at night instead of stressing out about the next credit card bill and car payment waiting for you in the mailbox. (And at the same time, if you really want a luxury car and want that to be a priority, you can make it happen and not go broke. Get a late model year certified pre-owned vehicle just out of lease, for example. Saves a ton of money, is still under warranty, and satisfies the lust for luxury.)", "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": "aec159d832b416596b4ba5e39324d200", "text": "An expense is an expense. You can deduct your lease payment subject to some limitations, but you don't make out by having more expenses. Higher expenses mean lower profit. Is leasing better than owning? It depends on the car you'd buy. If your business doesn't benefit from flashiness of your car, then buying a quality used car (a few years old at most) would probably be a wiser decision financially. I'd think hard about whether you really need an up-to-date car.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06401fa62af7f32b1642d8d2ea6771fc", "text": "\"Looking at your numbers, I would definitively consider selling the car, and use the public transportation instead. You could easily save $450 month, plus gas and maintenance. As you mentioned, public transportation will be only a fraction of this amount, so you might end up saving around $400 monthly. If you decide to keep the car, the amount that you will spent monthly is easily a payment for a brand-new car. What if, God forbid, for any kind of reason, you get a traffic ticket that can increase your insurance premium? What if the engine stops working, and you will need to spent thousands of dollars fixing the car? With this, and all of the other expenses pilled up, you might be unable to afford all this at some point. If you decide to sell the car, the money that you will save monthly can be put in a savings account (or in any other sort of \"\"safe\"\" investment instrument). In this way, if your situation changes where you need a car again, you will be able to easily afford a new car. Regarding your need to visit your friends on the suburbs every other weekend, I think you can just talk with them, and meet on places where public transportation is available, or ask them to pick you up in the nearest station to the suburbs. In conclusion, based on what you said, I do not think the \"\"little\"\" convenience that you get in owning the car outweighs the big savings that you get monthly, if you decide to sell the car.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2e80c349518ee93dd52768ec917fa84", "text": "I would take each of these items and any others and consider how you would count it as an expense in the other direction. If you have an account for parking expenses or general transportation funds, credit that account for a refund on your parking. If you have an account for expenses on technology purchases, you would credit that account if you sell a piece of equipment as you replace it with an upgrade. If you lost money (perhaps in a jacket) how would you account for the cash that is lost? Whatever account would would subtract from put a credit for cash found.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23fc1e0f6012f54c0331ebef7ee3bf7b", "text": "Buying a used car can be risky. It can be easy to make a mistake that would lead you to buying a lemon. Suddenly, your cost-saving tactic to buy a car is costing you more than you thought. This is why before you put down the money to buy your chosen car, there are a few things you should do.", "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": "372d7bd635cc1c27a9062e554bf2b2c0", "text": "\"If you want to be really \"\"financially smart,\"\" buy a used good condition Corolla with cash (if you want to talk about a car that holds re-sale value), quit renting and buy a detached house close to the city a for about $4,000/month (to build equity. It's NYC the house will appreciate in value). Last but not the least, DO NOT get married. Retire at 50, sell the house (now paid after 25-years). Or LEASE a nice brand new car every year and have a good time! You're 25 and single!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76f84e708a51517019013542f87d9de6", "text": "On paper the whole 6 months living costs sounds (and is) great, but in real life there are a lot of things that you need to consider. For example, my first car was constantly falling apart and was an SUV that got 16MPG. I have to travel for work (about 300 miles per week) so getting a sedan that averages close to 40MPG saves me more in gas and maintenance than the monthly payment for the new car costs. When our apartment lease was up, the new monthly rent would have been $1685 per month, we got a 30 year mortgage with a monthly payment of $1372. So buying a house actually let us put aside more each month. We have just under 3 months of living expenses set aside (1 month in liquid assets, 2 months in a brokerage account) and I worry about it. I wish we had a better buffer, but in our case the house and car made more sense as an early investment compared to just squirreling away all our savings. Also, do you have any debt? Paying off debt (student loans, credit card debt, etc.) should often take top priority. Have some rainy day funds, of course, but pay down debts, and then create a personal financial plan for what works best in your situation. That would be my suggestion.", "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": "33471b338e365b742e7811253db3b8f5", "text": "\"I have a slightly different take on this, compared to the other answers. In general, I think your emergency fund should always be at least 3K, especially if you own a used car that is out of warranty. Any number of unlucky auto repairs could easily cost over 2K. So, if you have 7K in savings, I would personally buy a car that is 4K or less or finance any amount of the car over 4K (if you can get a relatively low interest rate). Then I would pay down the financed portion of the car as quickly as possible while maintaining at least a 3K emergency fund. That being said, notice I mentioned \"\"In general\"\". Your situation may actually be quite different. If you don't have much debt, with your income you might be able to build up a couple of thousand in savings in a single month, and if so the above doesn't really apply. Even if you spent the entire 7K on a car, you'd likely have at least 3K in your emergency fund within 60-90 days. As for what's responsible, there are too many factors to dictate that. If you don't have many other expenses, you could possibly afford a $40K car, and I don't think anyone here could fairly call that \"\"irresponsible\"\" if you spent that much, though surely no one would call it \"\"responsible\"\" either. Perhaps the best advice is to buy the least expensive car you will be happy with. Many people regret overspending on a vehicle, but few regret underspending (unless they got a lemon that requires lots of repairs). Finally, you could also consider another option. You could get a very cheap car for 1K or less and drive it for a year. By then you may have closer to 20K saved up for a much nicer car than you can afford today.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02b0ae2add091e42b8d2135798eb3bc5", "text": "Prior to having children we did exactly what you describe. We would visit my mother in law about four to six times a year, a 350-mile-each-way trip for a weekend. We'd simply rent a car, drive down, drive back, return it, out $150 or so for the weekend, a total of under $1000 a year; far cheaper than owning. You should factor in whether you will save money, though, on things you might not immediately consider. Will you spend less on groceries, in particular, if you can drive to Costco or Sam's Club (or even just to a regular grocery store)? I doubt you'll save the cost of the car ($2000/year as you say), but it's possible it will factor into the mix. I definitely would discourage purchasing a new car, if you're considering the financial side primarily. I suspect you can get a used car - maybe the $10k car you would've sold - and spend more like $1000 a year on it, or less. I don't know if I'd go to the $5000 level as those in comments suggested, as if you're doing long trips you want something with higher than average reliability; but even a car like a 5 year old mid-level sedan, easily costing you less than $10k, would be fine and likely sell in 5 years for $5k itself while hopefully not having too much maintenance (especially if you choose something with lower mileage; shop around!). But even with those assumptions, 20 days a year of rental which you can probably get less than $50 rates on (particularly if you look at some of the car sharing options, Zipcar and Enterprise both allow you to do longer term rentals for reasonable prices) seems like a fine deal compared to the hassle of owning.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee6c38fd143f2637083b440ec48fbf01", "text": "I like Nathan's answer some, but am horribly curious as to why you have not made payments on a $3500 student loan? If you are wealthy enough to afford a new car, this should be paid off next week. IMHO. Above all else your financial goals should dictate if you buy a new car. What are they for you? If the goal is to build wealthy quickly then Nathan's advice may be to unfrugal for you. If your goal is to impress people with the car you drive and accumulate very little real wealth then purchasing or leasing a car should be a top priority. So to answer your question correctly one must understand your goals. For 2016, the average car payment is $479 per month. If you invested that in a decent growth stock mutual fund in 40 years you'll have around 2.6 million. However, you do need something to drive now. If you can cut your car expense to $200 per month, and save the other $279 you will still end up with about 1.5 million in that same 40 years. Personally I attempt to shoot for $200 ownership cost per car per month. Its a bit difficult as I drive a lot. Also I would not purchase a new car until my net worth exceeded 2 million. At that point my investments could mitigate the steep depreciation costs of owning a new car.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0dde5983c3293f42747f39062339274b", "text": "Which way would save the most money? Paying of the car today would save the most money. Would you borrow money at 20% to put it in a savings account? That's effectively what she is doing by not paying off the car. If it were me, I would pay off the car today, and add the car payment to my savings account each month. If the car payment is $400, that's $1,500 a month that can be saved, and the $12k will be back in 8 months. That said - remember that this is your GIRLFRIEND, not a spouse. You are not in control (or responsible for) her finances. I would not tell her that she SHOULD do this - only explain it to her in different ways, and offer advice as to what YOU would do. Look together at how much has been paid in principal and interest so far, how much she's paying in interest each month now, and how much she'll pay for the car over the life of the loan. (I would also encourage her not to buy cars with a 72-month loan, which I'm guessing is how she got here). In the end, though, it's her decision.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3796ebab3370b9916c28dc5d95cf556", "text": "An option that no one has yet suggested is selling the car, paying off the loan in one lump sum (adding cash from your emergency sum, if need be), and buying an old beater in its place. With the beater you should be able to get a few years out of it - hopefully enough to get you through your PhD and into a better income situation where you can then assess a new car purchase (or more gently-used car purchase, to avoid the drive-it-off-the-lot income loss). Even better than buying another car that you can afford to pay for is if you can survive without that car, depending on your location and public transit options. Living car free saves you not only this payment but gas and maintenance, though it costs you in public transit terms. Right now it looks as if this debt is hurting you more than the amount in your emergency fund is helping. Don't wipe out your emergency fund completely, but be willing to lower it in order to wipe out this debt.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
8a3cf82eb57a8cc43d875583b3336e92	What does bank do with “Repaid Principal”?	[ { "docid": "577d5f73127161f709bc21fb685ba8bd", "text": "Does it add to their lending reserves or is it utilized in other ways? It depends on how the economy and the bank in particular are doing. To simplify things greatly, banks get deposits and lend (or otherwise invest) the majority of those deposits. They must keep some percentage in reserve in case depositors want to make withdrawals, and if they get a high percentage of withdrawals (pushing them to be undercapitalized) then they may sell their loans to other banks. Whether they lend the money to someone else or use the money for something else will depend completely on how many reserves they have from depositors and whether they have people lined up to take profitable loans from them. I wrote this answer for the benefit of CQM, I'd vote to close this question if I had 49 more reputation points, since it's not really about personal finance.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "6a32ab6bf72d834302a6fca7bae388b3", "text": "\"So with any debt, be it a loan or a bond or anything else, you have two parts, the principal and the interest. The interest payment is calculated by applying the interest % to the principal. Most bonds are \"\"bullet bonds\"\" which means that the principle remains completely outstanding for the life of the bond and thus your interest payments are constant throughout the life of the bond (usually paid semi-annually). Typically part of the purpose of these is to be indefinitely refinanced, so you never really pay the principal back, though it is theoretically due at expiration. What you are thinking of when you say a loan from a bank is an amortizing loan. With these you pay an increasing amount of the principal each period calculated such that your payments are all exactly the same (including the final payment). Bonds, just like bank loans, can be bullet, partially amortizing (you pay some of the principle but still have a smaller lump sum at the end) and fully amortizing. One really common bullet structure is \"\"5 non-call 3,\"\" which means you aren't allowed to pay the principle down for the first three years even if you want to! This is to protect investors who spend time and resources investing in you!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c06dd8658a400808f0995c1905f5a6bd", "text": "This depends on the practise and applications available with the Beneficiary Bank. For a corporate customer, the details are show. For Retail customers they are generally not shown.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7ea920399694772f15173c6e7867f48", "text": "The money is paid to investors who bought those mortgage backed securities. The company that services those loans is responsible for making sure the money is paid to the right investors", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67ecaeb0dc5c48e630846ae225a8727d", "text": "When banks create a loan, it is said they write the debit account out of thin air (liability), balanced by the loan (asset). When the person who gets the loans spends the money, the bank has to pay it. If the bank only has 10% reserves of the money it loans, how does the bank pay out it's loans? Does it borrow the money from the Fed and then pay it back?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b4e0eb0641fc8e6dd1a94c8b3a36a1b", "text": "\"You should be able to pay back whenever; what's the point of an arbitrary timeline? Cash flow is the life blood of any business. When banks loan money, they are expecting a steady cash flow back. If you just pay back \"\"whenever\"\" - the bank has no idea what they'll be getting back month-to-month. When they can set the terms of the loan (length, rate, payment amount), they know how much cash flow they expect to get. What does [the term of the loan] even mean and what difference in the world does it make? In addition to the predictable cash flow needs above, setting a term for the loan determines how long their money will be tied up in the loan. The longer a bank has money tied up in a loan, the more risk there is that the borrower will default, so the bank will require a greater return (interest rate) for that extra risk. What you have described is effectively a revolving line of credit. The bank let you borrow money arbitrarily, charges you a certain rate of interest, and you can pay them back at your schedule. If you pay all of the interest for that month, everything else goes to principal. If you don't pay all of the interest, that interest is added to the balance and gets interest compounded on top of it. Both are perfectly viable business models, and bank employ them both, but they meed different needs for the bank. Fixed-term loans help stabilize cash flow, and lines of credit provide convenience for customers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3415a1c53a9d79df08c7fa642104a2f", "text": "Simply put, for a mortgage, interest is charged only on the balance as well. Think of it this way - on a $100K 6% loan, on day one, 1/2% is $500, and the payment is just under $600, so barely $100 goes to principal. But the last payment of $600 is nearly all principal. By the way, you are welcome to make extra principal payments along with the payment due each month. An extra $244 in this example, paid each and every month, will drop the term to just 15 years. Think about that, 40% higher payment, all attacking the principal, and you cut the term by 1/2 the time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d4ba7208ee4504c419e95dd85ca7fd8", "text": "\"There are two ways that mortgages are sold: The loan is collateralized and sold to investors. This allows the bank to free up money for more loans. Of course sometime the loan may be treated like in the game of hot potato nobody want s to be holding a shaky loan when it goes into default. The second way that a loan is sold is through the servicing of the loan. This is the company or bank that collects your monthly payments, and handles the disbursement of escrow funds. Some banks lenders never sell servicing, others never do the servicing themselves. Once the servicing is sold the first time there is no telling how many times it will be sold. The servicing of the loan is separate from the collateralization of the loan. When you applied for the loan you should have been given a Servicing Disclosure Statement Servicing Disclosure Statement. RESPA requires the lender or mortgage broker to tell you in writing, when you apply for a loan or within the next three business days, whether it expects that someone else will be servicing your loan (collecting your payments). The language is set by the US government: [We may assign, sell, or transfer the servicing of your loan while the loan is outstanding.] [or] [We do not service mortgage loans of the type for which you applied. We intend to assign, sell, or transfer the servicing of your mortgage loan before the first payment is due.] [or] [The loan for which you have applied will be serviced at this financial institution and we do not intend to sell, transfer, or assign the servicing of the loan.] [INSTRUCTIONS TO PREPARER: Insert the date and select the appropriate language under \"\"Servicing Transfer Information.