Datasets:

jasper-xian

/

tevatron_fiqa_qrels

like 0

[ { "docid": "259084", "title": "", "text": "Diversification is used by many to hopefully reduce the risk when bad investments are made. Diversification does not help you make more profits but instead averages down your profits. There is no way one can tell whether a stock or portfolio of stocks will go up or down once they are purchased. In order to try to provide some protection against total loss of the portfolio, a lazy so called long term investor will use diversification as a way of risk management. But the best outcome for them will be an averaging down of their profits. A better method is to let the market tell you when your purchased investment is a bad one and get out of that investment early and thus limiting your losses, whilst letting your good investments (as determined by the market) run and make larger profits." } ]

[ { "docid": "139368", "title": "", "text": "Diversifying is the first advice given to beginner in order to avoid big loss. For example in 2014 the company Theranos was really appealing before it fail in 2016. So a beginner could have invest ALL his money and lose it. But if he has deverified he wouldn't lost everything. As an investor goes from beginner to experience some still Diversify and other concentrate. Mostly it depends how much confident you are about an investement. If you have 20 years of experience, now everything about the company and you are sure there will be profit you can concentrate. If you are not 100% sure there will be a profit, it is better to Diversify. Diversifying can also be profitating when you loose money: because you will pay tax when you earn money, if you diversify you can choose to loose money in some stock (usually in december) and in this way cut your taxes." }, { "docid": "551719", "title": "", "text": "\"The standard low-risk/gain very-short-term parking spot these days tends to be a money market account. However, you have only mentioned stock. For good balance, your portfolio should consider the bond market too. Consider adding a bond index fund to diversify the basic mix, taking up much of that 40%. This will also help stabilize your risk since bonds tend to move opposite stocks (prperhaps just because everyone else is also using them as the main alternative, though there are theoretical arguments why this should be so.) Eventually you may want to add a small amount of REIT fund to be mix, but that's back on the higher risk side. (By the way: Trying to guess when the next correction will occur is usually not a winning strategy; guesses tend to go wrong as often as they go right, even for pros. Rather than attempting to \"\"time the market\"\", pick a strategic mix of investments and rebalance periodically to maintain those ratios. There has been debate here about \"\"dollar-cost averaging\"\" -- see other answers -- but that idea may argue for investing and rebalancing in more small chunks rather than a few large ones. I generally actively rebalance once a year or so, and between those times let maintainng the balance suggest which fund(s) new money should go into -- minimal effort and it has worked quite well enough.,)\"" }, { "docid": "513818", "title": "", "text": "Stock portfolios have diversifiable risk and undiversifiable risk. The market rewards investors for taking undiversifiable risk (e.g. owning an index of oil producing companies) and does not reward investors for assuming diversifiable risk (e.g. owning a single oil producing company). The market will not provide investors with any extra return for owning a single oil company when they can buy an oil index fund at no additional cost. Similarly, the market will not reward you for owning a small-cap index fund when you can purchase a globally diversified / capitalization diversified index fund at no additional cost. This article provides a more detailed description. The Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund is a much better staring point for an equity portfolio. You will need to make sure that the asset allocation of your overall portfolio (e.g. stocks, bonds, P2P lending, cash) is consistent with your time horizon (5-10 years)." }, { "docid": "498378", "title": "", "text": "\"This depends strongly on what you mean by \"\"stock trading\"\". It isn't a single game, but a huge number of games grouped under a single name. You can invest in individual stocks. If you're willing to make the (large) effort needed to research the companies and their current position and potentialities, this can yield large returns at high risk, or moderate returns at moderate risk. You need to diversify across multiple stocks, and multiple kinds of stocks (and probably bonds and other investment vehicles as well) to manage that risk. Or you can invest in managed mutual funds, where someone picks and balances the stocks for you. They charge a fee for that service, which has to be subtracted from their stated returns. You need to decide how much you trust them. You will usually need to diversify across multiple funds to get the balance of risk you're looking for, with a few exceptions like Target Date funds. Or you can invest in index funds, which automate the stock-picking process to take a wide view of the market and count on the fact that, over time, the market as a whole moves upward. These may not produce the same returns on paper, but their fees are MUCH lower -- enough so that the actual returns to the investor can be as good as, or better than, managed funds. The same point about diversification remains true, with the same exceptions. Or you can invest in a mixture of these, plus bonds and other investment vehicles, to suit your own level of confidence in your abilities, confidence in the market as a whole, risk tolerance, and so on. Having said all that, there's also a huge difference between \"\"trading\"\" and \"\"investing\"\", at least as I use the terms. Stock trading on a short-term basis is much closer to pure gambling -- unless you do the work to deeply research the stocks in question so you know their value better than other people do, and you're playing against pros. You know the rule about poker: If you look around the table and don't see the sucker, he's sitting in your seat... well, that's true to some degree in short-term trading too. This isn't quite a zero-sum game, but it takes more work to play well than I consider worth the effort. Investing for the long term -- defining a balanced mixture of investments and maintaining that mixture for years, with purchases and sales chosen to keep things balanced -- is a positive sum game, since the market does drift upward over time at a long-term average of about 8%/year. If you're sufficiently diversified (which is one reason I like index funds), you're basically riding that rise. This puts you in the position of betting with the pros rather than against them, which is a lower-risk position. Of course the potential returns are reduced too, but I've found that \"\"market rate of return\"\" has been entirely adequate, though not exciting. Of course there's risk here too, if the market dips for some reason, such as the \"\"great recession\"\" we just went through -- but if you're planning for the long term you can usually ride out such dips, and perhaps even see them as opportunities to buy at a discount. Others can tell you more about the details of each of these, and may disagree with my characterizations ... but that's the approach I've taken, based on advice I trust. I could probably increase my returns if I was willing to invest more time and effort in doing so, but I don't especially like playing games for money, and I'm getting quite enough for my purposes and spending near-zero effort on it, which is exactly what I want.\"" }, { "docid": "355716", "title": "", "text": "\"The stock market may not grow \"\"forever\"\". There will be growth in the stock market, though. The stock market is a positive-sum game, since it is driven in large part by the profits earned by the companies. This doesn't mean that any individual stock will go up forever, it doesn't mean that any given index will go up forever, and it doesn't mean there won't be periods when the market as a whole drops. But it is reasonable to expect that long-term investing in the market as a whole will continue to return profits that reflect the success of companies invested in. Historically, that return has averaged about 8%; future results may be different and exact results will depend on exactly when and how you invest. Re \"\"what about Japan, which has been flat over 30 years\"\": Market being flat doesn't mean individual companies may not be growing strongly. Picking stocks may become more important, and we might need to relearn to focus on dividends rather than being so monomaniacal about growth (dividends are not reflected in the indices, please note), but there will be money to be made. How much, and how much effort is required to get it, and whether the market offers the best available bets, deponent sayeth not. Past results are no guarantee of future returns, and your results may be better or worse than average. You should be diversified into bonds and such anyway, rather than only in the stock market.\"" }, { "docid": "390480", "title": "", "text": "So, if it was a personal account, and not an investment in Refco, you should have been insured by the SIPC for $500,000 for your securities, and $100,000 or more for cash. If you had all your money invested in Refco, you weren't diversified, which is one of the first rules of investment. It's not fun to learn this the hard way, I know from experience, but you should never invest more in any one stock than you can afford to lose. Learn from your mistakes rather than blame the big guys vs little guys." }, { "docid": "347825", "title": "", "text": "The reason diversification in general is a benefit is easily seen in your first graph. While the purple line (Betterment 100% Stock) is always below the blue line (S&P), and the blue line is the superior return over the entire period, it's a bit different if you retired in 2009, isn't it? In that case the orange line is superior: because its risk is much lower, so it didn't drop much during the major crash. Lowering risk (and lowering return) is a benefit the closer you get to retirement as you won't see as big a cumulative return from the large percentage, but you could see a big temporary drop, and need your income to be relatively stable (if you're living off it or soon going to). Now, you can certainly invest on your own in a diverse way, and if you're reasonably smart about it and have enough funds to avoid any fees, you can almost certainly do better than a managed solution - even a relatively lightly managed solution like Betterment. They take .15% off the top, so if you just did exactly the same as them, you would end up .15% (per year) better off. However, not everyone is reasonably smart, and not everyone has much in the way of funds. Betterment's target audience are people who aren't terribly smart about investing and/or have very small amounts of funds to invest. Plenty of people aren't able to work out how to do diversification on their own; while they probably mostly aren't asking questions on this site, they're a large percentage of the population. It's also work to diversify your portfolio: you have to make minor changes every year at a minimum to ensure you have a nicely balanced portfolio. This is why target retirement date portfolios are very popular; a bit higher cost (similar to Betterment, roughly) but no work required to diversify correctly and maintain that diversification." }, { "docid": "473586", "title": "", "text": "\"There obviously is not such a list of companies, because if there were the whole world would immediately invest in them. Their price would rise like a rocket and they would not be undervalued anymore. Some people think company A should be worth x per share, some people think it should be worth y. If the share price is currently higher than what someone thinks it should be, they sell it, and if it is lower than they think it should be they buy it. The grand effect of this all is that the current market price of the share is more or less the average of what all investors together think it should currently be worth. If you buy a single stock, hoping that it's undervalued and will rise, you may be right but you may equally well be wrong. It's smarter to diversify over lots of stocks to reduce the impact of this risk, it evens out. There are \"\"analysts\"\" who try to make a guess of which stocks will do better, and they give paid advice or you can invest in their funds -- but they invariably do worse than the average of the market as a whole, over the long term. So the best advice for amateurs is to invest in index funds that cover a huge range of companies and try to keep their costs very low.\"" }, { "docid": "566069", "title": "", "text": "The simplest way is to invest in a few ETFs, depending on your tolerance for risk; assuming you're very short-term risk tolerant you can invest almost all in a stock ETF like VOO or VTI. Stock market ETFs return close to 10% (unadjusted) over long periods of time, which will out-earn almost any other option and are very easy for a non-finance person to invest in (You don't trade actively - you leave the money there for years). If you want to hedge some of your risk, you can also invest in Bond funds, which tend to move up in stock market downturns - but if you're looking for the long term, you don't need to put much there. Otherwise, try to make sure you take advantage of tax breaks when you can - IRAs, 401Ks, etc.; most of those will have ETFs (whether Vanguard or similar) available to invest in. Look for funds that have low expense ratios and are fairly diversified (ie, don't just invest in one small sector of the economy); as long as the economy continues to grow, the ETFs will grow." }, { "docid": "66034", "title": "", "text": "\"shouldn't withdraw stock investments for at least 5 years would be better re-phrased as: \"\"don't invest money in stocks if you (really) need it within next few years\"\". The underlying principle is: stocks are one of the higher-risk investment classes out there. While that's exactly what you want over a long time horizon (longer than the ebb and flow of the broader economy); if you know you'll definitely have to withdraw $50k (or any large chunk) of it within just a few years, it's possible that a great long-term vehicle like stocks, could actually rob you of money on a shorter time horizon. So if you want to start a business 2 years from now, you'll probably want to retain some of that $300k initial pile in lower-risk investment vehicles (e.g. bonds, CDs, certain ETFs and mutual funds aimed at \"\"capital preservation\"\", etc). That said, interest rates are so low, that if you're flexible with how much money you'll need to start that business, I'd probably keep as much as you can stomach in diversified stocks (per your original plan).\"" }, { "docid": "414205", "title": "", "text": "\"they said the expected returns from the stock market are around 7-9%(ish). (emphasis added) The key word in your quote is expected. On average \"\"the market\"\" gains in the 7-9% range (more if you reinvest dividends), but there's a great deal of risk too, meaning that in any given year the market could be down 20% or be up 30%. Your student loan, on the other hand, is risk free. You are guaranteed to pay (lose) 4% a year in interest. You can't directly compare the expected return of a risk-free asset with the expected return of a risky asset. You can compare the risks of two assets with equal expected returns, and the expected returns of assets with equal risks, but you can't directly compare returns of assets with different risks. So in two years, you might be better off if you had invested the money versus paying the loan, or you might be much worse off. In ten years, your chances of coming out ahead are better, but still not guaranteed. What's confusing is I've heard that if you're investing, you should be investing in both stocks and bonds (since I'm young I wouldn't want to put much in bonds, though). So how would that factor in? Bonds have lower risk (uncertainty) than stocks, but lower expected returns. If you invest in both, your overall risk is lower, since sometimes (not always) the gain in stocks are offset by losses in bonds). So there is value in diversifying, since you can get better expected returns from a diversified portfolio than from a single asset with a comparable amount of risk. However, there it no risk-free asset that will have a better return than what you're paying in student loan interest.\"" }, { "docid": "324914", "title": "", "text": "\"Without knowing anything else about you, I'd say I need more information. If all of your investments are in stocks, then that's not really diversified, regardless of how many stocks you own. There are other things to invest in besides stocks (and bonds, for that matter). What countries? \"\"International\"\" is pretty broad, and some countries are better bets than others at the moment. If you're old, I'd say very little of your money should be in stocks anyway. I'd also seek financial advice that is tailored to your goals, sophistication, etc.\"" }, { "docid": "178875", "title": "", "text": "You are correct that over a short term there is no guarantee that one index will out perform another index. Every index goes through periods of feat and famine. That uis why the advice is to diversify your investments. Every index does have some small amount of management. For the parent index (the S&P 500 in this case) there is a process to divide all 500 stocks into growth and value, pure growth and pure value. This rebalancing of the 500 stocks occurs once a year. Rebalancing The S&P Style indices are rebalanced once a year in December. The December rebalancing helps set the broad universe and benchmark for active managers on an annual cycle consistent with active manager performance evaluation cycles. The rebalancing date is the third Friday of December, which coincides with the December quarterly share changes for the S&P Composite 1500. Style Scores, market-capitalization weights, growth and value midpoint averages, and the Pure Weight Factors (PWFs), where applicable across the various Style indices, are reset only once a year at the December rebalancing. Other changes to the U.S. Style indices are made on an as-needed basis, following the guidelines of the parent index. Changes in response to corporate actions and market developments can be made at any time. Constituent changes are typically announced for the parent index two-to-five days before they are scheduled to be implemented. Please refer to the S&P U.S. Indices Methodology document for information on standard index maintenance for the S&P 500, the S&P MidCap 400,the S&P SmallCap 600 and all related indices. As to which is better: 500, growth,value or growth and value? That depends on what you the investor is trying to do." }, { "docid": "235323", "title": "", "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.\"" }, { "docid": "546075", "title": "", "text": "\"Brendan, The short answer is no, there is no need to get into any other funds. For all intents and purposes the S&P 500 is \"\"The Stock Market\"\". The news media may quote the Dow when the market reaches new highs or crashes but all of the Dow 30 stocks are included in the S&P 500. The S&P is also marketcap weighted, which means that it owns in higher proportion the big \"\"Blue Chip\"\" stocks more than the smaller less known companies. To explain, the top 10 holdings in the S&P represent 18% of the total index, while the bottom 10 only represent 0.17% (less than 1 percent). They do have an equal weighted S&P in which all 500 companies represent only 1/500th of the index and that is technically even more diversified but in actuality it makes it more volatile because it has a higher concentration of those smaller less known companies. So it will tend to perform better during up markets and worse during down markets. As far as diversification into different asset classes or other countries, that's non-sense. The S&P 500 has companies in it that give you that exposure. For example, it includes companies that directly benefit from rising oil prices, rising gold prices, etc known as the Energy and Materials sector. It also includes companies that own malls, apartment complexes, etc. known as the Real Estate sector. And as far as other countries, most of the companies in the S&P are multi-national companies, meaning that they do business over seas in many parts of the world. Apple and FaceBook for example sell their products in many different countries. So you don't need to invest any of your money into an Emerging Market fund or an Asia Fund because most of our companies are already doing business in those parts of the world. Likewise, you don't need to specifically invest into a real estate or gold fund. As far as bonds go, if you're in your twenties you have no need for them either. Why, because the S&P 500 also pays you dividends and these dividends grow over time. So for example, if Microsoft increases its dividend payment by 100% over a ten year period , all of the shares you buy today at a 2.5% yield will, in 10 years, have a higher 5% yield. A bond on the other hand will never increase its yield over time. If it pays out 4%, that's all it will ever pay. You want to invest because you want to grow your money and if you want to invest passively the fastest way to do that is through index ETFs like the $SPY, $IVV, and $RSP. Also look into the $XIV, it's an inverse VIX ETF, it moves 5x faster than the S&P in the same direction. If you want to actively trade your money, you can grow it even faster by getting into things like options, highly volatile penny stocks, shorting stocks, and futures. Don't get involved in FX or currency trading, unless it through futures.\"" }, { "docid": "176335", "title": "", "text": "\"You will invest 1000£ each month and the transaction fee is 10£ per trade, so buying a bunch of stocks each month would not be wise. If you buy 5 stocks, then transaction costs will eat up 5% of your investment. So if you insist on taking this approach, you should probably only buy one or two stocks a month. It sounds like you're interested in active investing & would like a diversified portfolio, so maybe the best approach for you is Core & Satellite Portfolio Management. Start by creating a well diversified portfolio \"\"core\"\" with index funds. Once you have a solid core, make some active investment decisions with the \"\"satellite\"\" portion of the portfolio. You can dollar cost average into the core and make active bets when the opportunity arises, so you're not killed by transaction fees.\"" }, { "docid": "146181", "title": "", "text": "\"For US stocks it's a bit of a gamble. Many actively managed funds underperform the market indexes, but some of them outperform in many years. With an index you will get average results. With an active manager you \"\"might\"\" do better than average. So you can view active management as a higher risk, potentially higher reward investment approach. On the other hand, if you want to diversify some of your investments into international stocks, bonds, junk bonds, and real estate (REITs) active management is highly likely to be better than indexing. For these specialized areas specialized knowledge and research is needed.\"" }, { "docid": "275334", "title": "", "text": "If you are looking for an index index fund, I know vanguard offers their Star fund which invests in 11 other funds of theirs and is diversified across stocks, bonds, and short term investments." }, { "docid": "231195", "title": "", "text": "I am not interested in watching stock exchange rates all day long. I just want to place it somewhere and let it grow Your intuition is spot on! To buy & hold is the sensible thing to do. There is no need to constantly monitor the stock market. To invest successfully you only need some basic pointers. People make it look like it's more complicated than it actually is for individual investors. You might find useful some wisdom pearls I wish I had learned even earlier. Stocks & Bonds are the best passive investment available. Stocks offer the best return, while bonds are reduce risk. The stock/bond allocation depends of your risk tolerance. Since you're as young as it gets, I would forget about bonds until later and go with a full stock portfolio. Banks are glorified money mausoleums; the interest you can get from them is rarely noticeable. Index investing is the best alternative. How so? Because 'you can't beat the market'. Nobody can; but people like to try and fail. So instead of trying, some fund managers simply track a market index (always successfully) while others try to beat it (consistently failing). Actively managed mutual funds have higher costs for the extra work involved. Avoid them like the plague. Look for a diversified index fund with low TER (Total Expense Ratio). These are the most important factors. Diversification will increase safety, while low costs guarantee that you get the most out of your money. Vanguard has truly good index funds, as well as Blackrock (iShares). Since you can't simply buy equity by yourself, you need a broker to buy and sell. Luckily, there are many good online brokers in Europe. What we're looking for in a broker is safety (run background checks, ask other wise individual investors that have taken time out of their schedules to read the small print) and that charges us with low fees. You probably can do this through the bank, but... well, it defeats its own purpose. US citizens have their 401(k) accounts. Very neat stuff. Check your country's law to see if you can make use of something similar to reduce the tax cost of investing. Your government will want a slice of those juicy dividends. An alternative is to buy an index fund on which dividends are not distributed, but are automatically reinvested instead. Some links for further reference: Investment 101, and why index investment rocks: However the author is based in the US, so you might find the next link useful. Investment for Europeans: Very useful to check specific information regarding European investing. Portfolio Ideas: You'll realise you don't actually need many equities, since the diversification is built-in the index funds. I hope this helps! There's not much more, but it's all condensed in a handful of blogs." } ]

[ { "docid": "526115", "title": "", "text": "The mathematical answer is for you to have a diversified portfolio in your ISA. But that's easier said than done." } ]

[ { "docid": "173088", "title": "", "text": "\"What is a stock? A share of stock represents ownership of a portion of a corporation. In olden times, you would get a physical stock certificate (looking something like this) with your name and the number of shares on it. That certificate was the document demonstrating your ownership. Today, physical stock certificates are quite uncommon (to the point that a number of companies don't issue them anymore). While a one-share certificate can be a neat memento, certificates are a pain for investors, as they have to be stored safely and you'd have to go through a whole annoying process to redeem them when you wanted to sell your investment. Now, you'll usually hold stock through a brokerage account, and your holdings will just be records in a database somewhere. You'll pick a broker (more on that in the next question), instruct them to buy something, and they'll keep track of it in your account. Where do I get a stock? You'll generally choose a broker and open an account. You can read reviews to compare different brokerages in your country, as they'll have different fees and pricing. You can also make sure the brokerage firm you choose is in good standing with the financial regulators in your country, though one from a major national bank won't be unsafe. You will be required to provide personal information, as you are opening a financial account. The information should be similar to that required to open a bank account. You'll also need to get your money in and out of the account, so you'll likely set up a bank transfer. It may be possible to request a paper stock certificate, but don't be surprised if you're told this is unavailable. If you do get a paper certificate, you'll have to deal with considerably more hassle and delay if you want to sell later. Brokers charge a commission, which is a fee per trade. Let's say the commission is $10/trade. If you buy 5 shares of Google at $739/share, you'd pay $739 * 5 + $10 = $3705 and wind up with $3695 worth of stock in your account. You'd pay the same commission when you sell the stock. Can anyone buy/own/use a stock? Pretty much. A brokerage is going to require that you be a legal adult to maintain an account with them. There are generally ways in which a parent can open an account on behalf of an underage child though. There can be different types of restrictions when it comes to investing in companies that are not publicly held, but that's not something you need to worry about. Stocks available on the public stock market are available to, well, the public. How are stocks taxed? Taxes differ from country to country, but as a general rule, you do have to provide the tax authorities with sufficient information to determine what you owe. This means figuring out how much you purchased the stock for and comparing that with how much you sold it for to determine your gain or loss. In the US (and I suspect in many other countries), your brokerage will produce an annual report with at least some of this information and send it to the tax authorities and you. You or someone you hire to do your taxes will use that report to compute the amount of tax owed. Your brokerage will generally keep track of your \"\"cost basis\"\" (how much you bought it for) for you, though it's a good idea to keep records. If you refuse to tell the government your cost basis, they can always assume it's $0, and then you'll pay more tax than you owe. Finding the cost basis for old investments can be difficult many years later if the records are lost. If you can determine when the stock was purchased, even approximately, it's possible to look back at historical price data to determine the cost. If your stock pays a dividend (a certain amount of money per-share that a company may pay out of its profits to its investors), you'll generally need to pay tax on that income. In the US, the tax rate on dividends may be the same or less than the tax rate on normal wage income depending on how long you've held the investment and other rules.\"" }, { "docid": "92649", "title": "", "text": "\"The balance sheet for a bank is the list of assets and liabilities that the bank directly is responsible for. This would be things like loans the bank issues and accounts with the bank. Banks can make both \"\"balance sheet\"\" loans, meaning a loan that says on the balance sheet - one the bank gains the profits from but holds the risks for also. They can also make \"\"off balance sheet\"\" loans, meaning they securitize the loan (sell it off, such as the mortgage backed securities). Most major banks, i.e. Chase, Citibank, etc., could be called \"\"balance sheet\"\" banks because at least some portion of their lending comes from their balance sheet. Not 100% by any means, they participate in the security swaps extensively just like everyone does, but they do at least some normal, boring lending just as you would explain a bank to a five year old. Bank takes in deposits from account holders, loans that money out to people who want to buy homes or start businesses. However, some (particularly smaller) firms don't work this way - they don't take responsibility for the money or the loans. They instead \"\"manage assets\"\" or some similar term. I think of it like the difference between Wal-Mart and a consignment store. Wal-Mart buys things from its distributors, and sells them, taking the risk (of the item not selling) and the reward (of the profit from selling) to itself. On the other hand, a consignment store takes on neither: it takes a flat fee to host your items in its store, but takes no risk (you own the items) nor the majority of the profit. In this case, Mischler Financial Group is not a bank per se - they don't have accounts; they manage funds, instead. Note the following statement on their Services page for example: Mischler Financial Group holds no risk positions and no unwanted inventory of securities, which preserves the integrity of our capital and assures our clients that we will be able to obtain bids and offers for them regardless of adverse market conditions. They're not taking your money and then making their own investments; they're advising you how to invest your money, or they're helping do it for you, but it's your money going out and your risk (and reward).\"" }, { "docid": "490831", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "224782", "title": "", "text": "The optimal time period is unambiguously zero seconds. Put it all in immediately. Dollar cost averaging reduces the risk that you will be buying at a bad time (no one knows whether now is a bad or great time), but brings with it reduction in expected return because you will be keeping a lot of money in cash for a long time. You are reducing your risk and your expected return by dollar cost averaging. It's not crazy to trade expected returns for lower risk. People do it all the time. However, if you have a pot of money you intend to invest and you do so over a period of time, then you are changing your risk profile over time in a way that doesn't correspond to changes in your risk preferences. This is contrary to finance theory and is not optimal. The optimal percentage of your wealth invested in risky assets is proportional to your tolerance for risk and should not change over time unless that tolerance changes. Dollar cost averaging makes sense if you are setting aside some of your income each month to invest. In that case it is simply a way of being invested for as long as possible. Having a pile of money sitting around while you invest it little by little over time is a misuse of dollar-cost averaging. Bottom line: forcing dollar cost averaging on a pile of money you intend to invest is not based in sound finance theory. If you want to invest all that money, do so now. If you are too risk averse to put it all in, then decide how much you will invest, invest that much now, and keep the rest in a savings account indefinitely. Don't change your investment allocation proportion unless your risk aversion changes. There are many people on the internet and elsewhere who preach the gospel of dollar cost averaging, but their belief in it is not based on sound principles. It's just a dogma. The language of your question implies that you may be interested in sound principles, so I have given you the real answer." }, { "docid": "343168", "title": "", "text": "If ordinary income tax rates and contribution rates to tax-advantaged retirement accounts are held constant, It's net negative to the extent that the average retirement account return exceeds the risk-free rate. Rather than pushing money into Roth accounts, the government could leave traditional 401(k)s unchanged, borrow the difference in up-front tax revenue that it's foregoing by doing so, and repay that debt as the tax revenue from traditional 401(k) disbursements comes in. Net of interest on the additional debt, the latter strategy would increase the government's total tax revenue by an amount proportional to the average excess return of the affected retirement accounts, with essentially no downside (other than messaging) relative to the strategy that's being proposed. Of course, in reality it's likely that retirement savings rates would decline as a result of the change, so that would partially offset the overall reduction in tax revenue. However, the downsides of reduced retirement savings rates arguably far outweigh that benefit. (That's why tax-advantaged retirement accounts exist in the first place.)" }, { "docid": "258423", "title": "", "text": "\"What I've found works best when working on my personal budget is to track my income and spending two different ways: bank accounts and budget categories. Here is what I mean: When I deposit my paycheck, I do two things with it: It goes into my checking account, so the balance of my checking account goes up by the amount of my paycheck. I also \"\"deposit\"\" the money from my checking account into my various budget category balances. This is separate from my bank account balances. Some of my paycheck money goes into my groceries category, some goes into clothing, some into car fuel, entertainment, mortgage, phone, etc. Some goes into longer range bills that only happen once or twice a year, such as car insurance, life insurance, property tax, etc. Some goes into savings goals of ours, such as car replacement, vacation, furniture, etc. Every dollar that we have in a bank account or in cash in our wallets is also accounted for in a budget category. If you add up the balances of our bank accounts and cash, and you add up the balances of our budget categories, they add up to the same number. When we make a purchase, this also gets accounted for twice: The appropriate bank account (or cash wallet) balance gets reduced by the purchase amount. The appropriate budget category gets reduced by the purchase amount. In this way, we don't really need to worry about having separate bank accounts for different purposes. We don't need to put our savings goal money in a separate bank account from our grocery money, if we don't want to. The budget category accounting keeps track of how much money is allocated to each purpose. Now, the budget category amounts are not spent yet; the money in them is still in our bank account, and we can move money around in the categories, if we change our mind on how to allocate them. For example, if we don't spend all of our gas money for the month, we can either keep that money in the gas category, or we can move it to a different category, such as the car replacement category or the vacation category. If the phone bill is more than we expect, we can move money around from a different category to cover it. Now, back to your question: We allocate some money from each paycheck into our furniture category. But the money is not really spent until we actually buy some furniture. When we do, the furniture category balance and bank account balance both go down by the amount of the purchase. All of this can be kept track of on the computer in a spreadsheet. However, it's not easy to keep track of so many categories and bank balances. An easier solution is custom budgeting software designed for this purpose. I use and recommend YNAB.\"" }, { "docid": "146632", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes. There are several downsides to this strategy: You aren't taking into account commissions. If you pay $5 each time you buy or sell a stock, you may greatly reduce or even eliminate any possible gains you would make from trading such small amounts. This next point sounds obvious, but remember that you pay a commission on every trade regardless of profit, so every trade you make that you make at a loss also costs you commissions. Even if you make trades that are profitable more often than not, if you make quite a few trades with small amounts like this, your commissions may eat away all of your profits. Commissions represent a fixed cost, so their effect on your gains decreases proportionally with the amount of money you place at risk in each trade. Since you're in the US, you're required to follow the SEC rules on pattern day trading. From that link, \"\"FINRA rules define a “pattern day trader” as any customer who executes four or more “day trades” within five business days, provided that the number of day trades represents more than six percent of the customer’s total trades in the margin account for that same five business day period.\"\" If you trip this rule, you'll be required to maintain $25,000 in a margin brokerage account. If you can't maintain the balance, your account will be locked. Don't forget about capital gains taxes. Since you're holding these securities for less than a year, your gains will be taxed at your ordinary income tax rates. You can deduct your capital losses too (assuming you don't repurchase the same security within 30 days, because in that case, the wash sale rule prevents you from deducting the loss), but it's important to think about gains and losses in real terms, not nominal terms. The story is different if you make these trades in a tax-sheltered account like an IRA, but the other problems still apply. You're implicitly assuming that the stock's prices are skewed in the positive direction. Remember that you have limit orders placed at the upper and lower bounds of the range, so if the stock price decreases before it increases, your limit order at the lower bound will be triggered and you'll trade at a loss. If you're hoping to make a profit through buying low and selling high, you want a stock that hits its upper bound before hitting the lower bound the majority of the time. Unless you have data analysis (not just your intuition or a pattern you've talked yourself into from looking at a chart) to back this up, you're essentially gambling that more often than not, the stock price will increase before it decreases. It's dangerous to use any strategy that you haven't backtested extensively. Find several months or years of historical data, either intra-day or daily data, depending on the time frame you're using to trade, and simulate your strategy exactly. This helps you determine the potential profitability of your strategy, and it also forces you to decide on a plan for precisely when you want to invest. Do you invest as soon as the stock trades in a range (which algorithms can determine far better than intuition)? It also helps you figure out how to manage your risk and how much loss you're willing to accept. For risk management, using limit orders is a start, but see my point above about positively skewed prices. Limit orders aren't enough. In general, if an active investment strategy seems like a \"\"no-brainer\"\" or too good to be true, it's probably not viable. In general, as a retail investor, it's foolish to assume that no one else has thought of your simple active strategy to make easy money. I can promise you that someone has thought of it. Trading firms have quantitative researchers that are paid to think of and implement trading strategies all the time. If it's viable at any scale, they'll probably already have utilized it and arbitraged away the potential for small traders to make significant gains. Trust me, you're not the first person who thought of using limit orders to make \"\"easy money\"\" off volatile stocks. The fact that you're asking here and doing research before implementing this strategy, however, means that you're on the right track. It's always wise to research a strategy extensively before deploying it in the wild. To answer the question in your title, since it could be interpreted a little differently than the body of the question: No, there's nothing wrong with investing in volatile stocks, indexes, etc. I certainly do, and I'm sure many others on this site do as well. It's not the investing that gets you into trouble and costs you a lot of money; it's the rapid buying and selling and attempting to time the market that proves costly, which is what you're doing when you implicitly bet that the distribution of the stock's prices is positively skewed. To address the commission fee problem, assuming a fee of $8 per trade ... and a minimum of $100 profit per sale Commissions aren't your only problem, and counting on $100 profit per sale is a significant assumption. Look at point #4 above. Through your use of limit orders, you're making the implicit assumption that, more often than not, the price will trigger your upper limit order before your lower limit order. Here's a simple example; let's assume you have limit orders placed at +2 and -2 of your purchase price, and that triggering the limit order at +2 earns you $100 profit, while triggering the limit order at -2 incurs a loss of $100. Assume your commission is $5 on each trade. If your upper limit order is triggered, you earn a profit of 100 - 10 = 90, then set up the same set of limit orders again. If your lower limit order is triggered this time, you incur a loss of 100 + 10 = 110, so your net gain is 90 - 110 = -20. This is a perfect example of why, when taking into account transaction costs, even strategies that at first glance seem profitable mathematically can actually fail. If you set up the same situation again and incur a loss again (100 + 10 = 110), you're now down -20 - 110 = -130. To make a profit, you need to make two profitable trades, without incurring further losses. This is why point #4 is so important. Whenever you trade, it's critical to completely understand the risk you're taking and the bet you're actually making, not just the bet you think you're making. Also, according to my \"\"algorithm\"\" a sale only takes place once the stock rises by 1 or 2 points; otherwise the stock is held until it does. Does this mean you've removed the lower limit order? If yes, then you expose yourself to downside risk. What if the stock has traded within a range, then suddenly starts declining because of bad earnings reports or systemic risks (to name a few)? If you haven't removed the lower limit order, then point #4 still stands. However, I never specified that the trades have to be done within the same day. Let the investor open up 5 brokerage accounts at 5 different firms (for safeguarding against being labeled a \"\"Pattern Day Trader\"\"). Each account may only hold 1 security at any time, for the span of 1 business week. How do you control how long the security is held? You're using limit orders, which will be triggered when the stock price hits a certain level, regardless of when that happens. Maybe that will happen within a week, or maybe it will happen within the same day. Once again, the bet you're actually making is different from the bet you think you're making. Can you provide some algorithms or methods that do work for generating some extra cash on the side, aside from purchasing S&P 500 type index funds and waiting? When I purchase index funds, it's not to generate extra liquid cash on the side. I don't invest nearly enough to be able to purchase an index fund and earn substantial dividends. I don't want to get into any specific strategies because I'm not in the business of making investment recommendations, and I don't want to start. Furthermore, I don't think explicit investment recommendations are welcome here (unless it's describing why something is a bad idea), and I agree with that policy. I will make a couple of points, however. Understand your goals. Are you investing for retirement or a shorter horizon, e.g. some side income? You seem to know this already, but I include it for future readers. If a strategy seems too good to be true, it probably is. Educate yourself before designing a strategy. Research fundamental analysis, different types of orders (e.g., so you fully understand that you don't have control over when limit orders are executed), different sectors of the market if that's where your interests lie, etc. Personally, I find some sectors fascinating, so researching them thoroughly allows me to make informed investment decisions as well as learn about something that interests me. Understand your limits. How much money are you willing to risk and possibly lose? Do you have a risk management strategy in place to prevent unexpected losses? What are the costs of the risk management itself? Backtest, backtest, backtest. Ideally your backtesting and simulating should be identical to actual market conditions and incorporate all transaction costs and a wide range of historical data. Get other opinions. Evaluate those opinions with the same critical eye as I and others have evaluated your proposed strategy.\"" }, { "docid": "355792", "title": "", "text": "I wanted to know how safe is such investment with online banks vis-a-vis regular banks? As far as I know, neither money market accounts nor savings accounts have any investment risk (within reason) since both are insured by the FDIC. Note that this is not necessarily the case with money market funds. is their any downside to such investments? Yes, there are a few. I believe the two biggest ones are:" }, { "docid": "30800", "title": "", "text": "I think you are making this more complicated that it has to be. In the end you will end up with a car that you paid X, and is worth Y. Your numbers are a bit hard to follow. Hopefully I got this right. I am no accountant, this is how I would figure the deal: The payments made are irrelevant. The downpayment is irrelevant as it is still a reduction in net worth. Your current car has a asset value of <29,500>. That should make anyone pause a bit. In order to get into this new car you will have to finance the shortfall on the current car (29,500), the price of the vehicle (45,300), the immediate depreciation (say 7,000). In the end you will have a car worth 38K and owe 82K. So you will have a asset value of <44,000>. Obviously a much worse situation. To do this car deal it would cost the person 14,500 of net worth the day the deal was done. As time marched on, it would be more as the reduction in debt is unlikely to keep up with the depreciation. Additionally the new car purchase screen shows a payment of $609/month if you bought the car with zero down. Except you don't have zero down, you have -29,500 down. Making the car payment higher, I estamate 1005/month with 3.5%@84 months. So rather than having a hit to your cash flow of $567 for 69 more months, you would have a payment of about $1000 for 84 months if you could obtain the interest rate of 3.5%. Those are the two things I would focus on is the reduction in net worth and the cash flow liability. I understand you are trying to get a feel for things, but there are two things that make this very unrealistic. The first is financing. It is unlikely that financing could be obtained with this deal and if it could this would be considered a sub-prime loan. However, perhaps a relative could finance the deal. Secondly, there is no way even a moderately financially responsible spouse would approve this deal. That is provided there were not sigificant assets, like a few million. If that is the case why not just write a check?" }, { "docid": "548669", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;UKIP's Roger Helmer said: \"\"By all means let's make pathetic under-powered vacuum cleaners for export to the EU. \"\"But we must retain the right to make and use sensible full-powered appliances in the UK. This shows why we must not agree to be bound by EU rules after Brexit.\"\" Finally, someone makes a sensible favorable argument for Brexit.\"" }, { "docid": "95246", "title": "", "text": "These products are real, but they aren't risk free: 1) The bank could go under in that time. (Are the investments FDIC insured?) 2) Your money is locked up for 5 years, probably with either no way to get it back out or a stiff penalty for early withdrawal, so you risk having a better investment opportunity come along and not having the liquidity to take advantage of it. 3) If the market does go down and you get 100% of your principal back, the endless ratchet of inflation practically guarantees that $10K will be worth less 5 years from now than it is today, so you risk losing purchasing power even if you're not losing any nominal quantity of money. It's still a fairly low-risk investment option, particularly if it's tied to something that you have reason to believe will increase in value significantly faster than inflation in the next 5 years." }, { "docid": "40241", "title": "", "text": "\"You understood it pretty right. Every fiscal year (which runs from April 6 year Y to April 5 year Y+1), you can deposit a total GBP15k (this number is subject to an annual increase by HMRC) into your ISAs. You can open 2 new ISA every year but the amount deposited to those ISAs shall not excess GBP15k in total. From the 2016/17 tax year some ISAs now permit you to replace any funds you have withdrawn, without using up your allowance. It used to be that if you deposited GBP15K and then withdrew GBP5K, you could not pay in to that ISA again within that tax year as you had already used your full allowance. Under new Flexible ISA rules this would be allowed providing you replace the funds in the same ISA account and within the same tax year (strongly recommend that you check the small prints related to your account to make sure this is he case). Any gains and losses on the investments held in the ISA accounts are for you to take. i.e. If you make investment gains of GBP5K this does not reduces your allowance. You will still be able to deposit GBP15k (or whatever HMRC increases that number to) in the following year. You are also allowed to consolidate your ISAs. You can ask bank A to transfer the amount held into an ISA with bank held with bank B. This is usually done by filling a special form with the bank that will held the money post transactions. Again here be very careful. DO NOT withdraw the money to transfer it yourself as this would count against the GBP15K limit. Instead follow the procedures from the bank. Finally if you don't use your allowance for a given year, you cannot use it during the following year. i.e. if you don't deposit the GBP15K this year, then you cannot deposit GBP30K next year. NB: I used the word \"\"deposit\"\". It does not matter to HMRC if the money get invested or not. If you are in a rush on April 4th, just make sure the money is wired into the ISA account by the 5th. No need to rush and make bad investment decision. You can invest it later. Hope it helps\"" }, { "docid": "115890", "title": "", "text": "I don't believe there is such a process. My observation (i.e. my opinion) is that banks will have a level of security walls appropriate to the cost vs risk they experience. Since as Frazell says, your liability is limited for this type of fraud, you personally bear little if any risk. If this fraud were common enough that the cost of your proposal outweighed the expense, they would implement it. On a similar note. Credit card fraud can be reduced ten fold if a PIN were required for all purchases. The 3 digits on the back helps prove the card is there, and you just didn't steal the from 16 digits, but a 6-8 digit PIN required at point of sale would be tough for the thief to guess. How much software to do this would cost, I don't know, but the idea is brilliant, even if it's mine. 10 fold reduction, if not 100 fold. (Any bank guys reading?)" }, { "docid": "505351", "title": "", "text": "Very wealthy people usually have an investment manager who is constantly moving money between investments and accounts. They hold cash (or cash equivalent) accounts for use in a near-term buying opportunity, for example if they believe certain stocks will go down in price soon. This amount can vary from under 1% (for a money manager with no intention of any short-term trading) to over 20% (for a market pessimist who expects a huge price reduction shortly). In rare cases they will also hold significant cash because of a planned large purchase, but there's almost never a reason for that to exceed 1% of their net worth." }, { "docid": "146761", "title": "", "text": "A bank needs to make sure they won't lose money by cashing a check. When you have an account with a bank and you cash a check, if the check ends up not getting paid, the bank will take the money back out of your account. This could happen for a number of reasons: the check could bounce (not enough money in the check writer's account), it could be a fraudulent (fake) check, or the payment could have been stopped on that check. Treasury checks are more problematic for banks than private checks; the government has given themselves more power to refuse to pay a check than the average person has. As a result, banks are already overly cautious about cashing treasury checks. The fact that you have a big check increases the risk for the bank. You'll have to ask around at different banks to see what they will do for you and what type of fee (if any) they will charge. Some banks might cash it for a fee; others might require that you open a savings account and wait a certain number of days after depositing the check before withdrawing your money." }, { "docid": "430034", "title": "", "text": "Yes, there are some real dangers in having your money locked into an investment. Those dangers are well worth thinking about and planning for. Where you are going off the rails is acting like those are the only dangers to your money, and perhaps having an exaggerated idea of the size of the dangers. It is an excellent idea to keep an emergency fund with a few months living expenses in a readily accessible savings or checking account. However, a standard retail savings account is always going to pay less in interest then you are loosing through inflation. We're living in a low-inflation period, but it's still continuously eating away at the value of your savings. It makes sense to accept the danger of inflation for your emergency fund, but probably not for your retirement savings. To reduce the hazards of inflation, you need to find an investment that has some chance of paying more than the inflation rate. This is inevitably going to mean locking up your money for some period of time or accepting some other type of risk. There is no guaranteed safe path in the world. You can only do your best to understand the risks you are running. As an example, you could put your savings in a CD rather than a vanilla savings account. A CD these days won't pay much in interest, but it will be more than a savings account. However, you have to commit to a term for the CD. If you take your money out early you will have to pay a penalty. How much of a penalty? In the worse case it could be in the neighborhood of 4% of the amount you withdraw. So, yeah if you deposit $10,000 in a 5-year CD and end up needing it all back the very next day, you could end up paying the bank $400. If you withdraw money from a 401k before you are 59 1/2, you will pay a 10% penalty, and you will have to have income tax withheld on the amount you withdraw. On the other hand, if your employer matches 100% of your 401k contributions, you could be throwing away 50% of your possible retirement savings because of your fear of the possibility of a 10% loss! In addition 401k plans do have some exceptions to the early withdrawal penalty. There are provisions for medical emergencies and home purchases for example. However, the qualifications are not entirely straight-forward, and you should read up on them before enrolling. The real answer to your fears is planning. Figure out your living expenses. Figure out how much you want in an emergency fund. Figure out when you will be wanting to buy a house, have a child, or go back to school. Set aside the savings you'll need for all those, and then for the remainder of your money you can consider long term investments with some confidence that you probably won't need to face the early withdrawal penalties." }, { "docid": "521688", "title": "", "text": "In most cases, the brand on the card, eg Visa or MasterCard, is a middleman. The company processes the transaction, transferring $xx from the bank to the seller, and telling the bank to debit the buyer's account. The bank is at risk, not the company transacting the purchase. What's interesting is that American Express started as both. My first Amex card, issued in 1979 (long expired, but in my box of memorabilia) had no bank. American Express offered a card that offered no extended credit, it was pay in full each month. Since then, Amex started offering extended credit, i.e. with annual interest, and minimum payments, and more recently, offering transaction processing for banks which take on the credit risk, essentially becoming very similar to MasterCard and Visa." }, { "docid": "191303", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.sbeconomic.com/single-post/2017/06/09/What-The-UK-Election-Means-for-Brexit-Hard-Brexit-is-Dead) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Leading up to her appointment as PM in the leadership election following David Cameron&amp;#039;s resignation, May&amp;#039;s campaign slogan even became &amp;quot;Brexit means Brexit,&amp;quot; as a way to affirm her commitment to the United Kingdom&amp;#039;s hard exit from the Union. &gt; Even before the election, a hard Brexit would come at an immense cost, and with the decreasing negotiating power from the U.K. following the election, it will be near impossible. &gt; Supporters of a hard Brexit ought to be weary; the end of a hard Brexit draws nigh. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6gc3pg/what_the_uk_election_means_for_brexit_hard_brexit/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~140561 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*: **Brexit**^#1 **hard**^#2 **Party**^#3 **election**^#4 **DUP**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "11936", "title": "", "text": "\"What you have is usually called a pre-paid credit card. You pay some money (Indian Rupees) to the credit card company, and then you can use the card to pay for purchases etc in foreign (non-Indian) currencies upto the remaining balance on the card. If a proposed charge exceeds the remaining balance, the transaction will be declined when you try to use the card. There might be multiple ways that the card is set up, e.g. it might be restricted to charge purchases denominated in US dollars alone, or you might be able to use it anywhere in the world (except India). The balance on the card might be denominated in INR, or in US$, say. In the latter case, the exchange rate at which your INR payment was converted into the $US balance is fixed and agreed to at the time of the original payment: you paid INR 70K (say) and the balance was set to US$ 1000 even though the exchange rate on the open market would have given you a few more US dollars. In the former case with the balance denominated in INR, a charge of US$ 100, say, would be converted to INR at a fixed agreed-upon rate, or at the current exchange rate that the Visa or MasterCard network is using, plus (typically) a 3% fee currency exchange fee, and your balance in INR will decrease accordingly. With all that as prologue, if you made a purchase from Walmart USA and later returned it for a credit, it should increase your credit card balance appropriately. You may be whacked with currency conversion fees along the way depending on how your card is set up, but with a US$-denominated card, a credit of US$100 should increase your card balance by US$100. So, that $US 100 can be spent on something else instead. In short, the card is your \"\"bank\"\" account. You cannot spend more than the remaining balance on the card just like you cannot withdraw more money from your bank account than you have in the account, and you can recharge your card by making more INR payments into it so as to increase the available balance. But it is like a current account in that you are unlikely to earn interest on the balance the way you do with a savings account. So what if you are back in India and have no further use of this card? Can you get your balance back as cash or deposit into your regular bank account? Call the Customer Help line, or read the card agreement you signed.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "152316", "title": "", "text": "GBP has already lost part of his value just because of the fear of Brexit. An actual Brexit may not change GBP as much as expected, but a no-Brexit could rise GBP really a lot." } ]