\"\" The model format may be annotated with further information that clarifies or enhances the model language.]\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c3d8d070a56a01810b48d789ecb1cddf", "text": "With the following variables the periodic (annual) repayment is given by The recurrence equation for the balance b at the end of month x is derived from b[x + 1] = b[x] (1 + r) - d where b[0] = s giving The interest portion of the final payment is b[n - 1] r and the total principal repaid at the end of period n - 1 is s - b[n - 1] Solving simultaneously n = 8.9998 and s = 7240 The principal repaid at the end of the first period is s - b[1] or d - r s = 479.74", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81fb5e49a75af4893288857e2a4fc553", "text": "This is adequately covered by the differential between lending and receiving interest rates. ...and technically, they pay the central bank an interest rate on the money lent as well, which means that they are paying back equity holders (all be it very slowly and very slightly). The equity holders have the ability to will money into existence, so there's no artificial limitation they face with respect to the branch banking system.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2af792106cc5e769cbe0651e4aa9b4d9", "text": "They offer a coupon that is 40% to 60% the actual amount that it could in theory offer, if not for delinquent cases.... the banks pocket the difference in the name to be able to pay up consistently..... not a pretty picture but it covers their ass", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21563ae3c38cc0680bd7c7e79b7cac5c", "text": "The second choice is a normal payment, just made early. This guards you against forgetting to make the payment later and incurring late payment fees -- which in this kind of loan are added to the balance and themselves accrue compounded interest. The first option is an extra payment, applied entirely to the principal. That lets you avoid years of accrued interest on that portion of the loan, and reduces the loan's actual cost. I think the extra payment is a better investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9968f78004d5d1178a1f058413cc5874", "text": "your money in a bank gets used to fund other investments. So basically you either make money, or you're making money for someone else. Sorry i'm such a dick for not foreseeing 100,000% APR interest in bank accounts with no inflation, god i feel stupid now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e055b576bbef8eff4d4cb63859913c6f", "text": "\"The Wikipedia page for Repurchase Agreement has two relevant pointers on this topic: The legal title for any securities used in a repo actually pass from seller to buyer during the term of the agreement. In basic terms this means that if one sells a bond on repo with a promise to buy it back, then the ownership actually transfers to the buyer for that period of time. If a coupon is paid during this time period, it can either go to the buyer or the seller. Usually, the coupon payment goes to the initial owner of the security pre-repo (our \"\"seller\"\"). But sometimes the repurchase agreement will specify otherwise. So, again in basic terms, usually the repo seller/initial security owner receives any payments made during the term of the repurchase agreement. (Both points are in the first paragraph of the section \"\"Structure and Terminology\"\".)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19b4d2108fdfe04446fa062cd311a388", "text": "So if it's a bridge loan they need a lot of money now to keep the trains running but expect to get the actual loan they need in the future at which point they pay off the bridge loan ideally after not having to make too many coupon payments. That's what it sounds like to me. Scenario: I am building a large development, my main funding source is kaput for whatever reason, I need money now to make payroll, buy fuel, pay for that shipment of supplies etc, I don't have time to secure the huge loan I need in the future for the rest of the project so I get a loan to cover me until I secure that deal and put my building site as collateral against it, I get the full funding, pay off the bond in full and move on with the project.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5912fe013d03f8d669c32cb45c42b042", "text": "I had a car loan through GMAC and extra money was applied to future payments. At one point, I received a statement telling me I had 15 months until my next payment was due because I had not marked extra payments as going to principal.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
cf19b1c5713d0067c22c51e15c3c8b10	What is inflation?	[ { "docid": "5335ecf49cf360aa289d99ecc552d636", "text": "Inflation is basically this: Over time, prices go up! I will now address the 3 points you have listed. Suppose over a period of 10 years, prices have doubled. Now suppose 10 years ago I earned $100 and bought a nice pair of shoes. Now today because prices have doubled I would have to earn $200 in order to afford the same pair of shoes. Thus if I want to compare my earnings this year to 10 years ago, I will need to adjust for the price of goods going up. That is, I could say that my $100 earnings 10 years ago is the same as having earned $200 today, or alternatively I could say that my earnings of $200 today is equivalent to having earned $100 10 years ago. This is a difficult question because a car is a depreciating asset, which means the real value of the car will go down in value over time. Let us suppose that inflation doesn't exist and the car you bought for $100 today will depreciate to $90 after 1 year (a 10% depreciation). But because inflation does exist, and all prices will be 0.5% higher in 1 years time, we can calculate the true selling price of the car 1 in year as follows: 0.5% of $90 = 0.00590 = $0.45 Therefore the car will be $90 + $0.45 = $90.45 in 1 years time. If inflation is low, then the repayments do not get much easier to pay back over time because wages have not risen by as much. Similarly the value of your underlying asset will not increase in value by as much. However as compensation, the interest rates on loans are usually lower when inflation is lower. Therefore generally it is better to get a loan in times of high inflation rather than low inflation, however it really depends on how the much the interest rates are relative to the inflation rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7aa25f79257a84fcd385258e82e269d4", "text": "When we speak about a product or service, we generally refer to its value. Currency, while neither a product or service, has its own value. As the value of currency goes down, the price of products bought by that currency will go up. You could consider the price of a product or service the value of the product multiplied by the value of the currency. For your first example, we compare two cars, one bought in 1990, and one bought in 2015. Each car has the same features (AC, radio, ABS, etc). We can say that, when these products were new, each had the same value. However, we can deduce that since the 1990 car cost $100, and the 2015 car cost $400, that there has been 75% inflation over 25 years. Comparing prices over time helps identify the inflation (or devaluation of currency) that an economy is experiencing. In regards to your second question, you can say that there was 7% inflation over five years (total). Keep in mind that these are absolute cumulative values. It doesn't mean that there was a 7% increase year over year (that would be 35% inflation over five years), but simply that the absolute value of the dollar has changed 7% over those five years. The sum of the percentages over those five years will be less than 7%, because inflation is measured yearly, but the total cumulative change is 7% from the original value. To put that in perspective, say that you have $100 in 2010, with an expected 7% inflation by 2015, which means that your $100 will be worth $93 in 2015. This means that the yearly inflation would be about 1.5% for five years, resulting in a total of 7% inflation over five years. Note that you still have a hundred dollar bill in your pocket that you've saved for five years, but now that money can buy less product. For example, if you say that $100 buys 50 gallons of gasoline ($2/gallon) in 2010, you will only be able to afford 46.5 gallons with that same bill in 2015 ($2.15/gallon). As you can see, the 7% inflation caused a 7% increase in gasoline prices. In other words, if the value of the car remained the same, its actual price would go up, because the value stayed the same. However, it's more likely that the car's value will decrease significantly in those five years (perhaps as much as 50% or more in some cases), but its price would be higher than it would have been without inflation. If the car's value had dropped 50% (so $50 in original year prices), then it would have a higher price (50 value 1.07 currency ratio = $53.50). Note that even though its value has decreased by half, its price has not decreased by 50%, because it was hoisted up by inflation. For your final question, the purpose of a loan is so that the loaner will make a profit from the transaction. Consider your prior example where there was 7% inflation over five years. That means that a loan for $100 in 2010 would only be worth $93 in 2015. Interest is how loans combat this loss of value (as well as to earn some profit), so if the loaner expects 7% inflation over five years, they'll charge some higher interest (say 8-10%, or even more), so that when you pay them back on time, they'll come out ahead, or they might use more advanced schemes, like adjustable rates, etc. So, interest rates will naturally be lower when forecasted inflation is lower, and higher when forecasted inflation is higher. The best time to get a loan is when interest rates are low-- if you get locked into a high interest loan and inflation stalls, they will make more money off of you (because the currency has more value), while if inflation skyrockets, your loan will be worth less to loaner. However, they're usually really good about predicting inflation, so it would take an incredible amount of inflation to actually come out on top of a loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34060d3921cc0c6976e1142169c5a267", "text": "Inflation refers to the money supply. Think of all money being air in a balloon. Inflation is what happens when you blow more air in the balloon. Deflation is what happens when you let air escape. Inflation may cause prices to go up. However there are many scenarios possible in which this does not happen. For example, at the same time of inflation, there might be unemployment, making consumers unable to pay higher prices. Or some important resource (oil) may go down in price (due to political reasons, war has ended etc), compensating for the money having less value. Similarly, peoples wages will tend to rise over time. They have to, otherwise everyone would be earning less, due to inflation. However again there are many scenarios in which wages do not keep up with inflation, or rise much faster. In fact over the past 40 years or so, US wages have not been able to keep up with inflation, making the average worker 'poorer' than 40 years ago. At its core, inflation refers to the value of the money itself. As all values of other products, services, assets etc are expressed in terms of money which itself also changes value, this can quickly become very complex. Most countries calculate inflation by averaging the price change of a basket of goods that are supposed to represent the average Joe's spending pattern. However these methods are often criticized as they would be 'hiding' inflation. The hidden inflation may come back later to bite us.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de76dd8be879644dd6aff119fe53a486", "text": "Money itself has no value. A gold bar is worth (fuzzy rushed math, could be totally wrong on this example figure) $423,768.67. So, a 1000 dollars, while worthless paper, are a token saying that you own %.2 of a gold bar in the federal reserve. If a billion dollars are printed, but no new gold is added to the treasury, then your dollar will devalue, and youll only have %.1 percent of that gold bar (again, made up math to describe a hypothetical). When dollars are introduced into the economy, but gold has not been introduced to back it up, things like the government just printing dollars or banks inventing money out of debt (see the housing bubble), then the dollar tokens devalue further. TL;DR: Inflation is the ratio of actual wealth in the Treasury to the amount of currency tokens the treasury has printed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c75a8d1f2f8b4a731c590e22495c2513", "text": "I've seen a lot of long and complicated answers here so here is my simple and short answer: Let's say the economy consists of: 10 apples and 10$. Then an apple costs 1$. If you print 10$ more you have: 10 apples and 20$. Then an apple costs 2$. That is it! It's not what Kenshin said: Over time, prices go up! However I would like to add something more on the topic: inflation is theft! If I hack the bank and steal 10% from each account it's obvious that it is theft. It's a bit less obvious when the government prints out money and people loose 10% of the value in their bank accounts but the end result is the same. Final note: some may disagree but I do not consider inflation when 5 of the apples rot and you have: 5 apples and 10$ and an apple now costs 2$. This is a drop in supply and if the demand stays the same prices will rise.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1c147ee4797cb064aa705248103a9bd3", "text": "> I fail to see how moderate inflation is a bad thing The purchasing power of the currency slowly erodes, which means people's savings melt away. So people are forced to invest into something they don't really understand and something that is completely rigged, instead of just having their savings in a currency. [USD purchasing power](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mAg6FMpNGpM/Ta9ICcEMonI/AAAAAAAABBM/UoQG8vxtBX0/s1600/U.S.%2BDollar%2BPurchasing%2BPower.jpg).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5006e159057eb54f759199c5b603f5f", "text": "There's a difference between physical currency and money (For example a bank may only hold only a small percentage of total deposits as cash that it's customers can withdraw). I'm not sure which you're referring to, but either way you should read about inflation.", "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": "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": "2e303c2f2321209f102fd1dbeeba0a4e", "text": "As pointe out by @quid, inflation figures are almost always quoted as a comparison of prices last month, and prices a year ago last month. So 10% inflation in August means that things cost 10% more than they did in August a year ago. This can lead to some perverse conclusions. Consider an imaginary economy where prices stay constant over years. Annualized inflation is zero. Then something happens on January 2nd, 2018. Some crop fails, a foreign cheap source of something becomes unavailable, whatever. Prices rise, permanently, as more expensive sources are used. This is the only disruption to prices. Nothing else goes wrong. So, in February, 2018, the authorities find that prices in January, 2018 rose by 1% over January 2017. Inflation! Politicians pontificate, economists wring their hands, etc. In March, again, prices for February, 2018 are found to be 1% higher than for February, 2017. More wailing... This goes on for months. Every month, inflation (year over year) is unchanged at 1%. Everyone has a theory as to how to stop it... Finally, in February, 2019, there's a change! Prices in January, 2019, were the same as in January 2018. Zero inflation! Everyone takes credit for bringing down inflation...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "213dbbf2fa8d3bf5e88ffd79802cdf75", "text": "https://www.facebook.com/HyperinflatieVenezuela/ we have made a dutch facebook page about the hyper inflation in Venazuela. We would really aprichiate it if you could like it and check it out. even if you're not dutch becaus likes are a part of our grading", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3bc7cbd264efa6c43b887e57c5fbe64", "text": "\"Curious if anyone has any insight here, but isn't it too soon to tell if this will lead to inflation, and purely speculative that we could \"\"do the same\"\", given that we are in a very different set of circumstances?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c4147d5a2bd6edd3b1cc6c2f729528f", "text": "Inflation of the type currently experienced in Argentina is particularly hard to deal with. Also, real estate prices in global cities such as Buenos Aires and even secondary cities have grown significantly. There are no full solutions to this problem, but there are a few things that can really help.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23392efb363ee757969743f316d6ba6d", "text": "\"Currently, the quantity theory of money is widely accepted as an accurate model of inflation in the long run. Consequently, there is now broad agreement among economists that in the long run, the inflation rate is essentially dependent on the growth rate of money supply. However, in the short and medium term inflation may be affected by supply and demand pressures in the economy, and influenced by the relative elasticity of wages, prices and interest rates - Wikipedia: Inflation causes You also asked \"\"can you give any reference that explains that this [encouraging people to work] is one of the reasons government prints money?\"\" See the list of positive effects of inflation in that article.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a747f397b3e354d4128fc189b485e4c1", "text": "First off, inflation doesn't necessarily imply that goods and services will rise in price. The amount of goods & services increases over time as well, and this is balanced (partly), by an increase in the money supply. Without inflation you lose the incentive to invest, as your dollar would become more valuable over time. Why invest in a risky venture if I know that my dollar will buy more if I just wait it out. Might as well stick the money under the mattress. (This is bad)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1979927d31a02180125fb2ab9be92ef5", "text": "I'm not sure that the deflation will occur regardless of policy choice. There is a clear choice: inflation through printing or some sort of sustained deflation/deleveraging. I'd actually venture to guess that the powers-that-be are clearly on the side of printing.", "title": "" }, { "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": "af9e3804fe0ba09f7a01b49f444fe670", "text": "\"The classic definition of inflation is \"\"too much money chasing too few goods.\"\" Low rates and QE were intended to help revive a stalled economy, but unfortunately, demand has not risen, but rather, the velocity of money has dropped like a rock. At some point, we will see the economy recover and the excess money in the system will need to be removed to avoid the inflation you suggest may occur. Of course, as rates rise to a more normal level, the price of all debt will adjust. This question may not be on topic for this board, but if we avoid politics, and keep it close to PF, it might remain.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a70568de6258ac4ff20caf60647f630e", "text": "\"First, a clarification. No assets are immune to inflation, apart from inflation-indexed securities like TIPS or inflation-indexed gilts (well, if held to maturity, these are at least close). Inflation causes a decline in the future purchasing power of a given dollar1 amount, and it certainly doesn't just affect government bonds, either. Regardless of whether you hold equity, bonds, derivatives, etc., the real value of those assets is declining because of inflation, all else being equal. For example, if I invest $100 in an asset that pays a 10% rate of return over the next year, and I sell my entire position at the end of the year, I have $110 in nominal terms. Inflation affects the real value of this asset regardless of its asset class because those $110 aren't worth as much in a year as they are today, assuming inflation is positive. An easy way to incorporate inflation into your calculations of rate of return is to simply subtract the rate of inflation from your rate of return. Using the previous example with inflation of 3%, you could estimate that although the nominal value of your investment at the end of one year is $110, the real value is $100(1 + 10% - 3%) = $107. In other words, you only gained $7 of purchasing power, even though you gained $10 in nominal terms. This back-of-the-envelope calculation works for securities that don't pay fixed returns as well. Consider an example retirement portfolio. Say I make a one-time investment of $50,000 today in a portfolio that pays, on average, 8% annually. I plan to retire in 30 years, without making any further contributions (yes, this is an over-simplified example). I calculate that my portfolio will have a value of 50000 (1 + 0.08)^30, or $503,132. That looks like a nice amount, but how much is it really worth? I don't care how many dollars I have; I care about what I can buy with those dollars. If I use the same rough estimate of the effect of inflation and use a 8% - 3% = 5% rate of return instead, I get an estimate of what I'll have at retirement, in today's dollars. That allows me to make an easy comparison to my current standard of living, and see if my portfolio is up to scratch. Repeating the calculation with 5% instead of 8% yields 50000 * (1 + 0.05)^30, or $21,6097. As you can see, the amount is significantly different. If I'm accustomed to living off $50,000 a year now, my calculation that doesn't take inflation into account tells me that I'll have over 10 years of living expenses at retirement. The new calculation tells me I'll only have a little over 4 years. Now that I've clarified the basics of inflation, I'll respond to the rest of the answer. I want to know if I need to be making sure my investments span multiple currencies to protect against a single country's currency failing. As others have pointed out, currency doesn't inflate; prices denominated in that currency inflate. Also, a currency failing is significantly different from a prices denominated in a currency inflating. If you're worried about prices inflating and decreasing the purchasing power of your dollars (which usually occurs in modern economies) then it's a good idea to look for investments and asset allocations that, over time, have outpaced the rate of inflation and that even with the effects of inflation, still give you a high enough rate of return to meet your investment goals in real, inflation-adjusted terms. If you have legitimate reason to worry about your currency failing, perhaps because your country doesn't maintain stable monetary or fiscal policies, there are a few things you can do. First, define what you mean by \"\"failing.\"\" Do you mean ceasing to exist, or simply falling in unit purchasing power because of inflation? If it's the latter, see the previous paragraph. If the former, investing in other currencies abroad may be a good idea. Questions about currencies actually failing are quite general, however, and (in my opinion) require significant economic analysis before deciding on a course of action/hedging. I would ask the same question about my home's value against an inflated currency as well. Would it keep the same real value. Your home may or may not keep the same real value over time. In some time periods, average home prices have risen at rates significantly higher than the rate of inflation, in which case on paper, their real value has increased. However, if you need to make substantial investments in your home to keep its price rising at the same rate as inflation, you may actually be losing money because your total investment is higher than what you paid for the house initially. Of course, if you own your home and don't have plans to move, you may not be concerned if its value isn't keeping up with inflation at all times. You're deriving additional satisfaction/utility from it, mainly because it's a place for you to live, and you spend money maintaining it in order to maintain your physical standard of living, not just its price at some future sale date. 1) I use dollars as an example. This applies to all currencies.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "256c4434e61c8a5fab022809c9b13f24", "text": "Inflation hasn't occurred because the banks aren't using the money created by the central bank buying their debt to lend out more money to the economy. If the economy seems to improve to the point where the banks believe they can make money by lending out more, hyperinflation will occur relatively fast like a dam bursting. The US could emulate Japan by also limiting the ability of banks to lend out money while buying their debt, but this kind of playing with the books doesn't really improve the economy for the normal person.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
30fba713162f1a28d5811ec2a1cfcfd1	What choices should I consider for investing money that I will need in two years?	[ { "docid": "ba82c700d659bd913917eb88bae37928", "text": "Never invest money you need in the short term. As already suggested, park your money in CDs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe759125c34bd1657848291aa5f8babc", "text": "\"Books such as \"\"The Pocket Idiot's Guide to Investing in Mutual Funds\"\" claim that money market funds and CDs are the most prudent things to invest in if you need the money within 5 years. More specifically:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a4101d422ea1202cbc43ffd2a8abbf0", "text": "Are you going to South Africa or from? (Looking on your profile for this info.) If you're going to South Africa, you could do worse than to buy five or six one-ounce krugerrands. Maybe wait until next year to buy a few; you may get a slightly better deal. Not only is it gold, it's minted by that country, so it's easier to liquidate should you need to. Plus, they go for a smaller premium in the US than some other forms of gold. As for the rest of the $100k, I don't know ... either park it in CD ladders or put it in something that benefits if the economy gets worse. (Cheery, ain't I? ;) )", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d51d9850577a2c4f2e9b8265ad15942", "text": "If you ever need the money in three years, imagine that today is 2006 and you need the money in 2009. Keep it in savings accounts, money-markets, or CDs maturing at the right time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f28edc15e301af581cc4338182d9b599", "text": "Investing $100k into physical gold (bars or coins) is the most prudent option; given the state of economic turmoil worldwide. Take a look at the long term charts; they're pretty self explanatory. Gold has an upward trend for 100+ years. http://www.goldbuyguide.com/price/ A more high risk/high reward investment would be to buy $100k of physical silver. Silver has a similar track record and inherent benefits of gold. Yet, with a combination of factors that could make it even more bull than gold (ie- better liquidity, industrial demand). Beyond that, you may want to look at other commodities such as oil and agriculture. The point is, this is troubled times for worldwide economies. Times like this you want to invest in REAL things like commodities or companies that are actually producing essential materials.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "92147a4cb7713931354d4f210a5cf054", "text": "\"2.47% is a really, really good rate, doubly so if it's a fixed rate, and quadruply so if the interest is tax-deductible. That's about as close to \"\"free money\"\" as you're ever going to get. Heck, depending on what inflation does over the next few years, it might even be cheaper than free. So if you have the risk tolerance for it, it's probably more effective to invest the money in the stock market than to accelerate your student loan payoff. You can even do better in the bond market (my go-to intermediate-term corporate bond fund is yielding nearly 4% right now.) Just remember the old banker's aphorism: Assets shrink. Liabilities never shrink. You can lose the money you've invested in stocks or bonds, and you'll still have to pay back the loan. And, when in doubt, you can usually assume you're underestimating your risks. If you're feeling up for it, I'd say: make sure you have a good emergency fund outside of your investment money - something you could live on for six months or so and pay your bills while looking for a job, and sock the rest into something like the Vanguard LifeStrategy Moderate Growth fund or a similar instrument (Vanguard's just my personal preference, since I like their style - and by style, I mean low fees - but definitely feel free to consider alternatives). You could also pad your retirement accounts and avoid taxes on any gains instead, but remember that it's easier to put money into those than take it out, so be sure to double-check the state of your emergency fund.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b0f50c6befa43aa0f99833600320dd9", "text": "\"First, you don't state where you are and this is a rather global site. There are people from Canada, US, and many other countries here so \"\"mutual funds\"\" that mean one thing to you may be a bit different for someone in a foreign country for one point. Thanks for stating that point in a tag. Second, mutual funds are merely a type of investment vehicle, there is something to be said for what is in the fund which could be an investment company, trust or a few other possibilities. Within North America there are money market mutual funds, bond mutual funds, stock mutual funds, mutual funds of other mutual funds and funds that are a combination of any and all of the former choices. Thus, something like a money market mutual fund would be low risk but quite likely low return as well. Short-term bond funds would bring up the risk a tick though this depends on how you handle the volatility of the fund's NAV changing. There is also something to be said for open-end, ETF and closed-end funds that are a few types to consider as well. Third, taxes are something not even mentioned here which could impact which kinds of funds make sense as some funds may invest in instruments with favorable tax-treatment. Aside from funds, I'd look at CDs and Treasuries would be my suggestion. With a rather short time frame, stocks could be quite dangerous to my mind. I'd only suggest stocks if you are investing for at least 5 years. In 2 years there is a lot that can happen with stocks where if you look at history there was a record of stocks going down about 1 in every 4 years on average. Something to consider is what kind of downside would you accept here? Are you OK if what you save gets cut in half? This is what can happen with some growth funds in the short-term which is what a 2 year time horizon looks like. If you do with a stock mutual fund, it would be a gamble to my mind. Don't forget that if the fund goes down 10% and then comes up 10%, you're still down 1% since the down will take more.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd019320e6613b5bc253cc262b746579", "text": "First, as Dheer mentioned above, there is no right answer as investment avenues for a person is dicteted by many subjective considerations. Given that below a few of my thoughts (strictly thoughts): 1) Have a plan for how much money you would need in next 5-7 years, one hint is, do you plan you buy a house, car, get married ... Try to project this requirement 2) Related to the above, if you have some idea on point 1, then it would be possible for you to determine how much you need to save now to achieve the above (possibly with a loan thrown in). It will also give you some indication as to where and how much of your current cash holding that you should invest now 3) From an investment perspective there are many instruments, some more risky some less. The exact mix of instruments that you should consider is based on many things, one among them is your risk apetite and fund requirement projections 4) Usually (not as a rule of thumb) the % of savings corresponding to your age should go into low risk investments and 100-the % into higher risk investment 5) You could talk to some professional invetment planners, all banks offer the service Hope this helps, I reiterate as Dheer did, there is truely no right answer for your question all the answers would be rather contextual.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebffd8bf1e0ea4a10737467e7d7903a0", "text": "A quick Excel calculation tells me that, if you are earning a guaranteed post-tax return of 12% in a liquid investment, then it doesn't matter which one you pick. According to the following Excel formula: You would be able to invest ₹2,124 now at 12% interest, and you could withdraw ₹100 every month for 24 months. Which means that the ₹100/month option and the ₹2100/biennium option are essentially the same. This, of course, is depending on that 12% guaranteed return. Where I come from, this type of investment is unheard of. If I was sure I'd still be using the same service two years from now, I would choose the biennial payment option. You asked in the comments how to change the formula to account for risk in the investment. Risk is a hard thing to quantify. However, if you are certain that you will be using this service in two years from now, you are essentially achieving 13% in a guaranteed return by pre-paying your fee. In my experience, a 13% guaranteed return is worth taking. Trying to achieve any more than that in an investment is simply a gamble. That having been said, at the amount we are talking about, each percent difference in return is only about ₹22. The biggest risk here is the fact that you might want to change services before your term is up. If these amounts are relatively small for you, then if there is any chance at all that you will want to drop the service before the 2 years is up, just pay the monthly fee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "532e53a0fb994835777206b028413f9e", "text": "\"You should certainly look into investments. If you don't expect to need the money until retirement, then I'd put it in an IRA so you get the tax advantages. It makes sense to keep some money handy \"\"just in case\"\", but $23k is a very large amount of money for an emergency fund. Of course much depends on your life situation, but I'm hard pressed to think of an unexpected emergency that would come up that would require $23k. If you're seriously planning to go back to school, then you might want to put the money in a non-retirement fund investment. As I write this -- September 2015 -- the stock market is falling, so if you expect to need the money within the next few months, putting it in the stock market may be a mistake. But long term, the stock market has always gone up, so it will almost certainly recover sooner or later. The question is just when. Investing versus paying off debts is a difficult decision. What is the interest rate on the debt? If it's more than you're likely to make on an investment, then you should pay off the debt first. (My broker recently told me that over the last few decades, the stock market has averaged 7% annual growth, so I'm using that as my working number.) If the interest rate is low, some people still prefer to pay off the debt because the interest is certain while the return on an investment is uncertain, and they're unwilling to take the risk.