[ { "docid": "329270", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "92649", "title": "", "text": "\"The balance sheet for a bank is the list of assets and liabilities that the bank directly is responsible for. This would be things like loans the bank issues and accounts with the bank. Banks can make both \"\"balance sheet\"\" loans, meaning a loan that says on the balance sheet - one the bank gains the profits from but holds the risks for also. They can also make \"\"off balance sheet\"\" loans, meaning they securitize the loan (sell it off, such as the mortgage backed securities). Most major banks, i.e. Chase, Citibank, etc., could be called \"\"balance sheet\"\" banks because at least some portion of their lending comes from their balance sheet. Not 100% by any means, they participate in the security swaps extensively just like everyone does, but they do at least some normal, boring lending just as you would explain a bank to a five year old. Bank takes in deposits from account holders, loans that money out to people who want to buy homes or start businesses. However, some (particularly smaller) firms don't work this way - they don't take responsibility for the money or the loans. They instead \"\"manage assets\"\" or some similar term. I think of it like the difference between Wal-Mart and a consignment store. Wal-Mart buys things from its distributors, and sells them, taking the risk (of the item not selling) and the reward (of the profit from selling) to itself. On the other hand, a consignment store takes on neither: it takes a flat fee to host your items in its store, but takes no risk (you own the items) nor the majority of the profit. In this case, Mischler Financial Group is not a bank per se - they don't have accounts; they manage funds, instead. Note the following statement on their Services page for example: Mischler Financial Group holds no risk positions and no unwanted inventory of securities, which preserves the integrity of our capital and assures our clients that we will be able to obtain bids and offers for them regardless of adverse market conditions. They're not taking your money and then making their own investments; they're advising you how to invest your money, or they're helping do it for you, but it's your money going out and your risk (and reward).\"" }, { "docid": "111871", "title": "", "text": "The reason I don't know of any banks who would offer this to you (even if you held the investment account with their bank) is that there is no upside to the bank. It is a good idea for you, but what would they have to gain from this arrangement? The reason banks require a down payment is underwriting quality. If you can afford a significant down payment, they know that there is a significantly lower chance that you will default. However, if you were to provide an investment account as collateral, you would receive all the upside, and any downside would reduce their collateral as a percent of the amount loaned. This sort of idea could potentially work along the lines of a margin call (ie you have to provide additional capital if your asset value drops), but this would have the effective of leveraging the bank's risk, when their objective is to lower their risk through requiring a down payment. I don't see a reason why the bank would take on the risk that you would need to provide additional capital down the road with no upside for them. Additionally, many banks have backed away from the kinds of zero-down-payment and negative-amortization-ARM loans that got them (or the people they sold them to) in trouble over the last few years in an effort to reduce how much risk they take on. I think that in theory, you'd have to offer a lot more benefit to the bank, and that in practice it's probably a non-starter right now." }, { "docid": "560622", "title": "", "text": "\"In the case of bank failures You are protected by FDIC insurance. At the time I wrote this, you are insured up to $250,000. In my lifetime, it has been as high as $1,000,000 and as low as $100,000. I attached a link, which is updated by FDIC. In the case of fraud It depends. If you read this story and are horrified (I was too), you know that the banking system is not as safe as the other answers imply: In February 2005, Joe Lopez, a businessman from Florida, filed a suit against Bank of America after unknown hackers stole $90,000 from his Bank of America account. The money had been transferred to Latvia. An investigation showed that Mr. Lopez’s computer was infected with a malicious program, Backdoor.Coreflood, which records every keystroke and sends this information to malicious users via the Internet. This is how the hackers got hold of Joe Lopez’s user name and password, since Mr. Lopez often used the Internet to manage his Bank of America account. However the court did not rule in favor of the plaintiff, saying that Mr. Lopez had neglected to take basic precautions when managing his bank account on the Internet: a signature for the malicious code that was found on his system had been added to nearly all antivirus product databases back in 2003. Ouch. But let's think about the story for a second - he had his money stolen because of online banking and he didn't have the latest antivirus/antimalware software. How safe is banking if you don't do online banking? In the case of this story, it would have prevented keyloggers, but you're still susceptible to someone stealing your card or account information. So: In the bank's defense, how does a bank not know that someone didn't wire money to a friend (which is a loss for good), then get some of that money back from his friend while also getting money back from the bank, which had to face the loss. Yes, it sucks, but it's not total madness. As for disputing charges, from personal experience it also depends. I don't use cards whatsoever, so I've never had to worry, but both of my parents have experienced banking fraud where a fake charge on their card was not reversed. Neither of my parents are rich and can't afford lawyers, so crying \"\"lawsuit\"\" is not an option for everyone. How often does this occur? I suspect it's rare that banks don't reverse the charges in fraudulent cases, though you will still lose time for filing and possibly filling out paperwork. The way to prevent this: As much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, there is no absolutely safe place to keep your money. Even if you bought metals and buried them in the ground, a drifter with a metal detector might run across it one day. You can take steps to protect yourself, but there is no absolute guarantee that these will work out. Account Closures I added this today because I saw this question and have only seen/heard about this three times. Provided that you get the cashier's check back safely, you should be okay - but why was this person's account closed and look at how much funds he had! From his question: In the two years I banked with BoA I never had an overdraft or any negative marks on my account so the only thing that would stick out was a check that I deposited for $26k that my mom left me after she passed. Naturally, people aren't going to like some of my answers, especially this, but imagine you're in an immediate need for cash, and you experience this issue. What can you do? Let's say that rent is on the line and it's $25 for every day that you're late. Other steps to protect yourself Some banks allow you to use a keyword or phrase. If you're careful with how you do this and are clever, it will reduce the risk that someone steals your money.\"" }, { "docid": "496997", "title": "", "text": "\"The other answers are good, I would just like to add certain points, taking this question together with the previous ones you have asked here. How can a person measure how much to spend on food, car, bills or rent from his salary? Is there a formula to keep in check? Basically, it may well be that your best option would be to move to a smaller apartment or worse location to bring down rent, possibly forget about your own study in the worst case, sell the car and use public transportation, eat as many meals as possible at home, bring boxed lunch from home to work, if this applies, etc -- whatever makes a saving and sense to you. Regarding food, this is the point where it is usually possible to save a very significant amount, if you are prepared to make food at home. Unless you are already doing it, look around for articles such as \"\"living on 20 pounds a week\"\" or so, maybe they will give you ideas you can use (eg. How to eat on 10 pounds a week: shopping list and recipes) -- where you are shopping is crucial here as similar items can differ in price significantly between different chains. If the electricity bill is significant and you are at home a lot, you could try to bring it down by changing all bulbs in your home to LED ones, unless it has already been done. Yes, they can cost 2-3 more than eg. halogen ones, but they use 5-10x less electricity. Forget credit cards, if possible. Use debit cards so you know the money you spend does not get you into more debt. One question you asked here was about exchange rates -- if you work with different currencies a lot, there are several companies such as Revolut or N26, which offer accounts with debit cards that use near FX rates --- in my experiencee I could save around 10-15% on currency conversion EUR/GBP, using Revolut, compared to my local bank rate, for example. I find myself looking at my account every single day and get tensed and sad because almost whenever the money (pay) comes in I freak out that after everything there is nothing for us to enjoy or save. Well, yes. That is nearly the definition of too much debt. The point about going to the extremes of reducing expenses I outlined above, is that the more you can reduce your expenses while struggling with debt, the faster you'll get out of it. It might be hard to adapt, but it will be better, if you can calculate how long it will take to get you back on feet and know that, eg. \"\"in 6 months I can start to think of savings and carefully upgrading my lifestyle back\"\". In turn, the smaller the reduction of expenses, the more prolonged the process -- you might be looking at 2-3 years of insecure/constantly frustrating/risking more debt lifestyle, instead of 6 months of severely reduced one. Alternatively, if things go too bleak, you might consider declaring bankrupcy -- although I am not sure how feasible it is in the UK.\"" }, { "docid": "521688", "title": "", "text": "In most cases, the brand on the card, eg Visa or MasterCard, is a middleman. The company processes the transaction, transferring $xx from the bank to the seller, and telling the bank to debit the buyer's account. The bank is at risk, not the company transacting the purchase. What's interesting is that American Express started as both. My first Amex card, issued in 1979 (long expired, but in my box of memorabilia) had no bank. American Express offered a card that offered no extended credit, it was pay in full each month. Since then, Amex started offering extended credit, i.e. with annual interest, and minimum payments, and more recently, offering transaction processing for banks which take on the credit risk, essentially becoming very similar to MasterCard and Visa." }, { "docid": "189006", "title": "", "text": "\"First, a clarification. No assets are immune to inflation, apart from inflation-indexed securities like TIPS or inflation-indexed gilts (well, if held to maturity, these are at least close). Inflation causes a decline in the future purchasing power of a given dollar1 amount, and it certainly doesn't just affect government bonds, either. Regardless of whether you hold equity, bonds, derivatives, etc., the real value of those assets is declining because of inflation, all else being equal. For example, if I invest $100 in an asset that pays a 10% rate of return over the next year, and I sell my entire position at the end of the year, I have $110 in nominal terms. Inflation affects the real value of this asset regardless of its asset class because those $110 aren't worth as much in a year as they are today, assuming inflation is positive. An easy way to incorporate inflation into your calculations of rate of return is to simply subtract the rate of inflation from your rate of return. Using the previous example with inflation of 3%, you could estimate that although the nominal value of your investment at the end of one year is $110, the real value is $100*(1 + 10% - 3%) = $107. In other words, you only gained $7 of purchasing power, even though you gained $10 in nominal terms. This back-of-the-envelope calculation works for securities that don't pay fixed returns as well. Consider an example retirement portfolio. Say I make a one-time investment of $50,000 today in a portfolio that pays, on average, 8% annually. I plan to retire in 30 years, without making any further contributions (yes, this is an over-simplified example). I calculate that my portfolio will have a value of 50000 * (1 + 0.08)^30, or $503,132. That looks like a nice amount, but how much is it really worth? I don't care how many dollars I have; I care about what I can buy with those dollars. If I use the same rough estimate of the effect of inflation and use a 8% - 3% = 5% rate of return instead, I get an estimate of what I'll have at retirement, in today's dollars. That allows me to make an easy comparison to my current standard of living, and see if my portfolio is up to scratch. Repeating the calculation with 5% instead of 8% yields 50000 * (1 + 0.05)^30, or $21,6097. As you can see, the amount is significantly different. If I'm accustomed to living off $50,000 a year now, my calculation that doesn't take inflation into account tells me that I'll have over 10 years of living expenses at retirement. The new calculation tells me I'll only have a little over 4 years. Now that I've clarified the basics of inflation, I'll respond to the rest of the answer. I want to know if I need to be making sure my investments span multiple currencies to protect against a single country's currency failing. As others have pointed out, currency doesn't inflate; prices denominated in that currency inflate. Also, a currency failing is significantly different from a prices denominated in a currency inflating. If you're worried about prices inflating and decreasing the purchasing power of your dollars (which usually occurs in modern economies) then it's a good idea to look for investments and asset allocations that, over time, have outpaced the rate of inflation and that even with the effects of inflation, still give you a high enough rate of return to meet your investment goals in real, inflation-adjusted terms. If you have legitimate reason to worry about your currency failing, perhaps because your country doesn't maintain stable monetary or fiscal policies, there are a few things you can do. First, define what you mean by \"\"failing.\"\" Do you mean ceasing to exist, or simply falling in unit purchasing power because of inflation? If it's the latter, see the previous paragraph. If the former, investing in other currencies abroad may be a good idea. Questions about currencies actually failing are quite general, however, and (in my opinion) require significant economic analysis before deciding on a course of action/hedging. I would ask the same question about my home's value against an inflated currency as well. Would it keep the same real value. Your home may or may not keep the same real value over time. In some time periods, average home prices have risen at rates significantly higher than the rate of inflation, in which case on paper, their real value has increased. However, if you need to make substantial investments in your home to keep its price rising at the same rate as inflation, you may actually be losing money because your total investment is higher than what you paid for the house initially. Of course, if you own your home and don't have plans to move, you may not be concerned if its value isn't keeping up with inflation at all times. You're deriving additional satisfaction/utility from it, mainly because it's a place for you to live, and you spend money maintaining it in order to maintain your physical standard of living, not just its price at some future sale date. 1) I use dollars as an example. This applies to all currencies.\"" }, { "docid": "147197", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "30800", "title": "", "text": "I think you are making this more complicated that it has to be. In the end you will end up with a car that you paid X, and is worth Y. Your numbers are a bit hard to follow. Hopefully I got this right. I am no accountant, this is how I would figure the deal: The payments made are irrelevant. The downpayment is irrelevant as it is still a reduction in net worth. Your current car has a asset value of <29,500>. That should make anyone pause a bit. In order to get into this new car you will have to finance the shortfall on the current car (29,500), the price of the vehicle (45,300), the immediate depreciation (say 7,000). In the end you will have a car worth 38K and owe 82K. So you will have a asset value of <44,000>. Obviously a much worse situation. To do this car deal it would cost the person 14,500 of net worth the day the deal was done. As time marched on, it would be more as the reduction in debt is unlikely to keep up with the depreciation. Additionally the new car purchase screen shows a payment of $609/month if you bought the car with zero down. Except you don't have zero down, you have -29,500 down. Making the car payment higher, I estamate 1005/month with 3.5%@84 months. So rather than having a hit to your cash flow of $567 for 69 more months, you would have a payment of about $1000 for 84 months if you could obtain the interest rate of 3.5%. Those are the two things I would focus on is the reduction in net worth and the cash flow liability. I understand you are trying to get a feel for things, but there are two things that make this very unrealistic. The first is financing. It is unlikely that financing could be obtained with this deal and if it could this would be considered a sub-prime loan. However, perhaps a relative could finance the deal. Secondly, there is no way even a moderately financially responsible spouse would approve this deal. That is provided there were not sigificant assets, like a few million. If that is the case why not just write a check?" }, { "docid": "304007", "title": "", "text": "\"The danger to your savings depends on how much sovereign debt your bank is holding. If the government defaults then the bank - if it is holding a lot of sovereign debt - could be short funds and not able to meet its obligations. I believe default is the best option for the Euro long term but it will be painful in the short term. Yes, historically governments have shut down banks to prevent people from withdrawing their money in times of crisis. See Argentina circa 2001 or US during Great Depression. The government prevented people from withdrawing their money and people could do nothing while their money rapidly lost value. (See the emergency banking act where Title I, Section 4 authorizes the US president:\"\"To make it illegal for a bank to do business during a national emergency (per section 2) without the approval of the President.\"\" FDR declared a banking holiday four days before the act was approved by Congress. This documentary on the crisis in Argentina follows a woman as she tries to withdraw her savings from her bank but the government has prevented her from withdrawing her money.) If the printing press is chosen to avoid default then this will allow banks and governments to meet their obligations. This, however, comes at the cost of a seriously debased euro (i.e. higher prices). The euro could then soon become a hot potato as everyone tries to get rid of them before the ECB prints more. The US dollar could meet the same fate. What can you do to avert these risks? Yes, you could exchange into another currency. Unfortunately the printing presses of most of the major central banks today are in overdrive. This may preserve your savings temporarily. I would purchase some gold or silver coins and keep them in your possession. This isolates you from the banking system and gold and silver have value anywhere you go. The coins are also portable in case things really start to get interesting. Attempt to purchase the coins with cash so there is no record of the purchase. This may not be possible.\"" }, { "docid": "476721", "title": "", "text": "There's some risk, but it's quite small: The only catastrophic case I can think of is if the brokerage firm defrauded you about purchasing the assets in the first place; e.g., when you ostensibly put money into a mutual fund, they just pocketed it and displayed a fictitious purchase on their web site. In that case, you'd have no real asset to legally recover. I think the more realistic risks you should be concerned with are: The only major brokerage firm that I'm aware of that accepts liability for theft is Charles Schwab: http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/legal_compliance/schwabsafe/security_guarantee.html If you're going to diversify for security reasons, be sure to use different passwords, email addresses, and secret question answers on the two accounts." }, { "docid": "226721", "title": "", "text": "IANAL. In the UK, you (as a Director) would have obligations to minimise any tax liabilities under these two clauses: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/172 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/174 Although I can't see the CPS bringing any cases of criminal charge against over-payment of taxes. It wouldn't be unrealistic to have a scenario where shareholders of a failed enterprise sued a Director who was negligent in minimising tax liabilities. That said, I think the Starbucks strategy is flagrantly breaching the intent of the law, if not the letter." }, { "docid": "185104", "title": "", "text": "The United States Federal Reserve has decided that interest rates should be low. (They think it may help the economy. The details matter little here though.) It will enforce this low rate by buying Treasury bonds at this very low interest rate. (Bonds are future money, so this means they pay a lot of money up front, for very little interest in the future. The Fed will pay more than anyone who offers less money up front, so they can set the price as long as they're willing to buy.) At the end of the day, Treasury bonds pay nearly no interest. Since there's little money to be made with Treasuries, people who want better-than-zero returns will bid up the current-price of any other bonds or similar loan-like instruments to get what whatever rate of return that they can. There's really no more than one price for money; you can think of the price of those bonds as basically (Treasury rate + some modifier based on the risk) percent. I realize thinking about bond prices is weird and different than other prices (you're measuring future-money using present-money and it's easy to be confused) and assure you it ultimately makes sense :) Anyway. Your savings account money has to compete with everyone else willing to lend money to banks. Everyone-else lends money for peanuts, so you get peanuts on your savings account too. Your banking is probably worth more to your bank on account of your check-card payment processing fees (collected from the merchant) than from the money they make lending out your savings (notice how many places have promotional rates if you make your direct deposits or use your check card to make a purchase N times a month). In Europe, it's similar, except you've got a different central bank. If Europe's bank operated radically differently for an extended period of time, you'd expect to see a difference in the exchange rates which would ultimately make the returns from investing in those currencies pretty similar as well. Such a change may show up domestically as inflation in the country with the loose-money policy, and internationally as weakness against other currencies. There's really only one price for money around the entire world. Any difference boils down to a difference in (perceived) risk." }, { "docid": "505351", "title": "", "text": "Very wealthy people usually have an investment manager who is constantly moving money between investments and accounts. They hold cash (or cash equivalent) accounts for use in a near-term buying opportunity, for example if they believe certain stocks will go down in price soon. This amount can vary from under 1% (for a money manager with no intention of any short-term trading) to over 20% (for a market pessimist who expects a huge price reduction shortly). In rare cases they will also hold significant cash because of a planned large purchase, but there's almost never a reason for that to exceed 1% of their net worth." }, { "docid": "284774", "title": "", "text": "The security concept of minimising attack surface could be stretched to apply here, especially if closing the account would mean the end of your relationship with that bank. Essentially more routes into your finances or personal information means more opportunities for fraud, more accounts to keep an eye on, more logins to remember/store, and even more paperwork/idle cards to check (for unexpected activity and T&C changes), store and eventually shred. However I had a couple of online-only savings accounts with zero balance for a few years, at a bank where I have other accounts, and I didn;t worry in the slightest. (You can open the accounts online but have to phone to close them and sitting on hold is too much of a chore for me. Eventually they realised their mistake, brought in a minimum balance requirement, and after giving notice closed accounts with less that that in them)" }, { "docid": "481401", "title": "", "text": "Personal finance is a fairly broad area. Which part might you be starting with? From the very basics, make sure you understand your current cashflow: are you bank balances going up or down? Next, make a budget. There's plenty of information to get started here, and it doesn't require a fancy piece of software. This will make sure you have a deeper understanding of where your money is going, and what is it being saved for. Is it just piling up, or is it allocated for specific purchases (i.e. that new car, house, college tuition, retirement, or even a vacation or a rainy day)? As part of the budgeting/cashflow exercise, make sure you have any outstanding debts covered. Are your credit card balances under control? Do you have other outstanding loans (education, auto, mortgage, other)? Normally, you'd address these in order from highest to lowest interest rate. Your budget should address any immediate mandatory expenses (rent, utilities, food) and long term existing debts. Then comes discretionary spending and savings (especially until you have a decent emergency fund). How much can you afford to spend on discretionary purchases? How much do you want to be able to spend? If the want is greater than the can, what steps can you take to rememdy that? With savings you can have a whole new set of planning to consider. How much do you leave in the bank? Do you keep some amount in a CD ladder? How much goes into retirement savings accounts (401k, Roth vs. Traditional IRA), college savings accounts, or a plain brokerage account? How do you balance your overall portfolio (there is a wealth of information on portfolio management)? What level of risk are you comfortable with? What level of risk should you consider, given your age and goals? How involved do you want to be with your portfolio, or do you want someone else to manage it? Silver Dragon's answer contains some good starting points for portfolio management and investing. Definitely spend some time learning the basics of investing and portfolio management even if you decide to solicit professional expertise; understanding what they're doing can help to determine earlier whether your interests are being treated as a priority." }, { "docid": "527730", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4700008/City-London-accuses-France-plot-wreck-Britain.html) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; France has boasted to City of London chiefs that it will use Brexit to sabotage the British economy, according to a bombshell leaked memo. &gt; The memo was written after the City of London&amp;#039;s Brexit envoy - former Home Office Minister Jeremy Browne - held talks in Paris earlier this month at the French finance ministry, state-owned Banque de France, the French Senate and the British Embassy. &gt; He became the City of London Corporation&amp;#039;s Brexit envoy on a six-figure salary after losing his Commons seat in 2015. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6nkhic/city_of_london_accuses_france_of_plot_to_wreck/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~167837 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*: **Brexit**^#1 **French**^#2 **City**^#3 **France**^#4 **Britain**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "226197", "title": "", "text": "\"The answer is partly and sometimes, but you cannot know when or how. Most clearly, you do not take somebody else's money if you buy shares in a start-up company. You are putting your money at risk in exchange for a share in the rewards. Later, if the company thrives, you can sell your shares for whatever somebody else will pay for your current share in the thriving company's earnings. Or, you lose your money, when the company fails. (Much of it has then ended up in the company's employees' pockets, much of the rest with the government as taxes that the company paid). If the stockmarket did not exist, people would be far less willing to put their money into a new company, because selling shares would be far harder. This in turn would mean that fewer new things were tried out, and less progress would be made. Communists insist that central state planning would make better decisions than random people linked by a market. I suggest that the historical record proves otherwise. Historically, limited liability companies came first, then dividing them up into larger numbers of \"\"bearer\"\" shares, and finally creating markets where such shares were traded. On the other hand if you trade in the short or medium term, you are betting that your opinion that XYZ shares are undervalued against other investors who think otherwise. But there again, you may be buying from a person who has some other reason for selling. Maybe he just needs some cash for a new car or his child's marriage, and will buy back into XYZ once he has earned some more money. You can't tell who you are buying from, and the seller can only tell if his decision to sell was good with the benefit of a good few years of hindsight. I bought shares hand over fist immediately after the Brexit vote. I was putting my money where my vote went, and I've now made a decent profit. I don't feel that I harmed the people who sold out in expectation of the UK economy cratering. They got the peace of mind of cash (which they might then reinvest in Euro stocks or gold or whatever). Time will tell whether my selling out of these purchases more recently was a good decision (short term, not my best, but a profit is a profit ...) I never trade using borrowed money and I'm not sure whether city institutions should be allowed to do so (or more reasonably, to what extent this should be allowed). In a certain size and shortness of holding time, they cease to contribute to an orderly market and become a destabilizing force. This showed up in the financial crisis when certain banks were \"\"too big to fail\"\" and had to be bailed out at the taxpayer's expense. \"\"Heads we win, tails you lose\"\", rather than trading with us small guys as equals! Likewise it's hard to see any justification for high-frequency trading, where stocks are held for mere milliseconds, and the speed of light between the trader's and the market's computers is significant.\"" }, { "docid": "229354", "title": "", "text": "Nothing happens. A bank is a business; your relationship with the bank doesn't change because your visa or immigration status changes. Money held in the account is still held in the account. Interest paid on the account is still taxable. And so on. If the account is inactive long enough, abandoned account rules may apply, but that still has nothing to do with your status." } ]

[ { "docid": "290930", "title": "", "text": "If you are really worried your best bet is to move all your cash from Sterling into a foreign currency that you think will be resilient should Brexit occur. I would avoid the Euro! You could look at the US Dollar perhaps, make sure you are aware of the charges for moving the money over and back again, as you will at some stage probably want to get back into Sterling once it settles down, if it does indeed fall. Based on my experience on the stock markets (I am not a currency trader) I would expect the pound to fall fairly sharply on a vote for Brexit and the Euro to do the same. Both would probably rebound quite quickly too as even if there is a Brexit vote it doesn't mean the UK Government will honour the outcome or take the steps quickly. ** I AM NOT A FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND HAVE NO QUALIFICATIONS AS SUCH **" } ]

[ { "docid": "11936", "title": "", "text": "\"What you have is usually called a pre-paid credit card. You pay some money (Indian Rupees) to the credit card company, and then you can use the card to pay for purchases etc in foreign (non-Indian) currencies upto the remaining balance on the card. If a proposed charge exceeds the remaining balance, the transaction will be declined when you try to use the card. There might be multiple ways that the card is set up, e.g. it might be restricted to charge purchases denominated in US dollars alone, or you might be able to use it anywhere in the world (except India). The balance on the card might be denominated in INR, or in US$, say. In the latter case, the exchange rate at which your INR payment was converted into the $US balance is fixed and agreed to at the time of the original payment: you paid INR 70K (say) and the balance was set to US$ 1000 even though the exchange rate on the open market would have given you a few more US dollars. In the former case with the balance denominated in INR, a charge of US$ 100, say, would be converted to INR at a fixed agreed-upon rate, or at the current exchange rate that the Visa or MasterCard network is using, plus (typically) a 3% fee currency exchange fee, and your balance in INR will decrease accordingly. With all that as prologue, if you made a purchase from Walmart USA and later returned it for a credit, it should increase your credit card balance appropriately. You may be whacked with currency conversion fees along the way depending on how your card is set up, but with a US$-denominated card, a credit of US$100 should increase your card balance by US$100. So, that $US 100 can be spent on something else instead. In short, the card is your \"\"bank\"\" account. You cannot spend more than the remaining balance on the card just like you cannot withdraw more money from your bank account than you have in the account, and you can recharge your card by making more INR payments into it so as to increase the available balance. But it is like a current account in that you are unlikely to earn interest on the balance the way you do with a savings account. So what if you are back in India and have no further use of this card? Can you get your balance back as cash or deposit into your regular bank account? Call the Customer Help line, or read the card agreement you signed.\"" }, { "docid": "548669", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;UKIP's Roger Helmer said: \"\"By all means let's make pathetic under-powered vacuum cleaners for export to the EU. \"\"But we must retain the right to make and use sensible full-powered appliances in the UK. This shows why we must not agree to be bound by EU rules after Brexit.\"\" Finally, someone makes a sensible favorable argument for Brexit.\"" }, { "docid": "173088", "title": "", "text": "\"What is a stock? A share of stock represents ownership of a portion of a corporation. In olden times, you would get a physical stock certificate (looking something like this) with your name and the number of shares on it. That certificate was the document demonstrating your ownership. Today, physical stock certificates are quite uncommon (to the point that a number of companies don't issue them anymore). While a one-share certificate can be a neat memento, certificates are a pain for investors, as they have to be stored safely and you'd have to go through a whole annoying process to redeem them when you wanted to sell your investment. Now, you'll usually hold stock through a brokerage account, and your holdings will just be records in a database somewhere. You'll pick a broker (more on that in the next question), instruct them to buy something, and they'll keep track of it in your account. Where do I get a stock? You'll generally choose a broker and open an account. You can read reviews to compare different brokerages in your country, as they'll have different fees and pricing. You can also make sure the brokerage firm you choose is in good standing with the financial regulators in your country, though one from a major national bank won't be unsafe. You will be required to provide personal information, as you are opening a financial account. The information should be similar to that required to open a bank account. You'll also need to get your money in and out of the account, so you'll likely set up a bank transfer. It may be possible to request a paper stock certificate, but don't be surprised if you're told this is unavailable. If you do get a paper certificate, you'll have to deal with considerably more hassle and delay if you want to sell later. Brokers charge a commission, which is a fee per trade. Let's say the commission is $10/trade. If you buy 5 shares of Google at $739/share, you'd pay $739 * 5 + $10 = $3705 and wind up with $3695 worth of stock in your account. You'd pay the same commission when you sell the stock. Can anyone buy/own/use a stock? Pretty much. A brokerage is going to require that you be a legal adult to maintain an account with them. There are generally ways in which a parent can open an account on behalf of an underage child though. There can be different types of restrictions when it comes to investing in companies that are not publicly held, but that's not something you need to worry about. Stocks available on the public stock market are available to, well, the public. How are stocks taxed? Taxes differ from country to country, but as a general rule, you do have to provide the tax authorities with sufficient information to determine what you owe. This means figuring out how much you purchased the stock for and comparing that with how much you sold it for to determine your gain or loss. In the US (and I suspect in many other countries), your brokerage will produce an annual report with at least some of this information and send it to the tax authorities and you. You or someone you hire to do your taxes will use that report to compute the amount of tax owed. Your brokerage will generally keep track of your \"\"cost basis\"\" (how much you bought it for) for you, though it's a good idea to keep records. If you refuse to tell the government your cost basis, they can always assume it's $0, and then you'll pay more tax than you owe. Finding the cost basis for old investments can be difficult many years later if the records are lost. If you can determine when the stock was purchased, even approximately, it's possible to look back at historical price data to determine the cost. If your stock pays a dividend (a certain amount of money per-share that a company may pay out of its profits to its investors), you'll generally need to pay tax on that income. In the US, the tax rate on dividends may be the same or less than the tax rate on normal wage income depending on how long you've held the investment and other rules.\"" }, { "docid": "142110", "title": "", "text": "\"He didn't sell in the \"\"normal\"\" way that most people think of when they hear the term \"\"sell.\"\" He engaged in a (perfectly legitimate) technique known as short selling, in which he borrows shares from his broker and sells them immediately. He's betting that the price of the stock will drop so he can buy them back at a lower price to return the borrowed shares back to his broker. He gets to pocket the difference. He had about $37,000 of cash in his account. Since he borrowed ~8400 shares and sold them immediately at $2/share, he got $16,800 in cash and owed his broker 8400 shares. So, his net purchasing power at the time of the short sale was $37,000 + $16,800 - 4800 shares * $2/share. As the price of the stock changes, his purchasing power will change according to this equation. He's allowed to continue to borrow these 8400 shares as long as his purchasing power remains above 0. That is, the broker requires him to have enough cash on hand to buy back all of his borrowed shares at any given moment. If his purchasing power ever goes negative, he'll be subject to a margin call: the broker will make him either deposit cash into his account or close his positions (sell long positions or buy back short positions) until it's positive again. The stock jumped up to $13.85 the next morning before the market opened (during \"\"before-hours\"\" trading). His purchasing power at that time was $37,000 + $16,800 - 8400 shares * $13.85/share = -$62,540. Since his purchasing power was negative, he was subject to a margin call. By the time he got out, he had to pay $17.50/share to buy back the 8400 shares that he borrowed, making his purchasing power -$101,600. This $101,600 was money that he borrowed from his broker to buy back the shares to fulfill his margin call. His huge loss was from borrowing shares from his broker. Note that his maximum potential loss is unlimited, since there is no limit to how much a stock can grow. Evidently, he failed to grasp the most important concept of short selling, which is that he's borrowing stock from his broker and he's obligated to give that stock back whenever his broker wants, no matter what it costs him to fulfill that obligation.\"" }, { "docid": "476721", "title": "", "text": "There's some risk, but it's quite small: The only catastrophic case I can think of is if the brokerage firm defrauded you about purchasing the assets in the first place; e.g., when you ostensibly put money into a mutual fund, they just pocketed it and displayed a fictitious purchase on their web site. In that case, you'd have no real asset to legally recover. I think the more realistic risks you should be concerned with are: The only major brokerage firm that I'm aware of that accepts liability for theft is Charles Schwab: http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/legal_compliance/schwabsafe/security_guarantee.html If you're going to diversify for security reasons, be sure to use different passwords, email addresses, and secret question answers on the two accounts." }, { "docid": "304007", "title": "", "text": "\"The danger to your savings depends on how much sovereign debt your bank is holding. If the government defaults then the bank - if it is holding a lot of sovereign debt - could be short funds and not able to meet its obligations. I believe default is the best option for the Euro long term but it will be painful in the short term. Yes, historically governments have shut down banks to prevent people from withdrawing their money in times of crisis. See Argentina circa 2001 or US during Great Depression. The government prevented people from withdrawing their money and people could do nothing while their money rapidly lost value. (See the emergency banking act where Title I, Section 4 authorizes the US president:\"\"To make it illegal for a bank to do business during a national emergency (per section 2) without the approval of the President.\"\" FDR declared a banking holiday four days before the act was approved by Congress. This documentary on the crisis in Argentina follows a woman as she tries to withdraw her savings from her bank but the government has prevented her from withdrawing her money.) If the printing press is chosen to avoid default then this will allow banks and governments to meet their obligations. This, however, comes at the cost of a seriously debased euro (i.e. higher prices). The euro could then soon become a hot potato as everyone tries to get rid of them before the ECB prints more. The US dollar could meet the same fate. What can you do to avert these risks? Yes, you could exchange into another currency. Unfortunately the printing presses of most of the major central banks today are in overdrive. This may preserve your savings temporarily. I would purchase some gold or silver coins and keep them in your possession. This isolates you from the banking system and gold and silver have value anywhere you go. The coins are also portable in case things really start to get interesting. Attempt to purchase the coins with cash so there is no record of the purchase. This may not be possible.\"" }, { "docid": "284774", "title": "", "text": "The security concept of minimising attack surface could be stretched to apply here, especially if closing the account would mean the end of your relationship with that bank. Essentially more routes into your finances or personal information means more opportunities for fraud, more accounts to keep an eye on, more logins to remember/store, and even more paperwork/idle cards to check (for unexpected activity and T&C changes), store and eventually shred. However I had a couple of online-only savings accounts with zero balance for a few years, at a bank where I have other accounts, and I didn;t worry in the slightest. (You can open the accounts online but have to phone to close them and sitting on hold is too much of a chore for me. Eventually they realised their mistake, brought in a minimum balance requirement, and after giving notice closed accounts with less that that in them)" }, { "docid": "217727", "title": "", "text": "\"The simplest, most convenient way I know of to \"\"move your savings to Canada\"\" is to purchase an exchange-traded fund like FXC, the CurrencyShares Canadian Dollar Trust, or a similar instrument. (I identify this fund because I know it exists, not because I particularly recommend it.) Your money will be in Canadian currency earning Canadian interest rates. You will pay a small portion of that interest in fees. Since US banks are already guaranteed by the FDIC up to $250,000 per account, I don't really think you avoid any risks associated with the failure of an individual bank, but you might fare better if the US currency is subject to inflation or unfavorable foreign-exchange movements - not that such a thing would be a direct risk of a bank failure, but it could happen as a result of actions taken by the Federal Reserve under the auspices of aiding the economy if the economy worsens in the wake of a financial crisis - or, for that matter, if it worsens as a result of something else, including legislative, regulatory, or executive policies. Read the prospectus to understand additional risks with this investment. One of them is foreign-exchange risk. If the US economy and currency strengthen relative to the Canadian economy and its currency, you may lose substantial amounts of purchasing power. Additionally, one of the possible results of a financial crisis is a \"\"flight to safety\"\"; the global financial markets still seem to think the US dollar is pretty safe, and they may bid it up as they have done in the past, resulting in losses to your position (at least in the short term). I do not personally recommend moving all your savings to Canada, especially if it deprives you of income from more profitable investments over the long term, but moving some of your savings to Canada at least isn't a stupid idea, and it may turn out to be somewhat profitable. Having some Canadian currency is also a good idea if you plan to spend the money that you are saving on Canadian goods in the intermediate future.\"" }, { "docid": "530425", "title": "", "text": "\"You are overthinking it. Yes there is overlap between them, and you want to understand how much overlap there is so you don't end up with a concentration in one area when you were trying to avoid it. Pick two, put your money in those two; and then put your new money into those two until you want to expand into other funds. The advantage of having the money in an IRA held by a single fund family, is that moving some or all of the money from one Mutual fund/ETF to another is painless. The fact it is a retirement account means that selling a fund to move the money doesn't trigger taxes. The fact that you have about $10,000 for the IRA means that hopefully you have decades left before you need the money and that this $10,00 is just the start. You are not committed to these investment choices. With periodic re-balancing the allocations you make now will be adjusted over the decades. One potential issue. You said: \"\"I'm saving right not but haven't actually opened the account.\"\" I take it to mean that you have money in a Roth TRA account but it isn't invested into a stock fund, or that you have the money ready to go in a regular bank account and will be making a 2015 contribution into the actual IRA before tax day this year, and the 2016 contribution either at the same time or soon after. If it is the second case make sure you get the money for 2015 into the IRA before the deadline.\"" }, { "docid": "329270", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "430034", "title": "", "text": "Yes, there are some real dangers in having your money locked into an investment. Those dangers are well worth thinking about and planning for. Where you are going off the rails is acting like those are the only dangers to your money, and perhaps having an exaggerated idea of the size of the dangers. It is an excellent idea to keep an emergency fund with a few months living expenses in a readily accessible savings or checking account. However, a standard retail savings account is always going to pay less in interest then you are loosing through inflation. We're living in a low-inflation period, but it's still continuously eating away at the value of your savings. It makes sense to accept the danger of inflation for your emergency fund, but probably not for your retirement savings. To reduce the hazards of inflation, you need to find an investment that has some chance of paying more than the inflation rate. This is inevitably going to mean locking up your money for some period of time or accepting some other type of risk. There is no guaranteed safe path in the world. You can only do your best to understand the risks you are running. As an example, you could put your savings in a CD rather than a vanilla savings account. A CD these days won't pay much in interest, but it will be more than a savings account. However, you have to commit to a term for the CD. If you take your money out early you will have to pay a penalty. How much of a penalty? In the worse case it could be in the neighborhood of 4% of the amount you withdraw. So, yeah if you deposit $10,000 in a 5-year CD and end up needing it all back the very next day, you could end up paying the bank $400. If you withdraw money from a 401k before you are 59 1/2, you will pay a 10% penalty, and you will have to have income tax withheld on the amount you withdraw. On the other hand, if your employer matches 100% of your 401k contributions, you could be throwing away 50% of your possible retirement savings because of your fear of the possibility of a 10% loss! In addition 401k plans do have some exceptions to the early withdrawal penalty. There are provisions for medical emergencies and home purchases for example. However, the qualifications are not entirely straight-forward, and you should read up on them before enrolling. The real answer to your fears is planning. Figure out your living expenses. Figure out how much you want in an emergency fund. Figure out when you will be wanting to buy a house, have a child, or go back to school. Set aside the savings you'll need for all those, and then for the remainder of your money you can consider long term investments with some confidence that you probably won't need to face the early withdrawal penalties." }, { "docid": "490831", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "378024", "title": "", "text": "\"If it is planned, then one can get a Bankers Check payable overseas; if destination is known. 1.) What will happen to the money? It will eventually go to Government as escheating. Unlcaimed.org can help you trace the funds and recover it. 2.) Will the banks close the accounts? 3.) After how much time will the banks close the accounts? Eventually Yes. If there is no activity [Note the definition of activity is different, A credit interest is not considered as activity, a authentic phone call / correspondence to change the address or any servicing request is considered activity] for a period of One year, the account is classified as \"\"Dormant\"\". Depending on state, after a period of 3-5 years, it would be inactive and the funds escheated. i.e. handed over to Government. 4.) Is there anything else to do? Any ideas? Before leaving? Try keeping it active by using internet banking or credit / debit cards linked to the account. These will be valid activities. 5.) Is there any way to send a relative to the US with any kind of paper of power, to unfreeze the accounts? 6.) The banks say they would need a power of attorney, but does that person actually need to be an attorney in the US, or can it simply be a relative WITH a paper (a paper that says power of attorney) or what is a power of attorney exactly, is it an actual attorney person, or just a paper? 7.) Is there any other way to unfreeze the accounts? Although I can confirm first hand; I think there would be an exception process if a person cannot travel to the Bank. It could even be that a person is in some remote state, not well etc and can't travel in person. I think if you are out of country, you could walk-in to an US embassy and provide / sign relevant documents there and get it attested. Although for different purpose, I know a Power of Attorney being created in other country and stamped / verified by US embassy and sent it over to US. This was almost a decade back. Not sure about it currently.\"" }, { "docid": "144177", "title": "", "text": "\"If you owned a bank how would you invest the bank's money? Typically banks are involved in loaning out money to businesses, people, and government at a higher interest rate then what they are paying to depositors. This is the spread and how they make money. If the bank determines that the yields on government bonds is more attractive then loaning the money out to businesses and people then the bank will purchase government bonds. It can also decide the other way. In this manner the mortgage and bond markets are always competing for capital and tend to offer very similar yields. Certain banks have the unique privilege of being able to borrow money from the FED at the Federal Funds rate and use this money to purchase government debt or loan it out to other banks or purchase other debt products. In this manner you see a high correlation between the FED funds rate, mortgage rates, and treasury yields. Other political factors include legislation that encourages mortgage lending (see Community Reinvestment Act) where banks may not have made the loans without said legislation. In short, keep your eye on the FED and ask yourself: \"\"Does the FED want rates to rise?\"\" and \"\"Can the US government afford rising rates?\"\" The answer to these two questions is no. However, the FED may be pressured to \"\"stop the presses\"\" if inflation becomes unwieldy and the FED actually starts to care about food and energy prices. So far this hasn't been the case.\"" }, { "docid": "34810", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm going to look just at purchase price. Essentially, you can't always claim the whole of the purchase price (or 95% your case) in the year (the accounting period) of purchase, but you get a percentage of the value of the car each year, called writing down allowance, which is a capital allowance. It is similar to depreciation, but based on HRMC's own formula. In fact, it seems you probably can claim 95% of the purchase price, because the value is less than £1000. The logic is a bit involved, but I hope you can understand it. You could also claim simplified expenses instead, which is just based on a rate per mile, but you can't claim both. Note, by year I mean whatever your account period is. This could be the normal financial year, but you would probably have a better idea about this. See The HMRC webpage on this for more details. The big idea is that you record the value of any assets you are claiming writing down allowance on in one of a number of pools, that attract the same rate of writing down allowance, so you don't need to record the value of each asset separately. They are similar to accounts in accounting, so they have an opening balance, and closing balance. If you use an asset for personal use, it needs a pool to itself. HRMC call that a single asset pool. So, to start with, look at the Business Cars section, and look at the Rates for Cars section, to determine the rate you can claim. Each one links to a further article, which gives more detail if you need it. Your car is almost certainly in the special rate category. Special rate is 8% a year, main rate is 18%, and First year allowance is essentially 100%. Then, you look at the Work out what you can claim article. That talks you through the steps. I'll go through your example. You would have a pool for your car, which would end the account period before you bought the vehicle at zero (step 1). You then add the value of the car in the period you bought it (Step 2). You would reduce the value of the pool if you dispose of it in the same year (Step 3). Because the car is worth less than £1,000 (see the section on \"\"If you have £1,000 or less in your pool\"\"), you would normally be able to claim the whole value of the pool (the value of the car) in the first accounting period, and reduce the value of the pool to zero. As you use the car for personal use, you only claim 95% of the value, but still reduce the pool to zero. See the section on \"\"Items you use outside your business\"\". This £1000 is adjusted if your accounting period lasts more or less than 12 months. Once the pool is down to zero that it you don't need to think about it any more for tax purposes, apart from if you are claiming other motoring expenses, or if you sell it. It gets more complicated if the car is more expensive. I'll go through an example for a car worth £2,000. Then, after Step 3, on the year of purchase, you would reduce the value of the pool by 8%, and claim 95% of the reduction. This would be a 160 reduction, and 95%*160 = 152 claim, leaving the value of 1860 in the pool. You then follow the same steps for the next year, start with 1840 in the pool, reduce the value by 8%, then claim 95% of the reduction. This continues until you sell or dispose of the car (Step 3), or the value of the pool is 1000 or less, then you claim all of it in that year. Selling the car, or disposing of the car is discussed in the Capital allowances when you sell an asset article. The basic idea is that if you have already reduced the value of the pool to zero, the price you sell the car for is added you your profits for that year (See \"\"If you originally claimed 100% of the item\"\"), if you still have anything in the pool, you reduce the value of the pool by the sale value, and if it reduces to below zero (to -£200, say), you add that amount (£200, in this case), to your profits. If the value is above zero, you keep applying writing down allowances. In your case, that seems to just means if you sell the car in the same year you buy it, you claim the difference (or 95% of it) as writing down allowance, and if you do it later, you claim the purchase price in the year of purchase, and add 95% of the sale price to your profits in the year you sell it. I'm a bit unclear about starting \"\"to use it outside your business\"\", which doesn't seem to apply if you use it outside the business to start with. You can claim simplified expenses for vehicles, if you are a sole trader or partner, but not if you claim capital allowances (such as writing down allowances) on them, or you include a separate expense in your accounts for motoring expenses. It's a flat rate of 45p a mile for the first 10,000 miles, and 25p per mile after that, for cars, and 24p a mile for motorcycles. See the HRMC page on Simplifed Mileage expenses for details. For any vehicle you decide to either claim capital allowances claim running costs separately, or claim simplified mileage expenses, and \"\"Once you use the flat rates for a vehicle, you must continue to do so as long as you use that vehicle for your business.you have to stick with that decision for that vehicle\"\". In your case, it seems you can claim 95% of the purchase price in the accounting period you buy it, and if you sell it you add 95% of the sale price to your profits in that accounting period. It gets more complicated if you have a car worth more than £1000, adjusted for the length of the accounting period. Also, if you change how you use it, consult the page on selling selling an asset, as you may have disposed of it. You can also use simplified mileage expenses, but then you can't claim capital allowances, or claim running costs separately for that car. I hope that makes sense, please comment if not, and I'll try to adjust the explanation.\"" }, { "docid": "481683", "title": "", "text": "\"Here are my reasons as to why bonds are considered to be a reasonable investment. While it is true that, on average over a sufficiently long period of time, stocks do have a high expected return, it is important to realize that bonds are a different type of financial instrument that stocks, and have features that are attractive to certain types of investors. The purpose of buying bonds is to convert a lump sum of currency into a series of future cash flows. This is in and of itself valuable to the issuer because they would prefer to have the lump sum today, rather than at some point in the future. So we generally don't say that we've \"\"lost\"\" the money, we say that we are purchasing a series of future payments, and we would only do this if it were more valuable to us than having the money in hand. Unlike stocks, where you are compensated with dividends and equity to take on the risks and rewards of ownership, and unlike a savings account (which is much different that a bond), where you are only being paid interest for the time value of your money while the bank lends it out at their risk, when you buy a bond you are putting your money at risk in order to provide financing to the issuer. It is also important to realize that there is a much higher risk that stocks will lose value, and you have to compare the risk-adjusted return, and not the nominal return, for stocks to the risk-adjusted return for bonds, since with investment-grade bonds there is generally a very low risk of default. While the returns being offered may not seem attractive to you individually, it is not reasonable to say that the returns offered by the issuer are insufficient in general, because both when the bonds are issued and then subsequently traded on a secondary market (which is done fairly easily), they function as a market. That is to say that sellers always want a higher price (resulting in a lower return), and buyers always want to receive a higher return (requiring a lower price). So while some sellers and buyers will be able to agree on a mutually acceptable price (such that a transaction occurs), there will almost always be some buyers and sellers who also do not enter into transactions because they are demanding a lower/higher price. The fact that a market exists indicates that enough investors are willing to accept the returns that are being offered by sellers. Bonds can be helpful in that as a class of assets, they are less risky than stocks. Additionally, bonds are paid back to investors ahead of equity, so in the case of a failing company or public entity, bondholders may be paid even if stockholders lose all their money. As a result, bonds can be a preferred way to make money on a company or government entity that is able to pay its bills, but has trouble generating any profits. Some investors have specific reasons why they may prefer a lower risk over time to maximizing their returns. For example, a government or pension fund or a university may be aware of financial payments that they will be required to make in a particular year in the future, and may purchase bonds that mature in that year. They may not be willing to take the risk that in that year, the stock market will fall, which could force them to reduce their principal to make the payments. Other individual investors may be close to a significant life event that can be predicted, such as college or retirement, and may not want to take on the risk of stocks. In the case of very large investors such as national governments, they are often looking for capital preservation to hedge against inflation and forex risk, rather than to \"\"make money\"\". Additionally, it is important to remember that until relatively recently in the developed world, and still to this day in many developing countries, people have been willing to pay banks and financial institutions to hold their money, and in the context of the global bond market, there are many people around the world who are willing to buy bonds and receive a very low rate of return on T-Bills, for example, because they are considered a very safe investment due to the creditworthiness of the USA, as well as the stability of the dollar, especially if inflation is very high in the investor's home country. For example, I once lived in an African country where inflation was 60-80% per year. This means if I had $100 today, I could buy $100 worth of goods, but by next year, I might need $160 to buy the same goods I could buy for $100 today. So you can see why simply being able to preserve the value of my money in a bond denominated in USA currency would be valuable in that case, because the alternative is so bad. So not all bondholders want to be owners or make as much money as possible, some just want a safe place to put their money. Also, it is true for both stocks and bonds that you are trading a lump sum of money today for payments over time, although for stocks this is a different kind of payment (dividends), and you only get paid if the company makes money. This is not specific to bonds. In most other cases when a stock price appreciates, this is to reflect new information not previously known, or earnings retained by the company rather than paid out as dividends. Most of the financial instruments where you can \"\"make\"\" money immediately are speculative, where two people are betting against each other, and one has to lose money for the other to make money. Again, it's not reasonable to say that any type of financial instrument is the \"\"worst\"\". They function differently, serve different purposes, and have different features that may or may not fit your needs and preferences. You seem to be saying that you simply don't find bond returns high enough to be attractive to you. That may be true, since different people have different investment objectives, risk tolerance, and preference for having money now versus more money later. However, some of your statements don't seem to be supported by facts. For example, retail banks are not highly profitable as an industry, so they are not making thousands of times what they are paying you. They also need to pay all of their operating expenses, as well as account for default risk and inflation, out of the different between what they lend and what they pay to savings account holders. Also, it's not reasonable to say that bonds are worthless, as I've explained. The world disagrees with you. If they agreed with you, they would stop buying bonds, and the people who need financing would have to lower bond prices until people became interested again. That is part of how markets work. In fact, much of the reason that bond yields are so low right now is that there has been such high global demand for safe investments like bonds, especially from other nations, such that bond issues (especially the US government) have not needed to pay high yields in order to raise money.\"" }, { "docid": "226197", "title": "", "text": "\"The answer is partly and sometimes, but you cannot know when or how. Most clearly, you do not take somebody else's money if you buy shares in a start-up company. You are putting your money at risk in exchange for a share in the rewards. Later, if the company thrives, you can sell your shares for whatever somebody else will pay for your current share in the thriving company's earnings. Or, you lose your money, when the company fails. (Much of it has then ended up in the company's employees' pockets, much of the rest with the government as taxes that the company paid). If the stockmarket did not exist, people would be far less willing to put their money into a new company, because selling shares would be far harder. This in turn would mean that fewer new things were tried out, and less progress would be made. Communists insist that central state planning would make better decisions than random people linked by a market. I suggest that the historical record proves otherwise. Historically, limited liability companies came first, then dividing them up into larger numbers of \"\"bearer\"\" shares, and finally creating markets where such shares were traded. On the other hand if you trade in the short or medium term, you are betting that your opinion that XYZ shares are undervalued against other investors who think otherwise. But there again, you may be buying from a person who has some other reason for selling. Maybe he just needs some cash for a new car or his child's marriage, and will buy back into XYZ once he has earned some more money. You can't tell who you are buying from, and the seller can only tell if his decision to sell was good with the benefit of a good few years of hindsight. I bought shares hand over fist immediately after the Brexit vote. I was putting my money where my vote went, and I've now made a decent profit. I don't feel that I harmed the people who sold out in expectation of the UK economy cratering. They got the peace of mind of cash (which they might then reinvest in Euro stocks or gold or whatever). Time will tell whether my selling out of these purchases more recently was a good decision (short term, not my best, but a profit is a profit ...) I never trade using borrowed money and I'm not sure whether city institutions should be allowed to do so (or more reasonably, to what extent this should be allowed). In a certain size and shortness of holding time, they cease to contribute to an orderly market and become a destabilizing force. This showed up in the financial crisis when certain banks were \"\"too big to fail\"\" and had to be bailed out at the taxpayer's expense. \"\"Heads we win, tails you lose\"\", rather than trading with us small guys as equals! Likewise it's hard to see any justification for high-frequency trading, where stocks are held for mere milliseconds, and the speed of light between the trader's and the market's computers is significant.\"" }, { "docid": "224782", "title": "", "text": "The optimal time period is unambiguously zero seconds. Put it all in immediately. Dollar cost averaging reduces the risk that you will be buying at a bad time (no one knows whether now is a bad or great time), but brings with it reduction in expected return because you will be keeping a lot of money in cash for a long time. You are reducing your risk and your expected return by dollar cost averaging. It's not crazy to trade expected returns for lower risk. People do it all the time. However, if you have a pot of money you intend to invest and you do so over a period of time, then you are changing your risk profile over time in a way that doesn't correspond to changes in your risk preferences. This is contrary to finance theory and is not optimal. The optimal percentage of your wealth invested in risky assets is proportional to your tolerance for risk and should not change over time unless that tolerance changes. Dollar cost averaging makes sense if you are setting aside some of your income each month to invest. In that case it is simply a way of being invested for as long as possible. Having a pile of money sitting around while you invest it little by little over time is a misuse of dollar-cost averaging. Bottom line: forcing dollar cost averaging on a pile of money you intend to invest is not based in sound finance theory. If you want to invest all that money, do so now. If you are too risk averse to put it all in, then decide how much you will invest, invest that much now, and keep the rest in a savings account indefinitely. Don't change your investment allocation proportion unless your risk aversion changes. There are many people on the internet and elsewhere who preach the gospel of dollar cost averaging, but their belief in it is not based on sound principles. It's just a dogma. The language of your question implies that you may be interested in sound principles, so I have given you the real answer." }, { "docid": "229354", "title": "", "text": "Nothing happens. A bank is a business; your relationship with the bank doesn't change because your visa or immigration status changes. Money held in the account is still held in the account. Interest paid on the account is still taxable. And so on. If the account is inactive long enough, abandoned account rules may apply, but that still has nothing to do with your status." } ]