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "70d0648d0d891a395ad640a3a2e267a7", "text": "First, keep about six months' expenses in immediately-available form (savings account or similar). Second, determine how long you expect to hold on to the rest of it. What's your timeframe for buying a house or starting a family? This determines what you should do with the rest of it. If you're buying a house next year, then a CD (Certificate of Deposit) is a reasonable option; low-ish interest reate, but something, probably roughly inflation level, and quite safe - and you can plan things so it's available when you need it for the down payment. If you've got 3-5 years before you want to touch this money, then invest it in something reasonably safe. You can find reasonable funds that have a fairly low risk profile - usually a combination of stock and bonds - with a few percent higher rate of return on average. Still could lose money, but won't be all that risky. If you've got over five years, then you should probably invest them in an ETF that tracks a large market sector - in the US I'd suggest VOO or similar (Vanguard's S&P 500 fund), I'm sure Australia has something similar which tracks the larger market. Risky, but over 5+ years unlikely to lose money, and will likely have a better rate of return than anything else (6% or higher is reasonable to expect). Five years is long enough that it's vanishingly unlikely to lose money over the time period, and fairly likely to make a good return. Accept the higher risk here for the greater return; and don't cringe when the market falls, as it will go up again. Then, when you get close to your target date, start pulling money out of it and into CDs or safer investments during up periods.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30feb5a4ba881b67248e3400ceb0ad70", "text": "\"What a lovely position to find yourself in! There's a lot of doors open to you now that may not have opened naturally for another decade. If I were in your shoes (benefiting from the hindsight of being 35 now) at 21 I'd look to do the following two things before doing anything else: 1- Put 6 months worth of living expenses in to a savings account - a rainy day fund. 2- If you have a pension, I'd be contributing enough of my salary to get the company match. Then I'd top up that figure to 15% of gross salary into Stocks & Shares ISAs - with a view to them also being retirement funds. Now for what to do with the rest... Some thoughts first... House: - If you don't want to live in it just yet, I'd think twice about buying. You wouldn't want a house to limit your career mobility. Or prove to not fit your lifestyle within 2 years, costing you money to move on. Travel: - Spending it all on travel would be excessive. Impromptu travel tends to be more interesting on a lower budget. That is, meeting people backpacking and riding trains and buses. Putting a resonable amount in an account to act as a natural budget for this might be wise. Wealth Managers: \"\"approx. 12% gain over 6 years so far\"\" equates to about 1.9% annual return. Not even beat inflation over that period - so guessing they had it in ultra-safe \"\"cash\"\" (a guaranteed way to lose money over the long term). Give them the money to 'look after' again? I'd sooner do it myself with a selection of low-cost vehicles and equal or beat their return with far lower costs. DECISIONS: A) If you decided not to use the money for big purchases for at least 4-5 years, then you could look to invest it in equities. As you mentioned, a broad basket of high-yielding shares would allow you to get an income and give opportunity for capital growth. -- The yield income could be used for your travel costs. -- Over a few years, you could fill your ISA allowance and realise any capital gains to stay under the annual exemption. Over 4 years or so, it'd all be tax-free. B) If you do want to get a property sooner, then the best bet would to seek out the best interest rates. Current accounts, fixed rate accounts, etc are offering the best interest rates at the moment. Usual places like MoneySavingExpert and SavingsChampion would help you identify them. -- There's nothing wrong with sitting on this money for a couple of years whilst you fid your way with it. It mightn't earn much but you'd likely keep pace with inflation. And you definitely wouldn't lose it or risk it unnecessarily. C) If you wanted to diversify your investment, you could look to buy-to-let (as the other post suggested). This would require a 25% deposit and likely would cost 10% of rental income to have it managed for you. There's room for the property to rise in value and the rent should cover a mortgage. But it may come with the headache of poor tenants or periods of emptiness - so it's not the buy-and-forget that many people assume. With some effort though, it may provide the best route to making the most of the money. D) Some mixture of all of the above at different stages... Your money, your choices. And a valid choice would be to sit on the cash until you learn more about your options and feel the direction your heart is pointing you. Hope that helps. I'm happy to elaborate if you wish. Chris.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51ba00c23f92bc5cdada42a26cbd229f", "text": "What you choose to invest in depends largely on your own goals and time horizon. You state that your time horizon is a few decades. Most studies have shown that the equity market as a whole has outperformed most other asset types (except perhaps property in some cases) over the long term. The reason that time horizon is important is that equities are quite volatile. Who knows whether your value will halve in the next year? But we hope that over the longer term, things come out in the wash, and tomorrow's market crash will recover, etc. However, you must realize that if your goals change, and you suddenly need your money after 2 years, it might be worth less in two years than you expect.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "237e2795a81504168d57af2169cf34ef", "text": "I would agree with the other answers about it being a bad idea to invest in stocks in the short term. However, do consider also long-term repairs. For example, you should be prepared to a repair happening in 20 years in addition to repairs happening in a couple of months. So, if it is at all possible for you to save a bit more, put 2% of the construction cost of a typical new house (just a house, not the land the house is standing on) aside every year into a long-term repair fund and invest it into stocks. I would recommend a low-cost index fund or passive ETF instead of manually picking stocks. When you have a long-term repair that requires large amounts of money but will be good for decades to come, you will take some money out of the long-term repair fund. Where I live, houses cost about 4000 EUR per square meter, but most of that is the land and building permit cost. The actual construction cost is about 2500 EUR per square meter. So, I would put away 50 EUR per square meter every year. So, for example, for a relatively small 50 square meter apartment, that would mean 2500 EUR per year. There are quite many repairs that are long-term repairs. For example, in apartment buildings, plumbing needs to be redone every 40 years or so. Given such a long time period, it makes sense to invest the money into stocks. So, my recommendation would be to have two repair funds: short-term repairs and long-term repairs. Only the long-term repair fund should be invested into stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a84b09627540269a6bcb47aed748f4c1", "text": "If you are going to be buying a house in 1-2 years, I would be putting my money into a short term holding area like a high interest (which isn't that high right now) or a CD (also low interest) because of your near-term need. I wouldn't use the Roth option for your down payment money. If you invest in something volatile (and stocks/mutual funds are very volatile in a 1-2 year term) I would consider it too risky for your need and time frame.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d365b4480c725511653ad90c95226c7f", "text": "1-2 years is very short-term. If you know you will need the money in that timeframe and cannot risk losing money because of a stock market correction, you should stay away from equities (stocks). A short-term bond fund (like VBISX) will pay around 1%, maybe a bit more, and only has a small amount of risk. Money Market funds are practically risk-free (technically speaking they can lose money, but it's extremely rare) but rates of return are dismal. It's hard to get bigger returns without taking on more risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a02969f1527aa7d249d33a3e8cebb4e", "text": "The stock market, as a whole, is extremely volatile. During any 3 year period, the market could go up or down. However, and this is the important point,the market as a whole has historically been a good long term investment. If you need the money in 5 years, then you want to put it in something less volatile (so there's less chance of losing it). If you need the money in 50 years, put it in the market; the massive growth over those 50 years will more than make up for any short term drops, and you will probably come out ahead. Once you get closer to retirement age, you want to take the money out of stocks and put it in something safer; essentially locking in your profit, and protecting yourself from the possibility of further loss. Something else to consider: everyone lost money in 2008. There were no safe investments (well, ok, there were a few... but not enough to talk about). Given that, why would you choose another investment over stocks? Taking a 50% loss after decades of 10% annual returns is still better than a 50% loss after decades of 5% growth (in fact, after 20 years of growth, it's still 250% better - and that ratio will only improve the longer you leave it in).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0adcaf91960b5299e36faa85f8a49618", "text": "You'll likely see several more scary market events before your autumn years. Ahhh, everyone has an opinion on this so here is mine :) If you are constrained to picking canned mutual fund products then I would target something with decent yield for two points. The third is to keep some in cash for an 'event'. I would say 65/35 at this point so invest 65% and have some liquidity for an 'opportunity'. Because the next crisis is right around the corner. But stay invested.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a05550158e54c1fac6708fe437e2345", "text": "\"Everything that I'm saying presumes that you're young, and won't need your money back for 20+ years, and that you're going to invest additional money in the future. Your first investments should never be individual stocks. That is far too risky until you have a LOT more experience in the market. (Once you absolutely can't resist, keep it to under 5% of your total investments. That lets you experiment without damaging your returns too much.) Instead you would want to invest in one or more mutual funds of some sort, which spreads out your investment across MANY companies. With only $50, avoiding a trading commission is paramount. If you were in the US, I would recommend opening a free online brokerage account and then purchasing a no-load commission-free mutual fund. TD Ameritrade, for example, publishes a list of the funds that you can purchase without commission. The lists generally include the type of fund (index, growth, value, etc.) and its record of return. I don't know if Europe has the same kind of discount brokerages / mutual funds the US has, but I'd be a little surprised if it didn't. You may or may not be able to invest until you first scrape together a $500 minimum, but the brokerages often have special programs/accounts for people just starting out. It should be possible to ask. One more thing on picking a fund: most charge about a 1% annual expense ratio. (That means that a $100 investment that had a 100% gain after one year would net you $198 instead of $200, because 1% of the value of your asset ($200) is $2. The math is much more complicated, and depends on the value of your investment at every given point during the year, but that's the basic idea.) HOWEVER, there are index funds that track \"\"the market\"\" automatically, and they can have MUCH lower expense fees (0.05%, vs 1%) for the same quality of performance. Over 40 years, the expense ratio can have a surprisingly large impact on your net return, even 20% or more! You'll want to google separately about the right way to pick a low-expense index fund. Your online brokerage may also be able to help. Finally, ask friends or family what mutual funds they've invested in, how they chose those funds, and what their experience has been. The point is not to have them tell you what to do, but for you to learn from the mistakes and successes of other experienced investors with whom you can follow up.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58796a14b05b5c255a612d4720921fb1", "text": "There are quite a few options. Suggest you put a mix of things and begin investing into Mutual Funds.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
81a2caffbc15778032f5da61c6a70ec6	Why does gold have value?	[ { "docid": "029604fb1bc4681115e58f3ce904a708", "text": "Gold's value starts with the fact that its supply is steady and by nature it's durable. In other words, the amount of gold traded each year (The Supply and Demand) is small relative to the existing total stock. This acting as a bit of a throttle on its value, as does the high cost of mining. Mines will have yields that control whether it's profitable to run them. A mine may have a $600/oz production cost, in which case it's clear they should run full speed now with gold at $1200, but if it were below $650 or so, it may not be worth it. It also has a history that goes back millennia, it's valued because it always was. John Maynard Keynes referred to gold as an archaic relic and I tend to agree. You are right, the topic is controversial. For short periods, gold will provide a decent hedge, but no better than other financial instruments. We are now in an odd time, where the stock market is generally flat to where it was 10 years ago, and both cash or most commodities were a better choice. Look at sufficiently long periods of time, and gold fails. In my history, I graduated college in 1984, and in the summer of 82 played in the commodities market. Gold peaked at $850 or so. Now it's $1200. 50% over 30 years is hardly a storehouse of value now, is it? Yet, I recall Aug 25, 1987 when the Dow peaked at 2750. No, I didn't call the top. But I did talk to a friend advising that I ignore the short term, at 25 with little invested, I only concerned myself with long term plans. The Dow crashed from there, but even today just over 18,000 the return has averaged 7.07% plus dividends. A lengthy tangent, but important to understand. A gold fan will be able to produce his own observation, citing that some percent of one's holding in gold, adjusted to maintain a balanced allocation would create more positive returns than I claim. For a large enough portfolio that's otherwise well diversified, this may be true, just not something I choose to invest in. Last - if you wish to buy gold, avoid the hard metal. GLD trades as 1/10 oz of gold and has a tiny commission as it trades like a stock. The buy/sell on a 1oz gold piece will cost you 4-6%. That's no way to invest. Update - 29 years after that lunch in 1987, the Dow was at 18448, a return of 6.78% CAGR plus dividends. Another 6 years since this question was asked and Gold hasn't moved, $1175, and 6 years' worth of fees, 2.4% if you buy the GLD ETF. From the '82 high of $850 to now (34 years), the return has a CAGR of .96%/yr or .56% after fees. To be fair, I picked a relative high, that $850. But I did the same choosing the pre-crash 2750 high on the Dow.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02de874aa4484ea8fc2860b128165f7c", "text": "\"Because people are willing to trade for it. People are willing to trade for Gold because: The value of gold goes up because the demand for it goes up, while the supply has been basically static (or growing at a low static rate) for a long time. The demand is going up because people see it as a safe place to put their money. Another reason Gold's value in dollars goes up, is because the value of the item it's traded against (dollars, euros, yen, etc) goes down, while its own value stays roughly the same. You point out Gold is not as liquid as cash, but gold (both traded on an exchange, and held physically) is easily sold. There is always someone willing to trade you cash for gold. Compare this to some of the bank stocks during the first part of our current recession. People were not willing to give much of anything for your shares. As the (annoying, misleading) advertisements say, \"\"Gold has never been worth zero\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f8d919b698a86fb35522e60db89d06c", "text": "A lot of people probably don't agree with him, but Warren Buffett has some great quotes on why he doesn't invest in gold: I will say this about gold. If you took all the gold in the world, it would roughly make a cube 67 feet on a side…Now for that same cube of gold, it would be worth at today’s market prices about $7 trillion dollars – that’s probably about a third of the value of all the stocks in the United States…For $7 trillion dollars…you could have all the farmland in the United States, you could have about seven Exxon Mobils, and you could have a trillion dollars of walking-around money…And if you offered me the choice of looking at some 67 foot cube of gold and looking at it all day, and you know me touching it and fondling it occasionally…Call me crazy, but I’ll take the farmland and the Exxon Mobils. And his classic quote: [Gold] gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3530792df52e52d0bf8c62ff035e4fc3", "text": "I think the primary reason it is so pricey now is that it is an inflation hedge, and considering how shaky the economies and out of control the spending is in many countries right now, people are running to it as a safe harbor. The increased demand raises the price as it does with any asset. This brings us to the titular question. Why does gold have value? The same reason anything has value. There is someone out there who wants it enough to trade something else of value to get it. It is in the news so much because it is so high right now, which unfortunately is going to cause a lot of people to foolishly invest in it at likely the worst possible time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b0e4bd48a4341838e9c01b29e8b6da44", "text": "\"Gold has value because for the most of the history of mankind's use of money, Gold and Silver have repeatedly been chosen by free markets as the best form of money. Gold is durable, portable, homogeneous, fungible, divisible, rare, and recognizable. Until 1971, most of the world's currencies were backed by Gold. In 1971, the US government defaulted on its obligation to redeem US Dollars (by which most other currencies were backed) in Gold, as agreed to by the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944. We didn't choose to go off the Gold Standard, we had no choice - Foreign Central Banks were demanding redeption in Gold, and the US didn't have enough - we inflated too much. I think that the current swell of interest in Gold is due to the recent massive increase in the Federal Reserve's balance sheet, plus the fast growing National debt, plus a looming Social Security / Medicare crisis. People are looking for protection of their savings, and they wish to \"\"opt-out\"\" of the government bail-outs, government deficits, government run health-care, and government money printing. They are looking for a currency that doesn't have a counter-party. \"\"Gold is money and nothing else\"\" - JP Morgan \"\"In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.\"\" - Alan Greenspan\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e5271f8049ed19205130dbe8eff245b", "text": "\"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it. --Publilius Syrus. Gold has value because people want to buy it. Electronics manufacturers like the fact that it's conductive. Jewellers like that its shiny. Glenn Beck likes that he's selling it and his audience will buy it. Proponents of gold claim that it has \"\"real\"\" value, as opposed to fiat currency (which has no commodity backing). Opponents of gold claim that all wealth is illusory, and that gold has no more inherent value than the paper we use now. I'm inclined to agree with the latter (money is only money because we agree that it is, and the underlying material is meaningless), however the issue is hotly debated.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e20d35dcd991462583b6f350778cbfaf", "text": "To start with gold has value because it is scarce, durable, attractive and can be made into jewellery. But that does not explain its current value. In the current economic climate, it is difficult for many investors to get a positive return on conventional investments such as equities or bonds. I theorise that, in such conditions, investors decide to park their money in gold simply because there are few other good options. This in itself drives the price of gold up, making it a better investment and causing a speculative boom. As you will see here, here, and here the gold price is negatively correlated with stock market indices.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ded3a7c1b081bb1aedfe9475c327af3", "text": "I use to play marbles at school. Marbles were like gold the more you had the richer you were. They were a scarce commodity only a few in circulation. Once I secured a wealth of marbles I realized they were of little real value. They were only of illusory value. As long as we all were deceived into believe they had value they I was rich. Sure marble could be used to make marble floors ;) they were lovely to look at, and every one wanted them. Then one day, I discovered the emperor had no clothes. Wow, the day that everyone sees the true value of gold, what a stock market crash that will be. I tried to avoid gold as much as possible, but this is hard to do in todays stock market. My solace is that we will all be in the same golden (Titanic) boat, only I hope to limit my exposure as much as possible. Anyone want a gold watch for a slice of bread?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0709d8ba0e52a674eebf56cf4fc4cb0c", "text": "\"It has semantic value (because we culturally believe gold is valuable). There is a very important point here. Gold and many other coin metals. This \"\"semantic value\"\" is enshrined in law through the special tax status of coin metals. You can buy a kilo of gold and not pay sales tax. You can't buy a kilo of iron or tin and do the same. This is the important part because investors shouldn't care about semantics. I read that the taxable status varies by state or nation, so you need to be very careful. It's possible to evade taxes without realizing it. It also doesn't necessarily exempt you from the form of gold. An ingot should be tax exempt. A collector's coin may or may not be, depending on your local laws and the difference between the value of the weight of the gold, and the value of the form of the coin.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8adfda019d784320770ca81ca7ff918d", "text": "\"Why does the value of gold go up when gold itself doesn't produce anything? Why do people invest in gold? Your perception, that the value of gold goes up in the long run, is based on the price of gold measured in your favorite paper currency, for example the US Dollar. An increasing price of gold means that in the visible gold market, market participants are willing to exchange more paper currency units for the same amount of gold. There are many possible reasons for this: While HFT became extremely important for the short term price movements, I will continue with long term effects, excluding HFT. So when - as a simple thought experiment - the amount of available paper currency units (US $ or whatever) doubles, and the amount of goods and services in an economy stay the same, you can expect that the price of everything in this economy will double, including gold. You might perceive that the value of gold doubled. It did not. It stayed the same. The number of printed dollars doubled. The value of gold is still the same, its price doubled. Does the amount of paper currency units grow over time? Yes: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE/ In this answer my term \"\"paper currency units\"\" includes dollars that exist only as digits in bank accounts and \"\"printing currency\"\" includes creating those digits in bank accounts out of thin air. So the first answer: gold holds its value while the value of paper currency units shrinks over time. So gold enables you to pass wealth to the next generation (while hiding it from your government). That gold does not produce anything is not entirely true. For those of us mortals who have only a few ounces, it is true. But those who have tons can lease it out and earn interest. (in practice it is leased out multiple times, so multiple that gain. You might call this fraud, and rightfully so. But we are talking about tons of gold. Nobody who controls tons of physical gold goes to jail yet). Let's talk about Fear. You see, the perceived value of gold increases as more paper currency is printed. And markets price in expected future developments. So the value of gold rises, if a sufficient number of wealthy people fear the the government(s) will print too much paper currency. Second Answer: So the price of gold not only reflects the amount of paper currency, it is also a measurement of distrust in government(s). Now you might say something is wrong with my argument. The chart mentioned above shows that we have now (mid 2015) 5 times as much printed currency units than we had 2008. So the price of gold should be 5 times as high as 2008, assuming the amount of distrust in governments stayed the same. There must be more effects (or I might be completely wrong. You decide). But here is one more effect: As the price of gold is a measurement of distrust in governments (and especially the US government since the US Dollar is perceived as the reserve currency), the US government and associated organizations are extremely interested in low gold prices to prove trust. So people familiar with the topic believe that the price of gold (and silver) is massively manipulated to the downside using high frequency trading and shorts in the futures markets by US government and wall street banks to disprove distrust. And wall street banks gain huge amounts of paper currency units by manipulating the price, mostly to the downside. Others say that countries like china and russia are also interested in low gold prices because they want to buy as much physical gold as possible. Knowing of the value that is not reflected by the price at the moment. Is there one more source of distrust in governments? Yes. Since 1971, all paper currencies are debt. They receive their value by the trust that those with debt are willing and able to pay back their debt. If this trust is lost, the downward manipulation (if you think that such a thing exists) of the gold and silver prices in the futures markets might fail some day. If this is the case (some say when this is the case). you might see movements in gold and silver prices that bring them back to equilibrium with the amount of printed paper currencies. In times of the roman empire you got a good toga and a pair of handmade shoes for an ounce of gold. In our days, you get a nice suite and a good pair of shoes for an ounce of gold. In the mean time, the value of each paper currency in the history of each country went to zero and the US $ lost 98% of its initial value. As long as there is not enough distrust, more paper currency is made in equity markets and bond markets on average. (Be aware that you earn that currency only after you were able to sell at this price, not while you hold it) Gerd\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb068a39368323846339508ad7548568", "text": "\"Most of the answers here reflect a misunderstanding of what gold actually is from a financial perspective. I'll answer your question by asking two questions, and I do challenge you to stop and think about what we mean when we say \"\"cash\"\" or \"\"unit of exchange\"\" because without understanding those, you will completely miss this answer. In 1971, the DXY was 110. For people who don't know, the DXY is the US Dollar Index - it weighs the strength of the US Dollar relative to other currencies. Hey look, it's a pretty graph of the DXY's history. In 1971, gold was $35 an ounce. The DXY is 97 today. Gold is $1170 an ounce today. Now the questions: If shares of Company A in 1971 were $10 a share, but now are $100 a share and some of this is because the company has grown, but some of it is because of inflation and the DXY losing value, what would the value of the company be if it was held in grams of gold and not dollars? Benjamin Graham, who influenced Warren Buffett, is a \"\"supposed\"\" critic of gold, yet what percent of his life were we not on a gold standard? In his day, the dollar was backed by gold - why would you buy gold if every dollar represented gold. Finally, consider how many US Dollars exist, and how few metric tonnes of gold exist (165,000). Even Paul Volcker admitted that a new gold standard would be impossible because the value of gold, if we did it today, would put gold in the $5000-$10000 range - which is absurd: To get on a gold standard technically now, an old fashioned gold standard, and you had to replace all the dollars out there in foreign hands with gold, God the price, you buy gold, because the price of gold would have to be enormous. So, you're all left hoping the Federal Reserve figures how to get us all out of this mess without causing trouble, otherwise, let me just kindly say, you WILL realize the value of gold then. As the old saying goes, \"\"A fool and his money are soon parted.\"\" I could be wrong, but I'd say that those who've been buying gold since 1971 for their \"\"cash holdings\"\" (not index funds) aren't the suckers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94f18051e3c46aff0d139f67e81dc269", "text": "\"Gold has very useful physical properties for some engineering applications. Even tiny amounts of gold can substantially improve products, so it can be worthwhile to pay high prices per ounce for gold. For example: Gold can be \"\"beaten\"\" or electroplated to produce very thin shiny coatings. Entire roofs (of famous buildings) have been covered with \"\"gold leaf\"\", at a cost that was small compared to the supporting structure. A very thin layer of electroplated gold provides better protection against corrosion than a much thicker layer of electroplated nickel. Even if gold costs thousands of times more per ounce than nickel, it is cheaper to use gold as an anti-corrosion layer than nickel (for use in military-grade naval electronics). A thin layer of electroplated gold greatly increases the electrical current-carrying capacity of a thin copper wire.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60abc7a7295934ebd9bde221cdeb023d", "text": "\"Gold can be thought of to have value in one of two ways; (1) as a means and (2) as an end. Means takes the shape of currency. In this form, we value gold in the same way we value the dollar, it allows us to purchase things we want. As a medium of exchange, gold has no definitive value and is only assigned one during the process of an exchange. For example, I would be valuing one ingot of gold to be worth a dog if I traded a dog for one ingot of gold. The value of gold in this sense is subjective as each person decides for themselves what gold is worth during the transaction. Gold as an end is valued for its own sake. A good example of this is a jeweler who purchases gold directly because of the intrinsic property(s) gold possesses. This is closer to the \"\"true value\"\" of gold than using it as a means, but virtually no one in our society views gold in this manor because virtually no one can use gold in this manor. \"\"You know what I could use right now, a block of gold.\"\" - said no one ever. But even if you are one of the select few who value gold for its own sake, this is usually done because gold provides a function. For example, if people no longer want to ware jewelry, then a jeweler will likely have to find a new line of work where he would likely no longer view gold as valuable as an ends. To sum up, gold has a perceived value for most people and an \"\"intrinsic value\"\" to a select few (for the time being).\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "98d2744aa08398bbbfb3bacfd6f5d240", "text": "Of course. But then, paper also has utility. So do seashells and pinecones. There is no obvious reason why, even in a perfect world, we would go looking for a malleable, highly-conductive, corrosion-resistant metal as something to peg the value of our banknotes to. The argument in favor of a gold standard is not whether gold is intrinsically more valuable than paper or seal skins or anything else, it's that gold is fairly inelastic in terms of supply, so it limits the ability of central bankers to mess up the value of the currency through interventionist funny business. If you picked up a rock and started going around telling people that we should use it as money because it's highly malleable and conductive and can be used in computer parts, they would look at you like you're a crazy person. That's not why gold is/was/should be a currency. Gold was indisputably the perfect currency for thousands of years, because it was easy to identify, easy to handle, hard to falsify, and rare. Those were important characteristics when strangers had to carry physical money to different places without any ATMs, credit-cards, or paypal accounts. They are somewhat less critical today, but still... The one characteristic that might still argue in favor of a gold standard is rarity: Since the amount of gold in the world is somewhat fixed, forcing the currency supply to be restricted to the gold supply semi-prevents governments and central bankers from getting into too much mischief (or at least, that's the theory). I will leave it to others to argue over whether a return to the gold standard would be a good idea, but the argument has nothing to with the intrinsic utility of gold. I'm sure we can all agree that gold is a fine metal with many good qualities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f5008996d6dec474559349bc2d2a081", "text": "I would imagine (correct me if I'm wrong) that one of the benefits of gold was it was very easy to detect counterfeiting. It had a known weight, easily identified color, and there were many easily accessible ways to verify that it was, in fact, gold. Paper money has been a relatively recent development, monetarily, and it seems like it has matured as methods of preventing false currency have likewise matured. EDIT: Ah, and there it is, in one of your comments further down. Cool.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb407f054ab03cb8a94931ab2f94b3b9", "text": "Yes and i told you that bitcoin could also be perceived as valuable too, like seashells did in the past. Personally, i think bitcoin has value because it is a giant money laundering scheme. All the big players are investing into it because they need to funnel their drug money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d72158325951e5027d5bfbeec4c607cc", "text": "\"Currencies such as the dollar, the Euro, and most others are no longer tied to gold in any way. They are just paper that is worth what it's worth because everyone agrees to accept it. Previously, currencies used to be commonly tied to gold reserves, and could theoretically be \"\"cashed in\"\" for gold, although not usually as much as the currency denomination (i.e., gold on the open market tended to sell for higher prices than what the government would give you for it).