[ { "docid": "57168", "title": "", "text": "You cannot have off-campus employment in your first year, but investments are considered passive income no matter how much time you put into that effort. Obviously you need to stay enrolled full-time and get good enough grades to stay in good standing academically, so you should be cautious about how much time you spend day trading. If the foreign market is also active in a separate time zone, that may help you not to miss class or otherwise divert your attention from your investment in your own education. I have no idea about your wealth, but it seems to me that completing your degree is more likely to build your wealth than your stock market trades, otherwise you would have stayed home and continued trading instead of attending school in another country." } ]

[ { "docid": "476834", "title": "", "text": "Like most other investment decisions - it depends. Specifically in this case it depends upon your view of the FX (Foreign Exchange) market over the next few years, and how sensitive you are to losses. As you correctly note, a hedge has a cost, so it detracts from your overall return. But given that you need to repatriate the investment eventually to US Dollars, you need to be aware of the fluctuations of the dollar versus other currencies. If you believe that over your time horizon, the US dollar will be worth the same as now or less, then you should not buy the hedge. If the dollar is the same - the choice is/was obvious. If you believe the US dollar will be weaker in the future, that means that when you repatriate back to US dollars, you will purchase more dollars with your foreign currency. If on the other hand, you believe the US Dollar will get stronger, then you should certainly lock in some kind of hedge. That way, when your foreign currency would have effectively bought fewer US, you will have made money on the hedge to make up the difference. If you choose not to hedge now, you can likely hedge that exposure at any time in the future, separate from the initial investment purchase buy buying/selling the appropriate FX instrument. Good Luck" }, { "docid": "5188", "title": "", "text": "Basically you have 4 options: Use your cash to pay off the student loans. Put your cash in an interest-bearing savings account. Invest your cash, for example in the stock market. Spend your cash on fun stuff you want right now. The more you can avoid #4 the better it will be for you in the long term. But you're apparently wise enough that that wasn't included as an option in your question. To decide between 1, 2, and 3, the key questions are: What interest are you paying on the loan versus what return could you get on savings or investment? How much risk are you willing to take? How much cash do you need to keep on hand for unexpected expenses? What are the tax implications? Basically, if you are paying 2% interest on a loan, and you can get 3% interest on a savings account, then it makes sense to put the cash in a savings account rather than pay off the loan. You'll make more on the interest from the savings account than you'll pay on interest on the loan. If the best return you can get on a savings account is less than 2%, then you are better off to pay off the loan. However, you probably want to keep some cash reserve in case your car breaks down or you have a sudden large medical bill, etc. How much cash you keep depends on your lifestyle and how much risk you are comfortable with. I don't know what country you live in. At least here in the U.S., a savings account is extremely safe: even the bank goes bankrupt your money should be insured. You can probably get a much better return on your money by investing in the stock market, but then your returns are not guaranteed. You may even lose money. Personally I don't have a savings account. I put all my savings into fairly safe stocks, because savings accounts around here tend to pay about 1%, which is hardly worth even bothering. You also should consider tax implications. If you're a new grad maybe your income is low enough that your tax rates are low and this is a minor factor. But if you are in, say, a 25% marginal tax bracket, then the effective interest rate on the student loan would be more like 1.5%. That is, if you pay $20 in interest, the government will then take 25% of that off your taxes, so it's the equivalent of paying $15 in interest. Similarly a place to put your money that gives non-taxable interest -- like municipal bonds -- gives a better real rate of return than something with the same nominal rate but where the interest is taxable." }, { "docid": "233687", "title": "", "text": "Okay, [it's not perfectly steady, but the upward trend is clear](http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&amp;s=8_NA_8DO_NUS_4&amp;f=A). I suspect the sharp drop at the start of 2006 was due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and the drop in 2010 was the recession really kicking in for the broader economy. &gt;This seems contrary to price trends of gasoline. I'm trying to understand it without automatically jumping to speculators on the commodities market. There's more to the price of gasoline than the amount of refinery capacity available. [Gasoline prices](http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&amp;s=EER_EPMRU_PF4_Y35NY_DPG&amp;f=D) mostly track [crude oil prices](http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&amp;s=RBRTE&amp;f=D). Crude oil is up because growth in demand is faster than growth in supply. No speculators needed." }, { "docid": "209826", "title": "", "text": "buying real estate is for people with sufficient financial resources to cover market downturns. Please read about the 2008 real estate market. Investing in real estate when you are a poor college student is a sure way to become a bankrupt college student. A single word answer to your question: No. Not reasonable. Your best investment is completing college with as little debt as possible and the most practical experience in the market area you are interested in entering." }, { "docid": "52149", "title": "", "text": "Inflows to the US equity market can come from a variety of sources; for instance: You were paid a year-end bonus and decided to invest it in US equities instead of foreign equities, bonds, savings or debt reduction. You sold foreign equities, bonds, or other non-US equities and decided to invest in US equities. You decided a better use of cash in a savings account, CD or money market fund, was to invest in US equities. If for every buyer, there's a seller, doesn't that also mean that there were $25B in outflows in the same time period? Not necessarily. Generally, the mentions we see of inflows and outflows are net; that is, the gross investment in US equities, minus gross sales of US equities equals net inflows or outflows. The mere fact that I sold my position in, say, Caterpillar, doesn't mean that I had to re-invest in US equities. I may have bought a bond or a CD or a house. Because of fluctuations in existing stocks market value, bankruptcies and new issues, US equities never are and never will be a zero-sum game." }, { "docid": "256035", "title": "", "text": "Investors who are themselves Canadian and already hold Canadian dollars (CAD) would be more likely to purchase the TSX-listed shares that are quoted in CAD, thus avoiding the currency exchange fees that would be required to buy USD-quoted shares listed on the NYSE. Assuming Shopify is only offering a single class of shares to the public in the IPO (and Shopify's form F-1 only mentions Class A subordinate voting shares as being offered) then the shares that will trade on the TSX and NYSE will be the same class, i.e. identical. Consequently, the primary difference will be the currency in which they are quoted and trade. This adds another dimension to possible arbitrage, where not only the bare price could deviate between exchanges, but also due to currency fluctuation. An additional implication for a company to maintain such a dual listing is that they'll need to adhere to the requirements of both the TSX and NYSE. While this may have a hard cost in terms of additional filing requirements etc., in theory they will benefit from the additional liquidity provided by having the multiple listings. Canadians, in particular, are more likely to invest in a Canadian company when it has a TSX listing quoted in CAD. Also, for a company listed on both the TSX and NYSE, I would expect the TSX listing would be more likely to yield inclusion in a significant market index—say, one based on market capitalization, and thus benefit the company by having its shares purchased by index ETFs and index mutual funds that track the index. I'll also remark that this dual U.S./Canadian exchange listing is not uncommon when it comes to Canadian companies that have significant business outside of Canada." }, { "docid": "124909", "title": "", "text": "I mean it hasn't really worked anywhere. You don't create wealth with socialism. Incentives are gone for any sort value creation. You're already looking backwards at 'peak civilization' once you've gone down the socialism path. Everything ahead is fighting over what's left. &gt;An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. The class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. &gt;After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little ... &gt;The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed." }, { "docid": "27484", "title": "", "text": "\"Two things you should consider about paying off student loans ahead of the 10 year amortization schedule: What interest rate are you paying on your loans? What are you earning on your investments in a balanced mutual fund? When you pay off your student loans you are essentially guaranteed a return of the interest rate on your loan (future interest you would have had to pay). However if you are investing well and getting a good return on your investments you will get a greater return. Ex. Half of my student loans are at 6.8%, thr other half are at 2.5%. I make the minimum payments on the loans at 2.5% and invest my money in tax sheltered retirement accounts. The return on these funds has been 8% and that is on per-tax dollars so really closer to 11%. Now there is also downside risk when you invest in the market, but 2.5% guaranteed I will forgoe for 11% in low risk return. However my loans at 6.8% I repay in excess of the minimums because 6.8% guaranteed return is pretty good! So this decision is based on your confidence in your investments and your own risk tolerance. Once you pay your bank on your student loans that money is gone, out of your control. If you need it in the future you may need to pay higher interest on an unsecured loan, or you may not be able to borrow it. When you want to make large purchases (a car, house) that money you per-paid on your loans isn't available to you as a down payment. Banks should want you to have some of your own \"\"skin in the game\"\" on these purchases and the lending standards keep getting tougher. You are better off if you have money saved in your name rather than against the balance on your loan. Yes you can't bankrupt these loans, but the money you repay on them doesn't go toward housing you or paying your bills on a rainy day. I went through the same feeling when I completed my MBA with $50k in debt, you want to pay it off as soon as possible. But you need to step away and realize that it was an investment in your future and your future is long, you need time to make a financial foundation for it. And you will feel a lot more empowered when you have money saved and you can make the decision for how you want to deploy it to work for you. (Ex. I could pay down my student loans with the balance I have in the bank, but I am going to use it to invest in myself and open my own business).\"" }, { "docid": "591529", "title": "", "text": "\"From your description, the taxes may have been withheld incorrectly. You were most likely a nonresident alien during your entire stay. \"\"Teachers and trainees\"\", which include anyone on J status who is not a student, are \"\"exempt individuals\"\" (exempt from the Substantial Presence Test) unless they have already been an exempt individual during any part of 2 of the prior 6 calendar years. So if you haven't been in the U.S. as an F-1, J-1, etc. for at least 6-7 years before you came on J-1 this time, the first two calendar years of your time on J-1 this time does not count towards the Substantial Presence Test. You said you were there for 18 months. That stretches over either 2 or 3 calendar years. The first two calendar years of it would be exempt from the SPT; even if it stretched into a third calendar year, an 18-month period could not stretch for more than 6 months into a 3rd calendar year; so even in that case you would still not meet the Substantial Presence Test for the 3rd year. Since you do not meet the Subtantial Presence Test during any of those years, you were a nonresident alien for all of those years (unless you decided to file jointly with a resident spouse or something). Nonresident aliens on J-1 are exempt from FICA taxes (Social Security tax and Medicare tax) for employment as a researcher that you were authorized to do on your J-1. They should not have withheld FICA taxes from you. You should have informed them at the beginning when you initially noticed that they did, because it is a huge pain to get it back afterwards. For FICA taxes withheld in error, you can first ask the employer to refund them; and, if that fails, get a written statement of their refusal and then file Form 843 and Form 8316 with the IRS. However, given that IRS is very underfunded these days, expect it to take a long time to hear back if you ever hear back.\"" }, { "docid": "248817", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "368938", "title": "", "text": "\"Answers: 1: No, Sections 1291-1298 of the IRC were passed in the Reagan adminstration. 2: Not only can a foreign company like a chocolate company fall afoul of the definition of PFIC because of the \"\"asset test\"\", which you cite, but it can also be called a PFIC because of the \"\"income test\"\". For example, I have shares in a development-stage Canadian biotech which is considered a PFIC because it has no income at all, except for a minor amount of bank interest on its working capital. This company is by no means \"\"passive\"\" (it has run 31 clinical trials in over 1100 human research subjects, burning $250M of investor's money in the process) nor is it an \"\"investment company\"\", but the stupid IRS considers it to be a \"\"passive foreign investment company\"\"! The IRS looks at it and sees only the bank account, and assumes it is a foreign shell corporation set up to shield the bank interest from them. 3: Yes, a foreign mutual fund is EXACTLY what congress intended to be a PFIC when passed IRC 1291-1298. (Biotechs, candy factories, ect got nailed as innocent bystanders.) Note that if you hold a US mutual fund then every year you'll get a form 1099 in the mail. The 1099 will report your share of the mutual fund's own income and capital gains, which you must report on your taxes. (You can also have capital gains from selling your shares of the mutual fund, but that's a different thing.) Now suppose that there was no PFIC law. Then the US investors in the mutual fund would do better if the mutual fund were in a foreign country, for two reasons: a) The fund would no longer distribute 1099's. That means the shareholders wouldn't have to pay tax every year on their proportions of the fund's own income/gains. The money that would have sooner gone to the IRS can sit around for years earning interest. b) The fund could return profits to shareholders exclusively through capital gains rather than dividends, thus ensuring that all of the investors' income on the fund would be taxed at <15%-20% rather than up to 39%. The fund could do this by returning cash to shareholders exclusively through buybacks. However, the US mutual fund industry doesn't want to move the industry to Canada, and it only takes a few newspaper articles about a foreign loophole to make congress spring to action. 4) It depends. If you have a PEDIGREED QEF election in place (as I do for my biotech shares) then form 8621 takes a few minutes by hand. However, this requires both the company and the investor to fully cooperate with congress's vision for PFICs. The company cooperates by providing a so-called \"\"PFIC annual information sheet\"\", which replaces the 1099 form for a US mutual fund. The investor cooperates by having a \"\"QEF election\"\" in place for EACH AND EVERY TAX YEAR in which he held the stock and by reporting the numbers from the PFIC annual information sheet on his return. (Note that the QEF election persists once made, until revoked. There are subtleties here that I am glossing over, since \"\"deemed sale\"\" elections and other means may be used to modify a share's holding period to come into compliance.) Note that there is software coming out to handle PFICs, and that the software makers will already run their software to make your form 8621 for $75 or so. I should also warn you that the blogs of tax accountants and tax lawyers all contradict each other on the basic issue of whether you can take capital losses on PFICs for which you have no form 8621 elections. (See section 2.3 of my notes http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr for commentary on this mess.) I do not know if the software people will tell you which elections are best made on form 8621, though, or advise you if it's time to simply dump your investment. The professional software is at 8621.com, and the individual 8621 preparation is at http://expattaxtools.com/?page_id=242. BTW, in case you're interested, I wrote up a very careful analysis of how to deal with the PFIC situation for the small biotech I invested in in certain cases. It is posted http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr. (For tax reasons it was quite fortunate that the share price dipped to near an all-time low on Jan 1, 2015, making the (next) 2015 tax year ripe for a so-called \"\"deemed sale\"\" election. This was only possible because the company provides the necessary \"\"PFIC annual information statements\"\", which your chocolate factory may or may not do.)\"" }, { "docid": "412226", "title": "", "text": "There are no legal reasons preventing you from trading as a F-1 visa holder, as noted in this Money.SE answer. Per this article, here are the things you need to set up an account: What do I need to have for doing Stock trading as F1 student ? Typically, most of the stock brokerage firms require Social Security Number (SSN) for stock trading. The reason is that, for your capital gains, it is required by IRS for tax purposes. If you work on campus, then you would already get SSN as part of the job application process…Typically, once you get the on-campus job or work authorization using CPT or OPT , you use that offer letter and take all your current documents like Passport, I-20, I-94 and apply for SSN at Social Security Administration(SSA) Office, check full details at SSA Website . SSN is typically used to report job wages by employer for tax purposes or check eligibility of benefits to IRS/Government. I do NOT have SSN, Can I still do stock trading as F1 student ? While many stock brokerage firms require SSN, you are not out of luck, if you do not have one…you will have to apply for an ITIN Number ( Individual Taxpayer Identification Number ) and can use the same when applying for stock brokerage account. While some of the firms accept ITIN number, it totally depends on the stock brokering firm and you need to check with the one that you are interested in. The key thing is that you'll need either a SSN or ITIN to open a US-based brokerage account." }, { "docid": "114520", "title": "", "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.\"" }, { "docid": "246335", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://news.bitcoin.com/britain-largest-broker-exchange-traded-bitcoin-investments/) reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; On Thursday, June 1, two bitcoin investments were added to Hargreaves Lansdown&amp;#039;s platform; Bitcoin Tracker One and Bitcoin Tracker Eur. &gt; The foreign exchange rate risk for Bitcoin Tracker One is USD/SEK whereas it is USD/EUR for Bitcoin Tracker Eur. &gt; While the certificates are denominated in SEK and EUR, they track the price of bitcoin in USD. &amp;quot;As the BTC/USD market is the most liquid bitcoin market widely available for trading, we regard it as the most suitable underlying asset in a bitcoin product,&amp;quot; the company explained. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ewbj3/britains_largest_broker_offers_exchangetraded/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~135054 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*: **bitcoin**^#1 **accounts**^#2 **Hargreaves**^#3 **Lansdown**^#4 **track**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "23116", "title": "", "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.\"" }, { "docid": "253912", "title": "", "text": "I believe that it's largely irrational, fueled largely by foreign investors that are afraid to invest anywhere else. There are a few people out there right now who are writing about this: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-treasuries-largest-bubble-in-world-history-says-nia-2011-08-30 http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-08-25/markets/30080511_1_fed-first-yields-mbs As to why would you invest in long-dated versus short? Probably to chase yield. The 30 year yields 30x more than the 1 year. It's also easier to buy on the long end if you believe that the economy will remain slow for another decade or two and therefore the central banks will keep rates low for a very long time. Of course, at the moment, long-dated treasury prices are artificially high because of operation twist." }, { "docid": "567331", "title": "", "text": "1. One United States Air Force (USAF) B-2 Spirit stealth bomber over Colorado, United States of America (USA), on 9 May 2012: [4288 x 2848 pixels](http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-200905-UnitedStatesAirForce-120509-F-VV395-106-clouds-B-2-Spirit-stealth-bomber-Colorado-20120509-huge.jpg) Source + More High-Resolution Photos: #54 at http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-200905.htm 2. Two USAF B-2 Spirit stealth bombers over Kansas, USA, on 9 September 2011: [3502 x 2110 pixels](http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-200905-UnitedStatesAirForce-110909-F-QH266-265-clouds-two-B-2-Spirit-stealth-bombers-Kansas-20110909-huge.jpg) Source: #50 at http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-200905.htm 3. One U.S. Air Force B-52 Stratofortress bomber leading U.S. fighter jets as they fly over the USS Nimitz (CVN 68), USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63), and USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) carrier strike groups on 14 August 2007 during Exercise Valiant Shield 2007 in the Pacific Ocean, off the coast of Territory of Guam, USA: [3227 x 1863 pixels](http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-20060917-UnitedStatesNavy-070814-N-6009S-001-fighter-jets-B-52-Stratofortress-aircraft-carrier-strike-groups-Pacific-Ocean-Guam-20070814-large.jpg) Source: #32 at http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-20060917.htm 4. A transonic U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer bomber in Southwest Asia on 16 January 2004: http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-20041216.htm and http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-20041217.htm Source: http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-The-Spectacular-Clouds-of-the-Transonic-Flight-Regime.htm 5. Three United States Air Force long-range, strategic, heavy bombers -- B-52 Stratofortress, B-1B Lancer, B-2 Spirit -- over Guam, USA, on 17 August 2016: [3000 x 1554 pixels](https://media.defense.gov/2016/Aug/17/2001607062/-1/-1/0/160817-F-UA699-357.JPG) Source: http://www.pacaf.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/916815/b-52-b-1-b-2s-participate-in-first-integrated-bomber-operation-in-uspacom-aor/" }, { "docid": "572069", "title": "", "text": "Efficient Frontier has an article from years ago about the small-cap and value premiums out there that would be worth noting here using the Fama and French data. Eugene Fama and Kenneth French (F/F) have shown that one can explain almost all of the returns of equity portfolios based on only three factors: market exposure, market capitalization (size), and price-to-book (value). Wikipedia link to the factor model which was the result of the F/F research." }, { "docid": "502170", "title": "", "text": "\"Since you already have an emergency fund in place, focus your extra funds on paying off debts like student loans. While some have advised you to play the stock market, not one person has mentioned the word \"\"risk\"\". You are gambling (\"\"investing\"\") your money in the hopes your money will grow. Your student loan is real liability. The longer you keep the loan, the more interest you will pay. You can pay off your student loan in 21 months if you pay $1,100 each month. After the 21 months, you can almost fully fund a 401(k) each year. That will be amazing at your age. Our company gives us the Vanguard Retirement Fund with a low expense ratio of 0.19%. It is passive automated investing where you don't have to think about it. Just add money and just let it ride.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "113585", "title": "", "text": "The operating margin deals with the ability for a company to make a profit above the costs of running the company and generating sales. While ROE is how much money the company makes relative to the shareholders equity. I'd be willing to bet that if a company has a small ROE then it also has a quite large P/E (price to earnings) ratio. This would be caused by the company's stock being bid up in relation to its earnings and may not necessarily be a bad thing. People expect the high operating margin to help drive increased revenues in the future, and are willing to pay a higher price now for when that day comes." } ]