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "476b54200809b4ea0520e9c0a3405378", "text": "Mainly because I have it and you don't, I can make you do stuff for it because more of us perceive its value than bother about the paper you are holding. Picture if you will a moment in time, when the paper you are holding, represented the amount of gold you had at home, as time went by you spent all your gold and the amount the paper represented, became less and less and the amount of lunch you could buy with it became less and less. Today the day has arrived, that you have no gold left and what your paper represents is an empty coffer . . Move along . .people who can pay for their lunch are waiting and look, the paper they hold represents gold they have.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c578c93da22d50ffcb71f8e3c5627bdc", "text": "\"> Value is entirely subjective to individuals. Nothing has \"\"intrinsic value\"\". Question: Water, oxygen -- caveats to intrinsic value because they are that which is consumed by virtue of one's being alive and staying alive and are of limited supply? Can we expand on \"\"value\"\" and how it operates on the barest of essentials to sustain life. To rephrase: [1] That the tripartite nature of the system of money--token (countable), vehicle (exchangeable), and repository (valuable)--depends on life existing ergo exist as conditions necessary for the creation of an economy but yet will be necessarily valued by the economy because of the projected increases in population, that is, future demand rising as function of the earthly supply means that the value of these goods can or cannot be projected and, more broadly, [2] how do economists evaluate the role of money in relation to timing, especially when it pertains to these unproduced or \"\"given\"\" yet essential goods and especially coupled with the knowledge that the population will continue to proliferate? Really, I'm not trying to undermine or debunk or be plain ridiculous; I'm curious as to how economic theory will (or has begun to) try to solve a \"\"singularity\"\" (threshold) problem that has yet to occur but no doubt will? Maybe it's an unfair question but even so, I'm sure someone on this thread might steer us towards a starting point. And I only ask because the economic breakdown by otherwiseyep and the discussion in the thread herein are, say, quite as substantial as they are clear.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de76dd8be879644dd6aff119fe53a486", "text": "Money itself has no value. A gold bar is worth (fuzzy rushed math, could be totally wrong on this example figure) $423,768.67. So, a 1000 dollars, while worthless paper, are a token saying that you own %.2 of a gold bar in the federal reserve. If a billion dollars are printed, but no new gold is added to the treasury, then your dollar will devalue, and youll only have %.1 percent of that gold bar (again, made up math to describe a hypothetical). When dollars are introduced into the economy, but gold has not been introduced to back it up, things like the government just printing dollars or banks inventing money out of debt (see the housing bubble), then the dollar tokens devalue further. TL;DR: Inflation is the ratio of actual wealth in the Treasury to the amount of currency tokens the treasury has printed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edf4fba292caeb83937280fef7ca1934", "text": "\"The general argument put forward by gold lovers isn't that you get the same gold per dollar (or dollars per ounce of gold), but that you get the same consumable product per ounce of gold. In other words the claim is that the inflation-adjusted price of gold is more-or-less constant. See zerohedge.com link for a chart of gold in 2010 GBP all the way from 1265. (\"\"In 2010 GBP\"\" means its an inflation adjusted chart.) As you can see there is plenty of fluctuation in there, but it just so happens that gold is worth about the same now as it was in 1265. See caseyresearch.com link for a series of anecdotes of the buying power of gold and silver going back some 3000 years. What this means to you: If you think the stock market is volatile and want to de-risk your holdings for the next 2 years, gold is just as risky If you want to invest some wealth such that it will be worth more (in real terms) when you take it out in 40 years time than today, the stock market has historically given better returns than gold If you want to put money aside, and it to not lose value, for a few hundred years, then gold might be a sensible place to store your wealth (as per comment from @Michael Kjörling) It might be possible to use gold as a partial hedge against the stock market, as the two supposedly have very low correlation\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af6fc06890c6a15e9c4c5206ac646982", "text": "Since 2007 the world has seen a period of striking economic and financial volatility featuring the deepest recession since the 1930s despite this gold has performed strongly with its price roughly doubling since the global financial crisis began in mid-2007. 1. Gold and real interest rates: One of the factor that influences gold prices is real interest rate which is to some extent related to inflation. Since gold lacks a yield of its own, the opportunity cost of holding gold increases with a real interest rate increase and decreases with a fall in real interest rates. 2. Gold and the US dollar: The external value of the US dollar has been a significant influence on short-term gold price movements. The IMF estimated6 in 2008 that 40-50% of the moves in the gold price since 2002 were dollar-related, with a 1% change in the effective external value of the dollar leading to a more than 1% change in the gold price (Source). 3. Gold and financial stress: It is a significant and commonly observed influence on the short-term price of gold. In periods of financial stress gold demand may rise for a number of reasons: 4. Gold and political instability: It is another factor that can boost gold prices. Investor concerns about wars, civil conflicts and international tensions can boost demand for gold for similar reasons to those noted above for periods of financial stress. Gold‟s potential function as a „currency of last resort‟ in case of serious system collapse provides a particular incentive to hold it in case the political situation is especially severe. (Source) 5. Gold and official sector activity: The behaviour of central banks and other parts of the official sector can have an important impact on gold prices. One reason for this is that central banks are big holders of gold, possessing some 30,500 metric tons in 2010, which is approximately 15% of all above-ground gold stocks. As a result, central bank policies on gold sales and purchases can have significant effects, and these policies have been subject to considerable shifts over the decades. (Source) (Source of above graphs)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a05e4b7eb3186e433bee9ebc1234649c", "text": "There is no such thing as intrinsic value. Gold has value because it is rare and has a market. If any of those things decline, the value plunges. The question of whether gold is overvalued or not is complicated and depends on a lot of factors. The key question in my mind is: Is gold more valuable in terms of US dollars because it is becoming more valuable, or because the value of US dollars, the prevailing medium of exchange, is declining?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6772c658a9ce2de9ba987109f7782764", "text": "\"Gold may have some \"\"intrinsic value\"\" but it cannot be accurately determined by investors by any known valuation techniques. In fact, if you were to apply the dividend discount model of John Burr Williams - a variation of which is the basis of Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis and the basis of most valuation techniques - gold would have zero intrinsic value because it produces no cash flow. Legendary focus investor Warren Buffett argues that investing in gold is pure speculation because of the reason mentioned above. As others have mentioned, gold prices are affected by supply and demand, but the bigger influence on the price of gold is how the economy is. Gold is seen as a store of value because, according to some, it does not \"\"lose value\"\" unlike paper currency during inflation. In inflationary times, demand increases so gold prices do go up, which is why gold behaves similar to a commodity but has far less uses. It is difficult to argue whether or not gold gains or loses value because we can't determine the intrinsic value of gold, and anyone who attempts to justify any given price is pulling blinders over your eyes. It is indisputable that, over history, gold represents wealth and that in the past century and the last decade, gold prices rise in inflationary conditions as people dump dollars for gold, and it has fallen when the purchasing power of currency increases. Many investors have talked about a \"\"gold bubble\"\" by arguing that gold prices are inflated because of inflation and the Fed's money policy and that once interest rates rise, the money supply will contract and gold will fall, but again, nobody can say with any reasonable accuracy what the fair value of gold at any given point is. This article on seeking alpha: http://seekingalpha.com/article/112794-the-intrinsic-value-of-gold gives a quick overview, but it is also vague because gold can't be accurately priced. I wouldn't say that gold has zero intrinsic value because gold is not a business so traditional models are inappropriate, but I would say that gold certainly doesn't have a value of $1,500 and it's propped so high only because of investor expectation. In conclusion, I do not believe you can accurately state whether gold is undervalued or overvalued - you must make judgments based on what you think about the future of the market and of monetary policy, but there are too many variables to be accurate consistently.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11dcc15ec506ffc8bc2c15e086f79915", "text": "\"Gold has no \"\"intrinsic\"\" value. None whatsoever. This is because \"\"value\"\" is a subjective term. \"\"Intrinsic value\"\" makes just as much sense as a \"\"cat dog\"\" animal. \"\"Dog\"\" and \"\"cat\"\" are referring to two mutually exclusive animals, therefore a \"\"cat dog\"\" is a nonsensical term. Intrinsic Value: \"\"The actual value of a company or an asset based on an underlying perception of its true value ...\"\" Intrinsic value is perceived, which means it is worth whatever you, or a group of people, think it is. Intrinsic value has nothing, I repeat, absolutely nothing, to do with anything that exists in reality. The most obvious example of this is the purchase of a copy-right. You are assigning an intrinsic value to a copy-right by purchasing it. However, when you purchase a copy-right you are not buying ink on a page, you are purchasing an idea. Someone's imaginings that, for all intensive purposes, doesn't even exist in reality! By definition, things that do not exist do not have \"\"intrinsic\"\" properties - because things that don't exist, don't have any natural properties at all. \"\"Intrinsic\"\" according to Websters Dictionary: \"\"Belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing ... (the intrinsic brightness of a star).\"\" An intrinsic property of an object is something we know that exists because it is a natural property of that object. Suns emit light, we know this because we can measure the light coming from it. It is not subjective. \"\"Intrinsic Value\"\" is the OPPOSITE of \"\"Intrinsic\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fec1087f096889c0e2f7d49d8e0c4ca4", "text": "One possible downside is contribution limit. The 401K contribution limit is $18,000 for 2016, which is more than three times the limit for IRA contributions ($5,500).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f852b2dde85d5a0bd328e9ec0f79c75", "text": "Your last sentence is key. If you have multiple accounts, it's too easy to lose track over the years. I've seen too many people pass on and the spouse has a tough time tracking the accounts, often finding a prior spouse listed as beneficiary. In this case, your gut is right, simpler is better.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b103afc1c3e718e2d67204b6c31fd3ed	How do I figure out the market value of used books?	[ { "docid": "64a9c4b0039ace289ff8cdba95b38b0c", "text": "Half of original MSRP at Amazon is a good option for books that are in good condition. Another option would be to use eBay, specifically Half.com.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9cb67b41fee650936cc6c7cc95c0eed7", "text": "Regarding the textbooks and technical books, it might be worth checking out sites like Chegg.com or other textbook rental websites. They might buy it from you directly versus trying to sell it on an ebay or amazon. For fiction or nonfiction, amazon and ebay can be tough, but probably worth a look. See what comparables are for your books or similar titles, and if it works, try selling a few. The big problem is that so many sellers are on Amazon these days, that major discounts are commonplace. I've bought hardback 1st editions for less than the cost of economy shipping, so the profit margin is dwindling at best if it's an unpopular or low demand book.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75c9253a244592dfd74e8e91698516a3", "text": "Text Book values drop rather rapidly and fluctuate quite a bit based on when you are selling (January and August-September when semesters generally start) them. I generally sell my old text books on Amazon for 10-15% less than the peak price over the last 6 months or a year if that much data is available (I use camelcamelcamel.com to get historical data). They generally sell pretty quick so I would say it is a fair price.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "de3dd9ff566f4e4440c3035ea0f73ece", "text": "\"For those on a budget, check if your local library has access to / or a copy of the \"\"Standard & Poor's Daily Stock Price Record\"\". Access to that or a similar service may be available as part of your library patronage. If not available it may be available at your metropolitan central library. Comprehensive stock pricing data which provides adjustments for splits, mergers, capital distributions and other relevant events is still a premium product. External link to New York Public Library blog post on subject: http://www.nypl.org/blog/2012/04/09/finding-historical-stock-prices\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfe42c873491ca1cefe0d3f986e96815", "text": "\"I'm not an economist, but I understand the idea of value or \"\"price\"\" is purely \"\"what people agree it to be\"\". The quants and analysts I've worked with always talk about \"\"discovering the price\"\" - it's an unknown until someone says \"\"I will pay X\"\". Are my 2nd hand Nikes worth $20? Put em on ebay to find out. If someone buys them, then yes, 2nd hand Nikes are worth $20. If they don't sell then they're not worth $20. Obviously ebay is not the most efficient market out there. The exchanges attempt to be that with prices varying by fractions of cent in fractions of seconds (milliseconds). EDIT* Perhaps another way to look at it is \"\"What is the 'correct' value of a computer game, say 'Skyrim'?\"\" Your idea of the value of labour and production costs produces some figure. But in the real world, what actually happens? On release day the game is priced at, say, $60. And lots of people say \"\"I will pay $60\"\". Many people don't, but many people do. Months later, Steam has a sale and they suggest Skyrim is now worth $30. Lot's of people who didn't think it was worth $60 do think it is worth $30. The amount of labour that went into is hasn't changed. So what it the true or 'correct' value/price of the game? What is the correct value/price of amything? It is what people will pay for it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebb41def0224a718e83f9f53e5a8e812", "text": "\"The textbook answer would be \"\"assets-liabilities+present discounted value of all future profit\"\". A&L is usually simple (if a company has an extra $1m in cash, it's worth $1m more; if it has an extra $1m in debt, it's worth $1m less). If a company with ~0 assets and $50k in profit has a $1m valuation, then that implies that whoever makes that valuation (wants to buy at that price) really believes one of two things - either the future profit will be significantly larger than $50k (say, it's rapidly growing); or the true worth of assets is much more - say, there's some IP/code/patents/people that have low book value but some other company would pay $1m just to get that. The point is that valuation is subjective since the key numbers in the calculations are not perfectly known by anyone who doesn't have a time machine, you can make estimates but the knowledge to make the estimates varies (some buyers/sellers have extra information), and they can be influenced by those buyers/sellers; e.g. for strategic acquisitions the value of company is significantly changed simply because someone claims they want to acquire it. And, $1m valuation for a company with $500m in profits isn't appropriate - it's appropriate only if the profits are expected to drop to zero within a couple years; a stagnant but stable company with $500m profits would be worth at least $5m and potentially much more.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35ff05e2d5c742c8cf523afc69864cb9", "text": "Conservative = erring on the side of ascribing a higher EV to the business. Because if you're someone looking to acquire the business, for example, and let's say we're talking about a business that has debt which trades at a discount, it's more conservative to assume that the debt can't necessarily be restructured. To use an extreme example, as you're valuing the business, would it be conservative or aggressive to assume that the debt got magically wiped out altogether? So that's why I'm saying that it's more conservative to use the book value of the debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cdccd9264950fda9d11e48e23df2b0d9", "text": "What if Kirtsaeng were only acting as a foreign agent of the purchaser? Seems like that would be an easy work around. Instead of selling the book, he could charge a service fee for making the purchase for someone else.