[ { "docid": "251667", "title": "", "text": "\"Kid, you need to start thinking in thresholds. There are several monetary thresholds that separate your class from a more well funded class. 1) You cannot use margin with less than $2000 dollars Brokers require that you have at least $2000 before they will lend to you 2) In 2010, Congress banned under 21 year olds from getting access to credit. UNLESS they get cosigned. This means that even if you have $2000, no broker will give you margin unless you have a (good) credit history already. There was a good reason for this, but its based on the assumption that everyone is stupid, not the assumption that some people are objective thinkers. 3) The brokers that will open an account for you have high commissions. The commissions are so high that it will destroy any capital gains you may make with your $1000. For the most part. 4) The pattern day trader rule. You cannot employ sophisticated risk management while being subject to the pattern day trader rule. It basically limits you from trading 3 times a day (its more complicated than that read it yourself) if you have less than $25,000 in one account. 5) Non-trade or stock related investments: Buy municipal or treasury bonds. They will give you more than a savings account would, and municipals are tax free. This isn't exactly what I would call liquid though - ie. if you wanted to access your money to invest in something else on a whim. 6) What are you studying? If its anything technical then you might get a good idea that you could risk your money on to create value. But I would stick to high growth stocks before blowing your $1000 on an idea. Thats not exactly what I would call \"\"access to capital\"\". 7) Arbitrage. Lets say you know a friend that buys the trendy collectors shoes at discount and sells them for a profit. He might do this with one $200 pair of tennis shoes, and then use the $60 profit different to go buy video games for himself. If he wanted to scale up, he couldn't because he never has more than $200 to play with. In comparison, you could do 5 pairs ($200 x 5) and immediately have a larger operation than him, making a larger profit ($60 x 5 = $300, now you have $1300 and could do it again with 6 pairs to make an even great er profit) not because you are better or worked at it, but solely because you have more capital to start with. Keep an eye out for arbitrage opportunities, usually there is a good reason they exist if you notice it: the market is too small and illiquid to scale up with, or the entire market will be saturated the next day. (Efficient Market Theory, learn about it) 8) Take everything I just taught you, and make a \"\"small investor newsletter\"\" website with subscribers. Online sites have low overhead costs.\"" }, { "docid": "403318", "title": "", "text": "&gt; I feel the same way about your arguments, but I still try to respond to the content of your arguments rather than my assumptions about them. You're right, I went ad hominem. Apologies. &gt; Then I guess we have fundamentally different ideas about what is freedom and what is not. You seem to think that forcing someone to negotiate with a party, against their will, is not a violation of any of their rights. We have the same goal, and that's to have a society that results the maximum quality of life for the most amount of people. However, being a pragmatist, this is where I usually fail to find common ground with the libertarian view point. What should be a right and what should be restricted by law is totally subjective. So since any law can be seen as a violation of someone's rights, the argument that a law is wrong simply because it does so is invalid. To me a demonstration that the benefits outweigh the costs is a more powerful argument, though it should probably be shown that there is a significant margin between the two, otherwise I'd have to air on the side of individual rights. We don't have the right to advertise sugar pills as a cure for cancer, we don't have the right to drive our cars after 10 beers, we don't the right to sit on a park bench and start masturbating...we don't have these rights because the cost to our society is greater than the benefits (maybe these aren't the greatest examples but you get the idea). So as for making an employer send a couple representatives to a bargaining table being a violation of their rights, yes it is, but this is such a small cost compared to the benefit of diminishing the chance of work stoppages that have a rippling effect on the economy and the resulting unrest created when people feel like they have no hope [(read the introduction to the NLRA)](https://www.nlrb.gov/national-labor-relations-act) I'd also argue that the NLRA protects more rights than it takes away - mainly the rights of free association and speech. I could raise the issues of unions contributing to a more democratic and socially just society, but I'm guessing that'd fall on deaf ears. In general though, I think you give the idea of a union too much credit. Do you know how hard it is to get colleagues to start seeing one another as having shared interests? It ain't easy, that's for sure. &gt; The solution is to let the process of economic development run its course until child labor is not necessary. You may very well be right about this, but a child working a mundane job instead of building their mind, diminishes the life of one not strong enough yet to determine their own course, is just so terribly wrong. So I just have a hard time accepting this, especially living in a world where there is such with such a huge wealth disparity. &gt; A union is not a self-interested party. A union represents self-interested parties, who are not directly affected by the destruction of their industry 30 years into the future, since they would have retired by then. Unions are generally made up of the socially conscious type - no one gets into organizing for the money. I can't say for certain if this challenges your point, however I don't exactly see the difference between the unionist who is going to retire and the CEO is going to retire and the shareholders who can pull out when put their money elsewhere when it suits them. &gt; Many of the laws and union-backed agreements that ended up destroying many of America's industries took decades to have their full effect. It wasn't a case of a law being passed, and the next year, the industry going bankrupt. Examples needed where the industries were actually bankrupted, not just moved overseas to increase profits because workers will settle for less. &gt; Why should employers pay out the most they can afford, and why should laws be passed to force employers to do so? The only reason people invest is to profit. If all profits had to be paid to employees, there would be no incentive to invest, and therefore no increase in capital/productivity. I never said that employers should be paying out all they can afford, and you setting up this straw man only reiterates my point that these discussions with libertarian types all too often come down to this zero-sum game, where an increase in working conditions will trigger bankruptcy, which I think stems from a belief that supply-side economics is keeping standards the highest they can possibly be. If a company has an operating income of $1 bil, what is giving a 5% pay raise to workers going to do, except make that operating income slightly less? I suppose it'd be better if that money were invested back into the company...but wait, aren't people a resource to invest in? And one that offers a high rate of return? Take the the lock-out of ConEd workers in NYC for example: ConEd's profits were over 2 billion when their previous contract was signed, and a few years later when their contract expired the profits were still that high. What did ConEd do? They came to the table with an offer that slashed their benefits tremendously, and locked-out all the workers when the union rejected it. How can the case be made that ConEd couldn't afford to give workers what they already had? Has their value all of a sudden dropped? I don't think so. This is just greed, and doesn't contribute to a healthy society." }, { "docid": "68027", "title": "", "text": "Perfect competition would not be the outcome you want from this model, nor does it imply what you posit. It implies that there will be infinitely many firms, with free entry/exit, making zero profits. Bonds would then become a reason for exit if you had heterogeneous firms (but in perfect competition this is unlikely). In fact in equilibrium no would (probably) issue bonds. What it seems like you want is some sort of structured oligopoly, or a regulated cartel separated into regions. This might generate the bond market you have in mind, but it still does not take into account the relative risk of the bonds." }, { "docid": "391063", "title": "", "text": "A change in implied volatility tells us something about what investors are thinking (or fearing) about the volatility going forward for the life of the associated option contracts (which may be short or long-lived). IV does a good job of summarizing the information available to investors, which includes information about the past and the present. However, whether these investor views actually translate into what happens in the future is a topic of debate in the finance literature--investors do not generally know the future--there are conflicting results available. There have been papers that show that implied volatility has predictive power in some situations, time periods, and horizons (though it is also biased) and other papers that show that it does not have statistically significant predictive power at all. The consensus last time I checked was that implied volatility is no worse than historical volatility (including methods that use trends in historical volatility to forecast where it is going) at predicting future volatility. Whether it is significantly better and whether either reliably predicts the future is something that is not agreed on. I take this lack of consensus as evidence that if it does predict future volatility, it does so poorly. Somewhat dated FAJ survey on the subject" }, { "docid": "61853", "title": "", "text": "\"But what happen if the stock price went high and then go down near expiry date? When you hold a short (sold) call option position that has an underlying price that is increasing, what will happen (in general) is that your net margin requirements will increase day by day. Thus, you will be required to put up more money as margin to finance your position. Margin money is simply a \"\"good faith\"\" deposit held by your broker. It is not money that is debited as cash from the accounting ledger of your trading account, but is held by your broker to cover any potential losses that may arise when you finally settle you position. Conversely, when the underlying share price is decreasing, the net margin requirements will tend to decrease day by day. (Net margin is the net of \"\"Initial Margin\"\" and \"\"Variation Margin\"\".) As the expiry date approaches, the \"\"time value\"\" component of the option price will be decreasing.\"" }, { "docid": "95890", "title": "", "text": "\"The answer to your question depends on what you mean when you say \"\"growth\"\". If you mean a literal increase in the aggregate market capitalization of companies, across the entire market, then, no, this sort of growth is not possible without concomitant economic growth. The reason why is that the market capitalization of each company is proportional to its gross revenue, and the sum of all revenue from selling \"\"final goods\"\" (i.e., things purchased and used by consumers) is, apart from a few technicalities, the definition of GDP. The exact multiplier might fluctuate up or down depending on investors' expectations about how sales will grow or decline going forward, but in a zero-growth economy this multiplier should be stable over the long run. It might, however, still fluctuate over the short term, but more about that in a minute. Note that all of this applies to aggregate growth across all firms. Individual firms can still grow, of course, but as they must do this by gaining market share from other companies such growth would be balanced by a decline for some other firm. Also, I've assumed zero net exports (that's one of the \"\"technicalities\"\" I mentioned above) because obviously you could have export-driven growth even if the domestic economy were stationary. However, often when people talk about \"\"growth\"\" in the market, what they really mean is \"\"return\"\". That is, how much does your investment earn for you. This isn't really the same thing as growth, but people often think of it that way, particularly in the saving phase of their investing career, when they are reinvesting their returns, and therefore their account balances are growing. It is possible to have a positive return, averaged across the market, even in a stationary economy. The reason why is that there are really only two things a firm can do with its net profits. One possibility is that it could invest it in growing the business. However, there is not much point in doing that in a stationary economy because by assumption no increase in aggregate consumption (and therefore, in the long run, aggregate production) are possible. Therefore, firms are left with only the second option, which is to pay them out to investors as dividends. Those dividends provide a return that is independent of economic growth. Would the stock market still be a good investment in such an economy? Yes. Well, sort of. The rate of return from firms' dividend payouts will depend on investors' demand (in aggregate) for returns on their investments. Stock prices will rise or fall, causing returns to respectively fall or rise, to find that level. If your personal desire for returns is lower than the average across the investing public, then the stock market would look like a good investment. If your desired return is higher than the average, then it will look like a poor investment. The marginal investor will, of course be indifferent. The practical upshot of this is that the people who invest in the stock market in this scenario will be precisely the ones for whom the stock market is a good investment, given their personal propensity to save and desire for returns, and so forth. Finally, you mentioned that in your scenario the GDP stagnation is due to declining population. I am less certain what this means for investment, but my first thought is that you would have a large retired population selling its investments to fund late-life consumption, and you would have a comparatively small (relative to history) working population buying those assets. This would lead to low asset prices, and therefore high rates of return. However, that's assuming that retirees need to sell assets to fund their retirement consumption. If the absolute returns on retirees' assets are large enough to fund their retirement consumption then you would wind up with relatively few sellers, resulting in high prices and therefore relatively low rates of return. It's not obvious to me which effect would dominate, and so it's hard to say whether or not the resulting returns would look attractive to the working-age population.\"" }, { "docid": "466835", "title": "", "text": "\"This is several questions wrapped together: How can I diplomatically see the company's financial information? How strong a claim does a stockholder or warrantholder have to see the company's financials? What information do I need to know about the company financials before deciding to buy in? I'll start with the easier second question (which is quasi implicit). Stockholders typically have inspection rights. For example, Delaware General Corporate Law § 220 gives stockholders the right to inspect and copy company financial information, subject to certain restrictions. Check the laws and corporate code of your company's state of incorporation to find the specific inspection right. If it is an LLC or partnership, then the operating agreement usually controls and there may be no inspection rights. If you have no corporate stock, then of course you have no statutory inspection rights. My (admittedly incomplete) understanding is that warrantholders generally have no inspection rights unless somehow contracted for. So if you vest as a corporate stockholder, it'll be your right to see the financials—which may make even a small purchase valuable to you as a continuing employee with the right to see the financials. Until then, this is probably a courtesy and not their obligation. The first question is not easy to answer, except to say that it's variable and highly personal for small companies. Some people interpret it as prying or accusatory, the implication being that the founders are either hiding something or that you need to examine really closely the mouth of their beautiful gift horse. Other people may be much cooler about the question, understanding that small companies are risky and you're being methodical. And in some smaller companies, they may believe giving you the expenses could make office life awkward. If you approach it professionally, directly, and briefly (do not over-explain yourself) with the responsible accountant or HR person (if any), then I imagine it should not be a problem for them to give some information. Conversely, you may feel comfortable enough to review a high-level summary sheet with a founder, or to find some other way of tactfully reviewing the right information. In any case, I would keep the request vague, simple, and direct, and see what information they show you. If your request is too specific, then you risk pushing them to show information A, which they refuse to do, but a vague request would've prompted them to show you information B. A too-specific request might get you information X when a vague request could have garnered XYZ. Vague requests are also less aggressive and may raise fewer objections. The third question is difficult to say. My personal understanding is some perspective of how venture capitalists look at the investment opportunity (you didn't say how new this startup is or what series/stage they are on, so I'll try to stay vague). The actual financials are less relevant for startups than they are for other investments because the situation will definitely change. Most venture capital firms like to look at the burn rate or amount of cash spent, usually at a monthly rate. A high burn rate relative to infusions of cash suggests the company is growing rapidly but may have a risk of toppling (i.e. failing before exit). Burn rate can change drastically during the early life of the startup. Of course burn rate needs the context of revenues and reserves (and latest valuation is helpful as a benchmark, but you may be able to calculate that from the restricted share offer made to you). High burn rate might not be bad, if the company is booming along towards a successful exit. You might also want to look at some sort of business plan or info sheet, rather than financials alone. You want to gauge the size of the market (most startups like to claim 9- or 10-figure markets, so even a few percentage points of market share will hit revenue into the 8-figures). You'll also have to have a sense for the business plan and model and whether it's a good investment or a ridiculous rehash (\"\"it's Twitter for dogs meets Match.com for Russian Orthodox singles!\"\"). In other words, appraise it like an investor or VC and figure out whether it's a prospect for decent return. Typical things like competition, customer acquisition costs, manufacturing costs are relevant depending on the type of business activity. Of course, I wouldn't ignore psychology (note that economists and finance people don't generally condone the following sort of emotional thinking). If you don't invest in the company and it goes big, you'll kick yourself. If it goes really big, other people will either assume you are rich or feel sad for you if you say you didn't get rich. If you invest but lose money, it may not be so painful as not investing and losing out the opportunity. So if you consider the emotional aspect of personal finance, it may be wise to invest at least a little, and hedge against \"\"woulda-shoulda\"\" syndrome. That's more like emotional advice than hard-nosed financial advice. So much of the answer really depends on your particular circumstances. Obviously you have other considerations like whether you can afford the investment, which will be on you to decide. And of course, the § 83(b) election is almost always recommended in these situations (which seems to be what you are saying) to convert ordinary income into capital gain. You may also need cash to pay any up-front taxes on the § 83(b) equity, depending on your circumstances.\"" }, { "docid": "330299", "title": "", "text": "I would say the most challenging fact for this assertion is that HFT firms operate with extremely limited capital bases. For a stock with say 10m shares ADV, even a very large and successful HFT strategy might use a position limit of no more than 5000 shares. That is to say if you sum up and net the buys and sells for a stock across the day the HFT firm will never exceed 10,000 shares (2x position limits assuming it completely flipped) on a stock that trades 10,000,000 shares on a given day. The high volumes are attained through high turnover, the strategy might trade up to 500,000 shares (or 5% of the volume) attaining a 50x turnover. But that brings me back to the original point. In the market microstructure literature market impact generally has been found to scale linearly or even sub-linearly for net volume executed. If I alternate between thousands of 1 lot buy and sell orders, it would be very difficult for me to move the market because the market impact of every one of my buy orders roughly cancels the market impact of my almost exactly equal number of sell orders. There might be a higher-order mechanism at work, but I'm genuinely curious what you think it might be. How could strategies that attain such small net positions have such out-sized impact on market direction?" }, { "docid": "125893", "title": "", "text": "&gt;It depletes the assets of the bank. Let's be realistic - no, it does not. It's a marginal cost that is passed on to their customers. So, it harms the public. &gt;They should be breaking into investment banks and destroying their computers, which are actually essential to financial operations and worth large sums to replace per-unit. The costs of which will be passed on to customers. &gt;That is, they believe in direct action (violent Making them no better than statists, when they inflict violence. And often on innocent people, like the customers of the bank who get to pay higher fees. &gt;The tendency to not give a shit about their image is a fault of theirs, but only in the sense that we Jews are also at fault for not giving a shit about our image: it's not like it would help. Image is EVERYTHING - it's the only thing that supports the existing murderous regime. And that's exactly what anarchists don't get." }, { "docid": "17488", "title": "", "text": "Absolutely. The overhead for a product based business like that is particularly high. Service based businesses tend to have much better profit margins. But if she was running a plant nursery she has to pay huge heating costs, renting the area she operates in, not to mention inventory and employees. That $300k vanishes pretty fast. This article talking about disappearing middle class is a bad argument. This sounds much more about how the recession hurts a small business. Assuming of course it is the recession. I know a coffee shop near me that isn't doing that great and says the economy is hurting them bad. They apparently don't realize that being blatantly rude to their customers drives them away. There are often other sides to the story besides the economy, whether the fault of the business owner or some other factor outside their control that may not be covered in these kinds of posts." }, { "docid": "355158", "title": "", "text": "\"Expanding like crazy compared to what? Apple? You mean the company that has maintained a 25% operating margin while growing top line by 160% since 2010? No company has EVER had a market cap of $1T, let alone maintained it. What is your point? All you're talking about is relative price and \"\"history\"\" which has little to no bearing on what is going to happen in the future. I see no indication of any argument related to the actual valuation of Apple stock. It is still, at $650B, pretty reasonably valued considering the facts, e.g., ability to generate cash, maintain margins, grow revenues, and for management to make sound financial moves, i.e., return $ to shareholders. You come off extremely condescending yet you seem not to have much of an understanding in regards to what dictates stock price over the long term.\"" }, { "docid": "346389", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "133833", "title": "", "text": "\"In absence of complete information, I can only speculate that your phrases We both endorsed the cheque, and especially since the name on the cheque doesn't seem to be the name of the person I spoke with. mean that the check was payable to Jane Doe but was endorsed by someone you know as Wade Roe using language such as \"\"Pay to the order of user6344\"\" and then you endorsed it as something like \"\"For deposit only to Acct# 1234567890\"\" and gave it to the bank teller with a deposit slip for Acct# 1234567890. Presumably Wade Roe did not accompany you to the bank and the bank teller did not notice that the check was not endorsed to you by Jane Doe, or she did go with you to the bank but the teller did not check her ID when she endorsed the check. In any case, you, as a customer of the bank, are definitely on the hook in the sense that you in effect guaranteed the validity of Wade Roe's endorsement of the check payable to Jane Doe. You presented the check to the bank as a legitimate check that you were legitimately entitled to deposit in your account. In effect, if fraud was committed, you committed the fraud by depositing a bum check. As all the other answers have said, you need to go down to the bank and talk to a bank officer, preferably the manager, right away. Don't go to a teller (even though in many banks, the tellers have job titles like assistant vice-president.\"" }, { "docid": "552281", "title": "", "text": "\"P/E is a pretty poor way to value the company as it exists today. The company generates free cash flow yield of 2.5-3.3% which isn't remarkably high, but it's not nearly as bad as the earnings yield of 1.1%. But let's operate within the P/E ratio for right now. The company sells $40 billion of \"\"stuff\"\" each year with a net margin of 2%. If they increased prices on every product by 1% (which really wouldn't be _that_ noticeable) their profit would grow 50%. Thus, P/E drops from 90 to 60. SGA expenses equal ~20% of their operating costs. Cut 5% of SGA and you get the same 1% increase in net margin. This could come from cost-cutting today, or by greater economies of scale in the future while keeping prices the same. So, yes, it's priced as a growth firm, but it doesn't necessarily need customer growth in the traditional sense to be fairly-valued.\"" }, { "docid": "332529", "title": "", "text": "Well, you could get long kw/hr to effectively lock in your high rate, but not suffer from anymore shocks. You could also (and this is what I would do) get short and activate change through a legal pursuit. So, get short your light bill via kilowatt hour swaps, and hedge your downside with some longer-dated swaptions. I'm looking at the implied vol for these swaptions on my bloomberg -- it's looking surprisingly cheap. As far as position sizing, we're looking at some notionals of about $200/month. A pretty large sum. Look into getting leverage through total return swaps or repo financing. Does that help?" }, { "docid": "305770", "title": "", "text": "Options can have a negligible time premium. For American1 calls the time premium is never negative. If it had a negative premium it would be profitable to exercise it immediately. A deep in the money call has a delta of exactly one. That is, it's price movements completely mirror the price movements of the underlying stock. That means an option seller can buy stock and completely hedge his short option position. The seller of the option may be in an position to buy with very little margin and take your money and invest it. For example, consider a stock trading at $7.50, with its January 2014 $4 call option trading at $3.50. For one option, representing 100 shares, a trader could take your 350 dollars and invest it, and only use a small portion of the money to buy the stock on margin. Market-makers can typically borrow money at very low interest rates. If you have high borrowing costs, or are unable to buy on margin, then buying deep in the money calls can be a good strategy. Long story short, option sellers are making money off selling these deep in the money calls even with almost zero time premium. So, in general, there's no way to make money by buying them. 1. An American call is a call that can be exercised at any time up to and including its expiration date." }, { "docid": "203485", "title": "", "text": "\"Congrats you pulled some irrelevant statistics. No where in your response does it verify your claim that the majority of small businesses aren't turning a profit. And many small businesses do have a multiple stakeholders. Since we are on the subject, do you know how large a company can be and still be classified as a small business? [It is 500, 1,000, or 1,500 employees depending on the industry.] (https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevecooper/2012/09/20/the-government-definition-of-small-business-is-b-s/#58848cee360a) Five-hundred employees is not exactly small. Oh by the way, I've worked for multiple small businesses under 100 employees and they've had owners, stakeholders, investors, a board of directors, etc. on top of all of the employees. Not every small business is some mom and pop company of 5-15 employees. &gt;Then put your money where your mouth is and get out there and create some jobs. Hahaha. This has nothing to do with the discussion but whatever dude. If we were both to start our own companies, I'd actually value my workers and you would just complain about labor costs of the people that are needed to run your business. Here is the thing, I don't consider creating minimum wage jobs as true job creation, [because the tax payer is still footing the bill if the company isn't paying a live-able wage.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/14/when-work-isnt-enough-to-keep-you-off-welfare-and-food-stamps/) The majority of people on welfare are working families (see same link), so what good is job creation of minimum wage positions if the people that work them still have to rely on the government? Think about this, if we were to remove the minimum wage and I could pay someone $1 and hour, I could \"\"create jobs.\"\" But we all know that is asinine because no one could live on that. Yet the same thing happens at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 and people like you don't see that there is no difference between the two examples. In both scenarios, people still don't make enough to live without some assistance.\"" }, { "docid": "340125", "title": "", "text": "\"Sorry but you already provided the answer to your own question. The simple answer is to 'not day trade' but hold things for a longer period and don't trade a large number of different stocks every week. Seriously, have a look at the rules and see what it implies.. an average of 20 buys and sells of longer term positions PER DAY is a pretty fair bit of trading, that's really churning through the positions compared to someone who might establish positions with say 25 well picked stocks and might change even 5 of those a week to a different stock. Or even a larger number of stocks but seeking to hold them for over a year so you get taxed at the long term cap gains rate. If you want to day trade, be prepared to be labeled as such and deal with your broker on that basis. Not like they will hate you given all the fees you are likely to rack up. And the government will love you also, since you'll be paying short term gains taxes. (and trust me, us bogelheads appreciate the liquidity the speculative and short term folks bring to the market.) In terms of how it would impact you, Expect to be required to have a fairly substantial balance ($25K) if you are maintaining a margin account. I'd suggest reading this thread My account's been labeled as \"\"day trader\"\" and I got a big margin call. What should I do? What trades can I place in the blocked period?\"" }, { "docid": "123263", "title": "", "text": "\"If you are looking for numerical metrics I think the following are popular: Price/Earnings (P/E) - You mentioned this very popular one in your question. There are different P/E ratios - forward (essentially an estimate of future earnings by management), trailing, etc.. I think of the P/E as a quick way to grade a company's income statement (i.e: How much does the stock cost verusus the amount of earnings being generated on a per share basis?). Some caution must be taken when looking at the P/E ratio. Earnings can be \"\"massaged\"\" by the company. Revenue can be moved between quarters, assets can be depreciated at different rates, residual value of assets can be adjusted, etc.. Knowing this, the P/E ratio alone doesn't help me determine whether or not a stock is cheap. In general, I think an affordable stock is one whose P/E is under 15. Price/Book - I look at the Price/Book as a quick way to grade a company's balance sheet. The book value of a company is the amount of cash that would be left if everything the company owned was sold and all debts paid (i.e. the company's net worth). The cash is then divided amoung the outstanding shares and the Price/Book can be computed. If a company had a price/book under 1.0 then theoretically you could purchase the stock, the company could be liquidated, and you would end up with more money then what you paid for the stock. This ratio attempts to answer: \"\"How much does the stock cost based on the net worth of the company?\"\" Again, this ratio can be \"\"massaged\"\" by the company. Asset values have to be estimated based on current market values (think about trying to determine how much a company's building is worth) unless, of course, mark-to-market is suspended. This involves some estimating. Again, I don't use this value alone in determing whether or not a stock is cheap. I consider a price/book value under 10 a good number. Cash - I look at growth in the cash balance of a company as a way to grade a company's cash flow statement. Is the cash account growing or not? As they say, \"\"Cash is King\"\". This is one measurement that can not be \"\"massaged\"\" which is why I like it. The P/E and Price/Book can be \"\"tuned\"\" but in the end the company cannot hide a shrinking cash balance. Return Ratios - Return on Equity is a measure of the amount of earnings being generated for a given amount of equity (ROE = earnings/(assets - liabilities)). This attempts to measure how effective the company is at generating earnings with a given amount of equity. There is also Return on Assets which measures earnings returns based on the company's assets. I tend to think an ROE over 15% is a good number. These measurements rely on a company accurately reporting its financial condition. Remember, in the US companies are allowed to falsify accounting reports if approved by the government so be careful. There are others who simply don't follow the rules and report whatever numbers they like without penalty. There are many others. These are just a few of the more popular ones. There are many other considerations to take into account as other posters have pointed out.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "66858", "title": "", "text": "\"Long-term capital gains, which is often the main element of investment income for investors who are not high-frequency day traders, are taxed at a single rate that is often substantially below the marginal rate they would otherwise be taxed at, particularly for wealthy individuals. There are a few rationales behind this treatment; the two most common are that the government wants to encourage long-term investments (as opposed to short-term speculation), and that capital gains are a kind of double taxation (from one point of view) as they are coming from income that has already been taxed once before (as wage or ordinary income). The latter in particular is highly controversial, but this is one of the more divisive political issues in the taxation front - one party would eliminate the tax entirely, the other would eliminate the difference. For most individuals, the majority of their long-term capital gains are taxed at 15% up to almost half of a million dollars total AGI, which is a fairly low rate - it's equivalent to the rate a taxpayer would pay on up to $37,000 in wage income (after deductions/exemptions/etc.). You can see from this table in Wikipedia that it is much preferred to pay long-term capital gains rates when possible - at every point it's at least 10% lower than the tax rate for ordinary income. Ordinary income includes wages and many other sources of income - basically, anything that is not long term capital gains. Wage income is taxed at this rate, and also subject to some non-income-tax taxes (FICA and Medicare in particular); other sources of ordinary income are not subject to those taxes (including IRA income). Short term capital gains are generally included in this bucket. Qualified Dividends are treated similarly to long-term capital gains (as they are of a similar nature), and taxed accordingly. The \"\"Net Investment Tax\"\" is basically applying the Medicare tax to investment income for higher-income taxpayers ($125k single, $250k joint). It's on top of capital gains rates for them. It came about through the Affordable Care Act, and is one of the first provisions likely to be repealed by the new Congress (as it can be repealed through the budgeting provision). It seems likely that 2017 taxes will not contain this provision.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "559618", "title": "", "text": "\"Somehow I just stumbled onto this thread... &gt; You essentially robbed the person holding the debt (since you promised to pay it off). Depends on leverage, with fractional reserve lending. Banks are permitted to loan out 30x their actual assets, or more. If I have $1 but can loan out $30, and anything more than $1 gets paid back, I haven't lost any money. In addition, I can write off the amount defaulted, *and the government will pay me back* for certain types of loans. With student loans, since they are almost impossible to discharge, gov't will pursue the borrower for years and decades, and ultimately collect more interest. Here is an article on it: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704723104576061953842079760.html &gt; According to Kantrowitz, the government stands to earn $2,010.44 more in interest from a $10,000 loan that defaulted than if it had been paid in full over a 20-year term, and $6,522.00 more than if it had been paid back in 10 years. Alan Collinge, founder of borrowers' rights advocacy Student Loan Justice, said the high recovery rates provide a \"\"perverted incentive\"\" for the government to allow loans to go into default. Kantrowitz estimates the recovery rate would need to fall to below 50% in order for default prevention efforts to become more lucrative than defaults themselves. Not to mention: http://studentloanjustice.org/defaults-making-money.html &gt; So essentially, the Department is given a choice: Either do nothing and get nothing, or outlay cash with the knowledge that this outlay will realize a 22 percent return, ultimately (minus the governments cost of money and collection costs). From this perspective, it is clear that based solely on financial motivations, and without specific detailed knowledge of the loan (i.e. borrower characteristics, etc.), the chooser would clearly favor the default scenario, for not only the return, but perhaps the potential savings in subsidy payment as well, And don't forget the penalties accruing to the person defaulting; they will probably have to move out of the country in order to escape collection. And let's factor in the huge ROI the lender sees by creating an indentured servant class. Plus, the gov't will issue as much currency as it wants, to make *itself* whole. And how much of a loss IS the loss, when the whole of the loan amount went right back into the local economy, paying professors, janitors, landlords, grocery stores, etc.? And don't forget all THOSE taxes (income and sale) that the gov't collects. Government will collect ~30%-50% of the loan immediately as income and sales tax, plus a portion of it every time the money changes hands (I pay income tax, then use some of my after-tax money to pay you for a product or service, and you still have to pay tax on that money, and so on). So it's more complicated than having \"\"robbed the person holding the debt\"\". Banks at 30x leverage don't lose money as long as they get back 1/30th of the total amount lent out, including interest, fees, and penalties, before considering write-offs and government repayment. In fact, the point of over-leverage is so you CAN make loans that have risk attached. If you could only lend what you actually had, you would have to stay away from anything risky because it would be too easy to lose money. Having virtual $ to bet means you can serve market segments that have higher risk. This makes MORE money for the banks, that's why they do it. They are already playing with funny money, so they don't lose any even if you default and move to another country. And the money you \"\"spent\"\" has also made its way back to them in various amounts, such as your professor's mortgage payments, auto loan, etc. Your taking on debt already helped the bank get its OTHER loans repaid. So, roughly speaking, if you took out $90,000 and $3,000 of that made its way back to the bank through various means, they haven't lost any money, because it only cost them $3,000 actual dollars in the first place.\"" }, { "docid": "358286", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;Source: I'm a state tax auditor, and my job is to make sure corporations pay what they are supposed to. Most of the American public believes that the bulk of taxes are federal income taxes. That's what they fixate on when evaluating the \"\"fairness\"\" of taxation. The fact remains that the very wealthy and very large corporations are structured so that they don't pay that particular type of tax. That's why Mitt Romney's tax returns are being squinted at. Mitt pays capital gains tax, not income tax and tripling the tax rate on the upper-most tax bracket wouldn't really affect him. You know this. I know this. But most people don't and few people are interested in learning how it works. If you want to \"\"tax the rich\"\" just create a progressive scale for capital gains instead of a flat 15%.\"" }, { "docid": "413438", "title": "", "text": "\"There are two different issues that you need to consider: and The answers to these two questions are not always the same. The answer to the first is described in some detail in Publication 17 available on the IRS website. In the absence of any details about your situation other than what is in your question (e.g. is either salary from self-employment wages that you or your spouse is paying you, are you or your spouse eligible to be claimed as a dependent by someone else, are you an alien, etc), which of the various rule(s) apply to you cannot be determined, and so I will not state a specific number or confirm that what you assert in your question is correct. Furthermore, even if you are not required to file an income-tax return, you might want to choose to file a tax return anyway. The most common reason for this is that if your employer withheld income tax from your salary (and sent it to the IRS on your behalf) but your tax liability for the year is zero, then, in the absence of a filed tax return, the IRS will not refund the tax withheld to you. Nor will your employer return the withheld money to you saying \"\"Oops, we made a mistake last year\"\". That money is gone: an unacknowledged (and non-tax-deductible) gift from you to the US government. So, while \"\"I am not required to file an income tax return and I refuse to do voluntarily what I am not required to do\"\" is a very principled stand to take, it can have monetary consequences. Another reason to file a tax return even when one is not required to do so is to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) if you qualify for it. As Publication 17 says in Chapter 36, qualified persons must File a tax return, even if you: (a) Do not owe any tax, (b) Did not earn enough money to file a return, or (c) Did not have income taxes withheld from your pay. in order to claim the credit. In short, read Publication 17 for yourself, and decide whether you are required to file an income tax return, and if you are not, whether it is worth your while to file the tax return anyway. Note to readers preparing to down-vote: this answer is prolix and says things that are far too \"\"well-known to everybody\"\" (and especially to you), but please remember that they might not be quite so well-known to the OP.\"" }, { "docid": "583666", "title": "", "text": "Wikipedia has a nice definition of financial literacy (emphasis below is mine): [...] refers to an individual's ability to make informed judgments and effective decisions about the use and management of their money. Raising interest in personal finance is now a focus of state-run programs in countries including Australia, Japan, the United States and the UK. [...] As for how you can become financially literate, here are some suggestions: Learn about how basic financial products works: bank accounts, mortgages, credit cards, investment accounts, insurance (home, car, life, disability, medical.) Free printed & online materials should be available from your existing financial service providers to help you with your existing products. In particular, learn about the fees, interest, or other charges you may incur with these products. Becoming fee-aware is a step towards financial literacy, since financially literate people compare costs. Seek out additional information on each type of product from unbiased sources (i.e. sources not trying to sell you something.) Get out of debt and stay out of debt. This may take a while. Focus on your highest-interest loans first. Learn the difference between good debt and bad debt. Learn about compound interest. Once you understand compound interest, you'll understand why being in debt is bad for your financial well-being. If you aren't already saving money for retirement, start now. Investigate whether your employer offers an advantageous matched 401(k) plan (or group RRSP/DC plan for Canadians) or a pension plan. If your employer offers a good plan, sign up. If you get to choose your own investments, keep it simple and favor low-cost balanced index funds until you understand the different types of investments. Read the material provided by the plan sponsor, try online tools provided, and seek out additional information from unbiased sources. If your employer doesn't offer an advantageous retirement plan, open an individual retirement account or IRA (or personal RRSP for Canadians.) If your employer does offer a plan, you can set one of these up to save even more. You could start with access to a family of low-cost mutual funds (examples: Vanguard for Americans, or TD eFunds for Canadians) or earn advanced credit by learning about discount brokers and self-directed accounts. Understand how income taxes and other taxes work. If you have an accountant prepare your taxes, ask questions. If you prepare your taxes yourself, understand what you're doing and don't file blind. Seek help if necessary. There are many good books on how income tax works. Software packages that help you self-file often have online help worth reading – read it. Learn about life insurance, medical insurance, disability insurance, wills, living wills & powers of attorney, and estate planning. Death and illness can derail your family's finances. Learn how these things can help. Seek out and read key books on personal finance topics. e.g. Your Money Or Your Life, Why Smart People Make Big Money Mistakes, The Four Pillars of Investing, The Random Walk Guide to Investing, and many more. Seek out and read good personal finance blogs. There's a wealth of information available for free on the Internet, but do check facts and assumptions. Here are some suggested blogs for American readers and some suggested blogs for Canadian readers. Subscribe to a personal finance periodical and read it. Good ones to start with are Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine in the U.S. and MoneySense Magazine in Canada. The business section in your local newspaper may sometimes have personal finance articles worth reading, too. Shameless plug: Ask more questions on this site. The Personal Finance & Money Stack Exchange is here to help you learn about money & finance, so you can make better financial decisions. We're all here to learn and help others learn about money. Keep learning!" }, { "docid": "252373", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, it is possible to withdraw money from your Roth IRA before retirement (but I wouldn't necessarily advise you to do so.) Here's the good news, and the bad news: The good news: Unlike a traditional IRA, money contributed to a Roth IRA is done so on an after-tax basis, meaning you don't benefit from a tax deduction on contributions. So, the money you withdraw from your Roth IRA will not be taxed entirely as ordinary income. In fact, you are allowed to withdraw the amount of your original contributions (also known as basis) without any taxes or penalties. Let's imagine you originally deposited $9000 of that current $10K total value – then in such a case, $9000 could be withdrawn tax and penalty free. The bad news: When it comes to the investment earnings – the other $1000 in my example – it's a different story: Since you wouldn't be age 59 1/2 at the time of withdrawal, any money taken out beyond your original contributions would be considered a non-qualified withdrawal and subject to both ordinary income taxes plus a 10% early withdrawal penalty. Ouch! Perhaps you might want to restrict your withdrawal to your original contributions. I would imagine if you've had the account for such a short period of time that much or all of your account value is original contributions anyway. A good article about the rules for early IRA withdrawals is About.com's Tax Penalty for Early Distribution of Retirement Funds. Note: If your Roth IRA funds were the result of a rollover from another account type, other rules may apply. See Roth IRA (Wikipedia) for more detail; search for \"\"rollover\"\". Regarding the withdrawal process itself and the timing, you should check with your account custodian on how to proceed.\"" }, { "docid": "185282", "title": "", "text": "IANAL, I have not been VAT registered myself but this is what I have picked up from various sources. You might want to confirm things with your solicitor or accountant. As I understand it there is a critical difference between supplying zero-rated goods/services and supplying exempt goods/services. If the goods/services are zero-rated then the normal VAT rules apply, you charge VAT on your outputs (at a rate of 0%) and can claim back VAT on your inputs (at whatever rate it was charged at, depending on the type of goods.. If the goods/services are exempt you don't charge and VAT on your outputs and can't claim back any VAT on your inputs. (Things get complicated if you have a mixture of exempt and non-exempt outputs) According to http://oko.uk/blog/adsense-vat-explained adsense income is a buisness to buisness transaction with a company in another EU country and so from a supplier point of view (you are the supplier, google is the customer) it counts as a zero-rated transaction." }, { "docid": "183477", "title": "", "text": "\"I would suggest to get an authoritative response from a CPA. In any case it would be for your own benefit to have at least the first couple of years of tax returns prepared by a professional. However, from my own personal experience, in your situation the income should not be regarded as \"\"US income\"\" but rather income in your home country. Thus it should not appear on the US tax forms because you were not resident when you had it, it was given to you by your employer (which is X(Europe), not X(USA)), and you should have paid local taxes in your home country on it.\"" }, { "docid": "109982", "title": "", "text": "Something that's come up in comments and been alluded to in answers, but not explicit as far as I can tell: Even if your marginal tax rate now were equal to your marginal tax rate in retirement, or even lower, a traditional IRA may have advantages. That's because it's your effective tax rate that matters on withdrawls. (Based on TY 2014, single person, but applies at higher numbers for other arrangements): You pay 0 taxes on the first $6200 of income, and then pay 10% on the next $9075, then 15% on $27825, then 25% on the total amount over that up to $89530, etc. As such, even if your marginal rate is 25% (say you earn $80k), your effective rate is much less: for example, $80k income, you pay taxes on $73800. That ends up being $14,600, for an effective rate in total of 17.9%. Let's say you had the same salary, $80k, from 20 to 65, and for 45 years saved up 10k a year, plus earned enough returns to pay you out $80k a year in retirement. In a Roth, you pay 25% on all $10k. In a traditional, you save that $2500 a year (because it comes off the top, the amount over $36900), and then pay 17.9% during retirement (your effective tax rate, because it's the amount in total that matters). So for Roth you had 7500*(returns), while for Traditional the correct amount isn't 10k*(returns)*0.75, but 10k*(returns)*0.821. You make the difference between .75 and .82 back even with the identical income. [Of course, if your $10k would take you down a marginal bracket, then it also has an 'effective' tax rate of something between the two rates.] Thus, Roth makes sense if you expect your effective tax rate to be higher in retirement than it is now. This is very possible, still, because for people like me with a mortgage, high property taxes, two kids, and student loans, my marginal tax rate is pretty low - even with a reasonably nice salary I still pay 15% on the stuff that's heading into my IRA. (Sadly, my employer has only a traditional 401k, but they also contribute to it without requiring a match so I won't complain too much.) Since I expect my eventual tax rate to be in that 18-20% at a minimum, I'd benefit from a Roth IRA right now. This matters more for people in the middle brackets - earning high 5 figure salaries as individuals or low 6 figure as a couple - because the big difference is relevant when a large percentage of your income is in the 15% and below brackets. If you're earning $200k, then so much of your income is taxed at 28-33% it doesn't make nearly as much of a difference, and odds are you can play various tricks when you're retiring to avoid having as high of a tax rate." }, { "docid": "480992", "title": "", "text": "\"Subchapter S Corporations are a special type of corporation; the difference is how they are taxed, not how they relate to their vendors or customers. As a result, they are named the same way as any other corporation. The rules on names of corporations vary by state. \"\"Corporation\"\" and \"\"Incorporated\"\" (and their abbreviations) are allowed by every state, but some states allow other names as well. The Wikipedia article \"\"Types of business entity\"\" lists an overview of corporation naming rules for each state. The S-Corp that I work for has \"\"Inc.\"\" at the end of its name.\"" }, { "docid": "578317", "title": "", "text": "It is important to remember that the tax brackets in the U.S. are marginal. This means that the first part of your income is taxed at 10%, the next part at 15%, next at 25%, etc. Therefore, if you find yourself just on the edge of a tax bracket, it really does not make any difference which side of that line you end up falling on. That having been said, of course, reducing your taxable income reduces your taxes. There are lots of deductions you can take, if you qualify. Depending on what type of health insurance coverage you have, a Health Savings Account (HSA) is a great way to shelter some income from taxes. Charitable contributions are also an easy way to reduce your taxes; you don't really personally benefit from them, but if you'd rather send your money to a good cause than to Uncle Sam, that's an easy way to do it." }, { "docid": "458183", "title": "", "text": "Here would be the general steps to my mind for creating such a plan: Write out the final desired outcome. Is it $x in y years to fund your retirement? Is it $a in b years to put as a house down payment? This is the first step in defining how much money you want at what point in time. Consider what is your risk tolerance and how much time do you plan on spending in this plan. Is it rebalancing once a quarter and that's it or do you plan on doing monthly research and making tweaks all the time? This is slightly different from the first where one has to be mindful of how much volatility would one handle and what time commitment does one have for an investing strategy. Also, how much money would you be adding to the investments on what kind of time table would also be worth noting here. Construct the asset allocation based on the previous two steps along with historical returns averaged out to be a first draft of what you are buying in general. Is it US stocks? Is it a short-term bond fund? There are more than a few choices here that may make sense and it is worth considering based on the first couple of responses that determine what this will look like. Retirement in 40 years may be quite different than a house down payment in 2 years for example. Determine what brokerages or fund companies would offer such funds along with what types of accounts you'd want to have as in some countries there may be tax-advantaged accounts that may be useful to use here. This is where you're almost ready to start by doing the homework of figuring out how will things work. This may vary depending on one's jurisdiction. Get the applications from whatever institutions you'll be using and run with the desired asset allocation across various funds and accounts. Note that in the first few steps there were points of being aware of how much would you have, how aggressive are you investing and so forth. This is where you actually send in the money and get things rolling. Run with the plan and make tweaks as needed to achieve result, hopefully desired or better." }, { "docid": "593101", "title": "", "text": "Several things to consider: I don't see why your friend should pay any tax. It's not his income at all. And I am not sure where your income should be taxed in this scenario. Is he declaring it as his income somehow? The bank won't do it for him, the transfer as such should be transparent. On the other hand, money transiting on his account could in principle look suspicious, although €300 is unlikely to raise alarm. What I do know is that if you do pay taxes, 20% is not particularly high as such. There are four brackets of income tax (and tax-like contributions to the pension system) in the Netherlands, between 36.55% and 52%. Rates for personal taxes in the Netherlands are simply way higher than what you might be used to in Eastern Europe or what has been mentioned in comments. In fact, if anything, 20% seems too low. I am at a loss guessing what it could correspond to, you could ask your friend how he came to that number. There various tax discounts (kortingen) and deductions (aftreken) that apply to freelance work (and some that apply to all incomes). €3000 yearly is quite low and would probably not be taxed at all if you were recently registered as freelance (zzp'er) in the Netherlands and had no other sources of income. But on the other hand, if your money is treated as being part of your friend's income, these wouldn't apply, as he is probably already benefiting from them. There are special rules for copyright fees. Not sure this is necessarily 100% kosher but I have met people who got paid that way for articles they wrote in trade publications." }, { "docid": "387188", "title": "", "text": "\"As an investor, I try to interpret the suits as an attempt to in some way influence the actions of the company - and not, usually, as a serious legal threat (or as likely to lead to serious legal consequences). My (shallow) understanding (as a non-lawyer) is that the requirements for a lawsuit to be filed as class-action suit are (relatively speaking) easier to meet when the company is publicly traded - the shareholders are more easily described as a \"\"class\"\". So it's more common for lawsuits that involve stock holders for large, publicly traded companies to be registered as class action suits. Class action suits include a requirement for some advertising and notifications (so all members of the class become aware of the suit, and can decide whether to participate). So, these types of suits can be started with various goals in mind, goals which might be achieved without the suit ever going anywhere - including to gain some publicity for a particular point of view, or to put pressure on the company to perform particular actions. In most cases, though, they are the result of misunderstandings between the various parties with an interest in how the company is run - shareholders, directors and/or executive officers. For most cases, the result of the suit is a more in depth sharing of information between the parties involved, and possibly a change in the plans/actions of the company; the legal technicalities differ from case to case, and, often, the legal consequences are minor.\"" }, { "docid": "139383", "title": "", "text": "As I understand it, capital gains from real estate sales in India can be shielded from income tax entirely if the proceeds of the sale are invested in certain specific types of bonds (Rural Highway Contruction Authority of India?) for a period of three years beginning no later than x months (6 months?) after completion of the sale. Perhaps this applies to sales of inherited real estate only and not to commercial property or residential property acquired by purchase since there is no step-up of basis on death as occurs in the US, and in all likelihood, records of the purchase price of the inherited property are lost in the mists of time, and so the basis of the investment is effectively zero (or treated as such by the revenue authorities) The interest paid by these bonds is included in taxable income. Perhaps @Dheer will be willing to correct any mistakes in the above. So, it may be necessary to check whether (a) the interest income from the bonds was declared on Form 1040 Schedule B for each year (b) whether the appropriate boxes (the ones that ask whether the taxpayer has signature authority over foreign accounts etc) were checked on Schedule B or not, (c) whether Form TD 90-22.1 was filed each year or not (this is the FBAR requirement) Note that if the total value of the accounts is less than US $10K during the entire year, then the taxpayer is supposed to check NO on Schedule B and need not file Form TD 90-22.1. Also, there is a separate requirement to file a Form 8938 for certain specific types of investments. There was a two-part article describing these rules in Forbes magazine some time ago, and this is available on-line (Part 1 and Part II) As @superjessi says, the IRS might be lenient if the only issue is not filing the forms in timely fashion, and the taxpayer is voluntarily coming into compliance even though the filing is late. They are likely to be less forgiving if the foreign income was not reported, and still remains unreported even after filing the various forms." }, { "docid": "273906", "title": "", "text": "Those are the three books that were considered fundamental at my university: Investments - Zvi Bodie (Author), Alex Kane (Author), Alan Marcus (Author), Stylianos Perrakis (Author), Peter Ryan (Author) This book covers the basics of financial markets. It explains how markets work, general investing principles, basic risk notions, various types of financial instruments and their characteristics and portfolio management principles. Futures and Options markets - John C. Hull This book goes more in depth into derivatives valuation and the less common / more complex instruments. The Handbook of Fixed Income Securities This books covers fixed income securities. In all cases, they are not specifically math-oriented but they do not shy away from it when it is called for. I have read the first and the other two were recommended by professors / friends now working in financial markets." }, { "docid": "167879", "title": "", "text": "There are a number of benefits to this type of account. If one has highly appreciated stock (think Apple), donations of the stock are taken at current value, so for example, I donate $10,000 worth of shares, which cost me $100. In the 28% bracket, and itemizing, I see a $2800 benefit. But, I also avoid a $9900 capital gain and the 15% tax on that, or $1485. In this example, the fund comes into play as it would allow me to break up that $10,000 into smaller donations, and over a number of years. Next example - In my article some years ago Fun with Schedule A I describe how a strategy of 'bunching' ones itemized deductions every other year can help push people into the ability to itemize where normally they just miss doing so. Using the charitable fund can help people smooth out their contributions to the end charities while actually making the out of pocket withdrawal every other year. Last - there are many whose income is irregular for whatever reason. This type of account can be useful to help people in this situation make a deposit in high income/high tax rate years, skipping the deposit in low income/low rate years, but still keep up with the annual charity support. Obviously, one's goal is to help the charities they wish to support, it's silly to donate 'for the deduction.' But, for those who are charitable, these strategies help them divert more money to the charity and less to Uncle Sam. Sorry, I'm not sure about the math to show that 6.46%. My answer was to share the benefits of using these types of accounts." }, { "docid": "536849", "title": "", "text": "\"I've done various side work over the years -- computer consulting, writing, and I briefly had a video game company -- so I've gone through most of this. Disclaimer: I have never been audited, which may mean that everything I put on my tax forms looked plausible to the IRS and so is probably at least generally right, but it also means that the IRS has never put their stamp of approval on my tax forms. So that said ... 1: You do not need to form an LLC to be able to claim business expenses. Whether you have any expenses or not, you will have to complete a schedule C. On this form are places for expenses in various categories. Note that the categories are the most common type of expenses, there's an \"\"other\"\" space if you have something different. If you have any property that is used both for the business and also for personal use, you must calculate a business use percentage. For example if you bought a new printer and 60% of the time you use it for the business and 40% of the time you use it for personal stuff, then 60% of the cost is tax deductible. In general the IRS expects you to calculate the percentage based on amount of time used for business versus personal, though you are allowed to use other allocation formulas. Like for a printer I think you'd get away with number of pages printed for each. But if the business use is not 100%, you must keep records to justify the percentage. You can't just say, \"\"Oh, I think business use must have been about 3/4 of the time.\"\" You have to have a log where you write down every time you use it and whether it was business or personal. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of business use of cars and computers, because these are things that are readily used for personal purposes. If you own a copper mine and you buy a mine-boring machine, odds are you aren't going to take that home to dig shafts in your backyard. But a computer can easily be used to play video games or send emails to friends and relatives and lots of things that have nothing to do with a business. So if you're going to claim a computer or a car, be prepared to justify it. You can claim office use of your home if you have one or more rooms or designated parts of a room that are used \"\"regularly and exclusively\"\" for business purposes. That is, if you turn the family room into an office, you can claim home office expenses. But if, like me, you sit on the couch to work but at other times you sit on the couch to watch TV, then the space is not used \"\"exclusively\"\" for business purposes. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of home office deductions. I've never tried to claim it. It's legal, just make sure you have all your ducks in a row if you claim it. Skip 2 for the moment. 3: Yes, you must pay taxes on your business income. If you have not created an LLC or a corporation, then your business income is added to your wage income to calculate your taxes. That is, if you made, say, $50,000 salary working for somebody else and $10,000 on your side business, then your total income is $60,000 and that's what you pay taxes on. The total amount you pay in income taxes will be the same regardless of whether 90% came from salary and 10% from the side business or the other way around. The rates are the same, it's just one total number. If the withholding on your regular paycheck is not enough to cover the total taxes that you will have to pay, then you are required by law to pay estimated taxes quarterly to make up the difference. If you don't, you will be required to pay penalties, so you don't want to skip on this. Basically you are supposed to be withholding from yourself and sending this in to the government. It's POSSIBLE that this won't be an issue. If you're used to getting a big refund, and the refund is more than what the tax on your side business will come to, then you might end up still getting a refund, just a smaller one. But you don't want to guess about this. Get the tax forms and figure out the numbers. I think -- and please don't rely on this, check on it -- that the law says that you don't pay a penalty if the total tax that was withheld from your paycheck plus the amount you paid in estimated payments is more than the tax you owed last year. So like lets say that this year -- just to make up some numbers -- your employer withheld $4,000 from your paychecks. At the end of the year you did your taxes and they came to $3,000, so you got a $1,000 refund. This year your employer again withholds $4,000 and you paid $0 in estimated payments. Your total tax on your salary plus your side business comes to $4,500. You owe $500, but you won't have to pay a penalty, because the $4,000 withheld is more than the $3,000 that you owed last year. But if next year you again don't make estimated payment, so you again have $4,000 withheld plus $0 estimated and then you owe $5,000 in taxes, you will have to pay a penalty, because your withholding was less than what you owed last year. To you had paid $500 in estimated payments, you'd be okay. You'd still owe $500, but you wouldn't owe a penalty, because your total payments were more than the previous year's liability. Clear as mud? Don't forget that you probably will also owe state income tax. If you have a local income tax, you'll owe that too. Scott-McP mentioned self-employment tax. You'll owe that, too. Note that self-employment tax is different from income tax. Self employment tax is just social security tax on self-employed people. You're probably used to seeing the 7-whatever-percent it is these days withheld from your paycheck. That's really only half your social security tax, the other half is not shown on your pay stub because it is not subtracted from your salary. If you're self-employed, you have to pay both halves, or about 15%. You file a form SE with your income taxes to declare it. 4: If you pay your quarterly estimated taxes, well the point of \"\"estimated\"\" taxes is that it's supposed to be close to the amount that you will actually owe next April 15. So if you get it at least close, then you shouldn't owe a lot of money in April. (I usually try to arrange my taxes so that I get a modest refund -- don't loan the government a lot of money, but don't owe anything April 15 either.) Once you take care of any business expenses and taxes, what you do with the rest of the money is up to you, right? Though if you're unsure of how to spend it, let me know and I'll send you the address of my kids' colleges and you can donate it to their tuition fund. I think this would be a very worthy and productive use of your money. :-) Back to #2. I just recently acquired a financial advisor. I can't say what a good process for finding one is. This guy is someone who goes to my church and who hijacked me after Bible study one day to make his sales pitch. But I did talk to him about his fees, and what he told me was this: If I have enough money in an investment account, then he gets a commission from the investment company for bringing the business to them, and that's the total compensation he gets from me. That commission comes out of the management fees they charge, and those management fees are in the same ballpark as the fees I was paying for private investment accounts, so basically he is not costing me anything. He's getting his money from the kickbacks. He said that if I had not had enough accumulated assets, he would have had to charge me an hourly fee. I didn't ask how much that was. Whew, hadn't meant to write such a long answer!\"" }, { "docid": "144439", "title": "", "text": "Depending on your income, you may owe AMT instead of the taxes from the regular code. Even if you don't do that, you may hit the place where you have to at least check if you owe AMT. As you probably know, AMT was established early on to catch the wealthiest of tax payers who were able to use various loop holes in the code to pay much less tax than one would expect. Over time the limits on AMT have not risen with the rising wage gap, and AMT catches an increasing number of tax payers each year. If the limit is not raised at all for 2010 then it will catch even more people this year. AMT has worked it's way into the upper-middle class fairly solidly, especially if you exercise stock options whose strike price is significantly different than the current sale price." }, { "docid": "287540", "title": "", "text": "I still have my bank account active in usa. Can my company legally deposit my salary in my bank account? Of course they can. Where they deposit is of no consequence (in the US, may be in India). It is who they deposit it for that matters. You need to file form W8 with the company, and they may end up withholding portion of that pay for IRS. You'll need to talk to a tax adviser in India about how to report the income back at home, and you may need to talk to a tax adviser in the US about what to do if the company does indeed remit withholding from your earnings." } ]

[ { "docid": "314342", "title": "", "text": "\"Many individual states, counties, and cities have their own income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc., you will need to consult your state and local government websites for information about additional taxes that apply based on your locale. Wages, Salaries, Tips, Cash bonuses and other taxable employee pay, Strike benefits, Long-term disability, Earnings from self employment Earned income is subject to payroll taxes such as: Earned income is also subject to income taxes which are progressively higher depending on the amount earned minus tax credits, exemptions, and/or deductions depending on how you file. There are 7 tax rates that get progressively larger as your income rises but only applies to the income in each bracket. 10% for the first 18,650 (2017) through 39.6% for any income above 470,700. The full list of rates is in the above linked article about payroll taxes. Earned income is required for contributions to an IRA. You cannot contribute more to an IRA than you have earned in a given year. Interest, Ordinary Dividends, Short-term Capital Gains, Retirement income (pensions, distributions from tax deferred accounts, social security), Unemployment benefits, Worker's Compensation, Alimony/Child support, Income earned while in prison, Non-taxable military pay, most rental income, and S-Corp passthrough income Ordinary income is taxed the same as earned income with the exception that social security taxes do not apply. This is the \"\"pure taxable income\"\" referred to in the other linked question. Dividends paid by US Corporations and qualified foreign corporations to stock-holders (that are held for a certain period of time before the dividend is paid) are taxed at the Long-term Capital Gains rate explained below. Ordinary dividends like the interest earned in your bank account are included with ordinary income. Stocks, Bonds, Real estate, Carried interest -- Held for more than a year Income from assets that increase in value while being held for over a year. Long term capital gains justified by the idea that they encourage people to hold stock and make long term investments rather than buying and then quickly reselling for a short-term profit. The lower tax rates also reflect the fact that many of these assets are already taxed as they are appreciating in value. Real-estate is usually taxed through local property taxes. Equity in US corporations realized by rising stock prices and dividends that are returned to stock holders reflect earnings from a corporation that are already taxed at the 35% Corporate tax rate. Taxing Capital gains as ordinary income would be a second tax on those same profits. Another problem with Long-term capital gains tax is that a big portion of the gains for assets held for multiple decades are not real gains. Inflation increases the price of assets held for longer periods, but you are still taxed on the full gain even if it would be a loss when inflation is calculated. Capital gains are also taxed differently depending on your income level. If you are in the 10% or 15% brackets then Long-term capital gains are assessed at 0%. If you are in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% brackets, they are assessed at 15%. Only those in the 39.6% bracket pay 20%. Capital assets sold at a profit held for less than a year Income from buying and selling any assets such as real-estate, stock, bonds, etc., that you hold for less than a year before selling. After adding up all gains and losses during the year, the net gain is taxed as ordinary income. Collectibles held for more than a year are not considered capital assets and are still taxed at ordinary income rates.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "451180", "title": "", "text": "From India Tax point of view: Some one else may give the US tax treatment. Refer to this similar question what taxes I need to pay in India Capital Gains. My accountant never asked or reported the bought property in taxes- should he reported in taxes?Did he do wrong not reporting should I report the property in my next year taxes? If you mean in IT Returns, yes it should be declared. Can i bring the money back if needed? By Back if you mean repatriate to US, The capital portion would be Ease if the loan property was purchased or loan repaid from NRE. Else there is limit on the amount and paperwork. Consult a CA. If I rent the property instead of selling, do I have to report the income and what income? should I be filling taxes on the rental income in India or just in USA or both You are taxable for the rent and have to report it as income and pay taxes in India." }, { "docid": "327651", "title": "", "text": "\"Appears to be a hypothetical question and not really worth answering but... Must it be explained.. no, not until audited. It's saying that for everything reported on a tax return, people have to include an explanation for everything, which you do not, unless you want to make some type of 'disclosure' which is a different matter. Must it be reported.. Yes, based on info presented. All income is taxable unless \"\"specifically exempted\"\" per the US Tax code or court cases. Gift vs Found Income... it's not 'found' income as someone gave (gifted) the money to him. Generally, gifts received are not taxable and don't have to be reported.\"" }, { "docid": "284805", "title": "", "text": "\"Others have given a lot of advice about how to invest, but as a former expat I wanted to throw this in: US citizens living and investing overseas can VERY easily run afoul of the IRS. Laws and regulations designed to prevent offshore tax havens can also make it very difficult for expats to do effective investing and estate planning. Among other things, watch out for: US citizens owe US income tax on world income regardless of where they live or earn money FBAR reporting requirements affect foreign accounts valued over $10k The IRS penalizes (often heavily) certain types of financial accounts. Tax-sheltered accounts (for education, retirement, etc.) are in the crosshairs, and anything the IRS deems a \"\"foreign-controlled trust\"\" is especially bad. Heavy taxes on investment not purchased from a US stock exchange Some US states will demand income taxes from former residents (including expats) who cannot prove residency in a different US state. I believe California is neutral in that regard, at least. I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant nor a financial advisor, so please take the above only as a starting point so you know what sorts of questions to ask the relevant experts.\"" }, { "docid": "541682", "title": "", "text": "If you are paid by foreigners then it is quite possible they don't file anything with the IRS. All of this income you are required to report as business income on schedule C. There are opportunities on schedule C to deduct expenses like your health insurance, travel, telephone calls, capital expenses like a new computer, etc... You will be charged both the employees and employers share of social security/medicare, around ~17% or so, and that will be added onto your 1040. You may still need a local business license to do the work locally, and may require a home business permit in some cities. In some places, cities subscribe to data services based on your IRS tax return.... and will find out a year or two later that someone is running an unlicensed business. This could result in a fine, or perhaps just a nice letter from the city attorneys office that it would be a good time to get the right licenses. Generally, tax treaties exist to avoid or limit double taxation. For instance, if you travel to Norway to give a report and are paid during this time, the treaty would explain whether that is taxable in Norway. You can usually get a credit for taxes paid to foreign countries against your US taxes, which helps avoid paying double taxes in the USA. If you were to go live in Norway for more than a year, the first $80,000/year or so is completely wiped off your US income. This does NOT apply if you live in the USA and are paid from Norway. If you have a bank account overseas with more than $10,000 of value in it at any time during the year, you owe the US Government a FinCEN Form 114 (FBAR). This is pretty important, there are some large fines for not doing it. It could occur if you needed an account to get paid in Norway and then send the money here... If the Norwegian company wires the money to you from their account or sends a check in US$, and you don't have a foreign bank account, then this would not apply." }, { "docid": "88575", "title": "", "text": "\"A mutual fund's return or yield has nothing to do with what you receive from the mutual fund. The annual percentage return is simply the percentage increase (or decrease!) of the value of one share of the mutual fund from January 1 till December 31. The cash value of any distributions (dividend income, short-term capital gains, long-term capital gains) might be reported separately or might be included in the annual return. What you receive from the mutual fund is the distributions which you have the option of taking in cash (and spending on whatever you like, or investing elsewhere) or of re-investing into the fund without ever actually touching the money. Regardless of whether you take a distribution as cash or re-invest it in the mutual fund, that amount is taxable income in most jurisdictions. In the US, long-term capital gains are taxed at different (lower) rates than ordinary income, and I believe that long-term capital gains from mutual funds are not taxed at all in India. You are not taxed on the increase in the value of your investment caused by an increase in the share price over the year nor do you get deduct the \"\"loss\"\" if the share price declined over the year. It is only when you sell the mutual fund shares (back to the mutual fund company) that you have to pay taxes on the capital gains (if you sold for a higher price) or deduct the capital loss (if you sold for a lower price) than the purchase price of the shares. Be aware that different shares in the sale might have different purchase prices because they were bought at different times, and thus have different gains and losses. So, how do you calculate your personal return from the mutual fund investment? If you have a money management program or a spreadsheet program, it can calculate your return for you. If you have online access to your mutual fund account on its website, it will most likely have a tool called something like \"\"Personal rate of return\"\" and this will provide you with the same calculations without your having to type in all the data by hand. Finally, If you want to do it personally by hand, I am sure that someone will soon post an answer writing out the gory details.\"" }, { "docid": "593101", "title": "", "text": "Several things to consider: I don't see why your friend should pay any tax. It's not his income at all. And I am not sure where your income should be taxed in this scenario. Is he declaring it as his income somehow? The bank won't do it for him, the transfer as such should be transparent. On the other hand, money transiting on his account could in principle look suspicious, although €300 is unlikely to raise alarm. What I do know is that if you do pay taxes, 20% is not particularly high as such. There are four brackets of income tax (and tax-like contributions to the pension system) in the Netherlands, between 36.55% and 52%. Rates for personal taxes in the Netherlands are simply way higher than what you might be used to in Eastern Europe or what has been mentioned in comments. In fact, if anything, 20% seems too low. I am at a loss guessing what it could correspond to, you could ask your friend how he came to that number. There various tax discounts (kortingen) and deductions (aftreken) that apply to freelance work (and some that apply to all incomes). €3000 yearly is quite low and would probably not be taxed at all if you were recently registered as freelance (zzp'er) in the Netherlands and had no other sources of income. But on the other hand, if your money is treated as being part of your friend's income, these wouldn't apply, as he is probably already benefiting from them. There are special rules for copyright fees. Not sure this is necessarily 100% kosher but I have met people who got paid that way for articles they wrote in trade publications." }, { "docid": "35810", "title": "", "text": "Making a game is hard enough, focus on that. If/when you start getting close to having something to sell, then if you're serious and want the company to grow into a full time venture, briefly consult with a lawyer and possibly accountant to set this up. It will save you a lot of time researching what you have to do and a lot of headache from potentially doing things wrong. If you want to try to do it on your own, I'd recommend getting a book on starting a business because there is more to know than a single post can cover. You'll probably have to file for a DBA (doing business as) at your city hall in order to be allowed to refer to yourself as the name of your company (otherwise you have to use your personal name). Initiating that will likely initiate annual business taxes in your town in addition to the cheap filing fee. You also want to consider how you will handle trademark (of your business and game) and copyright (of your game). If this is going to grow, you'll have to have contracts written for either employees or for freelancers who might produce assets for you. You may also need to consider writing an EULA for your game, privacy policies, etc. Additionally, you'll likely have to file with your state to collect and send sales tax. You'll also want to meticulously track costs and revenue related to your business. Formally starting a business will likely open you up to property, sales and income tax. For example, where I am, was even taxed on the equipment the business uses (e.g. computers). This is why it makes sense to wait until you're closer to having a product before you try to formally start a business and to consult with professionals on the best way. The type of business you should form will depend on the scope you plan for the company and the amount of time/money you're willing to put in. A sole proprietorship (what you are by default) means there is no difference legally/financially between you as an individual and you as a company. This may be suitable if this is just a hobby, but not if you intend it to grow because that means any lawsuit directed at your company and its money is also directed at you and your money. The differences between an LLC and corporation are more nuanced and involve differences in legal and tax treatment, however, they both shield you from the previously mentioned problem. If you want this to be more than a hobby you should form either an LLC or a corporation. Do some research on the differences and how they might apply to you and in your state." }, { "docid": "416192", "title": "", "text": "Basically, what you describe exists in many countries - not in the USA though. In Europe, people have checking accounts with allowed overdraft, typically three month net salaries. You can just this money any day as you like, and pay it back - completely or partially - any day as you like. Interest is calculated for each day on the amount used that day; and the collateral is 'future income', predicted / expected from previous income. In the USA, credit cards have taken its place, with stricter different rules and limitations. In addition, many of the extra rules in loans were invented to take advantage of the ignorance or situation of the borrower to make even more money. For example, applying extra payments to future due payments instead of to the principal makes that principal produce more interest while the extra payments just sit around." }, { "docid": "505617", "title": "", "text": "Be sure to consider the difference between Roth 401K and standard 401K. The Roth 401K is taxed as income then put into your account. So the money you put into the Roth 401K is taxed as income for the current year, however, any interest you accumulate over the years is not taxed when you withdraw the money. So to break it down: You may also want to look into Self Directed 401K, which can be either standard or Roth. Check if your employer supports this type of account. But if you're self employed or 1099 it may be a good option." }, { "docid": "536849", "title": "", "text": "\"I've done various side work over the years -- computer consulting, writing, and I briefly had a video game company -- so I've gone through most of this. Disclaimer: I have never been audited, which may mean that everything I put on my tax forms looked plausible to the IRS and so is probably at least generally right, but it also means that the IRS has never put their stamp of approval on my tax forms. So that said ... 1: You do not need to form an LLC to be able to claim business expenses. Whether you have any expenses or not, you will have to complete a schedule C. On this form are places for expenses in various categories. Note that the categories are the most common type of expenses, there's an \"\"other\"\" space if you have something different. If you have any property that is used both for the business and also for personal use, you must calculate a business use percentage. For example if you bought a new printer and 60% of the time you use it for the business and 40% of the time you use it for personal stuff, then 60% of the cost is tax deductible. In general the IRS expects you to calculate the percentage based on amount of time used for business versus personal, though you are allowed to use other allocation formulas. Like for a printer I think you'd get away with number of pages printed for each. But if the business use is not 100%, you must keep records to justify the percentage. You can't just say, \"\"Oh, I think business use must have been about 3/4 of the time.\"\" You have to have a log where you write down every time you use it and whether it was business or personal. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of business use of cars and computers, because these are things that are readily used for personal purposes. If you own a copper mine and you buy a mine-boring machine, odds are you aren't going to take that home to dig shafts in your backyard. But a computer can easily be used to play video games or send emails to friends and relatives and lots of things that have nothing to do with a business. So if you're going to claim a computer or a car, be prepared to justify it. You can claim office use of your home if you have one or more rooms or designated parts of a room that are used \"\"regularly and exclusively\"\" for business purposes. That is, if you turn the family room into an office, you can claim home office expenses. But if, like me, you sit on the couch to work but at other times you sit on the couch to watch TV, then the space is not used \"\"exclusively\"\" for business purposes. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of home office deductions. I've never tried to claim it. It's legal, just make sure you have all your ducks in a row if you claim it. Skip 2 for the moment. 3: Yes, you must pay taxes on your business income. If you have not created an LLC or a corporation, then your business income is added to your wage income to calculate your taxes. That is, if you made, say, $50,000 salary working for somebody else and $10,000 on your side business, then your total income is $60,000 and that's what you pay taxes on. The total amount you pay in income taxes will be the same regardless of whether 90% came from salary and 10% from the side business or the other way around. The rates are the same, it's just one total number. If the withholding on your regular paycheck is not enough to cover the total taxes that you will have to pay, then you are required by law to pay estimated taxes quarterly to make up the difference. If you don't, you will be required to pay penalties, so you don't want to skip on this. Basically you are supposed to be withholding from yourself and sending this in to the government. It's POSSIBLE that this won't be an issue. If you're used to getting a big refund, and the refund is more than what the tax on your side business will come to, then you might end up still getting a refund, just a smaller one. But you don't want to guess about this. Get the tax forms and figure out the numbers. I think -- and please don't rely on this, check on it -- that the law says that you don't pay a penalty if the total tax that was withheld from your paycheck plus the amount you paid in estimated payments is more than the tax you owed last year. So like lets say that this year -- just to make up some numbers -- your employer withheld $4,000 from your paychecks. At the end of the year you did your taxes and they came to $3,000, so you got a $1,000 refund. This year your employer again withholds $4,000 and you paid $0 in estimated payments. Your total tax on your salary plus your side business comes to $4,500. You owe $500, but you won't have to pay a penalty, because the $4,000 withheld is more than the $3,000 that you owed last year. But if next year you again don't make estimated payment, so you again have $4,000 withheld plus $0 estimated and then you owe $5,000 in taxes, you will have to pay a penalty, because your withholding was less than what you owed last year. To you had paid $500 in estimated payments, you'd be okay. You'd still owe $500, but you wouldn't owe a penalty, because your total payments were more than the previous year's liability. Clear as mud? Don't forget that you probably will also owe state income tax. If you have a local income tax, you'll owe that too. Scott-McP mentioned self-employment tax. You'll owe that, too. Note that self-employment tax is different from income tax. Self employment tax is just social security tax on self-employed people. You're probably used to seeing the 7-whatever-percent it is these days withheld from your paycheck. That's really only half your social security tax, the other half is not shown on your pay stub because it is not subtracted from your salary. If you're self-employed, you have to pay both halves, or about 15%. You file a form SE with your income taxes to declare it. 4: If you pay your quarterly estimated taxes, well the point of \"\"estimated\"\" taxes is that it's supposed to be close to the amount that you will actually owe next April 15. So if you get it at least close, then you shouldn't owe a lot of money in April. (I usually try to arrange my taxes so that I get a modest refund -- don't loan the government a lot of money, but don't owe anything April 15 either.) Once you take care of any business expenses and taxes, what you do with the rest of the money is up to you, right? Though if you're unsure of how to spend it, let me know and I'll send you the address of my kids' colleges and you can donate it to their tuition fund. I think this would be a very worthy and productive use of your money. :-) Back to #2. I just recently acquired a financial advisor. I can't say what a good process for finding one is. This guy is someone who goes to my church and who hijacked me after Bible study one day to make his sales pitch. But I did talk to him about his fees, and what he told me was this: If I have enough money in an investment account, then he gets a commission from the investment company for bringing the business to them, and that's the total compensation he gets from me. That commission comes out of the management fees they charge, and those management fees are in the same ballpark as the fees I was paying for private investment accounts, so basically he is not costing me anything. He's getting his money from the kickbacks. He said that if I had not had enough accumulated assets, he would have had to charge me an hourly fee. I didn't ask how much that was. Whew, hadn't meant to write such a long answer!\"" }, { "docid": "588327", "title": "", "text": "The United States taxes nonresident aliens on two types of income: First, a nonresident alien who is engaged in a trade or business in the United States is taxed on income that is effectively connected with that trade or business. Second, certain types of U.S.-source payments are subject to income tax withholding. The determination of when a nonresident alien is engaged in a U.S. trade or business is highly fact-specific and complex. However, keeping assets in a U.S. bank account should not be treated as a U.S. trade or business. A nonresident alien's interest income is generally subject to U.S. federal income tax withholding at a rate of 30 percent under Section 1441 of the tax code. Interest on bank deposits, however, benefit from an exception under Section 1441(c)(10), so long as that interest is not effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business. Even though no tax needs to be withheld on interest on a bank deposit, the bank should still report that interest each year to the IRS on Form 1042-S. The IRS can then send that information to the tax authority in Brazil. Please keep in mind that state and local tax rules are all different, and whether interest on the bank deposits is subject to state or local tax will depend on which state the bank is in. Also, the United States does tax nonresident aliens on wages paid from a U.S. company, if those wages are treated as U.S.-source income. Generally, wages are U.S.-source income if the employee provides services while physically present in the United States. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but they depend on the amount of wages and other factors that are specific to the employee's situation. This is an area where you should really consult with a U.S. tax advisor before the employment starts. Maybe your company will pay for it?" }, { "docid": "484596", "title": "", "text": "\"Assuming USA: It is possible to make the interest deductible if you go to the trouble of structuring, and filing, the loan as an actual mortgage on a primary residence. Websearching \"\"intra-family loan\"\" will find several firms which specialize in this. It costs about $700 for all the paperwork and filing fees as of last time I checked, so unless you're going to pay at least three times that in interest over the life of the loan it probably isn't worth considering. (For an additional fee they'll take care of the payment processing, if you'd really rather be hands-off about it.) I have no idea whether the paperwork fees and processing fees can be deducted from the interest as a cost of producing that income. In theory that ought to be true, but I Am Not A Lawyer. Or accountant. Note: one of the interesting factors here is that the IRS sets a minimum interest rate on intra-family loans. It's pretty low (around 0.3%), so in most cases you can say you gifted the difference if you'd prefer to charge less... but that does set a floor on what the IRS will expect the lender to declare, and pay taxes on. There's a lot more that can be said about this, but since I am NOT an expert I'll refer you to those who are. I have no affiliation with any of this except as a customer, once; it seemed pretty painless but I can't claim to know whether they were really handling everything exactly correctly. The website seemed to do a pretty good job of explaining what choices had to be made and their effects, as well as discussing how these can be used to avoid excess gift taxes by spreading the gift over a number of years.\"" }, { "docid": "583464", "title": "", "text": "The same can be done in the USA depending on what city and how richly someone wants to live. I went to a fine public school in suburban US and I walked to school just a few blocks, free, as are all public schools. As for medical bills and your best friends mother, it is also not expensive to die of cancer in the USA! But, you did not tell me how big of an apartment can be had in Lisbon for a minimum wage worker spending less than 30% of his income, nor how big is a 2 bedroom apartment there." }, { "docid": "583666", "title": "", "text": "Wikipedia has a nice definition of financial literacy (emphasis below is mine): [...] refers to an individual's ability to make informed judgments and effective decisions about the use and management of their money. Raising interest in personal finance is now a focus of state-run programs in countries including Australia, Japan, the United States and the UK. [...] As for how you can become financially literate, here are some suggestions: Learn about how basic financial products works: bank accounts, mortgages, credit cards, investment accounts, insurance (home, car, life, disability, medical.) Free printed & online materials should be available from your existing financial service providers to help you with your existing products. In particular, learn about the fees, interest, or other charges you may incur with these products. Becoming fee-aware is a step towards financial literacy, since financially literate people compare costs. Seek out additional information on each type of product from unbiased sources (i.e. sources not trying to sell you something.) Get out of debt and stay out of debt. This may take a while. Focus on your highest-interest loans first. Learn the difference between good debt and bad debt. Learn about compound interest. Once you understand compound interest, you'll understand why being in debt is bad for your financial well-being. If you aren't already saving money for retirement, start now. Investigate whether your employer offers an advantageous matched 401(k) plan (or group RRSP/DC plan for Canadians) or a pension plan. If your employer offers a good plan, sign up. If you get to choose your own investments, keep it simple and favor low-cost balanced index funds until you understand the different types of investments. Read the material provided by the plan sponsor, try online tools provided, and seek out additional information from unbiased sources. If your employer doesn't offer an advantageous retirement plan, open an individual retirement account or IRA (or personal RRSP for Canadians.) If your employer does offer a plan, you can set one of these up to save even more. You could start with access to a family of low-cost mutual funds (examples: Vanguard for Americans, or TD eFunds for Canadians) or earn advanced credit by learning about discount brokers and self-directed accounts. Understand how income taxes and other taxes work. If you have an accountant prepare your taxes, ask questions. If you prepare your taxes yourself, understand what you're doing and don't file blind. Seek help if necessary. There are many good books on how income tax works. Software packages that help you self-file often have online help worth reading – read it. Learn about life insurance, medical insurance, disability insurance, wills, living wills & powers of attorney, and estate planning. Death and illness can derail your family's finances. Learn how these things can help. Seek out and read key books on personal finance topics. e.g. Your Money Or Your Life, Why Smart People Make Big Money Mistakes, The Four Pillars of Investing, The Random Walk Guide to Investing, and many more. Seek out and read good personal finance blogs. There's a wealth of information available for free on the Internet, but do check facts and assumptions. Here are some suggested blogs for American readers and some suggested blogs for Canadian readers. Subscribe to a personal finance periodical and read it. Good ones to start with are Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine in the U.S. and MoneySense Magazine in Canada. The business section in your local newspaper may sometimes have personal finance articles worth reading, too. Shameless plug: Ask more questions on this site. The Personal Finance & Money Stack Exchange is here to help you learn about money & finance, so you can make better financial decisions. We're all here to learn and help others learn about money. Keep learning!" }, { "docid": "142242", "title": "", "text": "\"I haven't dealt with this kind of thing in any way, but I found some quotes from IRS publications which I think are relevant and hopefully help. Your scenario sounds to me like a Qualified Tuition Reduction as described in Publication 970 Tax Benefits for Education. It appears the rules are different for graduate study as opposed to pre-graduate work, though I don't see anything about any dollar amount limit. There are various requirements and exceptions, so hopefully reading through that section of the publication can help you understand whether the benefit is supposed to be taxable. If taxable, it should show up on your W-2 like any other income: Any tuition reduction that is taxable should be included as wages on your Form W-2, box 1. Report the amount from Form W-2, box 1, on line 7 (Form 1040 or Form 1040A) or line 1 (Form 1040EZ). It doesn't appear that there is any special designation or box for the tuition reduction as opposed to \"\"normal\"\" work, it just is income that's been earned like any other. If you need guidance on how much of the income is for \"\"normal\"\" work and how much is for the tuition reduction, you probably need to see if you can figure it out from her pay stubs, or contact the university's HR department. Well, looking through the credits I see in Publication 970, there appear to be two possible credits: The \"\"American opportunity credit\"\" section, under \"\"No double benefit allowed\"\", says things like (my emphasis added): You can't do any of the following. ⋮ My understanding from reading through the section is that expenses are only excluded if they were tax-free, so that there can't be a double-dipping of benefits. If they're included as taxable income, I think they would count under your second interpretation, that the employer paid them like any other income, and your wife spent them as educational expenses just like other students, and they would qualify for educational credits. In fact, it explicitly states: Don't reduce qualified education expenses by amounts paid with funds the student receives as: Which sure sounds to me that anything that counts as W-2 Box 1 \"\"Wages\"\" would be payments received that then the expenses were logically paid separately from. The other credit, the \"\"Lifetime Learning Credit\"\", appears to use identical language (No double benefits; and don't reduce by wages). Obviously this is just from my looking through Publication 970; there may be more nuances here and for \"\"real\"\" advice you may want to speak more to the university HR department (who perhaps have dealt with this before) and/or a real tax advisor. You might also see if you can get any sort of a \"\"receipt\"\" or even a Form 1098-T from the university of what amount was paid on your wife's behalf, to help document it is truly that she was just paid more wages and spent them on classes as far as tax law is concerned.\"" }, { "docid": "317552", "title": "", "text": "\"So I'm in Australia and we have our very own housing price/credit bubble right now (which is finally deflating) and I'll try explain it as I understand. I welcome anyone to chime in and correct me. The problem we faced (still face to a large degree) is the idea of rising asset prices and how this fuels a feedback loop into increasing personal debt, all based on the false assumption that house prices always go up. Now before I continue, house prices *do* always go up in the long run, but so does the cost of everything and we call that inflation, adjusting for this effect usually reveals that house prices are cyclical in the long term and never really 'grow'. So that aside we in Australia recently saw a long period of increasing house prices (as did the USA and Europe, and more recently China), the thing about house price is it is your 'equity', I'll try and explain: (all figures are made up to provide a simple example) if you borrow $200,000 to buy a house that costs $250,000 you owe the bank 80% of the equity (what your home is 'worth', and notionally this is value that you own) in your home and the bank will be happy, remembering that they make money on your interest payments, not your principal repayments. If your house then increases in value to $300,000 but you still owe $200,000 then you now owe only 66% of your equity. The bank sees you as a lower risk and encourages you to borrow more to get back up to that sweet spot they had before of 80% - this is a nice tradeoff between risk and reward for the bank. You, the consumer, have just been mailed a new credit card with a 50k limit (hypothetical) and theres a new iMac being released next week, and you really did want to trade in your 5yr old car (see where this is going yet?). Not only is this type of spending given a mighty boost but consumers feel like this house thing has done them very well and suddenly they have the ability to borrow lots more money, why not get a second house and do it all over again? The added demand for investment housing drives prices, throw in some generous government incentives (here and in the USA) and demand is pushed hard, prices grow more and the whole thing feeds back into itself. People feel richer, spend more from their credit cards, buy another house, etc. But what happens if your house 'value' then drops to $240k? The bank now sees you as a high risk, so do the bank's investors, you have negative equity, the bank demands the difference paid back to it or it might take your home. Somehow, nobody believed this would happen. Hopefully you start to see the picture? In Australia we are now facing a slow melt in housing prices which has not yet hurt en masse but it has dried up the credit cards, retails spending has collapsed and everyone is worried about the future. Now to realise where the USA got to you have to also understand that banks were not merely asking for a maximum of 80% owed on the asset, many of them let this figure go to 100%, since hey prices always go up, right? They then in some cases went further and neglected to look into your income and confirm you could even *repay* your loan. Sounds dodgey? This is just the setup. Remember I mentioned the bank's investors? Well banks/smart people basically figured out a clever way of 'dealing with' the risk of a few outliers with bad financial situations by collecting large numbers of home loans into a single entity and selling it on. Loans were graded according to risk and I believe they were even cut up into smaller pieces (10% of your high risk loan assigned to 10 different 'debt objects' with different risk profiles). These 'collateralised debt obligations' were traded from one bank/investment firm to another with everyone happily accepting the risk profiles until eventually nobody knew what risk was where. Think about it like \"\"I'll throw 10 high risk loans, 50 medium risk loans and 40 low risk loans into a pot, stir it up and sell the soup as 'pretty safe' \"\". This all seemed like a very good idea until it gradually became clear just how much of these loans were in the 'extremely stupid high risk' category. This is probably extremely confusing by now, but thats the point, investors could no longer judge how risky an investment in a bank or financial institute was, the market did not correct for any of this until it was all too late. The moral of the story is when people tell you an investment is guaranteed to make you money, you stay away from that investment. And to specifically answer your question you can't solely blame government incentives as you might be able to see, but they play a part in a giant orchestra, there are many factors that drive this sort of stupidity, stupidity being the primary one.\"" }, { "docid": "441300", "title": "", "text": "Pricing would just be another way to describe valuation. I guess if you want to get technical, pricing - is the act of getting somethings valuation. While valuation - is the estimate of somethings worth. Security analysis - An examination and evaluation of the various factors affecting the value of a security. Side Note: While pricing is valuation, price is not. Price is how much the stock, or security costs most commonly determined by a market. Add On: The meaning of two words might matter depending on what context it is being used in. For example if we were talking about a market where an individual actually sets a price at random without doing any type of evaluation then this->answer that AlexR provides would better highlight the differences." }, { "docid": "20036", "title": "", "text": "That's really not something that can be answered based on the information provided. There are a lot of factors involved: type of income, your wife's tax bracket, the split between Federal and State (if you're in a high bracket in a high income-tax rate State - it may even be more than 50%), etc etc. The fact that your wife didn't withdraw the money is irrelevant. S-Corp is a pass-through entity, i.e.: owners are taxed on the profits based on their personal marginal tax rates, and it doesn't matter what they did with the money. In this case, your wife re-invested it into the corp (used it to pay off corp debts), which adds back to her basis. You really should talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) to learn how S-Corps work and how to use them properly. Your wife, actually, as she's the owner." }, { "docid": "390751", "title": "", "text": "\"A REIT is a real estate investment trust. It is a company that derives most of its gross income from and holds most of its assets in real estate investments, which, in this case, include either real property, mortgages, or both. They provide a way for investors to get broad exposure in a real estate market without going to buy a bunch of properties themselves. It also provides diversification within the real estate segment since REITs will often (but not necessarily) have either way more properties than an individual could get or have very large properties (like a few resorts) that would be too expensive for any one investor. By law, they must pay at least 90% of their taxable income as dividends to investors, so they typically have a good dividend rate (possibly but not necessarily) at the expense of growth of the stock price. Some of those dividends may be tax advantaged and some will not. An MLP is a master limited partnership. These trade on the exchange like corporations, but they are not corporations. (Although often used in common language as synonyms, corporation and company are not the same thing. Corporation is one way to organize a company under the law.) They are partnerships, and when you buy a share you become a partner in the company. This is an alternative form of ownership to being a shareholding. In this case you are a limited partner, which means that you have limited liability as with stock. The shares may appreciate or not, just like a stock, and you can generally sell them back to the market for a capital gain or loss under the same rules as a stock. The main difference here from a practical point of view is taxes: Partnerships (of any type) do no pay tax - Instead their income and costs are passed to the individual partners, who must then include it on their personal returns (Form 1040, Schedule E). The partnership will send each shareholder a Schedule K-1 form at tax time. This means you may have \"\"phantom income\"\" that is taxable even though cash never flowed through your hands since you'll have to account for the income of the partnership. Many partnerships mitigate this by making cash distributions during the year so that the partners do actually see the cash, but this is not required. On the other hand, if it does happen, it's often characterized as a return of capital, which is not taxable in the year that you receive it. A return of capital reduces your cost basis in the partnership and will eventually result in a larger capital gain when you sell your shares. As with any investment, there are pros and cons to each investment type. Of the two, the MLP is probably less like a \"\"regular\"\" stock since getting the Schedule K-1 may require some extra work at tax time, especially if you've never seen one before. On the other hand, that may be worth it to you if you can find one that's appreciating in value and still returning capital at a good rate since this could be a \"\"best of everything\"\" situation where you defer tax and - when you eventually do pay, you pay at favorable capital gains rates - but still manage to get your cash back in hand before you sell. (In case not clear, my comments about tax are specific to the US. No idea how this is treated elsewhere.) By real world example, I guess you meant a few tickers in each category? You can find whole lists online. I just did a quick search (\"\"list of MLP\"\" and \"\"list of REIT\"\"), found a list, and have provided the top few off of the first list that I found. The lists were alphabetical by company name, so there's no explicit or implicit endorsement of these particular investments. Examples of REIT: Examples of MLP:\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "380942", "title": "", "text": "\"Most online \"\"high yield\"\" savings accounts are paying just above 1%. That would be 1.05% for American Express personal savings, or 1.15% for Synchrony Bank‎ (currently). Depending on the length of the season, you might want to work in some CD's. Six months CDs can be had at 1.2%, and 9 month at 1.25%. So if you know you won't need some of your earnings for 9 months, you could earn 1.25% on your money. However, I would proceed with caution on anything other than the high yield savings account. With your one friend having such a low emergency fund, there is very little room for error. Perhaps until that amount is built up into something significant, it is just best to stick with the online savings. Of course, one solution would be to find a way to create income during the off season. That will go a long way into helping one build wealth.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "84267", "title": "", "text": "It's extra work for you to purchase a vehicle that has an outstanding lien on it. It's not uncommon, but there are things to take care of and watch out for. Really, all it means is that the vehicle you're trying to purchase hasn't been paid for in full by the current owner. Where things can get dodgy is ensuring that all outstanding debts are paid against the vehicle at the time you take ownership of it, otherwise the owners of those debts could still reclaim the vehicle. Here's a good article about making this kind of purchase." }, { "docid": "262885", "title": "", "text": "\"What you are looking for is a Money Coach or a Personal Finance Coach. From mymoneycoach.com: \"\"Money Coach: Everyone uses money, but few people fully understand how to use it wisely. To be debt free and enjoy a comfortable lifestyle takes special skills. Money coaches provide solutions for household budgeting, investing, using credit wisely, and saving for retirement. With the principles offered by a money coach, you can live the life you want to live.\"\" Usually money coaches or personal finance coaches will not tell you \"\"you should put your money here or there\"\" but instead they will work with you to identify and correct bad money behaviours that affect more than just your investments, and they will not sell you anything. Maybe you could take a look at some coaches in your area, but a lot of them work via the internet too. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "452148", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "285812", "title": "", "text": "As others have noted, you can do better than a checking or savings account. If you're going to invest emergency money, the vehicle you put it into should be: Liquid - Wherever you put it, you should be able to quickly cash it out. Highly liquid exchange traded products are good for this. Low volatility/drawdowns - If you need at least 6 months of your paycheck to cover you in the event of an emergency, you don't want to park it in a portfolio that can potentially lose 30% value. Insured - Your investments should have SIPC coverage (protection against losses resulting from failure on part of broker). Moderate/Steady Growth - If the emergency fund doesn't grow, you'll need to continually pump money into it. My 'steady growth' portfolio is majorly allocated to fixed income. Within that, a major portion is allocated to high yielding instruments. Over the past 10 years, it's seen at least a 7% annualized return." }, { "docid": "74402", "title": "", "text": "You want CFP or CFA who is also a fiduciary, meaning that by law they have to put your interests ahead of their own. Financial planners who are not fiduciaries can, and often do, recommend investment vehicles that earn them the most commission with little regard of your financial goals. If you already have $500,000 to invest and racking up $100,000 a month you probably qualify for most institutions private client programs. That means that the firm/advisor will look at your financial situation and come up with a custom-tailored investment plan for you which should also include tax planning. I would start with whatever financial institutions you already work with - Schwab, your bank etc. Set up a meeting and see what they have to offer. Make sure you interrogate them about their fees, their licenses/certifications and above all if they are a fiduciary." }, { "docid": "472739", "title": "", "text": "\"He's paying the interest and you're paying the principal. If you're making minimum monthly payments, you'll still be doing the same thing 25-30 years from now. I think Parker's advice was very, very good, but I'd like to add to it a little of my own. Whatever dollar amount your son is sending to you as payment, encourage him to continue doing that. Only instead of paying you, have him put that money into a savings plan of some kind. You mentioned that he's struggling now, yet able to come up with approximately (my best guess) $200/mo. I guarantee you that if he puts that $200/mo back into his pocket, he'll still be struggling every month yet have nothing to show for it. My suggestion changes nothing in his daily life, yet gives him $2400 at the end of every year. I was in a somewhat similiar situation as your son, only to the tune of $13,000. About 20 years ago, I got a loan and bought a new truck in which to use to go back and forth to work every day. The first 5 months the payments to the bank went as planned. Then my wife announces that \"\"we're\"\" pregnant. So my parents figured it would be best to just pay off my loan to the bank, avoiding any further interest charges, and take that truck payment and put it away for a rainy day. At 33 y/o, with my first child on the way, I finally started saving some of my money. It was good advice on their part because the rainy days came! They never asked me to pay them back, however I did offer. I've been tucking away $300-400/mo in the bank every month since then because I just got into the habit. Good thing I did too. In the past 10 years I've had to bury both of my parents, one sister and two wives and I'll tell ya, one thing that was comforting was the fact that I had the money. The little truck I bought 20 years ago is now my son's. It has around 260,000 miles on it now. When he trades it in for a newer vehicle, I will probably loan him the money and have him make payments to me rather than the bank. I, too, am not one to pay interest if I can help it. If he defaults, he's my son. I just won't buy him another vehicle! Or maybe he'll get into the same habit of saving money the same way I did. Like JohnFx said, money loaned to family should be regarded as a gift, otherwise you'll end up losing your money AND your family member! Hope some of this helps you make your decision.\"" }, { "docid": "138102", "title": "", "text": "\"I would like to add my accolades in saving $3000, it is an accomplishment that the majority of US households are unable to achieve. source While it is something, in some ways it is hardly anything. Working part time at a entry level job will earn you almost three times this amount per year, and with the same job you can earn about as much in two weeks as this investment is likely to earn, in the market in one year. All this leads to one thing: At your age you should be looking to increase your income. No matter if it is college or a high paying trade, whatever you can do to increase your life time earning potential would be the best investment for this money. I would advocate a more patient approach. Stick the money in the bank until you complete your education enough for an \"\"adult job\"\". Use it, if needed, for training to get that adult job. Get a car, a place of your own, and a sufficient enough wardrobe. Save an emergency fund. Then invest with impunity. Imagine two versions of yourself. One with basic education, a average to below average salary, that uses this money to invest in the stock market. Eventually that money will be needed and it will probably be pulled out of the market at an in opportune time. It might worth less than the original 3K! Now imagine a second version of yourself that has an above average salary due to some good education or training. Perhaps that 3K was used to help provide that education. However, this second version will probably earn 25,000 to 75,000 per year then the first version. Which one do you want to be? Which one do you think will be wealthier? Better educated people not only earn more, they are out of work less. You may want to look at this chart.\"" }, { "docid": "222153", "title": "", "text": "You need the services of a hard-nosed financial planner. A good one will defend your interests against the legions of creeps trying to separate you from your money. How can you tell whether such a person is working in your best interest? Here are some ways. You'll be able to tell pretty quickly whether the planner lets you get through the same story you told us. The ability to listen carefully without interrupting is a good way to tell whether the planner is going to honor your needs. You're looking for a human service professional, not an investment or business guru. There are planners who specialize in helping people navigate big changes in their financial situation. Some of the best of those planners are women. (Many of their customers are people whose spouses recently died. But they also serve people in your situation. Ask if they work with other people like you.) Of course, you need to take the planner's advice, especially about spending and saving levels." }, { "docid": "118999", "title": "", "text": "\"To be completely honest, I think that a target of 10-15% is very high and if there were an easy way to attain it, everyone would do it. If you want to have such a high return, you'll always have the risk of losing the same amount of money. Option 1 I personally think that you can make the highest return if you invest in real estate, and actively manage your property(s). If you do this well with short term rental and/or Airbnb I think you can make healthy returns BUT it will cost a lot of time and effort which may diminish its appeal. Think about talking to your estate agent to find renters, or always ensuring your AirBnB place is in good nick so you get a high rating and keep getting good customers. If you're looking for \"\"passive\"\" income, I don't think this is a good choice. Also make sure you take note of karancan's point of costs. No matter what you plan for, your costs will always be higher than you think. Think about water damage, a tenant that breaks things/doesn't take care of stuff etc. Option 2 I think taking a loan is unnecessarily risky if you're in good financial shape (as it seems), unless you're gonna buy a house with a mortgage and live in it. Option 3 I think your best option is to buy bonds and shares. You can follow karancan's 100 minus your age rule, which seems very reasonable (personally I invest all my money in shares because that's how my father brought me up, but it's really a matter of taste. Both can be risky though bonds are usually safer). I think I should note that you cannot expect a return of 10% or more because, as everyone always says, if there were a way to guarantee it, everyone would do it. You say you don't have any idea how this works so I'd go to my bank and ask them. You probably have access to private banking so that should mean someone will be able to sit you down and talk you through. Also look at other banks that have better rates and/or pretend you're leaving your bank to negotiate a better deal. If I were you I'd invest in blue chips (big international companies listed on the main indeces (DAX, FTSE 100, Dow Jones)), or (passively managed) mutual funds/ETFs that track these indeces. Just remember to diversify by country and industry a bit. Note: i would not buy the vehicles/plans that my bank (no matter what they promise, and they promise a lot) suggest because if you do that then the bank always takes a cut off your money. TlDr, dont expect to make 10-15% on a passive investment and do what a lot of others do: shares and bonds. Also make sure you get a lot of peoples opinions :)\"" }, { "docid": "152839", "title": "", "text": "The Trinity study looked at 'safe' withdrawal rates from retirement portfolios. They found it was safe to withdraw 4% of a portfolio consisting of stocks and bonds. I cannot immediately find exactly what specific investment allocations they used, but note that they found a portfolio consisting largely of stocks would allow for the withdrawal of 3% - 4% and still keep up with inflation. In this case, if you are able to fund $30,000, the study claims it would be safe to withdraw $900 - $1200 a year (that is, pay out as scholarships) while allowing the scholarship to grow sufficiently to cover inflation, and that this should work in perpetuity. My guess is that they invest such scholarship funds in a fairly aggressive portfolio. Most likely, they choose something along these lines: 70 - 80% stocks and 20 - 30% bonds. This is probably more risky than you'd want to take, but should give higher returns than a more conservative portfolio of perhaps 50 - 60% stocks, 40 - 50% bonds, over the long term. Just a regular, interest-bearing savings account isn't going to be enough. They almost never even keep up with inflation. Yes, if the stock market or the bond market takes a hit, the investment will suffer. But over the long term, it should more than recover the lost capital. Such scholarships care far more about the very long term and can weather a few years of bad returns. This is roughly similar to retirement planning. If you expect to be retired for, say, 10 years, you won't worry too much about pulling out your retirement funds. But it's quite possible to retire early (say, at 40) and plan for an infinite retirement. You just need a lot more money to do so. $3 million, invested appropriately, should allow you to pull out approximately $90,000 a year (adjusted upward for inflation) forever. I leave the specifics of how to come up with $3 million as an exercise for the reader. :) As an aside, there's a Memorial and Traffic Safety Fund which (kindly and gently) solicited a $10,000 donation after my wife was killed in a motor vehicle accident. That would have provided annual donations in her name, in perpetuity. This shows you don't need $30,000 to set up a scholarship or a fund. I chose to go another way, but it was an option I seriously considered. Edit: The Trinity study actually only looked at a 30 year withdrawal period. So long as the investment wasn't exhausted within 30 years, it was considered a success. The Trinity study has also been criticised when it comes to retirement. Nevertheless, there's some withdrawal rate at which point your investment is expected to last forever. It just may be slightly smaller than 3-4% per year." }, { "docid": "213393", "title": "", "text": "\"Electric does make a difference when considering whether to lease or buy. The make/model is something to consider. The state you live in also makes a difference. If you are purchasing a small electric compliance car (like the Fiat 500e), leasing is almost always a better deal. These cars are often only available in certain states (California and Oregon), and the lease deals available are very enticing. For example, the Fiat 500e is often available at well under $100/mo in a three-year lease with $0 down, while purchasing it would cost far more ($30k, minus credits/rebates = $20k), even when considering the residual value. If you want to own a Tesla Model S, I recommend purchasing a used car -- the market is somewhat flooded with used Teslas because some owners like to upgrade to the latest and greatest features and take a pretty big loss on their \"\"old\"\" Tesla. You can save a lot of money on a pre-owned Model S with relatively low miles, and the battery packs have been holding up well. If you have your heart set on a new Model S, I would treat it like any other vehicle and do the comparison of lease vs buy. One thing to keep in mind that buying a Model S before the end of 2016 will grandfather you into the free supercharging for life, which makes the car more valuable in the future. Right now (2016/2017) there is a $7500 federal tax credit when buying an electric vehicle. If you lease, the leasing company gets the credit, not you. The cost of the lease should indirectly reflect this credit, however. Some states have additional incentives. California has a $2500 rebate, for example, that you can receive even if you lease the vehicle. To summarize: a small compliance car often has very good reasons to lease. An expensive luxury car like the Tesla can be looked at like any other lease vs buy decision, and buying a used Model S may save the most money.\"" }, { "docid": "273618", "title": "", "text": "\"This Stack Exchange site is a nice place to find answers and ask questions. Good start! Moving away from the recursive answer... Simply distilling personal finance down to \"\"I have money, I'll need money in the future, what do I do\"\", an easily digestible book with how-to, multi-step guidelines is \"\"I Will Teach You To Be Rich\"\". The author talks about setting up the accounts you should have, making sure all your bills are paid automatically, saving on the big things and tips to increase your take home pay. That link goes to a compilation page on the blog with many of the most fundamental articles. However, \"\"The World’s Easiest Guide To Understanding Retirement Accounts\"\" is a particularly key article. While all the information is on the free blog, the book is well organized and concise. The Simple Dollar is a nice blog with frugal living tips, lifestyle assessments, financial thoughts and reader questions. The author also reviews about a book a week. Investing - hoping to get better returns than savings can provide while minimizing risk. This thread is an excellent list of books to learn about investing. I highly recommend \"\"The Bogleheads' Guide to Investing\"\" and \"\"The Only Investment Guide You'll Ever Need\"\". The world of investment vehicles is huge but it doesn't have to be complicated once you ignore all the fads and risky stuff. Index mutual funds are the place to start (and maybe end). Asset allocation and diversification are themes to guide you. The books on that list will teach you.\"" }, { "docid": "88942", "title": "", "text": "\"It makes no sense to spend money unnecessarily, just for the purpose of improving your credit score. You have to stop and ask yourself the question \"\"Why do I need a good credit score?\"\" Most of the time, the answer will be \"\"so I can get a lower interest rate on (ABC loan) in the future.\"\" However, if you spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars in the present, just so that you can save a few points on a loan, you're not going to come out ahead. The car question should be considered strictly in the context of transportation expenses: \"\"It cost me $X to get around last year using Lyft. If instead I owned a car, it would have cost me $Y for gas, insurance, depreciation, parking, etc.\"\" If you come out ahead and Y < X, then buy the car. Don't jump into an expensive vehicle (which is never a good investment) or get trapped into an expensive lease which will costs you many times more than the depreciation value of a decent used car, just so that you can save a few points on a mortgage. Your best option moving forward would be to pay off your student loans first, getting rid of that interest expense. Place the remainder in savings, then start to look at a budget. Setting aside a 20% down payment on a home is considered the minimum to many people, and if that is out of reach you might need to consider other neighborhoods (less than 400K!). If you're still concerned about your credit score, a good way to build that up (once you have a budget and spending under control) is to get a credit card with no annual fees. Start putting all of your expenses on the credit card (groceries, etc), and paying off the balance IN FULL every month. By spending only what you need to within a reasonable budget, and making payments on time and in full, your credit rating will begin to gradually improve. If you have a difficult time tracking your expenses or sticking to a budget, then there is potential for danger here, as credit cards are notorious for high interest and penalties. But by keeping it under control and putting the rest toward savings, you can begin to build wealth and put yourself in a much better financial position moving into the future.\"" }, { "docid": "464297", "title": "", "text": "If you have money and may need to access it at any time, you should put it in a savings account. It won't return much interest, but it will return some and it is easily accessible. If you have all your emergency savings that you need (at least six months of income), buy index-based mutual funds. These should invest in a broad range of securities including both stocks and bonds (three dollars in stocks for every dollar in bonds) so as to be robust in the face of market shifts. You should not buy individual stocks unless you have enough money to buy a lot of them in different industries. Thirty different stocks is a minimum for a diversified portfolio, and you really should be looking at more like a hundred. There's also considerable research effort required to verify that the stocks are good buys. For most people, this is too much work. For most people, broad-based index funds are better purchases. You don't have as much upside, but you also are much less likely to find yourself holding worthless paper. If you do buy stocks, look for ones where you know something about them. For example, if you've been to a restaurant chain with a recent IPO that really wowed you with their food and service, consider investing. But do your research, so that you don't get caught buying after everyone else has already overbid the price. The time to buy is right before everyone else notices how great they are, not after. Some people benefit from joining investment clubs with others with similar incomes and goals. That way you can share some of the research duties. Also, you can get other opinions before buying, which can restrain risky impulse buys. Just to reiterate, I would recommend sticking to mutual funds and saving accounts for most investors. Only make the move into individual stocks if you're willing to be serious about it. There's considerable work involved. And don't forget diversification. You want to have stocks that benefit regardless of what the overall economy does. Some stocks should benefit from lower oil prices while others benefit from higher prices. You want to have both types so as not to be caught flat-footed when prices move. There are much more experienced people trying to guess market directions. If your strategy relies on outperforming them, it has a high chance of failure. Index-based mutual funds allow you to share the diversification burden with others. Since the market almost always goes up in the long term, a fund that mimics the market is much safer than any individual security can be. Maintaining a three to one balance in stocks to bonds also helps as they tend to move in opposite directions. I.e. stocks tend to be good when bonds are weak and vice versa." }, { "docid": "253552", "title": "", "text": "\"First of all, the numbers you give are most probably nowhere near the total expenses you have/need to budget: Maybe you should have a look at the expenses you had over the last years (look at how much money came in and how much went to the savings and compare this expenses to the sum of all the expenses you have on your list of expenses as plausibility check. Just starting on some numbers you give and assuming the house is the main goal. House of 300 - 500 k€, assuming downpayment of 30 - 40 %, i.e. somewhere between 90 and 200 k€. I'll go on calculating with 150 k€ which would be 50 % of 300 k€ or 30 % of 500 k€. You want to be there in 8 - 15 a: this means saving 10 - 19 k€ per year. 19 k€/a is clearly impossible with 20 k€ net wage. 10 k€ with 20 k€ net wage means a savings quote of 50 %, so for each € you spend, one goes towards the house. This is doable in the sense that if you continue with 4 k€/a for rent plus a Harz 4 (= 400 €/month) style of life, that would put you to 9 k€ expenses/a, thus 1 k€ saving for unexpected disaster (I'd actually first get a couple of k€ together for such things, and then go as much as possible towards the house). Still, this is not the life style the rest of your goals sounds like. (You can update this somewhat with the expected income of your girlfriend/wife. But remember that she needs food and clothes as well and you assume she'll need a car of her own) Let me rephrase the savings goal of 150 k€: you'd try to save 3 times the median German household equity within 8 to 15 years. This should tell you that it is a very steep proposition. On the other hand, e.g. Slowakians manage to have a median household equity of ca 60 k€ out of a median income that is roughly half the median income in Germany. So again it is somehow possible, but it will be really tough to live a life style like a Slowakian or Harz 4ler between peers that spend roughly everything (good approximation as we're talking about savings rates above 50 % of net income) they earn. I think the \"\"easiest\"\" way to get your savings going is to postpone lifestyle upgrades. On the other hand, around Waldeck, 150 k€ would buy you a complete new house of the same size that costs 300 - 500 k€ around Darmstadt. So if you really want to go for the house, I'd recommend not only to save as hard as you can*, but also to look out for possibilities to relocate to a cheaper area. 8 - 15 years should be enough time to decide what area you'd like and then to look for an opportunity without too much pressure. And actually this should be enough time so that also your girlfriend/wife could get herself transferred to another Bundesland. * In reality saving as hard as possible will probably get you nowhere near 150 k€ (there are very few people who manage to do this - though they exist), but if you get to 75 k€ that would mean a reasonably good position for both starting negotiations with the bank about buying a 150 k€ house plus the corresponding payment of the mortgage. If you get there within less than 15 years that would also leave some air in case you change opinion with regard to kids and then leaves a reasonable amount of time to put together your pension. Consider your psychology about saving towards the house. Even if both of you know that you want it really hard, it may be good to enter a building savings contract (15 years should be reasonable for that way) which will enforce you to keep up the savings rate and also does not allow you to divert money for other purposes. However, I'd say that 6 months into the first job it may be a bit early to fix such savings rates. Maybe for the beginning a savings account that includes some hassle to get the money out again (set low limit and allow any outgoing money to go only to another account of yours) with an automatic savings deposit every month is a way how to safely determine the savings rate you can manage. Maybe you can use this to first put together your new emergency savings which should be first priority anyways. If you want to cut expenses in order to save, look at the recommendations for people who try to get out of debt: budget your expenses, cook yourself and enjoy this (maybe taking a cooking class together with your girlfriend is a lot of fun, leads to food that may even be more to your taste than restaurant stuff - and is much cheaper), keep book, pay in cash (not by card) and so on. If you're not a DIY person, try whether you could enjoy becoming one - no magic involved there. I guess the most important point is to find out how much you want the house and then how hard you are willing to save. This is something only you and your girlfriend can decide (together!). IMHO you really don't need to invest (unless you drop the house plan), you need to save towards your goals. You may decide to invest a small part of the money while saving in order to learn slowly how that works, but if the house goal is already kind of fixed in time, you don't want to find yourself in the situation that you have to get out of investments at a bad time in order to be able to buy the house. Even if you consider 15 years long enough to do some investing now and then get out some time during the next 15 years, you don't have any money to invest now. Later, the risk posed by the fixed point in time when you need the money is too large: Considering the rather steep saving propositions, the marginal costs of having less money are really large. This means you don't want to go for risky investments => plain old saving is what you need. Consider also that low house prices tend to come during economic crisis (people cannot pay mortgage and have to sell) so within the time window, you want to have your money for anticyclic buying if possible.\"" }, { "docid": "402115", "title": "", "text": "\"I would definitely keep working because Social Security pays out for people with permanent disabilities, but it's dependant on working and paying into to Soc Security for a period of time. Here's a link to the info. http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10029.html#part2 If your 401k has an employer match,then the no brainer answer is \"\"YES!', otherwise you are just leaving money on the table. Even if there isn't, I think they are good vehicles for saving money while deferring interest.\"" }, { "docid": "278638", "title": "", "text": "I believe you're looking for some sort of formula that will determine how changes in savings, investing, and spending will affect economic growth. If such a formula existed (and worked) then central planning would work since a couple of people could pull some levers to encourage more savings, or more investing, or more spending - depending on what was needed at that particular time. Unfortunately, no magic formula exists and so no person has enough knowledge to determine what the proper amount of savings, investing, or spending should be at a given time. I found this resource particular helpful in describing the interactions between savings, consumption, and investing." }, { "docid": "317902", "title": "", "text": "\"A primary residence can be an admirable investment/retirement vehicle for a number of reasons. The tax savings on the mortgage are negligible compared to these. A $200,000 mortgage might result in a $2000 annual savings on your taxes -- but a $350,000 house might easily appreciate $20,000 (tax free!) in a good year. Some reasons to not buy a larger house. Getting into or out of a house is tremendously expensive and inconvenient. It can make some life-changes (including retirement) more difficult. There is no way to \"\"diversify\"\" a primary residence. You have one investment and you are a hostage to its fortunes. The shopping center down the street goes defunct and its ruins becomes a magnet for criminals and derelicts? Your next-door neighbor is a lunatic or a pyromaniac? A big hurricane hits your county? Ha-ha, now you're screwed. As they say in the Army, BOHICA: bend over, here it comes again. Even if nothing bad happens, you are paying to \"\"enjoy\"\" a bigger house whether you enjoy it or not. Eating spaghetti from paper plates, sitting on the floor of your enormous, empty dining room, may be romantic when you're 27. When you're 57, it may be considerably less fun. Speaking for myself, both my salary and my investment income have varied wildly, and often discouragingly, over my life, but my habit of buying and renovating dilapidated homes in chic neighborhoods has brought me six figures a year, year after year after year. tl;dr the mortgage-interest deduction is the smallest of many reasons to invest in residential real-estate, but there are good reasons not to.\"" }, { "docid": "328754", "title": "", "text": "\"Switching to only 401k or only SPY? Both bad ideas. Read on. You need multiple savings vehicles. 401k, Roth IRA, emergency fund. You can/should add others for long term savings goals and wealth building. Though you could combine the non-tax-advantaged accounts and keep track of your minimum (representing the emergency fund). SPY is ETF version of SPDR index mutual fund tracking the S&P 500 index. Index funds buy weighted amounts of members of their index by an algorithm to ensure that the total holdings of the fund model the index that they track. They use market capitalization and share prices and other factors to automatically rebalance. Individual investors do not directly affect the composition or makeup of the S&P500, at least not visibly. Technically, very large trades might have a visible effect on the index makeup, but I suspect the size of the trade would be in the billions. An Electronically Traded Fund is sold by the share and represents one equal share of the underlying fund, as divided equally amongst all the shareholders. You put dollars into a fund, you buy shares of an ETF. In the case of an index ETF, it allows you to \"\"buy\"\" a fractional share of the underlying index such as the S&P 500. For SPY, 10 SPY shares represent one S&P basket. Targeted retirement plan funds combine asset allocation into one fund. They are a one stop shop for a diversified allocation. Beware the fees though. Always beware the fees. Fidelity offers a huge assortment of plans. You should look into what is available for you after you decide how you will proceed. More later. SPY is a ETF, think of it as a share of stock. You can go to a bank, broker, or what have you and set up an account and buy shares of it. Then you have x shares of SPY which is the ETF version of SPDR which is an index mutual fund. If the company is matching the first 10% of your income on a 1:1 basis, that would be the best I've heard of in the past two decades, even with the 10 year vesting requirement. If this is them matching 1 dollar in 10 that you contribute to 401k, it may be the worst I've ever heard of, especially with 10 year vesting. Typical is 3-5% match, 3-5 year vesting. Bottom line, that match is free money. And the tax advantage should not be ignored, even if there is no match. Research: I applaud your interest. The investments you make now will have the greatest impact on your retirement. Here's a scenario: If you can figure out how to live on 50% of your take home pay (100k * 0.90 * 0.60 * 0.5 / 12) (salary with first 10% in 401k at roughly 60% after taxes, social security, medicare, etc. halved and divided by 12 for a monthly amount), you'll have 2250 a month to live on. Since you're 28 and single, it's far easier for you to do than someone who is 50 and married with kids. That leaves you with 2250 a month to max out 401k and Roth and invest the rest in wealth building. After four or five years the amount your investments are earning will begin to be noticeable. After ten years or so, they will eclipse your contributions. At that point you could theoretically live of the income. This works with any percentage rate, and the higher your savings rate is, the lower your cost of living amount is, and the faster you'll hit an investment income rate that matches your cost of living amount. At least that's the early retirement concept. The key, as far as I can tell, is living frugally, identifying and negating wasteful spending, and getting the savings rate high without forcing yourself into cheap behavior. Reading financial independence blog posts tells me that once they learn to live frugally, they enjoy it. It's a lot of work, and planning, but if you want to be financially independent, you are definitely in a good position to consider it. Other notes:\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "270221", "title": "", "text": "\"There are no risk-free high-liquidity instruments that pay a significant amount of interest. There are some money-market accounts around that pay 1%-2%, but they often have minimum balance or transaction limits. Even if you could get 3%, on a $4K balance that would be $120 per year, or $10 per month. You can do much better than that by just going to $tarbucks two less times per month (or whatever you can cut from your expenses) and putting that into the savings account. Or work a few extra hours and increase your income. I appreciate the desire to \"\"maximize\"\" the return on your money, but in reality increasing income and reducing expenses have a much greater impact until you build up significant savings and are able to absorb more risk. Emergency funds should be highly liquid and risk-free, so traditional investments aren't appropriate vehicles for them.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "472739", "title": "", "text": "\"He's paying the interest and you're paying the principal. If you're making minimum monthly payments, you'll still be doing the same thing 25-30 years from now. I think Parker's advice was very, very good, but I'd like to add to it a little of my own. Whatever dollar amount your son is sending to you as payment, encourage him to continue doing that. Only instead of paying you, have him put that money into a savings plan of some kind. You mentioned that he's struggling now, yet able to come up with approximately (my best guess) $200/mo. I guarantee you that if he puts that $200/mo back into his pocket, he'll still be struggling every month yet have nothing to show for it. My suggestion changes nothing in his daily life, yet gives him $2400 at the end of every year. I was in a somewhat similiar situation as your son, only to the tune of $13,000. About 20 years ago, I got a loan and bought a new truck in which to use to go back and forth to work every day. The first 5 months the payments to the bank went as planned. Then my wife announces that \"\"we're\"\" pregnant. So my parents figured it would be best to just pay off my loan to the bank, avoiding any further interest charges, and take that truck payment and put it away for a rainy day. At 33 y/o, with my first child on the way, I finally started saving some of my money. It was good advice on their part because the rainy days came! They never asked me to pay them back, however I did offer. I've been tucking away $300-400/mo in the bank every month since then because I just got into the habit. Good thing I did too. In the past 10 years I've had to bury both of my parents, one sister and two wives and I'll tell ya, one thing that was comforting was the fact that I had the money. The little truck I bought 20 years ago is now my son's. It has around 260,000 miles on it now. When he trades it in for a newer vehicle, I will probably loan him the money and have him make payments to me rather than the bank. I, too, am not one to pay interest if I can help it. If he defaults, he's my son. I just won't buy him another vehicle! Or maybe he'll get into the same habit of saving money the same way I did. Like JohnFx said, money loaned to family should be regarded as a gift, otherwise you'll end up losing your money AND your family member! Hope some of this helps you make your decision.\"" }, { "docid": "407228", "title": "", "text": "\"Zephyr, Did you see something specific regarding a claim of money saved through observance of the Earth Hour event? The organisers maintain it is about raising awareness of climate change issues - I can't find anything from them regarding saving money/have never seen anything. You could take the claims regarding drops in national-level energy consumption and the decrease in use of various items/devices etc etc and work out a financial savings of a sort - ie. add together \"\"energy not used x average kilowatt cost\"\", \"\"fuel saved through non-use of vehicles x average price per litre\"\", etc etc and so on. But it would be wild wild guesses littered with assumptions - I seriously doubt you could work up a credible figure. Which is why I don't think the organisers make claims regarding money (please correct me if you saw something from them that stated otherwise) - they tend to stick to the \"\"awareness\"\" mantra. Regarding your second question, I think you'll find there is some consensus that large-scale downturns followed by large-scale upturns in electricity consumption is not environmentally friendly. The Telegraph is a good read on this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7527469/Earth-Hour-will-not-cut-carbon-emissions.html (To be honest, the Telegraph's article is a good summary of the entire concept of Earth Day.)\"" }, { "docid": "595427", "title": "", "text": "\"It sounds like the kinds of planners you're talking to might be a poor fit, because they are essentially salespersons selling investments for a commission. Some thoughts on finding a financial planner The good kind of financial planner is going to be able to do a comprehensive plan - look at your whole life, goals, and non-investment issues such as insurance. You should expect to get a document with a Monte Carlo simulation showing your odds of success if you stick to the plan; for investments, you should expect to see a recommended asset allocation and an emphasis on low-cost no-commission (commission is \"\"load\"\") funds. See some of the other questions from past posts, for example What exactly can a financial advisor do for me, and is it worth the money? A good place to start for a planner might be http://napfa.org ; there's also a franchise of planners providing hourly advice called the Garrett Planning Network, I helped my mom hire someone from them and she was very happy, though I do think your results would depend mostly on the individual rather than the franchise. Anyway see http://www.garrettplanningnetwork.com/map.html , they do require planners to be fee-only and working on their CFP credential. You should really look for the Certified Financial Planner (CFP) credential. There are a lot of credentials out there, but many of them mean very little, and others might be hard to get but not mean the right thing. Some other meaningful ones include Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) which would be a solid investment expert, though not necessarily someone knowledgeable in financial planning generally; and IRS Enrolled Agent, which means someone who knows a lot about taxes. A CPA (accountant) would also be pretty meaningful. A law degree (and estate law know-how) is very relevant to many planning situations, too. Some not-very-meaningful certifications include Certified Mutual Fund Specialist (which isn't bogus, but it's much easier to get than CFP or CFA); Registered Investment Adviser (RIA) which mostly means the person is supposed to understand securities fraud laws, but doesn't mean they know a lot about financial planning. There are some pretty bogus certifications out there, many have \"\"retirement\"\" or \"\"senior\"\" in the name. A good question for any planner is \"\"Are you a fiduciary?\"\" which means are they legally required to act in your interests and not their own. Most sales-oriented advisors are not fiduciaries; they wouldn't charge you a big sales commission if they were, and they are not \"\"on your side\"\" legally speaking. It's a good idea to check with your state regulators or the SEC to confirm that your advisor is registered and ask if they have had any complaints. (Small advisors usually register with the state and larger ones with the federal SEC). If they are registered, they may still be a salesperson who isn't acting in your interests, but at least they are following the law. You can also see if they've been in trouble in the past. When looking for a planner, one firm I found had a professional looking web site and didn't seem sketchy at all, but the state said they were not properly registered and not in compliance. Other ideas A good book is: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 it's very approachable and you'd feel more confident talking to someone maybe with more background information. For companies to work with, stick to the ones that are very consumer-friendly and sell no-load funds. Vanguard is probably the one you'll hear about most. But T. Rowe Price, Fidelity, USAA are some other good names. Fidelity is a bit of a mixture, with some cheap consumer-friendly investments and other products that are less so. Avoid companies that are all about charging commission: pretty much anyone selling an annuity is probably bad news. Annuities have some valid uses but mostly they are a bad deal. Not knowing your specific situation in any detail, it's very likely that 60k is not nearly enough, and that making the right investment choices will make only a small difference. You could invest poorly and maybe end up with 50K when you retire, or invest well and maybe end up with 80-90k. But your goal is probably more like a million dollars, or more, and most of that will come from future savings. This is what a planner can help you figure out in detail. It's virtually certain that any planner who is for real, and not a ripoff salesperson, will talk a lot about how much you need to save and so forth, not just about choosing investments. Don't be afraid to pay for a planner. It's well worth it to pay someone a thousand dollars for a really thorough, fiduciary plan with your interests foremost. The \"\"free\"\" planners who get a commission are going to get a whole lot more than a thousand dollars out of you, even though you won't write a check directly. Be sure to convert those mutual fund expense ratios and sales commissions into actual dollar amounts! To summarize: find someone you're paying, not someone getting a commission; look for that CFP credential showing they passed a demanding exam; maybe read a quick and easy book like the one I mentioned just so you know what the advisor is talking about; and don't rush into anything! And btw, I think you ought to be fine with a solid plan. You and your husband have time remaining to work with. Good luck.\"" }, { "docid": "74402", "title": "", "text": "You want CFP or CFA who is also a fiduciary, meaning that by law they have to put your interests ahead of their own. Financial planners who are not fiduciaries can, and often do, recommend investment vehicles that earn them the most commission with little regard of your financial goals. If you already have $500,000 to invest and racking up $100,000 a month you probably qualify for most institutions private client programs. That means that the firm/advisor will look at your financial situation and come up with a custom-tailored investment plan for you which should also include tax planning. I would start with whatever financial institutions you already work with - Schwab, your bank etc. Set up a meeting and see what they have to offer. Make sure you interrogate them about their fees, their licenses/certifications and above all if they are a fiduciary." }, { "docid": "118999", "title": "", "text": "\"To be completely honest, I think that a target of 10-15% is very high and if there were an easy way to attain it, everyone would do it. If you want to have such a high return, you'll always have the risk of losing the same amount of money. Option 1 I personally think that you can make the highest return if you invest in real estate, and actively manage your property(s). If you do this well with short term rental and/or Airbnb I think you can make healthy returns BUT it will cost a lot of time and effort which may diminish its appeal. Think about talking to your estate agent to find renters, or always ensuring your AirBnB place is in good nick so you get a high rating and keep getting good customers. If you're looking for \"\"passive\"\" income, I don't think this is a good choice. Also make sure you take note of karancan's point of costs. No matter what you plan for, your costs will always be higher than you think. Think about water damage, a tenant that breaks things/doesn't take care of stuff etc. Option 2 I think taking a loan is unnecessarily risky if you're in good financial shape (as it seems), unless you're gonna buy a house with a mortgage and live in it. Option 3 I think your best option is to buy bonds and shares. You can follow karancan's 100 minus your age rule, which seems very reasonable (personally I invest all my money in shares because that's how my father brought me up, but it's really a matter of taste. Both can be risky though bonds are usually safer). I think I should note that you cannot expect a return of 10% or more because, as everyone always says, if there were a way to guarantee it, everyone would do it. You say you don't have any idea how this works so I'd go to my bank and ask them. You probably have access to private banking so that should mean someone will be able to sit you down and talk you through. Also look at other banks that have better rates and/or pretend you're leaving your bank to negotiate a better deal. If I were you I'd invest in blue chips (big international companies listed on the main indeces (DAX, FTSE 100, Dow Jones)), or (passively managed) mutual funds/ETFs that track these indeces. Just remember to diversify by country and industry a bit. Note: i would not buy the vehicles/plans that my bank (no matter what they promise, and they promise a lot) suggest because if you do that then the bank always takes a cut off your money. TlDr, dont expect to make 10-15% on a passive investment and do what a lot of others do: shares and bonds. Also make sure you get a lot of peoples opinions :)\"" }, { "docid": "444568", "title": "", "text": "There are some great answers on this site similar to what you asked, with either a non-jurisdictional or a US-centric focus. I would read those answers as well to give yourself more points of view on early investing. There are a few differences between Canada and the US from an investing perspective that you should also then consider, namely tax rules, healthcare, and education. I'll get Healthcare and Education out of the way quickly. Just note the difference in perspective in Canada of having government healthcare; putting money into health-savings plans or focusing on insurance as a workplace benefit is not a key motivating factor, but more a 'nice-to-have'. For education, it is more common in Canada for a student to either pay for school while working summer / part-time jobs, or at least taking on manageable levels of debt [because it is typically not quite as expensive as private colleges in the US]. There is still somewhat of a culture of saving for your child's education here, but it is not as much of a necessity as it may be in the US. From an investing perspective, I will quickly note some common [though not universal] general advice, before getting Canadian specific. I have blatantly stolen the meat of this section from Ben Miller's great answer here: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing Once you have a solid financial footing, some peculiarities of Canadian investing are below. For all the tax-specific plans I'm about to mention, note that the banks do a very good job here of tricking you into believing they are complex, and that you need your hand to be held. I have gotten some criminally bad tax advice from banking reps, so at the risk of sounding prejudiced, I recommend that you learn everything you can beforehand, and only go into your bank when you already know the right answer. The 'account types' themselves just involve a few pages of paperwork to open, and the banks will often do that for free. They make up their fees in offering investment types that earn them management fees once the accounts are created. Be sure to separate the investments (stocks vs bonds etc.) vs the investment vehicles. Canada has 'Tax Free Savings Accounts', where you can contribute a certain amount of money every year, and invest in just about anything you want, from bonds to stocks to mutual funds. Any Income you earn in this account is completely tax free. You can withdraw these investments any time you want, but you can't re-contribute until January 1st of next year. ie: you invest $5k today in stocks held in a TFSA, and they grow to $6k. You withdraw $6k in July. No tax is involved. On January 1st next year, you can re-contribute a new $6K, and also any additional amounts added to your total limit annually. TFSA's are good for short-term liquid investments. If you don't know for sure when you'll need the money, putting it in a TFSA saves you some tax, but doesn't commit you to any specific plan of action. Registered Retirement Savings Plans allow you to contribute money based on your employment income accrued over your lifetime in Canada. The contributions are deducted from your taxable income in the year you make them. When you withdraw money from your RRSP, the amount you withdraw gets added as additional income in that year. ie: you invest $5k today in stocks held in an RRSP, and get a $5k deduction from your taxable income this year. The investments grow to $6k. You withdraw $6k next year. Your taxable income increases by $6k [note that if the investments were held 'normally' {outside of an RRSP}, you would have a taxable gain of only 50% of the total gain; but withdrawing the amount from your RRSP makes the gain 100% taxable]. On January 1st next year, you CANNOT recontribute this amount. Once withdrawn, it cannot be recontributed [except for below items]. RRSP's are good for long-term investing for retirement. There are a few factors at play here: (1) you get an immediate tax deduction, thus increasing the original size of investment by deferring tax to the withdrawal date; (2) your investments compound tax-free [you only pay tax at the end when you withdraw, not annually on earnings]; and (3) many people expect that they will have a lower tax-rate when they retire, than they do today. Some warnings about RRSP's: (1) They are less liquid than TFSA's; you can't put money in, take it out, and put it in again. In general, when you take it out, it's out, and therefore useless unless you leave it in for a long time; (2) Income gets re-characterized to be fully taxable [no dividend tax credits, no reduced capital gains tax rate]; and (3) There is no guarantee that your tax rate on retirement will be less than today. If you contribute only when your tax rate is in the top bracket, then this is a good bet, but even still, in 30 years, tax rates might rise by 20% [who knows?], meaning you could end up paying more tax on the back-end, than you saved in the short term. Home Buyer Plan RRSP withdrawals My single favourite piece of advice for young Canadians is this: if you contribute to an RRSP at least 3 months before you make a down payment on your first house, you can withdraw up to $25k from your RRSP without paying tax! to use for the down payment. Then over the next ~10 years, you need to recontribute money back to your RRSP, and you will ultimately be taxed when you finally take the money out at retirement. This means that contributing up to 25k to an RRSP can multiply your savings available for a down payment, by the amount of your tax rate. So if you make ~60k, you'll save ~35% on your 25k deposited, turning your down payment into $33,750. Getting immediate access to the tax savings while also having access to the cash for a downpayment, makes the Home Buyer Plan a solid way to make the most out of your RRSP, as long as one of your near-term goals is to own your own home. Registered Pension Plans are even less liquid than RRSPs. Tax-wise, they basically work the same: you get a deduction in the year you contribute, and are taxed when you withdraw. The big difference is that there are rules on when you are allowed to withdraw: only in retirement [barring specific circumstances]. Typically your employer's matching program (if you have one) will be inside of an RPP. Note that RPP's and RRSP's reduce your taxes on your employment paycheques immediately, if you contribute through a work program. That means you get the tax savings during the year, instead of all at once a year later on April 30th. *Note that I have attempted at all times to keep my advice current with applicable tax legislation, but I do not guarantee accuracy. Research these things yourself because I may have missed something relevant to your situation, I may be just plain wrong, and tax law may have changed since I wrote this to when you read it." }, { "docid": "237189", "title": "", "text": "\"The advice to \"\"Only invest what you can afford to lose\"\" is good advice. Most people should have several pots of money: Checking to pay your bills; short term savings; emergency fund; college fund; retirement. When you think about investing that is the funds that have along lead time: college and retirement. It is never the money you need to pay your bills. Now when somebody is young, the money they have decided to invest can be in riskier investments. You have time to recover. Over time the transition is made to less risky investments because the recovery time is now limited. For example putting all your college savings for your recent high school graduate into the stock market could have devastating consequences. Your hear this advice \"\"Only invest what you can afford to lose\"\" because too many people ask about hove to maximize the return on the down payment for their house: Example A, Example B. They want to use vehicles designed for long term investing, for short term purposes. Imagine a 10% correction while you are waiting for closing.\"" }, { "docid": "371886", "title": "", "text": "The matching funds are free money, so it is a very good idea to take that money off the table. Look at it as free 100% return: you deposit $1000, your employer matches that $1000, you now have $2000 in your 401(k). (Obviously, I'm keeping things simple. Vesting schedules mean that the employer match isn't yours to keep immediately, but rather after some time; usually in chunks.) Beyond the employer match, you need to consider what is available for investment in a 401(k). Typically, your options are more limited then in an IRA. The cost of the 401(k) should be considered, as it isn't trivial for most. (The specifics will of course vary, but in large IRA accounts are cheaper.) So, it's about the opportunity costs. Up to the employer match, it doesn't matter as much that your investment choices are more limited in a 401(k), because you're getting 100% return just on the matching funds. Once that is exhausted, you have more opportunity for returns, due to having more options available to you, by going with an account that provides more choices. The overall principle here is that you have to look at the whole picture. This is similar to the notion that you should pay-down your high interest debt before investing, because from the perspective of investing the interest you're paying represent a loss, or negative return on investment, since money is going out of your accounts. Specific to your question, you have to consider the various types of investment vehicles available to you. It is not just about 401(k) and IRA accounts. You may also consider a straight brokerage account, a savings account, CDs, etc. The costs and returns that you can typically expect are your guides through the available choices." }, { "docid": "391605", "title": "", "text": "\"Should I invest the money I don't need immediately and only withdraw it next year when I need it for living expenses or should I simply leave it in my current account? This might come as a bit of a surprise, but your money is already invested. We talk of investment vehicles. An investment vehicle is basically a place where you can put money and have it either earn a return, or be able to get it back later, or both. (The neither case is generally called \"\"spending\"\".) There are also investment classes which are things like cash, stocks, bonds, precious metals, etc.: different things that you can buy within an investment vehicle. You currently have the money in a bank account. Bank accounts currently earn very low interest rates, but they are also very liquid and very secure (in the sense of being certain that you will get the principal back). Now, when you talk about \"\"investing the money\"\", you are probably thinking of moving it from where it is currently sitting earning next to no return, to somewhere it can earn a somewhat higher return. And that's fine, but you should keep in mind that you aren't really investing it in that case, only moving it. The key to deciding about an asset allocation (how much of your money to put into what investment classes) is your investment horizon. The investment horizon is simply for how long you plan on letting the money remain where you put it. For money that you do not expect to touch for more than five years, common advice is to put it in the stock market. This is simply because in the long term, historically, the stock market has outperformed most other investment classes when looking at return versus risk (volatility). However, money that you expect to need sooner than that is often recommended against putting it in the stock market. The reason for this is that the stock market is volatile -- the value of your investment can fluctuate, and there's always the risk that it will be down when you need the money. If you don't need the money within several years, you can ride that out; but if you need the money within the next year, you might not have time to ride out the dip in the stock market! So, for money that you are going to need soon, you should be looking for less volatile investment classes. Bonds are generally less volatile than stocks, with government bonds generally being less volatile than corporate bonds. Bank accounts are even less volatile, coming in at practically zero volatility, but also have much lower expected rates of return. For the money that you need within a year, I would recommend against any volatile investment class. In other words, you might take whichever part you don't need within a year and put in bonds (except for what you don't foresee needing within the next half decade or more, which you can put in stocks), then put the remainder in a simple high-yield deposit-insured savings account. It won't earn much, but you will be basically guaranteed that the money will still be there when you want it in a year. For the money you put into bonds and stocks, find low-cost index mutual funds or exchange-traded funds to do so. You cannot predict the future rate of return of any investment, but you can predict the cost of the investment with a high degree of accuracy. Hence, for any given investment class, strive to minimize cost, as doing so is likely to lead to better return on investment over time. It's extremely rare to find higher-cost alternatives that are actually worth it in the long term.\"" }, { "docid": "411933", "title": "", "text": "Real estate is a lousy investment because: Renting a home and buying a home, all else being equal, are pretty similar in costs in the long term (if you can force yourself to invest the would-be down payment). So, buy a home if you want to enjoy the benefits of home ownership. Buy a home if you need to hedge against rising housing prices (e.g. you're on a fixed income and couldn't cope if rent increased a bunch when the economy heated up). Maybe buy a home if you're in a high tax bracket to save yourself from being taxed on your imputed rent, if it works out that way (consult your financial advisor). But don't consider it a really great investment vehicle. Returns are average and the risk profile isn't that attractive." }, { "docid": "59965", "title": "", "text": "The stock market at large has about a 4.5% long-term real-real (inflation-fees-etc-adjusted) rate of return. Yes: even in light of the recent crashes. That means your money invested in stocks doubles every 16 years. So savings when you're 25 and right out of college are worth double what savings are worth when you're 41, and four times what they're worth when you're 57. You're probably going to be making more money when you're 41, but are you really going to be making two times as much? (In real terms?) And at 57, will you be making four times as much? And if you haven't been saving at all in your life, do you think you're going to be able to start, and make the sacrifices in your lifestyle that you may need? And will you save enough in 10 years to live for another 20-30 years after retirement? And what if the economy tanks (again) and your company goes under and you're out of a job when you turn 58? Having tons of money at retirement isn't the only worthy goal you can pursue with your money (ask anyone who saves money to send kids to college), but having some money at retirement is a rather important goal, and you're much more at risk of saving too little than you are of saving too much. In the US, most retirement planners suggest 10-15% as a good savings rate. Coincidentally, the standard US 401(k) plan provides a tax-deferred vehicle for you to put away up to 15% of your income for retirement. If you can save 15% from the age of 20-something onward, you probably will be at least as well-off when you retire as you are during the rest of your life. That means you can spend the rest on things which are meaningful to you. (Well, you should also keep around some cash in case of emergencies or sudden unemployment, and it's never a good idea to waste money, but your responsibilities to your future have at least been satisfied.) And in the UK you get tax relief on your pension contribution at your income tax rate and most employers will match your contributions." }, { "docid": "262885", "title": "", "text": "\"What you are looking for is a Money Coach or a Personal Finance Coach. From mymoneycoach.com: \"\"Money Coach: Everyone uses money, but few people fully understand how to use it wisely. To be debt free and enjoy a comfortable lifestyle takes special skills. Money coaches provide solutions for household budgeting, investing, using credit wisely, and saving for retirement. With the principles offered by a money coach, you can live the life you want to live.\"\" Usually money coaches or personal finance coaches will not tell you \"\"you should put your money here or there\"\" but instead they will work with you to identify and correct bad money behaviours that affect more than just your investments, and they will not sell you anything. Maybe you could take a look at some coaches in your area, but a lot of them work via the internet too. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "498378", "title": "", "text": "\"This depends strongly on what you mean by \"\"stock trading\"\". It isn't a single game, but a huge number of games grouped under a single name. You can invest in individual stocks. If you're willing to make the (large) effort needed to research the companies and their current position and potentialities, this can yield large returns at high risk, or moderate returns at moderate risk. You need to diversify across multiple stocks, and multiple kinds of stocks (and probably bonds and other investment vehicles as well) to manage that risk. Or you can invest in managed mutual funds, where someone picks and balances the stocks for you. They charge a fee for that service, which has to be subtracted from their stated returns. You need to decide how much you trust them. You will usually need to diversify across multiple funds to get the balance of risk you're looking for, with a few exceptions like Target Date funds. Or you can invest in index funds, which automate the stock-picking process to take a wide view of the market and count on the fact that, over time, the market as a whole moves upward. These may not produce the same returns on paper, but their fees are MUCH lower -- enough so that the actual returns to the investor can be as good as, or better than, managed funds. The same point about diversification remains true, with the same exceptions. Or you can invest in a mixture of these, plus bonds and other investment vehicles, to suit your own level of confidence in your abilities, confidence in the market as a whole, risk tolerance, and so on. Having said all that, there's also a huge difference between \"\"trading\"\" and \"\"investing\"\", at least as I use the terms. Stock trading on a short-term basis is much closer to pure gambling -- unless you do the work to deeply research the stocks in question so you know their value better than other people do, and you're playing against pros. You know the rule about poker: If you look around the table and don't see the sucker, he's sitting in your seat... well, that's true to some degree in short-term trading too. This isn't quite a zero-sum game, but it takes more work to play well than I consider worth the effort. Investing for the long term -- defining a balanced mixture of investments and maintaining that mixture for years, with purchases and sales chosen to keep things balanced -- is a positive sum game, since the market does drift upward over time at a long-term average of about 8%/year. If you're sufficiently diversified (which is one reason I like index funds), you're basically riding that rise. This puts you in the position of betting with the pros rather than against them, which is a lower-risk position. Of course the potential returns are reduced too, but I've found that \"\"market rate of return\"\" has been entirely adequate, though not exciting. Of course there's risk here too, if the market dips for some reason, such as the \"\"great recession\"\" we just went through -- but if you're planning for the long term you can usually ride out such dips, and perhaps even see them as opportunities to buy at a discount. Others can tell you more about the details of each of these, and may disagree with my characterizations ... but that's the approach I've taken, based on advice I trust. I could probably increase my returns if I was willing to invest more time and effort in doing so, but I don't especially like playing games for money, and I'm getting quite enough for my purposes and spending near-zero effort on it, which is exactly what I want.\"" }, { "docid": "317902", "title": "", "text": "\"A primary residence can be an admirable investment/retirement vehicle for a number of reasons. The tax savings on the mortgage are negligible compared to these. A $200,000 mortgage might result in a $2000 annual savings on your taxes -- but a $350,000 house might easily appreciate $20,000 (tax free!) in a good year. Some reasons to not buy a larger house. Getting into or out of a house is tremendously expensive and inconvenient. It can make some life-changes (including retirement) more difficult. There is no way to \"\"diversify\"\" a primary residence. You have one investment and you are a hostage to its fortunes. The shopping center down the street goes defunct and its ruins becomes a magnet for criminals and derelicts? Your next-door neighbor is a lunatic or a pyromaniac? A big hurricane hits your county? Ha-ha, now you're screwed. As they say in the Army, BOHICA: bend over, here it comes again. Even if nothing bad happens, you are paying to \"\"enjoy\"\" a bigger house whether you enjoy it or not. Eating spaghetti from paper plates, sitting on the floor of your enormous, empty dining room, may be romantic when you're 27. When you're 57, it may be considerably less fun. Speaking for myself, both my salary and my investment income have varied wildly, and often discouragingly, over my life, but my habit of buying and renovating dilapidated homes in chic neighborhoods has brought me six figures a year, year after year after year. tl;dr the mortgage-interest deduction is the smallest of many reasons to invest in residential real-estate, but there are good reasons not to.\"" }, { "docid": "191658", "title": "", "text": "Last I checked, software authoring was pretty lucrative. Are you specifically looking to do some non-software work? The two things you mention are among the unskilled work o go after, but with some effort you might be able to use your skills to pick up other work. As a blogger, I've needed help with PHP and the blogging tools, the rate for help was $50/hr. Snow is too seasonal, but the walking surely doesn't pay that much, or does it?" }, { "docid": "88942", "title": "", "text": "\"It makes no sense to spend money unnecessarily, just for the purpose of improving your credit score. You have to stop and ask yourself the question \"\"Why do I need a good credit score?\"\" Most of the time, the answer will be \"\"so I can get a lower interest rate on (ABC loan) in the future.\"\" However, if you spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars in the present, just so that you can save a few points on a loan, you're not going to come out ahead. The car question should be considered strictly in the context of transportation expenses: \"\"It cost me $X to get around last year using Lyft. If instead I owned a car, it would have cost me $Y for gas, insurance, depreciation, parking, etc.\"\" If you come out ahead and Y < X, then buy the car. Don't jump into an expensive vehicle (which is never a good investment) or get trapped into an expensive lease which will costs you many times more than the depreciation value of a decent used car, just so that you can save a few points on a mortgage. Your best option moving forward would be to pay off your student loans first, getting rid of that interest expense. Place the remainder in savings, then start to look at a budget. Setting aside a 20% down payment on a home is considered the minimum to many people, and if that is out of reach you might need to consider other neighborhoods (less than 400K!). If you're still concerned about your credit score, a good way to build that up (once you have a budget and spending under control) is to get a credit card with no annual fees. Start putting all of your expenses on the credit card (groceries, etc), and paying off the balance IN FULL every month. By spending only what you need to within a reasonable budget, and making payments on time and in full, your credit rating will begin to gradually improve. If you have a difficult time tracking your expenses or sticking to a budget, then there is potential for danger here, as credit cards are notorious for high interest and penalties. But by keeping it under control and putting the rest toward savings, you can begin to build wealth and put yourself in a much better financial position moving into the future.\"" }, { "docid": "30825", "title": "", "text": "First of all, make sure you have all your credit cards paid in full -the compounding interests on those can zero out returns on any of your private investments. Fundamentally, there are 2 major parts of personal finance: optimizing the savings output (see frugal blogs for getting costs down, and entrepreneur sites for upping revenues), and matching investment vehicles to your particular taste of risk/reward. For the later, Fool's 13 steps to invest provides a sound foundation, by explaining the basics of stocks, indexes, long-holding strategy, etc. A full list Financial instruments can be found on Wikipedia; however, you will find most of these to be irrelevant to your goals listed above. For a more detailed guide to long-term strategies on portfolio composition, I'd recommend A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Time-tested Strategy for Successful Investing. One of the most handy charts can be found in the second half of this book, which basically outlines for a given age a recommended asset allocation for wealth creation. Good luck!" }, { "docid": "494283", "title": "", "text": "\"Congrats to your GF! \"\"How much\"\" depends a lot on how stable her income tends to be. If she has stable salary @ $20K plus $5K-$15K in contract work, then having a larger EF is important. If she has a consistent track record of pulling in $35K each year with contract work, then she may still need a somewhat higher emergency fund to tide her over between gigs. The rule of thumb is at least 3 months' expenses before you start investing for better returns. If she is reliant on contract work, then holding up to 6 months' expenses could be wise just in case she hits a slow patch with work. After that emergency fund is covered, she can look at investment opportunities with varying levels of risk & return: I would also recommend putting it down in writing \"\"why\"\" she's investing/saving. Is she saving up for an awesome vacation? Maybe that's why she really is so far above a normal EF. Does she want a new car? Maybe there's not really so much to spare. Bottom line: Assuming her monthly expenses are around $2K per month, she might have $4,000 to $5,000 that she could look to start investing \"\"safely\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "77312", "title": "", "text": "\"I look ahead for sizes. I was at the thrift store and saw a good condition, good brand winter coat that will likely fit my daughter next year, so I bought it. I also bought a snowsuit my baby can wear when he's 6 months (~5 months pregnant now). When it starts getting cold next fall, I'll be set, rather than wasting time and money running around town trying to find winter gear. This applies for any regular stores you visit (Costco, thrift stores, kids resale stores, etc): look for clearance/discounted kids clothes in the next few sizes up, even off-season. This works especially well for basics you need lots of (PJs, socks, etc) and more expensive things where you don't want to be desperate when shopping for them. You're always \"\"buying low.\"\"\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "545712", "title": "", "text": "In the short-term, a savings account with an online bank can net you ~1% interest, while many banks/credit unions with local branches are 0.05%. Most of the online savings accounts allow 6 withdrawals per month (they'll let you do more, but charge a fee), if you pair it with a checking account, you can transfer your expected monthly need in one or two planned transfers to your checking account. Any other options that may result in a higher yield will either tie up your money for a set length of time, or expose you to risk of losing money. I wouldn't recommend gambling on short-term stock gains if you need the money during the off-season." } ]