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ed36d63a9b925c315ab217b16467959", "text": "Have you looked at what is in that book value? Are the assets easily liquidated to get that value or could there be trouble getting the fair market value as some assets may not be as easy to sell as you may think. The Motley Fool a few weeks ago noted a book value of $10 per share. I could wonder what is behind that which could be mispriced as some things may have fallen in value that aren't in updated financials yet. Another point from that link: After suffering through the last few months of constant cries from naysayers about the company’s impending bankruptcy, shareholders of Penn West Petroleum Ltd. (TSX:PWT)(NYSE:PWE) can finally look toward the future with a little optimism. Thus, I'd be inclined to double check what is on the company books.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "487f70fefde2260535df8ddd74de4414", "text": "NAV is how much is the stuff of the company worth divided by the number of shares. This total is also called book value. The market cap is share price times number of shares. For Amazon today people are willing to pay 290 a share for a company with a NAV of 22 a share. If of nav and price were equal the P/B (price to book ratio) would be 1, but for Amazon it is 13. Why? Because investors believe Amazon is worth a lot more than a money losing company with a NAV of 22.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59c4d3ea50aad7d39d3a7495aa8e3924", "text": "Book value = sell all assets and liquidate company . Then it's the value of company on book. Price = the value at which it's share gets bought or sold between investors. If price to book value is less than one, it shows that an 100$ book value company is being traded at 99$ or below. At cheaper than actually theoretical price. Now say a company has a production plant . Situated at the most costliest real estate . Yet the company's valuation is based upon what it produces, how much orders it has etc while real estate value upon which plant is built stays in book while real investors don't take that into account (to an extend). A construction company might own a huge real estate inventory. However it might not be having enough cash flow to sustain monthly expense. In this scenario , for survival,i the company might have to sell its real estate at discount. And market investors are fox who could smell trouble and bring price way below the book value Hope it helps", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a52969d6de27e78057142e53b34db9c", "text": "You're realizing the perils of using a DCF analysis. At best, you can use them to get a range of possible values and use them as a heuristic, but you'll probably find it difficult to generate a realistic estimate that is significantly different than where the price is already.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77eace4c4744e927720c62b309b3214e", "text": "Certainly sounds worthwhile to get a CPA to help you with setting up the books properly and learning to maintain them, even if you do it yourself thereafter. What's your own time worth?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c019cab98369192a419c76fde2604a04", "text": "\"I'm not sure what the situation is in Canada, but in the US, the IRS does not look kindly on people overvaluing donations of used goods. The rule is obviously abused quite a bit, but that doesn't mean it's legal! Different used books have different values, usually depending on supply and demand, and there are online databases that make it easy to check the value of a book using a barcode scanner. If you took a book to a used bookstore and they didn't want to buy it, that's because supply greatly exceeds demand... it might be last year's bestseller, for example. In this situation, donating the book to charity and claiming that the book is \"\"worth\"\" more than it's actually worth is really nothing more than cheating on your taxes. You may or may not get caught, but it's certainly not the intent of any tax code to give people a break on their taxes for donating worthless books to a charity which will inevitably just have to recycle or shred them.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1b7f7147ecf4016b8209d50d31f589d", "text": "I have sold a few items on ebay. The biggest issue I have with ebay is all of the fees. I am not sure how much has changed recently, but when I was selling stuff it felt like ebay and paypal took a large chunk of the money. I could be wrong, but it seemed like they were getting around 35% or more of my 'profits'. Of course, you then have the shipping fees on top of that, which will run a few bucks on common items. For items that sell for around $20 on ebay, I felt like I was ending up with about $5 in my pocket. I have used Amazon to sell used books, though I haven't done that for about a year or so. They had no fees for listing items, and the item remains listed for about 90 days. If it sells, they process the payment and can deposit it into your bank account or provide an Amazon gift certificate. I forget Amazon's fees, but I remember that it didn't seem to be as frustrating as the ebay/paypal price structure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b6f090327ec6cce7d14b1a6d77924e4", "text": "Discrepancies between what the book value is reported as and what they'd fetch if sold on the open market. Legal disputes in court.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0fb6df68bbd3c28f9396ec52c362d2fa", "text": "If you're willing to pay a fee, you can probably just get a commercial appraiser to give you a valuation. In Australia I think it's around $100-200.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02b8a662668832af66709dbeb39365ad", "text": "To determine the value of one's life, instead of rating happiness from 1 to 10 every day in pink ink in a secret diary, use the concept of mercantile exchange to determine the value of your existence. First, offer your time for some initial price ($10) to some investors (Bob). Then, create an order book where anyone can make a bid or ask for your time. For example, Bob creates a sell order for 10 min of your time for $20. Mary creates a buy order for 10 min of your time for $20--Bob sells 10 min of your time to Mary for $20. Based on the supply and demand for your time, you could determine the value of your existence. Obviously, your time would no longer be yours, but it's interesting to consider nontheless and precisely equivalent to the process that determines stock price. (Ignoring the minutiae of order books and IPOs.)", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
bc5d5fc5502cea49877e0da2d0a1b296	Why are wire transfers and other financial services in Canada so much more expensive than in Europe?	[ { "docid": "2d08a71e70cc24b74d048f9240257fd4", "text": "I don't believe there is any particular structural or financial reason that outgoing wire transfers cost so much in Canada, their costs are no higher than other countries (and lower than many). Wires seem to be an area where the Canadian banks have decided people don't comparison shop, so it's not a competitive advantage to offer a better price. The rates you quoted are on the low side: $80 for a largish international wire is not unusual, and HSBC charges up to $150! There are several alternative ways to transfer money domestically in Canada. If the recipient banks at the same bank, it's possible to go into a branch and transfer money directly from your own account to their account (I've never been charged for this). The transfer is immediate. But it couldn't be done online, last time I checked. For transfers where you don't know the recipients bank account, you can pay online with Interac E-Transfers, offered by most Canadian banks. It's basically e-mailing money. It usually costs $1 to $1.50 per transfer, and has limits on how much you can send per day/week. Each of the banks also have a bill-pay service, but unlike similar services in the US (where they mail a paper check if the recipient isn't on their system), each Canadian bank has a limited number of possible payees (mostly utilities, governments, major stores).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7473ce484f68f1295a7f4e0a770daffc", "text": "\"because bankers are crooks is a very close answer. Just accept the truth that financial industry is the only service industry that could turn into giant parasite chopping pieces from real economy. I am not anti-financial, because greed is not banker's fault, but just one significant part of human nature. Every human being has greed and fear built in it. But financial industry is the only one which is built on exploiting greed and fear. Governments are throwing gasoline canister into that fire in desperate extinguish attempts, trying to \"\"regulate\"\" but only making it worse. With all that \"\"counter-cybercrime\"\", \"\"counter-terrorism\"\" and \"\"counter-everything\"\" efforts, ordinary people will be hurt as always.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6117285b4f91fa403a869d9aae1f0b06", "text": "Transaction fees are part of the income for banks, and as we know they are profit making corporations just like any other Company. The differene is that instead of buying and packing and Selling groceries, they buy and package and sell Money. Within the rules and the market they will try to maximize their profit, exactly like Apple or GM or Walmart and so on. Sweden and Holland are part of the European union and the leaders of the union has defined (by law) that certain types of transactions should be done without fees. In order to transfer Money from your Swedish account to the Dutch account you do what is called a SEPA transaction, which should be done in one day without cost to you as a customer. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Euro_Payments_Area Gunnar", "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": "f29b80c81442469dd8dbda70c25622d5", "text": "There are so many ways to transfer money from Canada to US, so the only problem choosing the most reliable, cheap, and fast way. PS: Interac e-Transfer is unfortunately only available inside Canada. I know nothing about XE.com, so I can't recommend it. There should be other ways to transfer money.", "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": "1bd13694ea76c3b61a2bc7bcd5ddfef6", "text": "Many European countires allow you to an account for non-residents. You have to appear in the bank personally to open it, some of them even to get your own tax number for non-residents from the local government. I'm not sure if you get a Visa (Electron) chip card immediatelly or you have to wait for like 3 months before being issued one. I've heard that getting a tax number for non-residents and opening a bank account is easily done in one day in Brezice, Republic of Slovenia. They seem to have agile local bureaucracy and banks, since many pople from neighbouring (non-EU) countries (used to) come there to open an EU bank account. Funds can be transfered via Internet banking - US banks have that, do they? SWIFT and IBAN codes are used for international money transfer. But it takes some time (days!) for it to arrive to destination. Tansfers below $20000 per month or per transaction are considered normal, but for amouts above that the destination bank might ask you to explain the purpose, to prove it is not illegal. Some of them accept the explanaiton in writing (they forward it to the regulator that tracks such large transfers), some of them ask you to appear there in person for an interview and to sign a statement. Can't believe US banks are still issuing paing magnet stripe cards like it's still 1980s. I'd expect Europe to be 10 years behind USA in technology, but this seems to be a weird reverse. I've beed using Internet banking with one-time passwd tokens and TAN lists for almost 10 years, and chip cards exclusivley for over 5y. Can't remeber the last time I've seen mag stripe card only. American Express (event the regular green one) got the chip at least 5 years ago. And it is accepted regularly in Europe. Alegedly it's more popular in Europe (although Mastercard is a definite #1, with Visa close to that) that in USA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9147fcc19c40f60defcb41b243f3364", "text": "\"Wire transfers are not the same as ACH transfers. I regular transfer money between Chase, Ally, Capital One 360 and Fidelity and have never been charged a fee because I never do wire transfers. (The default for all these banks is ACH; you must explicitly choose wire transfers.) EDIT: to answer the modified question. https://www.depositaccounts.com/blog/difference-between-wire-transfer-and-ach.html \"\"One of the fastest ways to send money is via wire transfer. Although a wire transfer can take days, in most cases a wire transfer takes place within minutes. It is a direct bank-to-bank transaction that allows you to move money from your account directly into the account of someone else.\"\" \"\"While it may seem similar to a wire transfer, a transaction accomplished with the help of an automated clearing house (ACH) is not the same thing. ... When you arrange for the electronic transfer of funds, all of the information is included in a batch, which is then sent to the clearing house. All of the transactions in the batch are then handled by the clearing house, rather than as a direct bank-to-bank transaction. ... As a result, your money is not available as quickly as it often is with a wire transfer. The ACH process can be more convenient and is less expensive, but it also takes a little bit longer.\"\"\"", "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": "0fa6c81a8ef6708e1285d62e7d01d454", "text": "\"The \"\"hidden\"\" fees in any transfer are usually: Foreign exchange transfer services are usually the cheapest option for sending money abroad when a conversion is involved. They tend to offer ways to get the money to or from them cheaply or for free and they typically offer low or no fees plus much better exchange rates than the alternatives. My preferred foreign exchange service is XE Trade. It looks like they support CAD to ZAR transfers so you might check them out. In my experience, they have not set a minimum on the amount I send although it does impact the exchange rate they will offer. The rate is still better than other alternatives available to me though. Note that for large enough transfers, the exchange rate difference will dominate all other costs. For example, if you transfer $10,000 and you pay $100 for the transfer plus $50 in wire fees ($150 in fees) but get a 2% better exchange rate than a \"\"free\"\" service, you would save $50 by choosing the non free service.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a7ace8f106dc0b13a9d2fc529f507e6", "text": "I doubt you're going to find anywhere that will give you free outgoing wires unless you're depositing a huge amount of money like $500K or more. An alternative would be to find a bank that offers everything else you want and use XETrade for very low cost online wires. I've used them in the past and can recommend their services. Most banks won't charge for incoming wires. I have accounts at ETrade Bank that don't charge any fees and I can do everything online. You might want to check them out. ETrade also offers global trading accounts which allow you to have accounts denominated in a few foreign currencies (EUR, JPY, GBP, CAD and HKD I think). I don't think there is a fee for moving money between the different currencies. If your goal is simply to diversify your money into different currencies, you could deposit money there instead of wiring it to other banks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08779e8c2ebc378095806f40072fea64", "text": "Well, I know why the Rabobank in the Netherlands does it. I can go back around one year and a half with my internet banking. But I can only go further back (upto 7 years) after contacting the bank and paying €5,- per transcript (one transcript holds around a month of activities). I needed a year worth of transcripts for my taxes and had to cough up more than €50. EDIT It seems they recently changed their policy in a way that you can request as many transcripts as you like for a maximum cost of €25,- so the trend to easier access is visible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afbb0d017059f0ed498dfe39c919d4e2", "text": "For the first part of your question, I think the answer is a combination of three things: (1) Bigger companies have leverage to negotiate better deals due to volume. (2) Some of these companies are also taking bookings from outside the US for people traveling to the US (either directly or through affiliates). This means that they also have income in other currencies, so they may not actually be making as many wire transfers as you think. They simply keep a bank account in Europe, for example, in Euros to receive and send money in the Eurozone as needed. They balance the exchange on their books internally in this case, without actually sending funds through the international banking system. Similarly in other parts of the world. (3) These companies are not going to make a wire transfer for every transaction, in any case. They are going to transfer big sums of money to an account abroad to balance things on a longer-term basis (weekly, month, etc.) Then they will make individual payments to service providers out of the overseas account in between these larger, international transfers. For the second part of your question, I think there's probably no way for a new business to get the advantages of scale unless you've got significant capital backing your endeavor that would make it plausible that you'll be transferring in scale. I don't see any reason in principle that the new company could not establish bank accounts abroad and try to execute the plan outlined in #2 above except that it would require some set-up costs to do the proper paperwork in each country, probably to travel, and to initially fund the various accounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc8a52d8f9465b44b6cbc258d26b4af2", "text": "\"Owning any sort of business is an absolute nightmare for a \"\"US Person\"\" not on US soil. It has nothing to do with money, but the fact that compliance costs are huge and it's only getting worse with the whole fatca nonesense.