[ { "docid": "262885", "title": "", "text": "\"What you are looking for is a Money Coach or a Personal Finance Coach. From mymoneycoach.com: \"\"Money Coach: Everyone uses money, but few people fully understand how to use it wisely. To be debt free and enjoy a comfortable lifestyle takes special skills. Money coaches provide solutions for household budgeting, investing, using credit wisely, and saving for retirement. With the principles offered by a money coach, you can live the life you want to live.\"\" Usually money coaches or personal finance coaches will not tell you \"\"you should put your money here or there\"\" but instead they will work with you to identify and correct bad money behaviours that affect more than just your investments, and they will not sell you anything. Maybe you could take a look at some coaches in your area, but a lot of them work via the internet too. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "569066", "title": "", "text": "\"Obviously you should aim to max out your pension, though this is a bit of a judgement call, as future growth could take it over the limit even once you stop making contributions. A public service job with a defined benefit pension won't make much difference, as they are also assessed against the lifetime limit at a multiplier of 20x the annual pension - so a similar rate to what you're looking at anyway (£500/year corresponds to a £10K notional pot). On the other hand public service pensions are protected against inflation - if you wanted an equivalent defined contribution pension, annuity rates are actually quite a bit lower than that - more like £350-£400 per £10K. Apart from a pension, I'd suggest making sure you own your own property by the time you retire. The rent you save by doing that is effectively tax-free, though you have to pay for the mortgage out of taxed income. So it's equivalent to saving in an ISA, but with the added benefit that you are effectively \"\"hedged\"\" against rental changes. After that ISAs are the next logical investment vehicle, though be aware that cash ISAs don't pay very good returns at the moment.\"" }, { "docid": "275785", "title": "", "text": "Good point. Maybe someone should invent a 'trust system' similar to the one that many new companies in the 'shared economy' sector use (like Airbnb, Uber etc.) where users rate the state of the vehicle when it arrives. Those users that leave it in a bad condition will get bad ratings and will quickly find that either they have to pay a cleaning penalty, and/or the cost of the next vehicle hire increases, and/or they are declined from using the service in the future. Whereas those that consistently look after the vehicle will be incentivized with bonuses and/or discounts. If a user does find the vehicle to be uninhabitable then they would record this fact on their smart device and be offered a replacement vehicle and/or discounts etc." }, { "docid": "138102", "title": "", "text": "\"I would like to add my accolades in saving $3000, it is an accomplishment that the majority of US households are unable to achieve. source While it is something, in some ways it is hardly anything. Working part time at a entry level job will earn you almost three times this amount per year, and with the same job you can earn about as much in two weeks as this investment is likely to earn, in the market in one year. All this leads to one thing: At your age you should be looking to increase your income. No matter if it is college or a high paying trade, whatever you can do to increase your life time earning potential would be the best investment for this money. I would advocate a more patient approach. Stick the money in the bank until you complete your education enough for an \"\"adult job\"\". Use it, if needed, for training to get that adult job. Get a car, a place of your own, and a sufficient enough wardrobe. Save an emergency fund. Then invest with impunity. Imagine two versions of yourself. One with basic education, a average to below average salary, that uses this money to invest in the stock market. Eventually that money will be needed and it will probably be pulled out of the market at an in opportune time. It might worth less than the original 3K! Now imagine a second version of yourself that has an above average salary due to some good education or training. Perhaps that 3K was used to help provide that education. However, this second version will probably earn 25,000 to 75,000 per year then the first version. Which one do you want to be? Which one do you think will be wealthier? Better educated people not only earn more, they are out of work less. You may want to look at this chart.\"" }, { "docid": "130118", "title": "", "text": "I'm afraid you're mistaking 401k as an investment vehicle. It's not. It is a vehicle for retirement. Roth 401k/IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement, and as long as you're in the low tax bracket - it is for your benefit to take advantage of that. However, that is not the money you would be using to start a business or buy a home (except for maybe up to $10K you can withdraw without penalty for first time home buyers, but I wouldn't bother with $10k, if that's what will help you buying a house - maybe you shouldn't be buying at all). In addition, you should make sure you take advantage of the employer 401k match in full. That is free money added to your Traditional 401k retirement savings (taxed at distribution). Once you took the full advantage of the employer's match, and contributed as much as you consider necessary for your retirement above that (there are various retirement calculators on line that can help you in making that determination), everything else will probably go to taxable (regular) savings/investments." }, { "docid": "415973", "title": "", "text": "Obviously, the best thing financially would be to continue using your present car, unless it impacts you financially on a regular basis. For example, maintenance or breakdowns impacting your ability to work. An unreliable car also impacts your freedom, for example preventing you from taking road-trips you might want to take or taking up free time with maintenance. Give thought to what it is about your present car that you dislike, both to determine the value you gain from a new car and what's most important to you. Anytime you buy a car, you generally lose thousands of dollars simply driving it off the lot. This is the profit which goes to dealers, salespeople, etc... and not part of the actual value of the car. Cars also depreciate over time, with most of the depreciation happening in the first few years of operation. Many of the newer model cars have additional expenses. (For example, replacement $200 keys or electronic systems that can only be repaired at special facilities.) In addition, if you have insurance (other than the minimum third-party required by law), consider the rate increases and add up the long-term impact of that. Imagine you had invested that money instead at 8% interest over the lifetime of the car. If you don't have insurance, consider what you would do in the unfortunate situation where you were at fault in a collision. Could you afford to lose your investment? Even with safe responsible driving, there is always the potential for road/weather conditions or mechanical failures. If you determine there is sufficient value to be gained from changing vehicles, I would recommend that you buy a vehicle with history from someone privately, doing appropriate background checks and consulting friends or family who know about vehicles and can provide feedback. Do research into the models which interest you ahead of time, read online reviews. Every vehicle generally has known advantages and disadvantages which can take years to discover, so buying an older vehicle gives you the advantage of knowing what to expect. I would say there is probably a reasonable middle ground between using a 1991 vehicle you don't like (that's as old as you are) and getting a relatively new model. Look at what you value in the vehicle, consider all the costs, and find the balance that works best for you. Vehicles from 2000-2005 years are quite affordable and still 10-15 years newer than your car." }, { "docid": "472053", "title": "", "text": "As someone who's currently shopping for some winter wheels and has the raised blood pressure to go with that, I've got a few suggestions as to what would make me pick up the phone and call your or email you if you're advertising a vehicle. Keep in mind that if you're willing to deal with the additional hassle, you'll normally get the most money for a used car if you sell it privately. If it is worth the additional effort though is both a matter of judgement and if you're willing to put up with strange people like me :). Depending on the value of the vehicle and its rarity/desirability, you're looking at newspaper ads (probably won't get you much of a response these days), craigslist, Autotrader and similar, and last but not least, ebay. If you're trying to sell something that's easy to find because there are five at every street corner (think beige minivan), skip ebay. If it's worth below 5k-6k, I wouldn't bother with places where you have to pay to advertise, which leaves CL for the cheap stuff - that said, I'd still stick it on CL if it's advertised in other places. Heck, it's free after all. The figure out what sort of money you're asking for. Check the resources like KBB.com and have a look at your local CL for similar vehicles. Out here, certain types of vehicles (for example, Jeeps) sell quickly and often above even KBB.com. A little market research will help you come up with a good price. Just don't do things like asking a massively inflated price for a vehicle because you paid $x five years ago. All this shows that you have no idea what your vehicle is worth. Oh, and I'd always work out what the minimum I'd take is - leave yourself some haggle room but don't undersell the vehicle. Once you know where you advertise and for how much, pull together the basic facts for your vehicles and the points that would make it stand out. Basic facts about the car should include engine size, type of transmission, if it's AWD (where applicable), mileage. Color I can see on the pictures, but it's nice to include that, too. If you have service records, recently replaced a big ticket item (think transmission or similar) or had a very recent service, especially a big one where you had a timing belt and waterpump changed, mention it. Don't say the vehicle has a new engine if that was put in 100k miles ago, that's nice to mention but it's not new. If nobody's ever smoked in it, mention it. If it's got other outstanding features (super low mileage, summer only use etc) make sure to mention it that, too. Next, if it's got any faults that you know of - especially obvious ones - disclose them. People like me will most likely find the leaking shock absorber and the rust holes in the floor anyway, and it makes a much better impression if you do tell us about them beforehand. Trying to tell someone that your banana-shaped car that looks like the Blue Man Group used it for practise is actually pristine and accident-free isn't going to go down very well. Next, pull together the paperwork - make sure you've got the title (if there is a lien on the title, check with the lienholder before advertising the car so you know their procedure for releasing the title), any maintenance records you have, manuals, receipts etc. If the vehicle has a salvage title, try to find out why and mention it in the ad. I've just had a comedian phone me while I was driving to see his vehicle and leave a message that he didn't have a title and didn't seem to be willing to bother to get one, either. Obviously that put me in the right frame of mind, given that it was a 200 mile round trip. So don't do it - if you can't get a title, the schmuck you sold it to will have even less of a chance of getting one. And given that you are in California, a lot of people (including myself) react really badly to three years' worth of back registration, missing smog, expired registrations on something I'd expect to test drive etc. Essentially anything that would stop a potential cash buyer to drive it away on the spot. Next, clean the car - you know, the five years' of accumulated McD wrappers and inch thick layer of dirt (I'm only partially kidding, I've seem some pretty horrible stuff recently). Spend the two hours it takes to clean it or pay to have it valeted or detailed. Clean, shiny cars sell a lot better than a rolling recycling container. Oh, and last - make the effort take some decent photos. The more the merrier, shot in daylight (no photographing a black car after sunset) and if there is any damage, an additional photo or two showing the damage would be nice. Stick the on photobucket or similar and put the links in your craigslist ad so you don't restrict yourself to the microscopic photos that you normally get on there. As to payment, I'd either take cash, meet the buyer at his bank where he draws out a cashiers check in front of your eyes, or, well, cash. No Kauri shells, deeds on bridges in Brooklyn or anything else. Be prepared to take a deposit - a lot of buyers aren't willing to wander around with ten large ones in the back pocket to go look at a car - and spell out exactly how long the deposit is good for. I also tend to make them non-refundable (buyer doesn't pick up the car within the negotiated timeframe, you keep the deposit as 'damages' for not being able to sell it to another cash buyer). Check your DMV's website as to what exactly you need to do once you sold the car. Here in Nevada it's the buyer's problem on how to move it as you keep the plates, but I know in California the regular plates (not personal ones IIRC) stay with the vehicle and I think you need to inform the DMV that you sold the vehicle. I'd also keep a record of who I sold a vehicle to (name, address from his drivers license, license number etc) just in case they run a few red lights and accumulate a few grands' worth of parking tickets." }, { "docid": "12590", "title": "", "text": "\"First thing I'd say is don't start with investing. The foundation of solid finances is cash flow. Making more than you spend, reliably; knowing where your money goes; having a system that works for you to make sure you make more than you spend. Until you have that, your focus may as well be on getting there, because you can't fix much else about your finances until you fix this. A number you want to know is your percentage of income saved, and a good goal for that is about 15%, with 10-12% going to retirement savings and the rest to shorter-term goals and emergency fund and so forth. (Of course the right percentage here depends on your goals and situation, but for most people this is a kind of minimum savings rate to be in good shape.) Focus on your savings rate. This is your profitability, if you view yourself as a business. If it's crappy or negative, your finances will be a mess. Two ways to improve it are to spend less or to improve your earnings power. Doing both is even better. The book Your Money or Your Life by Dominguez and Robin is good for showing how to obsessively focus on cash flow, even though you may not share their zeal for early retirement. A simpler exercise than what they recommend: take 3 months of your checking and credit card statements, go through each expenditure and put them in a spreadsheet column, SUM() that column. Then add up 3 months of after-tax paychecks. Divide both numbers by three and compare. (The 3 months is to average out your spending, which probably varies a lot by month.) After positive cash flow and savings rate, the next thing I'd go through is insurance. Risk management for what you have. This can include checking you have all the important insurance coverages (homeowner's/renter's, auto, potentially umbrella, term life, disability, and of course health insurance, are some highlights); and also adjusting all your policies to be most cost-effective, which usually means raising the deductible if you have a good emergency fund. Often you can raise the deductible on policies you have, and use the savings to add more catastrophe coverage (such as term life if you didn't have it, or boosting the liability protection on your homeowner's, or whatever). Remember, cover catastrophes as cheaply and comprehensively as possible, but don't worry about reimbursement for non-catastrophic expenses. I like this book, Smart and Simple Financial Strategies for Busy People by Jane Bryant Quinn, because it covers all the main personal finance topics, not just investing; and because it is smart and simple. All the main stuff to think about is in the one book and the advice is solid and uncomplicated. Investing can truly be dead easy; most people would be fine with this advice: Honestly, I do micro-optimize and undermine my investing, and I'm guessing most people on this forum do. But it's not something I could defend objectively as a good use of time. It probably is necessary to do some reading to feel financially literate and confident in an investment plan, but the reading isn't really because a good plan is complicated, it's more to understand all the complicated things that you don't need to do, since that's how you'll know not to do them. ;-) Especially when salespeople and publications and TV are telling you over and over and over that you need to know a bunch of crap and do a bunch of things. People who have a profitable \"\"business of me\"\" are the ones who end up with a lot of money. Not people who spend a lot of time screwing with investments. (People who get rich investing invest professionally - as their \"\"business of me\"\" - they don't goof around with their 401k after work.) Financial security is all about your savings rate, i.e. your personal profitability. No shortcuts, other than lotteries and rich uncles.\"" }, { "docid": "222153", "title": "", "text": "You need the services of a hard-nosed financial planner. A good one will defend your interests against the legions of creeps trying to separate you from your money. How can you tell whether such a person is working in your best interest? Here are some ways. You'll be able to tell pretty quickly whether the planner lets you get through the same story you told us. The ability to listen carefully without interrupting is a good way to tell whether the planner is going to honor your needs. You're looking for a human service professional, not an investment or business guru. There are planners who specialize in helping people navigate big changes in their financial situation. Some of the best of those planners are women. (Many of their customers are people whose spouses recently died. But they also serve people in your situation. Ask if they work with other people like you.) Of course, you need to take the planner's advice, especially about spending and saving levels." }, { "docid": "472739", "title": "", "text": "\"He's paying the interest and you're paying the principal. If you're making minimum monthly payments, you'll still be doing the same thing 25-30 years from now. I think Parker's advice was very, very good, but I'd like to add to it a little of my own. Whatever dollar amount your son is sending to you as payment, encourage him to continue doing that. Only instead of paying you, have him put that money into a savings plan of some kind. You mentioned that he's struggling now, yet able to come up with approximately (my best guess) $200/mo. I guarantee you that if he puts that $200/mo back into his pocket, he'll still be struggling every month yet have nothing to show for it. My suggestion changes nothing in his daily life, yet gives him $2400 at the end of every year. I was in a somewhat similiar situation as your son, only to the tune of $13,000. About 20 years ago, I got a loan and bought a new truck in which to use to go back and forth to work every day. The first 5 months the payments to the bank went as planned. Then my wife announces that \"\"we're\"\" pregnant. So my parents figured it would be best to just pay off my loan to the bank, avoiding any further interest charges, and take that truck payment and put it away for a rainy day. At 33 y/o, with my first child on the way, I finally started saving some of my money. It was good advice on their part because the rainy days came! They never asked me to pay them back, however I did offer. I've been tucking away $300-400/mo in the bank every month since then because I just got into the habit. Good thing I did too. In the past 10 years I've had to bury both of my parents, one sister and two wives and I'll tell ya, one thing that was comforting was the fact that I had the money. The little truck I bought 20 years ago is now my son's. It has around 260,000 miles on it now. When he trades it in for a newer vehicle, I will probably loan him the money and have him make payments to me rather than the bank. I, too, am not one to pay interest if I can help it. If he defaults, he's my son. I just won't buy him another vehicle! Or maybe he'll get into the same habit of saving money the same way I did. Like JohnFx said, money loaned to family should be regarded as a gift, otherwise you'll end up losing your money AND your family member! Hope some of this helps you make your decision.\"" }, { "docid": "407228", "title": "", "text": "\"Zephyr, Did you see something specific regarding a claim of money saved through observance of the Earth Hour event? The organisers maintain it is about raising awareness of climate change issues - I can't find anything from them regarding saving money/have never seen anything. You could take the claims regarding drops in national-level energy consumption and the decrease in use of various items/devices etc etc and work out a financial savings of a sort - ie. add together \"\"energy not used x average kilowatt cost\"\", \"\"fuel saved through non-use of vehicles x average price per litre\"\", etc etc and so on. But it would be wild wild guesses littered with assumptions - I seriously doubt you could work up a credible figure. Which is why I don't think the organisers make claims regarding money (please correct me if you saw something from them that stated otherwise) - they tend to stick to the \"\"awareness\"\" mantra. Regarding your second question, I think you'll find there is some consensus that large-scale downturns followed by large-scale upturns in electricity consumption is not environmentally friendly. The Telegraph is a good read on this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7527469/Earth-Hour-will-not-cut-carbon-emissions.html (To be honest, the Telegraph's article is a good summary of the entire concept of Earth Day.)\"" }, { "docid": "270221", "title": "", "text": "\"There are no risk-free high-liquidity instruments that pay a significant amount of interest. There are some money-market accounts around that pay 1%-2%, but they often have minimum balance or transaction limits. Even if you could get 3%, on a $4K balance that would be $120 per year, or $10 per month. You can do much better than that by just going to $tarbucks two less times per month (or whatever you can cut from your expenses) and putting that into the savings account. Or work a few extra hours and increase your income. I appreciate the desire to \"\"maximize\"\" the return on your money, but in reality increasing income and reducing expenses have a much greater impact until you build up significant savings and are able to absorb more risk. Emergency funds should be highly liquid and risk-free, so traditional investments aren't appropriate vehicles for them.\"" }, { "docid": "75270", "title": "", "text": "Risk. Volatility. Liquidity. Etc. All exist on a spectrum, these are all comparative measures. To the general question, is a mutual fund a good alternative to a savings account? No, but that doesn't mean it is a bad idea for your to allocate some of your assets in to one right now. Mutual funds, even low volatility stock/bond blended mutual funds with low fees still experience some volatility which is infinitely more volatility than a savings account. The point of a savings account is knowing for certain that your money will be there. Certainty lets you plan. Very simplistically, you want to set yourself up with a checking account, a savings account, then investments. This is really about near term planning. You need to buy lunch today, you need to pay your electricity bill today etc, that's checking account activity. You want to sock away money for a vacation, you have an unexpected car repair, these are savings account activities. This is your foundation. How much of a foundation you need will scale with your income and spending. Beyond your basic financial foundation you invest. What you invest in will depend on your willingness to pay attention and learn, and your general risk tolerance. Sure, in this day and age, it is easy to get money back out of an investment account, but you don't want to get in the habit of taping investments for every little thing. Checking: No volatility, completely liquid, no risk Savings: No volatility, very liquid, no principal risk Investments: (Pick your poison) The point is you carefully arrange your near term foundation so you can push up the risk and volatility in your investment endeavors. Your savings account might be spread between a vanilla savings account and some CDs or a money market fund, but never stock (including ETF/Mutual Funds and blended Stock/Bond funds). Should you move your savings account to this mutual fund, no. Should you maybe look at your finances and allocate some of your assets to this mutual fund, sure. Just look at where you stand once a year and adjust your checking and savings to your existing spending. Savings accounts aren't sexy and the yields are awful at the moment but that doesn't mean you go chasing yield. The idea is you want to insulate your investing from your day to day life so you can make unemotional deliberate investment decisions." }, { "docid": "59965", "title": "", "text": "The stock market at large has about a 4.5% long-term real-real (inflation-fees-etc-adjusted) rate of return. Yes: even in light of the recent crashes. That means your money invested in stocks doubles every 16 years. So savings when you're 25 and right out of college are worth double what savings are worth when you're 41, and four times what they're worth when you're 57. You're probably going to be making more money when you're 41, but are you really going to be making two times as much? (In real terms?) And at 57, will you be making four times as much? And if you haven't been saving at all in your life, do you think you're going to be able to start, and make the sacrifices in your lifestyle that you may need? And will you save enough in 10 years to live for another 20-30 years after retirement? And what if the economy tanks (again) and your company goes under and you're out of a job when you turn 58? Having tons of money at retirement isn't the only worthy goal you can pursue with your money (ask anyone who saves money to send kids to college), but having some money at retirement is a rather important goal, and you're much more at risk of saving too little than you are of saving too much. In the US, most retirement planners suggest 10-15% as a good savings rate. Coincidentally, the standard US 401(k) plan provides a tax-deferred vehicle for you to put away up to 15% of your income for retirement. If you can save 15% from the age of 20-something onward, you probably will be at least as well-off when you retire as you are during the rest of your life. That means you can spend the rest on things which are meaningful to you. (Well, you should also keep around some cash in case of emergencies or sudden unemployment, and it's never a good idea to waste money, but your responsibilities to your future have at least been satisfied.) And in the UK you get tax relief on your pension contribution at your income tax rate and most employers will match your contributions." }, { "docid": "191658", "title": "", "text": "Last I checked, software authoring was pretty lucrative. Are you specifically looking to do some non-software work? The two things you mention are among the unskilled work o go after, but with some effort you might be able to use your skills to pick up other work. As a blogger, I've needed help with PHP and the blogging tools, the rate for help was $50/hr. Snow is too seasonal, but the walking surely doesn't pay that much, or does it?" }, { "docid": "52441", "title": "", "text": "In banks and institutions where you could look at the money supply of M1 which is the physical currency in circulation compared to M2 which would be all the deposits that tend to be valued much more. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/current/ would be the link where as of Nov. 2014 the figures are M1 - 2,849.8 M2 - 11,588.7 Footnotes from that: M1 consists of (1) currency outside the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve Banks, and the vaults of depository institutions; (2) traveler's checks of nonbank issuers; (3) demand deposits at commercial banks (excluding those amounts held by depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign banks and official institutions) less cash items in the process of collection and Federal Reserve float; and (4) other checkable deposits (OCDs), consisting of negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) and automatic transfer service (ATS) accounts at depository institutions, credit union share draft accounts, and demand deposits at thrift institutions. Seasonally adjusted M1 is constructed by summing currency, traveler's checks, demand deposits, and OCDs, each seasonally adjusted separately. M2 consists of M1 plus (1) savings deposits (including money market deposit accounts); (2) small-denomination time deposits (time deposits in amounts of less than $100,000), less individual retirement account (IRA) and Keogh balances at depository institutions; and (3) balances in retail money market mutual funds, less IRA and Keogh balances at money market mutual funds. Seasonally adjusted M2 is constructed by summing savings deposits, small-denomination time deposits, and retail money funds, each seasonally adjusted separately, and adding this result to seasonally adjusted M1. Where M1 sounds like the physical money outside the banks and M2 is the money inside the banks. Did you mean something more specific here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product would be a link about GDP in terms of economic output that has more than a few pieces to it that I'm sure whole courses in college are devoted to understanding this measurement." }, { "docid": "165345", "title": "", "text": "Ally Bank is a good online only account. They reimburse any ATM Fees you may occur. I have both checking and savings, with both Ally and ING Direct. I don't know about having 25 total accounts - seems like overkill to me. I do something similar though - I get direct deposit into one account, then transfer the average bill amount each pay to a different account that I never touch other than for the allotted bills. It works well, especially for Utilities that are inflated seasonally. What do you use to mange the 25 accounts? I use Quicken, but I don't have 25 accounts...yet." }, { "docid": "95120", "title": "", "text": "\"Let's assess the situation first, then look at an option: This leaves you with about $1,017/mo in cash flow, provided you spend money on nothing else (entertainment, oil changes, general merchandise, gifts, etc.) So I'd say take $200/mo off that as \"\"backup\"\" money. Now we're at $817/mo. Question: What have you been doing with this extra $800/mo? If you put $600/mo of that extra towards the 10% loan, it would be paid off in 12 months and you would only pay $508 in interest. If you have been saving it (like all the wisest people say you should), then you should have plenty enough to either pay for a new transmission or buy a \"\"good enough\"\" car outright. 10% interest rate on a vehicle purchase is not very good. Not sure why you have a personal loan to handle this rather than an auto loan, but I'll guess you have a low credit score or not much credit history. Cost of a new transmission is usually $1,700 - $3,500. Not sure what vehicle we're talking about, so let's make it $3,000 to be conservative. At your current interest rate, you'll have paid another $1,450 in interest over the next 33 months just trying to pay off your underwater car. If you take your old car to a dealership and trade it in towards a \"\"new to you\"\" car, you might be able to roll your existing loan into a new loan. Now, I'm not sure when you say personal loan if you mean an official loan from a bank or a personal loan from a friend/family-member, so that could make a difference. I'm also not sure if a dealership will be willing to recognize a personal loan in the transaction as I'd wager there's no lien against the vehicle for them to worry about. But, if you can manage it, you may be able to get a lower overall interest rate. If you can't roll it into a new financing plan, then you need to assess if you can afford a new loan (provided you even get approved) on top of your existing finances. One big issue that will affect interest rates and approvals will be your down payment amount. The higher it is, the better interest rate you'll receive. Ultimately, you're in a not-so-great position, but if your monthly budget is as you describe, then you'll be fine after a few more years. The perils of buying a used car is that you never know what might happen. What if you don't repair your existing car, buy another car, and it breaks down in a year? It's all a bit of a gamble. Don't let your emotions get in the way of making a decision. You might be frustrated with your current vehicle, but if $3,000 of repairs makes it last 3 more years, (by which time your current loan should be paid off), then you'll be in a much better spot to finance a newer vehicle. Of course it would be much better to save up cash over that time and buy something outright, but that's not always feasible. Would you rather fix up your current car and keep working to pay down the debt, or, would you rather be rid of the car and put $3,000 down on a \"\"new to you\"\" car and take on an additional monthly debt? There's no single right answer for you. First and foremost you need to assess your monthly cash flow and properly allocate the extra funds. Get out of debt as soon as reasonably possible.\"" }, { "docid": "171565", "title": "", "text": "\"I think this can be answered by answering the question \"\"Who buys 10 year old cars?\"\". Generally speaking those buyers are very price conscious. They are looking to save money on transportation rather than following the herd of people participating in the car payments merry-go-round. The cost of parts, repairs, and gasoline for those cars do not go down over time. Remember that many of those cars require the use of premium gasoline. This drastically reduces demand for those vehicles, thus lowers the price. Luckily I have a really good and reasonable mechanic near me, and I can float repairs and the higher gas. I love driving my 1999 Mercedes and it is one of the least expensive cars that I have owned while also being one of the most comfortable.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "512984", "title": "", "text": "For margin, it is correct that these rules do not apply. The real problem becomes day trading funding when one is just starting out, broker specific minimums. Options settle in T+1. One thing to note: if Canada is anything like the US, US options may not be available within Canadian borders. Foreign derivatives are usually not traded in the US because of registration costs. However, there may be an exception for US-Canadian trade because one can trade Canadian equities directly within US borders." } ]

[ { "docid": "543365", "title": "", "text": "\"In most cases of purchases the general advice is to save the money and then make the purchase. Paying cash for a car is recommended over paying credit for example. For a house, getting a mortgage is recommended. Says who? These rules of thumb hide the actual equations behind them; they should be understood as heuristics, not as the word of god. The Basics The basic idea is, if you pay for something upfront, you pay some fixed cost, call it X, where as with a loan you need to pay interest payments on X, say %I, as well as at least fixed payments P at timeframe T, resulting in some long term payment IX. Your Assumption To some, this obviously means upfront payments are better than interest payments, as by the time the loan is paid off, you will have paid more than X. This is a good rule of thumb (like Newtonian's equations) at low X, high %I, and moderate T, because all of that serves to make the end result IX > X. Counter Examples Are there circumstances where the opposite is true? Here's a simple but contrived one: you don't pay the full timeframe. Suppose you die, declare bankruptcy, move to another country, or any other event that reduces T in such a way that XI is less than X. This actually is a big concern for older debtors or those who contract terminal illnesses, as you can't squeeze those payments out of the dead. This is basically manipulating the whole concept. Let's try a less contrived example: suppose you can get a return higher than %I. I can currently get a loan at around %3 due to good credit, but index funds in the long run tend to pay %4-%5. Taking a loan and investing it may pay off, and would be better than waiting to have the money, even in some less than ideal markets. This is basically manipulating T to deal with IX. Even less contrived and very real world, suppose you know your cash flow will increase soon; a promotion, an inheritance, a good market return. It may be better to take the loan now, enjoy whatever product you get until that cash flows in, then pay it all off at once; the enjoyment of the product will make the slight additional interest worth it. This isn't so much manipulating any part of the equation, it's just you have different goals than the loan. Home Loan Analysis For long term mortgages, X is high, usually higher than a few years pay; it would be a large burden to save that money for most people. %I is also typically fairly low; P is directly related to %I, and the bank can't afford to raise payments too much, or people will rent instead, meaning P needs to be affordable. This does not apply in very expensive areas, which is why cities are often mostly renters. T is also extremely long; usually mortgages are for 15 or 30 years, though 10 year options are available. Even with these shorter terms, it's basically the longest term loan a human will ever take. This long term means there is plenty of time for the market to have a fluctuation and raise the investments current price above the remainder of the loan and interest accrued, allowing you to sell at a profit. As well, consider the opportunity cost; while saving money for a home, you still need a place to live. This additional cost is comparable to mortgage payments, meaning X has a hidden constant; the cost of renting. Often X + R > IX, making taking a loan a better choice than saving up. Conclusion \"\"The general advice\"\" is a good heuristic for most common human payments; we have relatively long life spans compared to most common payments, and the opportunity cost of not having most goods is relatively low. However, certain things have a high opportunity cost; if you can't talk to HR, you can't apply for jobs (phone), if you can't get to work, you can't eat (car), and if you have no where to live, it's hard to keep a job (house). For things with high opportunity costs, the interest payments are more than worth it.\"" }, { "docid": "420324", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/19/techs-5-biggest-players-now-worth-3-trillion/) reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; After a long rally marked recently by sharp share price gains among the largest tech companies, the $3 trillion mark could stand up over time as a good thumb-sized measurement to vet future rallies against. &gt; In the era of platform players racing to control the digital lives of both consumers and enterprises, it&amp;#039;s perhaps not surprising that the biggest companies are worth so very much; if the tech industry changes, becoming more fractured, that could shift. &gt; In sum: It&amp;#039;s a big day for tech&amp;#039;s biggest players, even if it isn&amp;#039;t the most intriguing of them all or the simplest to explain. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6os46d/techs_5_biggest_players_now_worth_3_trillion/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~172685 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*: **tech**^#1 **company**^#2 **rally**^#3 **Big**^#4 **market**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "467463", "title": "", "text": "Typically the settlement price for a financial instrument (such as AAPL stock) underlying a derivative contract is determined from the average price of trading in that instrument during some short time window specified by the exchange offering the derivative. (Read the fine print on your contract to learn the exact date and time of that settlement period.) Because it's in an exchange's best interest to appear as fair as possible, the exchange will in general pick a high-volume period of time -- such as the close of trading on the expiry date -- in which to determine the settlement price. Now, the expiry date/time may be different from the last time at which the option can be traded, which may be different from the underlying settlement time. For example, most US equity options currently expire on the Saturday following the third Friday of the month, whereas they can last be traded at end-of-day on the third Friday of the month, and the settlement period may be at a slightly different time on the third Friday of the month. (Again, read the contract to know for sure.) Moreover, your broker may demand to know whether you plan to exercise the option at an even earlier date/time. So, to answer your question: After-hours trading can only affect the settlement price of an underlying instrument if the exchange in question decides that the settlement period should happen during after-hours trading. But since no exchange that wants to stay in business would possibly do that, the answer is no. Contract expiry time, contract exercise time, final contract trading time, and underlying settlement time may all fall at different dates/times. The important one for your question is settlement time." }, { "docid": "41214", "title": "", "text": "The short float ratio and percent change are all calculated based on the short interest (the total number of shares shorted). The short interest data for Nasdaq and NYSE stocks is published every two weeks. NasdaqTrader.com shows the exact dates for when short interest is published for Nasdaq stocks, and also says the following: 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 NYSE also shows the exact dates for when short interest is published for NYSE stocks, and those dates are exactly the same as for Nasdaq stocks. Since the short interest is only updated once every 2 weeks, there is no way to see real-time updating of the short float and percent change. That information only gets updated once every 2 weeks - after each publication of the short interest." }, { "docid": "296475", "title": "", "text": "No, you cannot. The cash settlement period will lock up your cash depending on the product you trade. Three business days for stocks, 1 business day for options, and you would need waaaaaay more than $5,000 to trade futures." }, { "docid": "54638", "title": "", "text": "\"According to Wikipedia, Treasury bills mature in 1 year or less to a fixed face value: Treasury bills (or T-Bills) mature in one year or less. Regular weekly T-Bills are commonly issued with maturity dates of 28 days (or 4 weeks, about a month), 91 days (or 13 weeks, about 3 months), 182 days (or 26 weeks, about 6 months), and 364 days (or 52 weeks, about 1 year). Treasury bills are sold by single-price auctions held weekly. The T-bills (as Wikipedia says, like zero-coupon bonds) are actually sold at a discount to their face value and mature to their face value. They do not return any interest before the date of maturity. Because the amount earned is fixed at purchase, \"\"return\"\" is a more accurate term than \"\"rate\"\" when referring to a specific T-bill. The \"\"rate\"\" is the difference between this return and the discount value you purchased it at. So, yes, your rate of return is guaranteed. T-notes (1-10 year) and T-bonds (20-30 year) also have an interest rate guaranteed, but have coupon payments (usually every 6 months), paying out a fixed amount of interest on the principal. (See more info on the same Wikipedia page.) Because those bonds are not compounding the interest it pays out, but instead paying out every 6 months, you'd have to purchase new securities to create a compound return, changing your rate of return over time slightly as the rates for new treasury securities changes.\"" }, { "docid": "291695", "title": "", "text": "Transfer of Millions of USD in and out is not possible for Individuals. There are limits on how much money an individual Indian Ordinary Citizen can send or receive. If an corporate wants to send money, depending on the services offered, they would have to initiate a SWIFT transaction. It typically takes 2-3 days for settlement of International wire." }, { "docid": "486440", "title": "", "text": "\"The second part of your question is the easiest to answer, how much manual work is involved in settlement processes? Payment systems which handle low value (i.e. high volume) transactions work on the basis of net settlement. Each of the individual payments are netted across all of the participant banks, so that only one \"\"real\"\" payment is made by each bank. Some days banks will receive money, others they will pay money. This is arbitrary and depends on whether their outbound payments exceed their inbound payments for that day. The payment system will notify each Bank how much it owes/will receive for the day. The money is then transferred between all of the banks simultaneously by the payment system to remove the risk that some pay and others don't. If you're going to make or receive a very large payment, you're going to want to make certain that its correct. This means that if there's a discrepancy, you need operations people available to find out why its wrong. When dealing with this many payments, answering that question can be hard. Did we miss a payment? Is there a duplicate? Etc. The vast majority of payments will process without any human involvement, but to make the process work, you always need human brains there to fix problems that occur. This brings me to your first question. On every day that settlement happens, a bank will receive (or pay) a very large sum of money. As a settlement bank you must settle that money - the guarantee that every bank will pay is one of the main reasons these systems exist. For settlement to happen, every bank has to agree to participate, and be ready to verify the data on their side and deliver the funds from their account. So there is no particular reason that this doesn't happen on weekends and holidays other than history. But for any payment system to change, it would require the support of (at least) a majority of participants to pay staff to manage the settlement process on weekends. This would increase costs for banks, but the benefits would only really be for you and me (if at all). That means it's unlikely to happen unless a government forces the issue.\"" }, { "docid": "156143", "title": "", "text": "It is also possible that the settlement company didn't tell the local government where to send the new tax bill. This would worry me because what else was missed regarding filing the proper documents with the lenders and the local government. It could also be a problem with the local government. Contact the settlement company or your attorney to get the issue resolved. If you owe the money you want to know; if the new owner owes the money they don't want to face a tax lien because the settlement company made a mistake. Generally this is split between the parties based on the number of days each will own the home. At settlement the money should move from one party to the other based on what has been deposited into escrow and when the actual bills are due. For example the payment for the first half of the year due July 1st may be sent in June. If the settlement was in June The new owner would give money to the old owner. But if settlement was in early July Money would move the other way." }, { "docid": "593644", "title": "", "text": "NSCC illiquid charges are charges that apply to the trading of low-priced over-the counter (OTC) securities with low volumes. Open net buy quantity represents the total unsettled share amount per stock at any given time during a 3-day settlement cycle. Open net buy quantity must be less than 5,000,000 shares per stock for your entire firm Basically, you can't hold a long position of more than 5 million shares in an illiquid OTC stock without facing a fee. You'll still be assessed this fee if you accumulate a long position of this size by breaking your purchase up into multiple transactions. Open net sell quantity represents the total unsettled share amount per stock at any given time during a 3-day settlement cycle. Open net sell quantity must be less than 10% percent of the 20-day average volume If you attempt to sell a number of shares greater than 10% of the stock's average volume over the last 20 days, you'll also be assessed a fee. The first link I included above is just an example, but it makes the important point: you may still be assessed a fee for trading OTC stocks even if your account doesn't meet the criteria because these restrictions are applied at the level of the clearing firm, not the individual client. This means that if other investors with your broker, or even at another broker that happens to use the same clearing firm, purchase more than 5 million shares in an individual OTC stock at the same time, all of your accounts may face fees, even though individually, you don't exceed the limits. Technically, these fees are assessed to the clearing firm, not the individual investor, but usually the clearing firm will pass the fees along to the broker (and possibly add other charges as well), and the broker will charge a fee to the individual account(s) that triggered the restriction. Also, remember that when buying OTC/pink sheet stocks, your ability to buy or sell is also contingent on finding someone else to buy from/sell to. If you purchase 10,000 shares one day and attempt to sell them sometime in the future, but there aren't enough buyers to buy all 10,000 from you, you might not be able to complete your order at the desired price, or even at all." }, { "docid": "282499", "title": "", "text": "I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think it would be considered a free ride. The idea of a free ride is that you are engaging in a transaction when you do not actually have the money available to cover it, since the broker is technically giving you a 3 day loan whenever you purchase your stock (3 day rule to settle.) However, if you are using a margin account, and you have enough credit available, then you are not actually using unsettled assets, but rather an additional line of credit which was granted to you. You would just need to make sure that your total transactions are less than your purchasing power. That's my take on it anyway. I hope that helps, and hopefully someone can confirm or reject what I have said." }, { "docid": "156029", "title": "", "text": "That is the standard set by most securities exchanges: T+3 : trades complete three days after the bargain has been struck." }, { "docid": "181985", "title": "", "text": "\"To keep it simple, let's say that A shares trade at 500 on average between April 2nd 2014 and April 1st 2015 (one year anniversary), then if C shares trade on average: The payment will be made either in cash or in shares within 90 days. The difficulties come from the fact that the formula is based on an average price over a year, which is not directly tradable, and that the spread is only covered between 1% and 5%. In practice, it is unlikely that the market will attribute a large premium to voting shares considering that Page&Brin keep the majority and any discount of Cs vs As above 2-3% (to include cost of trading + borrowing) will probably trigger some arbitrage which will prevent it to extend too much. But there is no guarantee. FYI here is what the spread has looked like since April 3rd: * details in the section called \"\"Class C Settlement Agreement\"\" in the S-3 filing\"" }, { "docid": "278369", "title": "", "text": "\"Everything you are doing is fine. Here are a few practical notes in performing this analysis: Find all the primary filing information on EDGAR. For NYSE:MEI, you can use https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000065270&type=10-K&dateb=&owner=exclude&count=40 This is the original 10-K. To evaluate earnings growth you need per share earnings for the past three years and 10,11,12 years ago. You do NOT need diluted earnings (because in the long term share dilution comes out anyway, just like \"\"normalized\"\" earnings). The formula is avg(Y_-1+Y_-2+Y_-3) / is avg(Y_-10+Y_-11+Y_-12) Be careful with the pricing rules you are using, the asset one gets complicated. I recommend NOT using the pricing rules #6 and #7 to select the stock. Instead you can use them to set a maximum price for the stock and then you can compare the current price to your maximum price. I am also working to understand these rules and have cited Graham's rules into a checklist and worksheet to find all companies that meet his criteria. Basically my goal is to bottom feed the deals that Warren Buffett is not interested in. If you are interested to invest time into this project, please see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vuFmoJDktMYtS64od2HUTV9I351AxvhyjAaC0N3TXrA\"" }, { "docid": "572822", "title": "", "text": "If they short the contract, that means, in 5 months, they will owe if the price goes up (receive if the price goes down) the difference between the price they sold the future at, and the 3-month Eurodollar interbank rate, times the value of the contract, times 5. If they're long, they receive if the price goes up (owe if the price goes down), but otherwise unchanged. Cash settlement means they don't actually need to make/receive a three month loan to settle the future, if they held it to expiration - they just pay or receive the difference. This way, there's no credit risk beyond the clearinghouse. The final settlement price of an expiring three-month Eurodollar futures (GE) contract is equal to 100 minus the three-month Eurodollar interbank time deposit rate." }, { "docid": "98150", "title": "", "text": "It appears very possible that Google will not have to pay any class C holders the settlement amount, given the structure of the settlement. This is precisely because of the arbitrage opportunity you've highlighted. This idea was mentioned last summer in Dealbreaker. As explained in a Dealbook article: The settlement requires Google to pay the following amounts if, one year from the issuance of the Class C shares, the value diverges according to the following formula: If the C share price is equal to or more than 1 percent, but less than 2 percent, below the A share price, 20 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 2 percent, but less than 3 percent, below the A share price, 40 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 3 percent, but less than 4 percent, below the A share price, 60 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 4 percent, but less than 5 percent, below the A share price, 80 percent of the difference.” If the C share price is equal to or more than 5 percent below the A share price, 100 percent of the difference, up to 5 percent. ... If the Class A shares trade around $450 (after the split/C issuance) and the C shares trade at a 4.5 percent discount during the year (or $429.75 per share), then investors expect a payment of: 80 percent times $450 times 4.5 percent = $16.20. The value of C shares would then be $445.95 ($429.75 plus $16.20). But if this is the new trading value during the year, that’s only a discount of less than 1 percent to the A shares. So no payment would be made. But if no payment is made, we are back to the full discount and this continues ad infinitum. In other words, the value of a stock can be displayed as: {equity value} + {dividend value} + {voting value} + {settlement value} = {total share value} If we ignore dividend and voting values, and ignore premiums and discounts for risk and so forth, then the value of a share is basic equity value plus anticipated settlement payoff. The Google Class C settlement is structured to reduce the payoff as the value converges. And the practice of arbitrage guarantees (if you buy into at least semi-strong EMH) that the price of C shares will be shored up by arbitrageurs that want the payoff. The voting value of GOOGL is effectively zero, since the non-traded Class B shares control all company decisions. So the value of the Class A GOOGL voting is virtually zero for the time being. The only divergence between GOOGL and GOOG price is dividends (which I believe is supposed to be the same) and the settlement payoff. Somebody who places zero value on the vote and who expects dividend difference to be zero should always prefer to buy GOOG to GOOGL until the price is equal, disregarding the settlement. So technically someone is better off owning GOOG, if dividends are the same and market prices are equal, just because the vote is worthless and the nonzero chance of a future settlement payoff is gravy. The arbitrage itself is present because a share that costs (as in the article) $429.75 is worth $445.95 if the settlement pays out at that rate. The stable equilibrium is probably either just before or just after the threshold where the settlement pays off, depending on how reliably arbitrageurs can predict the movement of GOOG and GOOGL. If I can buy a given stock for X but know that it's worth X+1, then I'm willing to pay up to X+1. In the google case, the GOOG stock is worth X+S, where S is an uncertain settlement payment that could be zero or could be substantial. We have six tiers of S (counting zero payoff), so that the price is likely to follow a pattern from X to X+S5 to X-S5+S4 to X-S4+S3, and climbing the tier ladder until it lands in the frontier between X+S1 and X+S0. Every time it jumps into X+S1, people should be willing to pay that new amount for GOOG, so the price moves out of payoff range and into X+S0, where people will only pay X. I'm actually simplifying here, since technically this is all based on future expectations. So the actual price you'd pay is expressed thus: {resale value of GOOG before settlement payoff = X} + ( {expectation that settlement payoff will pay 100% of difference = S5} * {expected nominal difference between GOOG and GOOGL = D} ) + ({S4} * {80% D}) + ({S3} * {60% D}) + ({S2} * {40% D}) + ({S1} * {20% D}) + ({S0} * {0% D}) = {price willing to pay for Class C GOOG = P} Plus you'd technically have to present value the whole thing for the time horizon, since the payoff is in a year. Note that I've shunted any voting/dividend analysis into X. It's reasonable to thing that S5, S4, S3, and maybe S2 are nearly zero, given the open arbitrage opportunity. And we know that S0 times 0% of D is zero. So the real analysis, again ignoring PV, is thus: P = X + (S1*D) Which is a long way of saying: what are the odds that GOOG will happen to be worth no more than 99% of GOOGL on the payoff determination date?" }, { "docid": "543312", "title": "", "text": "\"Option pricing models used by exchanges to calculate settlement prices (premiums) use a volatility measure usually describes as the current actual volatility. This is a historic volatility measure based on standard deviation across a given time period - usually 30 to 90 days. During a trading session, an investor can use the readily available information for a given option to infer the \"\"implied volatility\"\". Presumably you know the option pricing model (Black-Scholes). It is easy to calculate the other variables used in the pricing model - the time value, the strike price, the spot price, the \"\"risk free\"\" interest rate, and anything else I may have forgotten right now. Plug all of these into the model and solve for volatility. This give the \"\"implied volatility\"\", so named because it has been inferred from the current price (bid or offer). Of course, there is no guarantee that the calculated (implied) volatility will match the volatility used by the exchange in their calculation of fair price at settlement on the day (or on the previous day's settlement). Comparing the implied volatility from the previous day's settlement price to the implied volatility of the current price (bid or offer) may give you some measure of the fairness of the quoted price (if there is no perceived change in future volatility). What such a comparison will do is to give you a measure of the degree to which the current market's perception of future volatility has changed over the course of the trading day. So, specific to your question, you do not want to use an annualised measure. The best you can do is compare the implied volatility in the current price to the implied volatility of the previous day's settlement price while at the same time making a subjective judgement about how you see volatility changing in the future and how this has been reflected in the current price.\"" }, { "docid": "445831", "title": "", "text": "Reading through the details makes it sound even worse. &gt;Iliad estimates it will be able to save about $2 billion annually by cutting out costs such as sending paper bills Come on, you can't seriously pretend to offer cell plans for $3 per month while citing cutting out paper bills as a cost savings measure. Where are you getting your infrastructure? Right now it's owned by the big players, so you either spend a fortune leasing bandwidth or spend an even larger fortune laying out your own infrastructure. Instead, this guy plans to buy T-Mobile, who already has contracts in place. Except they are already being acquired by Sprint, so good luck with that, Mr. No Experience in the US Market. This feels like the same sort of hubris that US companies have when they think they can expand overseas. It doesn't work for US companies because of a fundamental lack of understanding of the US market, and it looks like this guy suffers from the same knowledge deficit" }, { "docid": "325891", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/03/netanyahu-backs-annexation-of-west-bank-settlements) reduced by 76%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Israel&amp;#039;s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has backed legislation that would in effect annex settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories that are home to between 125,000 and 150,000 Jewish people. &gt; Observers have noted an increase in visits by Netanyahu to settlements in the occupied territories since Donald Trump was sworn in as US president in January. &gt; The Palestinians seek the West Bank, captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war, as part of a future independent state, and consider all of Israel&amp;#039;s settlements to be illegal - a position that is widely shared by the international community. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/74gfm2/netanyahu_backs_annexation_of_19_west_bank/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~222602 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*: **settlement**^#1 **Netanyahu**^#2 **Israel**^#3 **Jerusalem**^#4 **Adumim**^#5\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "77573", "title": "", "text": "The key word you forgot to include from Slide 29 is: Free-Riding Investopedia defines free-riding as: In the context of a brokerage firm, a free rider problem refers to a situation where a client has been allowed to purchase shares without actually paying for them, and then subsequently sells the shares (ideally for profit). The problem with this scenario is that the client, if allowed to free ride, can profit from a stock trade without actually using any of his or her own capital. This is illegal. I have not heard of any issues with this type of action being a problem with trading accounts in Australia, nor have I been able to find any such rules on the ASX website or any of by brokers websites. So I think this may be an issue in the USA but not Australia. You should check the rules in any other countries you wish to trade in." } ]