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9440f6a0c8c21dafac732d0fc850d408", "text": "It depends on the currency pair since it is much harder to move a liquid market like Fiber (EURUSD) or Cable (GBPUSD) than it is to move illiquid markets such as USDTRY, however, it will mostly be big banks and big hedge funds adjusting their positions or speculating (not just on the currency or market making but also speculating in foreign instruments). I once was involved in a one-off USD 56 million FX trade without which the hedge fund could not trade as its subscriptions were in a different currency to the fund currency. Although it was big by their standards it was small compared with the volumes we expected from other clients. Governments and big companies who need to pay costs in a foreign currency or receive income in one will also do this but less frequently and will almost always do this through a nominated bank (in the case of large firms). Because they need the foreign currency immediately; if you've ever tried to pay a bill in the US denominated in Dollars using Euros you'll know that they aren't widely accepted. So if I need to pay a large bill to a supplier in Dollars and all I have is Euros I may move the market. Similarly if I am trying to buy a large number of shares in a US company and all I have is Euros I'll lose the opportunity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d75920d84097b33a1bc7c02b04354336", "text": "\"At this point, a great deal of the world's wealth exists only in electronic form, and just as you can write a check or pay by debit card and trust the banks will handle it, banks can conduct wire transfers\"\" through higher-level banking networks. In the US, when there is a need to convert physical money to electronic or vice versa, it is typically handled by armored car and armed guard transfer between a bank and the local Federal Reserve Bank office. Physical money is moved around only when necessary, and for as short a distance as possible, to the most secure facilities possible, to minimize risk. I can't vouch for how it's managed elsewhere in the world, where the networks and repository banks may not be as available. I would presume (I would hope!) that the same general concepts and approaches are followed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "acd5b147c0a42ce678536ffaa6a0db0b", "text": "Canadians can email or text each other money through Interac. It is fast - the longest it's ever taken for me is 20 minutes, often it's less - and secure. You don't need to know each other's banking details or even real names. I've used this to send money to my children, each of whom uses a different bank than I do, and they've used it to send money to friends to pay for concert tickets and the like. You add a security question so if someone else got to the email or text first, they wouldn't get the money. I also get an email once the transfer has gone through, so I know they got it. Some banks limit this to $1000 a day, mine to $3000. Typically there is no fee for the recipient and $1 or $2 for the sender. A dollar on $1000 is way better than a 2 or 3% cc processing fee. But even for $30, a dollar is like 3% and you didn't need to apply for anything or set anything up, and your customers don't need a credit card or to trust you with their credit card details. I keep meeting people who don't know about this. Everyone with a Canadian bank account and an email address or smartphone should know about it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d80dc46153b70c74eb54261f370d06aa", "text": "My current favorite service for this kind of transfer is Transferwise. The fees are quite low when compared to the 2.5-3% by high-street banks for currency conversion, to which you need to add the international wire transfer fee, and it's often a lot faster, as they split it into two domestic transfers while the international part + currency conversion happens internally to Transferwise.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
4b4d65d82260a0b9b571aa5c47ba441d	Does the USA have a Gold reserve?	[ { "docid": "21ab43bfb0013f6bec2b5d2c53dbfb29", "text": "The US does have a gold reserve. The main reserves are held at Fort Knox but there is even more gold, mostly owned by other countries, stored in the basement of the New York Federal Reserve Bank (Think Die Hard 3). The United States Bullion Depository, often known as Fort Knox, is a fortified vault building located adjacent to Fort Knox, Kentucky, used to store a large portion of United States official gold reserves and occasionally other precious items belonging or entrusted to the federal government. The United States Bullion Depository holds 4,578 metric tons (5046 tons) of gold bullion (147.2 million oz. troy). This is roughly 2.5% of all the gold ever refined throughout human history. Even so, the depository is second in the United States to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's underground vault in Manhattan, which holds 7,000 metric tons (7716 tons) of gold bullion (225.1 million oz. troy), some of it in trust for foreign nations, central banks and official international organizations. Source: Wikipedia", "title": "" }, { "docid": "828994998ff09473195549c23b5df865", "text": "According to the US Mint, the Government does still have a gold reserve stored mostly in Fort Knox in Kentucky, but there is some in New York and Colorado too. Some facts from their site: That last point is an interesting one. They are basically saying, yes we have it, and no you can't see it. Some conspiracy buffs claim no one has been allowed in there to audit how much they have in over 50 years leading them to speculate that they are bluffing. Although the dollar is no longer tied to the gold standard, throwing that much gold into the market would definitely add fuel the volatility of the finance world, which already has it's share of volatility and isn't hungry for more.The impact on the price of the dollar would be quite complicated and hard to predict.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e87e09f896a04c14120e70119a514d9", "text": "The United States is no longer on a gold standard, and the value of its currency is solely founded on the productivity of its economy. So I don't think there's any practical reason for the United States government to explicitly sell off a lot of gold to force the price to crash. In fact I would expect that the price of gold has very little interest for the Fed, or anyone else in a position of economic power in the government. I believe that we still have large reserves of it, but I have no idea what they are intended for, aside from being a relic of the gold standard. Best guess is that they'll be held on to just in case of an international trend back towards the gold standard, although that is unlikely on any time frame we would care about.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "18a4ec884d5992249a95fe141fdd1279", "text": "No. The value of the dollar will continue to decline, in turn adding to the value of gold. The current prices are not high for metals, although not rock bottom prices. Especially given what central banks are going to do. (QE). We are nowhere near a gold bubble.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6407700d341665ee6d2a59a127258980", "text": "The U.S. economy has seen some very difficult economic times centered around poor fiscal policies and fiscal irresponsibility. The Great Depression represents a good example and is a reminder to us of where the U.S. and the world can end up. In this exclusive article we revisit the policies and economic indicators that led to the Great Depression and whether we are in the midst of its return. Register Today for all the exciting news and discussion groups we have to offer! @ http://www.igoldpost.com/register-today/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00de82c29af68d86c8cb0534db11653f", "text": "I can see a long-term existence for it. I doubt it will replace national currencies but I also think there is some value. Gold is purely speculative as well but it's thrived for a very long time. I see this as basically a digital version of gold.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27e877e4cec6ea2b87a40717500396bc", "text": "Silver and gold are money. They always have been. When the Euro collapses (soon) and dollar inflation enters the steep part of the parabolic curve of death please remember this conversation. Please remember that by trying to look smart you didn't invest in gold and silver.", "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": "7c929cdb48a6133d869cb321149f52eb", "text": "This is exactly what they are doing. Examples would be the BRICS trading bloc and the ASEAN equivalent. Along with the trade agreements that many countries have made with Iran, all of which completely bypass the American Dollar. America needs to recognize that for many countries in the world, dumping their excess reserves in US Treasury Bonds is not in their best interest any longer. Especially considering the fiscal situation in the US, and the policies that are used to manipulate bond rates. (These policies are cross aisle, this is not a political statement) American Imperial might is finite. Americans ignore this at their own peril. Edit: I would also add the regulatory and legal uncertainty in the US is also a problem. By that I mean things like MF Global, Peregrine Financial, Knight Capital among others.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ecf92a1eef74b790a80f226f77a7c9c", "text": "The previous answers have raised very good points, but I believe one facet of this has been neglected. While it's true that the total accessible supply of gold keeps growing(although rather slowly as was mentioned earlier) the fact remains that gold, like oil, is a non-renewable natural resource. So, at some point, we are going to run out of gold to mine. Due to this fact, I believe gold will always be highly valued. Of course it can certainly always fluctuate in value. In fact, I expect in the reasonably near future to see a decline in the price of gold due to investors selling it en masse to re-enter the stock market when the economy has recovered more substantially.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65ee28372de3872e9a359166613cfa9a", "text": "Money is no longer backed by gold. It's backed by the faith and credit of the issuing government. A new country,say, will first trade goods for dollars or other currency, so its ownership of gold is irrelevant. Its currency will trade at a value based on supply/demand for that currency. If it's an unstable currency, inflating too quickly, the exchange rate will reflect that as well. More than that your question kind of mixes a number of issues, loosely related. First is the gold question, second, the question of currency exchange rates and they are derived, with an example of a new country. Both interesting, but distinct processes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a4101d422ea1202cbc43ffd2a8abbf0", "text": "Are you going to South Africa or from? (Looking on your profile for this info.) If you're going to South Africa, you could do worse than to buy five or six one-ounce krugerrands. Maybe wait until next year to buy a few; you may get a slightly better deal. Not only is it gold, it's minted by that country, so it's easier to liquidate should you need to. Plus, they go for a smaller premium in the US than some other forms of gold. As for the rest of the $100k, I don't know ... either park it in CD ladders or put it in something that benefits if the economy gets worse. (Cheery, ain't I? ;) )", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c7a11941b50af2b1317846c5b706ab0", "text": "\"Because most of the posters have disparaged the pursuit of silver without a reflection upon what you wrote in the question - your concern about Hungary and its government, I'll weigh in it. In a stable and solid political and economic environment, this advice against silver would be generally correct. As you commented, though, this has not been the case and thus it is difficult for some to understand this. Given your concerns, here's a question to reflect upon - what can the government of Hungary not confiscate? Or what have they not confiscated in the past? If silver is on that list, then very few people here will understand because statements like, To be honest, I think a lot of people on this site are doing you a disservice by taking your idea as seriously as they are, are completely predicated on an environment that has been relatively stable over the years. I know my fellow Americans (and some Europeans) don't get this, but some countries have seen disasters - for instance, Brazil has been hyperinflation even when interest rates with insane interest rates (over 1000%). So this answer won't be popular, but depending on your environment, silver may be an excellent choice. If the government of Hungary has confiscated silver in the past (or you suspect they might), though, I'd stay far away from it. In reading and listening to people in these environments, citizens typically want something the government does want to take inventory of that tend to hold their value or rise during times of crisis. Most Americans (if they were honest) really can't relate to this and the few that can would agree. Another popular item to have, which doesn't physically exist, is a rare, but valuable skill that will be needed in a crisis. For instance, being highly skilled at negotiation and knowing the right people both come in handy at difficult times. Can you pay for learning or increasing those skill sets now? Never forget that self-investment can go far. And as a financial note and word of advice from someone who's been a financial adviser for over half a decade, a good financial adviser always seeks to get the person's information before providing advice and almost never says that a particular choice is always bad or always good; I would seldom say that a person should do one thing and it will always be good advice because that may not work in their country/state/environment/situation/etc. As they say in the SQL Server community - \"\"it depends\"\" and that holds true for finance. In the long run, those items which we may not think of as good investments or stores of value may end up having their day. To paraphrase Solomon, \"\"There's a time and place for everything under the sun.\"\" Even in my short life, I've witnessed a period of gold and silver routing the stock market and the stock market routing gold and silver. I suspect I'll see both again if I live a few more decades. tl;dr\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19d03eebdf58ccc4e40479277b793021", "text": "> Arguably, the dollar today is essentially backed by oil i.e. as economists say the 'petrodollar'. This isn't really true. The exchange rate between USD and a barrel of oil floats with the market whereas it was fixed with gold. Also by the nature of the way oil is consumed it doesn't make sense to think of it this way - gold retains state when used whereas oil is burnt up never to be seen again.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67072eec25ab3fc9e4d041e25dfb4f78", "text": "At present, Australia is looking like a good bet. I'll need to find a new job as part of the move. The problem with waiting until after things fall apart to move is that it may no longer be easily possible, and even if it is possible to leave, it may not be possible to take wealth out of the country. It would not surprise me at all for instance, to discover after high double digit inflation starts, that it was difficult to move precious metals out of the country. There is a distinct possibility that the government might choose to seize precious metals even from people not leaving. It wouldn't be the first time in US history that it was illegal for US citizens to own gold and silver (for those owning coins minted after 1933, the government could instead choose to redeem them at face value - i.e., a $20 gold piece for $20).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e31045050a5d96241b49790eec6f013", "text": "Currently many countries (and non-government bodies) hold dollars to facilitate trade. If the dollar is no longer used in their trade, then they no longer have a reason to hold those dollars. If every other country starts to dump their dollar holdings into the world currency markets, the number of dollars floating around in those market would shoot up. The massive supply increase of dollars (we're assuming these other countries are holding massive amounts of dollars) would lead to a large drop in value of the dollar - lots more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. Every purchase will become much more expensive for anyone still buying with dollars, including the American government trying to buy expensive military equipment - unless the US government also switches to using something else to purchase military supplies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c50535de07c8f797874aeba24ee0a569", "text": "Yes it is. The government already controls the banks. The fed sets reserve amounts. It is about 20% but they can make it 99% if they wanted. A bank that doesn't meet its reserves loses its charter and is seized. I believe it is Office of Thrift Supervision or something. The president appoints the Fed chairman and congress oversees the Fed. The Fed gives 90%+ profits to the Treasury.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e81aa566018fd11d9e87cd86713783ee", "text": "People normally hold precious metals as a protection against the whole system going down: massive inflation, lawlessness, etc. If our whole government and financial system broke completely and we returned to a barter economy, then holding silver would likely turn out to be a good thing. However, precious metals are not very good hedges against individual calamity, like losing your job. They are costly and inconvenient to sell and the price of these metals fluctuates wildly, so you could end up wanting to sell just when the metal isn't worth much. I'd say having some precious metal isn't unreasonable, but it should not make up a major portion of one's total net worth. If you want protection against normal problems, especially as a person of limited means, start with an emergency savings account and paying down debt. That way fixed costs will be less likely to turn an unfortunate turn of events into a personal catastrophe.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.