[ { "docid": "36193", "title": "", "text": "At the bottom of the page you linked to, NASDAQ provides a link to this page on nasdaqtrader.com, which states Each FINRA member firm is required to report its “total” short interest positions in all customer and proprietary accounts in NASDAQ-listed securities twice a month. These reports are used to calculate short interest in NASDAQ stocks. FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date. The dates you are seeing are the dates the member firms settled their trades. In general (also from nasdaq.com), the settlement date is The date on which payment is made to settle a trade. For stocks traded on US exchanges, settlement is currently three business days after the trade." }, { "docid": "67410", "title": "", "text": "\"The tax code is a hodgepodge of rules that are often tough to explain. The reality is that it's our Congress that writes the tax code, and they often have conflicting goals among themselves. In theory, someone said \"\"How about we force withdrawals at some point. After all, these are retirement accounts, not 'give your kid a huge inheritance account'.\"\" And the discussion continued from there. The age 70-1/2 was arbitrary. 70 happens to be the age for maximum Social Security benefits. But the average retirement age is 63. To make things more confusing, one can easily start taking IRA or 401(k) withdrawals at age 59-1/2, but for 401(k) as early as 55 if you separate from the job at 55 or later. One can also take withdrawals earlier from an IRA with tax, but no penalty using Sec 72(t) rules (such as 72(t)(2)(A)(iv) on Substantially Equal Periodic Payments). To add to the confusion, Roth IRA? No RMDs. Roth 401(k), RMDs once separated from service. Since the money has already been taxed, it's the tax on the growth the government loses. My advice to the reader would be to move the Roth 401(k) to a Roth IRA before 70-1/2. My advice to congress would be to change the code to have the same rules for both accounts. Whether one agrees that a certain rule is 'fair' to them or others is up to them. I think we can agree that the rules are remarkably complex, from origin to execution. And a moving target. You can see just from the history of this site how older questions are often revisited as code changes occur.\"" }, { "docid": "292159", "title": "", "text": "\"Scenario 1 - When you sell the shares in a margin account, you will see your buying power go up, but your \"\"amount available to withdraw\"\" stays the same until settlement. Yes, you can reallocate the same day, no need to wait until settlement. There is no margin interest for this scenario. Scenario 2 - If that stock is marginable to 50%, and all you have is $10,000 in that stock, you can buy another $10,000. Once done, you are at 50% margin, exactly.\"" }, { "docid": "89216", "title": "", "text": "\"One possibility you may consider is to keep all of your funds in the stocks and shares ISA while investing that proportion you wish to keep in cash into a tradeable \"\"Money Market\"\" ETF. A Money Market ETF will give you rates comparable to interest rates on cash and at the same time it will give you \"\"instant access\"\" subject to normal 3 day settlement of equities. This is not exactly a perfect solution. Most Money Market ETFs will pay monthly dividends, so depending on your timing, you may have to give up some interest. In the worst case, if you were to sell the day before going ex-dividend, then you would be giving up a months interest. In the best case, if you were to sell on the day of going ex-dividend, you would be giving up no interest.\"" }, { "docid": "156029", "title": "", "text": "That is the standard set by most securities exchanges: T+3 : trades complete three days after the bargain has been struck." }, { "docid": "532485", "title": "", "text": "\"How often do investors really lose money? All the time. And it's almost always reason number 1. Let's start with the beginner investor, the person most likely to make some real losses and feel they've \"\"learned\"\" that investing is no better than Vegas. This person typically gets into it because they've been given a hot stock tip, or because they've received a windfall, decided to give this investing lark a try, and bought stock in half a dozen companies whose names they know from their everyday lives (\"\"I own a bit of Google! How cool is that?\"\"). These are people who don't understand the cyclic nature of the market (bear gives way to bull gives way to bear, and on and on), and so when they suddenly see that what was $1000 is now $900 they panic and sell everything. Especially as all the pundits are declaring the end of the world (they always do). Until the moment they sold, they only had paper losses. But they crystallised those losses, made them real, and ended at a loss. Then there's the trend-follower. These are people who don't necessarily hit a bear market, or even a downturn, in their early days, but never really try to learn how the market works in any real sense. They jump into every hot stock, then panic and sell out of anything that starts to go the wrong way. Both of these reactive behaviours seem reasonable in the moment (\"\"It's gone up 15% in the past week? Buy buy buy!\"\" and \"\"I've lost 10% this month on that thing? Get rid of it before I lose any more!\"\"), but they work out over time to lots of buying high and selling low, the very opposite of what you want to do. Then there's the day-trader. These are people who sit in their home office, buying and selling all day to try and make lots of little gains that add up to a lot. The reason these people don't do well in the long run is slightly different to the other examples. First, fees. Yes, most platforms offer a discount for \"\"frequent traders\"\", but it still ain't free. Second, they're peewees playing in the big leagues. Of course there are exceptions who make out like bandits, but day traders are playing a different game than the people I'd call investors. That game, unlike buy-and-hold investing, is much more like gambling, and day-traders are the enthusiastic amateurs sitting down at a table with professional poker players – institutional investors and the computers and research departments that work for them. Even buy-and-hold investors, even the more sophisticated ones, can easily realise losses on a given stock. You say you should just hold on to a stock until it goes back up, but if it goes low enough, it could take a decade or more to even just break even again. More savvy stock-pickers will have a system worked out, something like \"\"ok, if it gets down to 90% of what I bought it for, I cut my losses and sell.\"\" This is actually a sensible precaution, because defining hard rules like that helps​ you eliminate emotion from your investing, which is incredibly important if you want to avoid becoming the trend-follower above. It's still a loss, but it's a calculated one, and hopefully over time the exception rather than the rule. There are probably as many other ways to lose money as there are people investing, but I think I've given you a taste. The key to avoiding such things is understanding the psychology of investing, and defining the rules that you'll follow no matter what (as in that last example). Or just go learn about index investing. That's what I did.\"" }, { "docid": "78584", "title": "", "text": "The income and recurring costs will be shown at the end of each year, however the initial cost is recorded at the time they are incurred meaning at t=0 (Jan 2014) The first net profits/loss of 658500 is recorded at the end of Dec 2014 (t=1) And the remaining four ones at the end of 2015 (t=2) 2016 (t=3) 2017 (t=4) 2018 (t=5) -8000000 658500 658500 658500 658500 6658500 t=0) -8000000 t=1) 658500 t=2) 658500 t=3) 658500 t=4) 658500 t=5) 6658500" }, { "docid": "137406", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.richmondfed.org/-/media/richmondfedorg/publications/research/working_papers/2017/pdf/wp17-12.pdf) reduced by 98%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; 7 3 Local Dynamics The local dynamics of the simple search and matching model have been studied by Krause and Lubik. &gt; In the previous literature, for example Mendes and Mendes and Bhattacharya and Bunzel, the backward dynamics are defined via the map g by rearranging to isolate &amp;theta;t : \u0010 \u00111/&amp;xi; &amp;theta;t = a&amp;theta;t+1 c&amp;theta;t+1 + d = g. 11 Under risk aversion, the dynamics depend on the time path of output yt. &gt; 4.2 Stability Properties We now study the dynamics of the backward map zt = f. We first establish the properties of the function f. We then study the stability properties of the steady state, where we distinguish between two broad areas of dynamics in the backward map, namely stable and unstable. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/788alk/fed_global_dynamics_in_a_search_and_matching/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~233564 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*: **dynamic**^#1 **model**^#2 **0.1**^#3 **1**^#4 **map**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "89506", "title": "", "text": "Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_gateway There is essentially a lead time between when the transaction is made and when it is settled, 2-3 business days is the lead time for settlement. The link explains the process step-by-step" }, { "docid": "439474", "title": "", "text": "\"You say your primary goal is to clean up your credit report, and you're willing to spend some cash to do it. OK. But beware: the law in this area is a funhouse mirror, everything works upside down and backwards. To start, let's be clear: Credit reports are not extortion to force you into paying. They are a historical record of your creditworthiness, and almost impossible to fix without altering history. Paying on this debt will affirm the old data was correct, and glue it to your report. Here's how credit reporting works for R-9 (sent to collections) amounts. The data is on your credit report for 7 years. The danger is in this clock being restarted. What will not restart the clock? Ignoring the debt, talking casusally to collectors, and the debt being sold from one collector to another. What will restart the clock? Acknowledging the debt formally, court judgment, paying the debt, or paying on the debt (obviously, paying acknowledges the debt.) Crazy! You could have a debt that's over 7 years old, pay it because you're a decent person, and BOOM! Clock restarts and 7 more years of bad luck. Even worse-- if they write-off or forgive any part of the debt, that's income and you'll need to pay income tax on it. Ugh! Like I say, the only way to remove a bad mark is to alter history. Simple fact: The collector doesn't care about your bad credit mark; he wants money. And it costs a lot of money, time and/or stress for both of you to demand they research it, negotiate, play phone-tag, and ultimately go to court. So this works very well (this is just the guts, you have to add all the who, what, where, signature block, formalities etc.): 1 Company and Customer absolutely disagree as to whether Customer owes Company this debt: (explicitly named debt with numbers and amount) 2 But Company and Customer both eagerly agree that the expense, time, and stress of research, negotiation, and litigation is burdensome for both of us. We both strongly desire a quick, final and no-fault solution. Therefore: 3 Parties agree Customer shall pay Company (acceptable fraction here). Payment within 30 days. To be acknowledged in writing by Company. 4 This shall be absolute and final resolution. 5 NO-FAULT. Parties agree this settlement resolves the matter in good faith. Parties agree this settlement is done for practical reasons, this bill has not been established as a valid debt, and any difference between billed and settled amount is not a canceled nor forgiven debt. 6 Neither party nor its assigns will make any adverse statements to third parties relating to this bill or agreement. Parties agree they have a continuous duty to remove adverse statements, and agree to do so within seven days of request. 7 Parties specifically agree no adverse mark nor any mark of any kind shall be placed on Customer's credit report; and in the event such a mark appears, Parties will disavow it continuously. Parties agree that a good credit report has a monetary value and specific impacts on a customer's life. 8 Jurisdiction of law shall be where the effects are felt, and that shall be (place of service) regarding the amounts of the bill proper. Severable, inseparable, counterparts, witness, signature lines blah blah. A collector is gonna sign this because it's free money and it's not tricky. What does this do? 1, 2 and 5 alter history to make the debt never have existed in the first place. To do this, it must formally answer the question of why the heck would you pay a debt that isn't real and you don't owe: out of sheer practicality; it's cheaper than Rogaine. This is your \"\"get out of jail free\"\" card both with the credit bureaus and the IRS. Of course, 3 gives the creditor motivation to go along with it. 6 says they can't burn your credit. 7 says it again and they're agreeing you can sue for cash money. 8 lets you pick the court. The collector won't get hung up on any of these since he can easily remove the bad mark. (don't be mad that they won't do it \"\"for free\"\", that's what 3 is for.) The key to getting them to take a settlement is to be reasonable and fair. Make sure the agreement works for them too. 6 says you can't badmouth them on social media. 4 and 5 says it can't be used against them. 8 throws them a bone by letting them sue in their home court for the bill they just settled (a right they already had). If it's medical, add \"\"HIPAA does not apply to this document\"\" to save them a ton of paperwork. Make it easy for them. You want the collector to take it to his boss and say \"\"this is pretty good. Do it.\"\" Don't send the money until their signed copy is in your hands. Then send promptly with an SASE for the receipt. Make it easy for them. This is on you. As far as \"\"getting them to send you an offer\"\", creditors are reluctant to mail things especially to people they don't think will pay, because it costs them money to write and send. So you may need to be proactive about running them down with your offer. Like I say, it's a funhouse mirror.\"" }, { "docid": "445831", "title": "", "text": "Reading through the details makes it sound even worse. &gt;Iliad estimates it will be able to save about $2 billion annually by cutting out costs such as sending paper bills Come on, you can't seriously pretend to offer cell plans for $3 per month while citing cutting out paper bills as a cost savings measure. Where are you getting your infrastructure? Right now it's owned by the big players, so you either spend a fortune leasing bandwidth or spend an even larger fortune laying out your own infrastructure. Instead, this guy plans to buy T-Mobile, who already has contracts in place. Except they are already being acquired by Sprint, so good luck with that, Mr. No Experience in the US Market. This feels like the same sort of hubris that US companies have when they think they can expand overseas. It doesn't work for US companies because of a fundamental lack of understanding of the US market, and it looks like this guy suffers from the same knowledge deficit" }, { "docid": "54638", "title": "", "text": "\"According to Wikipedia, Treasury bills mature in 1 year or less to a fixed face value: Treasury bills (or T-Bills) mature in one year or less. Regular weekly T-Bills are commonly issued with maturity dates of 28 days (or 4 weeks, about a month), 91 days (or 13 weeks, about 3 months), 182 days (or 26 weeks, about 6 months), and 364 days (or 52 weeks, about 1 year). Treasury bills are sold by single-price auctions held weekly. The T-bills (as Wikipedia says, like zero-coupon bonds) are actually sold at a discount to their face value and mature to their face value. They do not return any interest before the date of maturity. Because the amount earned is fixed at purchase, \"\"return\"\" is a more accurate term than \"\"rate\"\" when referring to a specific T-bill. The \"\"rate\"\" is the difference between this return and the discount value you purchased it at. So, yes, your rate of return is guaranteed. T-notes (1-10 year) and T-bonds (20-30 year) also have an interest rate guaranteed, but have coupon payments (usually every 6 months), paying out a fixed amount of interest on the principal. (See more info on the same Wikipedia page.) Because those bonds are not compounding the interest it pays out, but instead paying out every 6 months, you'd have to purchase new securities to create a compound return, changing your rate of return over time slightly as the rates for new treasury securities changes.\"" }, { "docid": "257417", "title": "", "text": "\"Robert Kiyosaki's is basically a get-rich quick author. But to answer your question: It is a sales pitch in disguise. See Marketplace's report on a Kiyosaki seminar, which reveals that the free work shop is a sales pitch for a 3-day work shop which costs several hundred dollars. And the 3-day workshop is a sales pitch for \"\"advanced\"\" training which can cost as much as $45,000 (presumably in Canadian dollars, as the report was done in Canada). He does touch on some basic sound principles, but it's mixed with a lot of really bad (and in some cases illegal) advice. You'll do much better to invest your time and money in reading materials that aren't advertised via infomercials. Kiyosaki may well be rich, but it's from selling his Rich Dad-branded material, not from investing in real estate, or any other investment portfolio See also John T. Reed's guru rating, and his review of Kiyosaki's book, Rich Dad, Poor Dad.\"" }, { "docid": "119161", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "35875", "title": "", "text": "\"As mentioned in other answers, you find out by reading the Rulebook for that commodity and exchange. I'll quote a couple of random passages to show how they vary: For CME (Chicago Mercantile Exchange) Random Length Lumber Futures, the delivery is ornate: Seller shall give his Notice of Intent to Deliver to the Clearing House prior to 12:00 noon (on any Business Day after termination of trading in the contract month. 20103.D. Seller's Duties If the buyer's designated destination is east of the western boundaries of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Texas and Oklahoma, and the western boundary of Manitoba, Canada, the seller shall follow the buyer's shipping instructions within seven (7) Business Days after receipt of such instructions. In addition, the seller shall prepay the actual freight charges and bill the buyer, through the Clearing House, the lowest published freight rate for 73-foot railcars from Prince George, British Columbia to the buyer's destination. If the lowest published freight rate from Prince George, British Columbia to buyer's destination is a rate per one hundred pounds, the seller shall bill the buyer on the weight basis of 1,650 pounds per thousand board feet. The term \"\"lowest published freight rate\"\" refers only to the lowest published \"\"general through rate\"\" and not to rates published in any other rate class. If, however, the buyer’s destination is outside of the aforementioned area, the seller shall follow the same procedures except that the seller shall have the right to change the point of origin and/or originating carrier within 2 Business Days after receipt of buyer’s original shipping instructions. If a change of origin and/or originating carrier is made, the seller shall then follow the buyer's revised instructions within seven (7) Business Days after receipt of such instructions. If the freight rate to the buyer's destination is not published, the freight charge shall be negotiated between the buyer and seller in accordance with industry practice. Any additional freight charges resulting from diversion by the buyer in excess of the actual charges for shipment to the destination specified in the shipping instructions submitted to the Clearing House are the responsibility of the buyer. Any reduction in freight charges that may result from a diversion is not subject to billing adjustment through the Clearing House. Any applicable surcharges noted by the rail carrier shall be considered as part of the freight rate and can be billed to the buyer through the CME Clearing House. If within two (2) Business Days of the receipt of the Notice of Intent the buyer has not designated a destination, or if during that time the buyer and seller fail to agree on a negotiated freight charge, the seller shall treat the destination as Chicago, Illinois. If the buyer does not designate a carrier or routing, the seller shall select same according to normal trade practices. To complete delivery, the seller must deposit with the Clearing House a Delivery Notice, a uniform straight bill of lading (or a copy thereof) and written information specifying grade, a tally of pieces of each length, board feet by sizes and total board feet. The foregoing documents must be received by the Clearing House postmarked within fourteen (14) Business Days of the date of receipt of shipping instructions. In addition, within one (1) Business Day after acceptance by the railroad, the Clearing House must receive information (via a telephone call, facsimile or electronic transmission) from the seller giving the car number, piece count by length, unit size, total board footage and date of acceptance. The date of acceptance by the railroad is the date of the bill of lading, signed and/or stamped by the originating carrier, except when determined otherwise by the Clearing House. For some commodities you can't get physical delivery (for instance, Cheese futures won't deliver piles of cheese to your door, for reasons that may be obvious) 6003.A. Final Settlement There shall be no delivery of cheese in settlement of this contract. All contracts open as of the termination of trading shall be cash settled based upon the USDA monthly weighted average price in the U.S. for cheese. The reported USDA monthly weighted average price for cheese uses both 40 pound cheddar block and 500 pound barrel prices. CME gold futures will deliver to a licensed depository, so you would have to arrange for delivery from the depository (they'll issue you a warrant), assuming you really want a 100 troy oz. bar of gold: CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS The contract for delivery on futures contracts shall be one hundred (100) troy ounces of gold with a weight tolerance of 5% either higher or lower. Gold delivered under this contract shall assay to a minimum of 995 fineness and must be a brand approved by the Exchange. Gold meeting all of the following specifications shall be deliverable in satisfaction of futures contract delivery obligations under this rule: Either one (1) 100 troy ounce bar, or three (3) one (1) kilo bars. Gold must consist of one or more of the Exchange’s Brand marks, as provided in Chapter 7, current at the date of the delivery of contract. Each bar of Eligible gold must have the weight, fineness, bar number, and brand mark clearly incised on the bar. The weight may be in troy ounces or grams. If the weight is in grams, it must be converted to troy ounces for documentation purposes by dividing the weight in grams by 31.1035 and rounding to the nearest one hundredth of a troy ounce. All documentation must illustrate the weight in troy ounces. Each Warrant issued by a Depository shall reference the serial number and name of the Producer of each bar. Each assay certificate issued by an Assayer shall certify that each bar of gold in the lot assays no less than 995 fineness and weight of each bar and the name of the Producer that produced each bar. Gold must be delivered to a Depository by a Carrier as follows: a. directly from a Producer; b. directly from an Assayer, provided that such gold is accompanied by an assay certificate of such Assayer; or c. directly from another Depository; provided, that such gold was placed in such other Depository pursuant to paragraphs (a) or (b) above.\"" }, { "docid": "576976", "title": "", "text": "\"Am I getting it right that in India in terms of short selling in F&O market its what in the rest of the world is called naked short and you actually make promise to depositary that you will deliver that security you sold on settlement without actually owning the security or going through SLB mechanism? In Future and Options; there is no concept of short selling. You buy a future for a security / index. On the settlement day; the exchange determines the settlement price. The trade is closed in cash. i.e. Based on the settlement price, you [and the other party] will either get money [other party looses money] or you loose money [other party gets the money]. Similarly for Options; on expiry, the all \"\"In Money\"\" [or At Money] Options are settled in cash and you are credit with funds [the option writer is debited with funds]. If the option is \"\"out of money\"\" it expires and you loose the premium you paid to exercise the option.\"" }, { "docid": "565007", "title": "", "text": "\"In this scenario the date of income is the date on which the contract has been signed, even if you received the actual money (settlement) later. Regardless of the NY special law for residency termination - that is the standard rule for recognition of income during a cash (not installments) sale. The fact that you got the actual money later doesn't matter, which is similar to selling stocks on a public exchange. When you sell stocks through your broker on a public exchange - you still recognize the income on the day of the sale, not on the day of the settlement. This is called \"\"the Constructive Receipt doctrine\"\". The IRS publication 538 has this to say about the constructive receipt: Constructive receipt. Income is constructively received when an amount is credited to your account or made available to you without restriction. You need not have possession of it. If you authorize someone to be your agent and receive income for you, you are considered to have received it when your agent receives it. Income is not constructively received if your control of its receipt is subject to substantial restrictions or limitations. Once you signed the contract, the money has essentially been credited to your account with the counter-party, and unless they're bankrupt or otherwise insolvent - you have no restrictions over it. And also (more specifically for your case): You cannot hold checks or postpone taking possession of similar property from one tax year to another to postpone paying tax on the income. You must report the income in the year the property is received or made available to you without restriction. Timing wire transfer is akin to holding and not depositing a check, from this perspective. So unless there was a restriction that was lifted after you moved out of New York, I doubt you can claim that you couldn't have received it before moving out, i.e.: you have, in fact, constructively received it.\"" }, { "docid": "181985", "title": "", "text": "\"To keep it simple, let's say that A shares trade at 500 on average between April 2nd 2014 and April 1st 2015 (one year anniversary), then if C shares trade on average: The payment will be made either in cash or in shares within 90 days. The difficulties come from the fact that the formula is based on an average price over a year, which is not directly tradable, and that the spread is only covered between 1% and 5%. In practice, it is unlikely that the market will attribute a large premium to voting shares considering that Page&Brin keep the majority and any discount of Cs vs As above 2-3% (to include cost of trading + borrowing) will probably trigger some arbitrage which will prevent it to extend too much. But there is no guarantee. FYI here is what the spread has looked like since April 3rd: * details in the section called \"\"Class C Settlement Agreement\"\" in the S-3 filing\"" }, { "docid": "440270", "title": "", "text": "The Fed is trying to keep the money supply growing at a rate just slightly faster than the increase in the total production in the economy. If this year we produced, say, 3% more goods and services than last year, than they try to make the money supply grow by maybe 4% or 5%. That way there should be a small rate of inflation. They are trying to prevent high inflation rates on one hand or deflation on the other. When the interest rate on T-bills is low, banks will borrow more money. As the Fed creates this money out of thin air when banks buy a T-bill, this adds money to the economy. When the interest rate on T-bills is high, banks will borrow little or nothing. As they'll be repaying older T-bills, this will result in less growth in the money supply or even contraction. So the Feds change the rate when they see that economic growth is accelerating or decelerating, or that the inflation rate is getting too high or too low." } ]

[ { "docid": "17652", "title": "", "text": "How would gold have protected you during the 2007/8 crisis? In no way, shape or form. The ways to protect yourself at any time are: Boring, huh?" } ]

[ { "docid": "106673", "title": "", "text": "This sounds like a rental fee as described in the instructions for the 1099-MISC. Enter amounts of $600 or more for all types of rents, such as any of the following. ... Non-Employee compensation does not seem appropriate because you did not perform a service. You mention that your tax-preparer brought this up. I think you will need to consult with a CPA to receive a more reliable opinion. Make sure to bring the contract that describes the situation with you. From there, you may need to consult a tax attorney, but the CPA should be able to help you figure out what your next step is." }, { "docid": "361442", "title": "", "text": "From my Capital Markets and Institutions assignment on 2007 - 2008 Financial Crisis The subprime financial crisis that emerged in the summer of 2007 is much too intricate and interwoven to place the blame solely on one organisation or group of individuals. Each actor involved is responsible for and party to—in varying degrees—the events that transpired. Mortgage brokers (individuals) • First line of contact between an originator and a borrower • Out to get theirs; greedy • Disregard for borrowers, only want to originate as many mortgages as possible • Engaged in controversial practices – confusing, pressuring, lying to borrowers in order to secure a mortgage • Took advantage of 2/28 mortgages in order to collect new origination fees • Offered piggyback mortgages requiring no money down Mortgage originators (organisations) • Began lending to subprime borrowers during the 1990s – done through brokers to whom they paid a commission • Largely supplanted loans made by the FHA through traditional lenders • Many originators acquired by large investment banks • Cashed in on and espoused the “American dream” of home ownership • Different interest rates charged to borrowers • Use of statistical software and credit scores to evaluate borrowers • Popularised 2/28 mortgages • Allowed borrowers to take out mortgages with little or no documentation • Rapidly increased $ amount of mortgages issued • In charge of servicing mortgages issued – making reasonable efforts to collect principal and interest, able to foreclose on properties when delinquent • Profited from massive fees (late and other) added when loans were delinquent • First firms to suffer from the increase in foreclosures Investment banks • Often acquired mortgage originators to gain yet another revenue stream • Responsible for creating CDO entities, often registered in tax havens • CDOs took on large positions in MBSs and created subordinate obligations, also CDOs • CDO entities held assets of other CDOs, creating a complex interwoven situation • CDOs were also involved with positions in other securities • IB-controlled hedge funds often hedged risks through buying highly-rated MBSs • CDOs holding long-term debt were funded through the short-term commercial paper market – high ratings secured through IB lines of credit • Also pioneered SIVs – relied on highly-rated CP market; lines of credit combined with investor equity allowed IBs to keep SIVs off B/S • IBs heavily invested in MBSs/CDOs began to run into liquidity problems • Required capital investment to remain operational – often found abroad (e.g. Abu Dhabi, Chinese, Singaporean governments) • Largely responsible for the monetary policy pursued by the Fed during 2007/2008 • Conduct raised questions as to the regulation of the entire financial industry • Contrast with their responsibility for much innovation and engineering in the financial services industry Credit ratings agencies • Party to major conflicts of interest • Overwhelmingly gave AAA ratings to MBSs • Agencies loosened their rating criteria and perhaps over-rated MBSs in an effort to gain more business from originators • Agencies also rated the debt of institutions that held positions in MBSs • CDOs holding MBSs obtained high ratings as well – statistical models used indicated them to be safe • Based high ratings in the commercial paper market on IB lines of credit – obliged the IBs in order to gain more business • Agency downgrades of MBSs/CDOs resulted in large IB losses, setting in motion further developments • Ratings became less useful as the MBS market froze up, with even AAA-rated MBSs struggling to find a market • Previously championed as an alternative to government intervention in the market • Role of ratings agencies heavily questioned in aftermath • Also questioned was how ratings in general should be used • RAs deflected claims that they acted irresponsibly during the subprime boom • Criticised for the large proportion of AAA-ratings given to MBSs o Argued that historical defaults on MBSs were lower than similar corporate bonds • Conflicts inherent in having issuers pay for ratings o Committees that assigned ratings were separate from negotiations regarding fees • Emphasized benefits of giving all investors free access to ratings rather than them paying for them • Wave of downgrades in 2nd half of 2007 a result of unexpectedly poor performance of subprime mortgages originated in 2006 o Attributed to: laxer underwriting standards, declines in housing prices, more restrictive borrowing standards that prevented borrowers from refinancing Investors • Backbone of many institutions – shareholders • Owned stock in IBs and GSEs, two major players in subprime crisis • Driving force behind institutions taking on riskier investments (e.g. MBSs) • Unwilling to inject more capital/equity into firms required them to turn elsewhere for aid • Worries that the crisis could spread to other markets (e.g. credit cards) added to worries • Grouped with IBs in being seen as responsible for the crisis o US government would not allow higher sale price for Bear Stearns to avoid appearance of bailing out investors" }, { "docid": "305600", "title": "", "text": "With trillion dollar plus deficits, it's not like we're running an austerity program here. When you say sacrifice, compared to what? Two trillion dollar deficits? Your observation of constant predictions of imminent doom is valid. The timeline has been extended by a series of bubbles- market, housing, fiscal deficits... The shortcoming of doom prognosticators is that they underestimate the willingness of those in power to do whatever it takes to prolong the status quo, regardless of the long term consequences. The game is perpetuated by ever increasing debt, and government became the borrower of last resort once the rest of the economy was tapped out. The govt's ability to continue along this course in the open market is questionable as the Fed appears to be monetizing a large portion of newly issued debt. The end game is a currency crisis. It's nice to have a timeline accompanying a prediction, and critical for investing, but it is often very difficult to do, and in this case, it has been extremely difficult because the policy decisions have been rational from the perspective of elites maintaining their status, but not optimal from the standpoint of solving the problem. That doesn't mean the predictions are useless though. You could live in a flood zone and not be able to predict with accuracy when the next flood will occur, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't prepare. Given the uncertainty with timing this, it seems to me the best course of action is not to try to time it, especially with respect to investing based on market timing, but to prepare the best you can for what will inevitably eventually occur." }, { "docid": "293173", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-yellen-idUSKBN19I2I5) reduced by 64%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; LONDON U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said on Tuesday that she does not believe that there will be another financial crisis for at least as long as she lives, thanks largely to reforms of the banking system since the 2007-09 crash. &gt; Yellen said it would &amp;quot;Not be a good thing&amp;quot; if reforms of the financial services industry since the crisis were unwound, and urged those who had helped manage the fallout at the time to be vocal in preventing such a dilution. &gt; Yellen declined to comment when asked about her relationship with Trump but said she had a good working relationship with U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6jys86/feds_yellen_expects_no_new_financial_crisis_in/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~154464 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 **Yellen**^#2 **bank**^#3 **crisis**^#4 **financial**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "137984", "title": "", "text": "\"We're in agreement, I just want retail investors to understand that in most of these types of discussions, the unspoken reality is the retail sector trading the market is *over*. This includes the mutual funds you mentioned, and even most index funds (most are so narrowly focused they lose their relevance for the retail investor). In the retail investment markets I'm familiar with, there are market makers of some sort or another for specified ranges. I'm perfectly fine with no market makers; but retail investors should be told the naked truth as well, and not sold a bunch of come-ons. What upsets me is seeing that just as computers really start to make an orderly market possible (you are right, the classic NYSE specialist structure was outrageously corrupt), regulators turned a blind eye to implementing better controls for retail investors. The financial services industry has to come to terms whether they want AUM from retail or not, and having heard messaging much like yours from other professionals, I've concluded that the industry does *not* want the constraints with accepting those funds, but neither do they want to disabuse retail investors of how tilted the game is against them. Luring them in with deceptively suggestive marketing and then taking money from those naturally ill-prepared for the rigors of the setting is like beating up the Downs' Syndrome kid on the short bus and boasting about it back on the campus about how clever and strong one is. If there was as stringent truth in marketing in financial services as cigarettes, like \"\"this service makes their profit by encouraging the churning of trades\"\", there would be a lot of kvetching from so-called \"\"pros\"\" as well. If all retail financial services were described like \"\"dead cold cow meat\"\" describes \"\"steak\"\", a lot of retail investors would be better off. As it stands today, you'd have to squint mighty hard to see the faintly-inscribed \"\"caveat emptor\"\" on financial services offerings to the retail sector. Note that depending upon the market setting, the definition of retail differs. I'm surprised the herd hasn't been spooked more by the MF Global disaster, for example, and yet there are some surprisingly large accounts detrimentally affected by that incident, which in a conventional equities setting would be considered \"\"pros\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "441893", "title": "", "text": "Not really my field but this is how I see the impact Disadvantages for banks : not being able to chose where they park assets/cash they have been trusted with which mean lower income from investing those disadvantage for banks shareholders : less earnings disadvantage for the economy : harder criteria to lend, lower loan growth advantage for the economy : (theoretically) less risks of liquidity crunch and financial crisis" }, { "docid": "275410", "title": "", "text": "\"TARP was ~$475 billion of loans to institutions. Loans that are to be paid back, with interest (albeit very low interest). A significant percentage of the TARP loans have been (or will be) paid back. So, the final price tag of the TARP was only a few $billion (pretty low considering the scale of the program). There is ~$10 trillion in mortgage debt outstanding. That's a much higher price tag than TARP. Secondly, paying off the mortgages = no repayment to the government as there was with TARP. The initial price tag of your plan would be ~$10 trillion, instead of a few $billion. Furthermore how does a government with >$15 trillion in debt already come up with an extra ~$10 trillion to pay off people's mortgages? Should the government go deeper into debt? Print more money and trigger inflation? (Note: Some people like to talk about a \"\"secret bailout\"\" by the Fed, implying that the true cost of TARP was much higher than claimed by the government. The \"\"secret bailout\"\" was a series of short-term low/no interest loans to banks. Because they were loans, which were paid back, my point still stands.) Some other issues to consider: Remember that the principal balance of your mortgage is only a small portion of your payments to the bank. Over 30 years, you pay a lot of $$$ in interest to the bank (that's how banks make a profit). Banks are expecting that revenue, and it is factored into their financial projections. If those revenue streams suddenly disappeared, I expect it would majorly screw the up the financial industry. Many people bought houses during the real estate boom, when housing prices were inflated far beyond the \"\"real\"\" value of the house. Is it right to overpay for these houses? This rewards the banks for accepting the inflated value during the appraisal process. (Loan modification forces banks to accept the \"\"real\"\" value of the house.) The financial crisis was triggered by people buying houses they could not afford. Should they be rewarded with a free house for making poor financial decisions?\"" }, { "docid": "271609", "title": "", "text": "I don't think there is a definite single answer for this. I think it largely depends on where you are on your financial journey. In the ideal world you'd have everything in bucket 2 built into your budget and be putting a little bit aside every paycheck to cover each of those things when they do come up but that takes a fair bit of discipline to do and experience (and data) to estimate reasonably. When you are just starting out in actually setting and keeping a budget or digging yourself out of CC debt/living paycheck to paycheck the odds are you aren't going to have the experience or disciple necessary to actually budget for those things in bucket 2 and even if you did the better option might well be to pay off that high interest debt you already have rather than saving up for an eventual expense. How ever as you start to improve your situation and pay off that debt, develop the disciple to set and follow a budget that is when you should start adding more of those things into your budget. How you track them doesn't really matter. A separate account at your bank. A total for a category in your budgeting software. An XLS file or even paper (ick). Ultimately it isn't about how you plan for and track things but more about actually doing that. So my question to the OP is where are you? If you already have a budget and do a good job of following it but don't have those items in it then consider that the next step in your financial journey." }, { "docid": "588948", "title": "", "text": "Impossible to unwind. Its a monetary roach motel. They will try to raise rates and unwind their balance sheet until there is another financial crisis, to which there will be another round of QE that dwarfs the previous rounds. Unwinding has the real possibility of triggering another financial crisis. If the bond market turns bearish after a 30 year bull market I wouldnt want to be holding dollars." }, { "docid": "330379", "title": "", "text": "\"Oracle is the most prevalent software in the Banking and financial system, if not in the front end then on the back end. Oracle has made so much profit for the financial sector that they ended up acquiring SUN systems and now bundle their own hardware along with their software and databases. There is perhaps not a single bank in the world that does not use oracle in some form or another, be it AML, MIS, ERP or Core banking. It remains a mystery to me how the Heads of Banking and the Fed can sit in front of the senate banking committee and when asked \"\" What is your exposure?\"\" Their response was \"\"I don't know!!!\"\" Bankers are dumb by their very nature and cultivated to look the other way, but even for them and their corrupt single digit IQ, I think Oracle must really suck as a database if they could not run a simple sum query. Conclusion : Oracle colluded in the 2007 financial crisis and sucks as a database and financial system\"" }, { "docid": "113632", "title": "", "text": "First, you need to see if you actually qualify as a dependent under IRS rules; in short: While there may be exceptions to the cohabitation rule, I am not sure what those could be. The takeaway is that if your parent is wishing to claim you as a dependent, they must be responsible for supporting the majority of your living expenses (e.g. food and shelter). If this is the case, then the next question is to look at how the impact of the exemptions play out. In your situation, I would guess that your mother is correct: your taxable income is likely to be so low that if you do not take an exemption for yourself, you probably would still have zero or minimal tax liability; but if you mother claims you as a dependent, she will be able to take a deduction. In the case of your grants and loans, the loans should not be taxable income since these need to be repaid (presumably, with future earnings). Federal grants may be taxable--basically, the portion of the grant that is used solely for paying educational expenses toward a specific degree (tuition and books) is non-taxable, but the remainder may be subject to tax. As for tax credits, you would need to see how much you would get and how they would apply to you. The bottom line is, there are too many variables to say for certain what the best approach would be, so both your and your mother's returns must be prepared under each scenario (you as her dependent, versus you claiming a personal exemption)." }, { "docid": "83610", "title": "", "text": "\"I do a lot of my own legal work, even sued the IRS, and I always win**. I would not attempt to do this myself. I'd run straight to a tax professional***. But if I did attempt this myself... My position is that I did a 401K to IRA rollover in good faith. Such a rollover is perfectly common. eTrade saw the paperwork and knew I was rolling over a 401K, and knew or reasonably should have known this rollover would be to an IRA, since rolling over to a cash account is a completely insane act which no-one would ever do. I would gather and prepare to present every document that supports this notion in any way. I would then take a hard look at my documentation and see how well I can support that argument. Then I would research cases in tax court to see how the courts treated situations like yours. I would not roll over the money to another IRA account until I had done that. And I would move quickly. This is a hard problem and there are no pat answers. It depends a lot on the finer details. One last thing. Next time you do a move like this, start small. Move $2000 over. ** My real skill is swallowing my pride and knowing when I'm wrong. I settle those, and only fight the guaranteed winners. *** This is not the usual SE kneejerk of \"\"hire a professional\"\". I almost never do; but I would here. It's an arcane area. Also acting on a professional's advice is a \"\"get out of jail free\"\" card regarding penalties or punishments.\"" }, { "docid": "359950", "title": "", "text": "\"Its a good question. Off the top of my head I would suggest to revoke their licenses to do business, and involuntary dissolution of the corporate entity. Mandatory sale of all assets including customer lists and other intangibles to the highest bidder. The entity would essentially be absorbed by other businesses in their industry so the industry and economy as a whole probably wouldn't be affected too much by the \"\"execution.\"\" The shareholders would lose a lot obviously because the proceeds from the fire sale would probably be way lower than FMV. But fuck the shareholders, investing carries risk and their business failed. The relatively innocent employees could go work in the other businesses that bought up OldCo's assets. Higher level corporate executives should have to take personal responsibility legally. This is similar to how SOX requires the CEO and CFO to take personal responsibility for the financial statements they prepare and publish, with penalties up to and including millions of dollars of fines and jail time. But of course, as long as I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony too as the saying goes.\"" }, { "docid": "460398", "title": "", "text": "A somewhat provocative (but not unserious) proposal: Rent, don't buy a house to live in. In 2007/8, the thing that got many people in deep trouble is their mortgage. It's not a productive investment but a speculative bet on what was in fact a bubble and a class of assets that is notoriously slow to recover after a slump. Before thinking about your savings or buying into silly ideas about gold, you should realise that as a middle class worker, the biggest risk after a crisis is losing your job. Renting your accommodation means being able to downgrade or move very quickly and not being forced to sell a house at the worse possible time. If you really do need to liquidate some of your investments at a bad time, having a more diversified portfolio means that you are not losing everything to meet some short-term obligations. Assuming you're in the US, this means forgoing some nice tax advantages that might be too tempting to resist (I'm not so I am basing this on what I read on this site) but, bubbles aside, there is nothing that makes real estate a particularly good investment as such, especially if you also live in the house you're buying. You might very well come out on top but you expose yourself to several risks and are less prepared to face a crisis." }, { "docid": "173566", "title": "", "text": "I haven't read this article, but the most pressing question I have from the headline is the timeline. We all know that triple-a rated CDOs were horrific in the financial crisis. How about ones that have been created in the past couple of years?" }, { "docid": "447502", "title": "", "text": "\"Chance presented me with the opportunities. Hard work enabled me to be prepared to take those opportunities when presented. Had the opportunities that I did take not presented themselves I was very prepared to move on to the next ones. I always say, \"\"I have backup plans for my backup plan's backup plan.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "110081", "title": "", "text": "\"It really depends on the answers to two questions: 1) How tight is your budget going to be if you have to make that $530 payment every month? Obviously, you'd still be better off than you are now, since that's still $30 cheaper. But, if you're living essentially paycheck to paycheck, then the extra flexibility of the $400/month option can make the difference if something unforeseen happens. 2) How disciplined (financially) have you proven you can be? The \"\"I'll make extra payments every month\"\" sounds real nice, but many people end up not doing it. I should know, I'm one of them. I'm still paying on my student loans because of it. If you know (by having done it before), that you can make that extra $130 go out each and every month and not talk yourself into using it on all sorts of \"\"more important needs\"\", then hey, go for it. Financial flexibility is a great thing, and having that monthly nut (all your minimum living expenses combined) as low as possible contributes greatly to that flexibility. Update: Another thing to consider Another thing to consider is what they do with your extra payment. Will they apply it to the principal, or will they treat it as a prepayment? If they apply it to principal, it'll be just like if you had that shorter term. Your principal goes down additionally by that extra amount, and the next month, you owe another $400. On the other hand, if they treat it as a prepayment, then that extra $130 will be applied to the next month's bill. Principal stays the same, and the next month you'll be billed $270. There are two practical differences for you: 1) With prepayment, you'll pay slightly more interest over that 60 months paying it off. Because it's not amortized into the loan, the principal balance doesn't go down faster while the loan exists. And since interest is calculated on the remaining principal balance, end result is more interest than you otherwise would have paid. That sucks, but: 2) with the prepayment, consider that at the end of year 2, you'd have over 7 months of payments prepaid. So, if some emergency does come up, you don't have to send them any money at all for 7 months. There's that flexibility again. :-) Honestly, while this is something you should find out about the loan, it's really still a wash. I haven't done the math, but with the interest rate, amount of the loan and time frame, I think the extra interest would be pretty minor.\"" }, { "docid": "124149", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Note from the Editor: Hyperinflation is becoming more visible every day—just notice the next time you shop for groceries. All signs say America’s economic recovery is expected to take a nose dive and before it gets any worse you should read The Uncensored Survivalist. This book contains sensible advice on how to avoid total financial devastation and how to survive on your own if necessary. Click here for your free copy If someone includes this kind of stuff on their website, I assume whatever they say is probably uninformed at best." }, { "docid": "405584", "title": "", "text": "\"I love how you're being downvoted even though you're providing a very basic answer that is easy to look up and see that you are correct, no the majority of people Linhares just listed aren't \"\"economists\"\" - but then again redditors vote based on they feel, irregardless of the facts. I also love how everyone now feels as though the financial crisis was easy to spot - I bet if we went back and asked them in 2007 they would have all foreseen it as well. Yes, a few exceptionally intelligent people (Roubini, Shiller, Grantham etc.) foresaw it, but then again thousands of intelligent people make forecasts on financial markets every day and the majority fail to outperform it. The survivor bias in action I guess.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "457108", "title": "", "text": "Those ‘crises’ are only an issue if you need your savings during the time of crisis. If you have time to sit it out, you should just do that, and come out of the crisis with a gain. People that lose money during a crisis lose it because they sell their investments during the crisis, either because they had to or because they thought they should. If you look at historic values of investments, the market overall always recovers and goes over the orignal value some time after the crisis. Investing even more right in the crisisis the best way to make a lot of money." } ]

[ { "docid": "447385", "title": "", "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: &gt;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 &amp; 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.\"" }, { "docid": "359950", "title": "", "text": "\"Its a good question. Off the top of my head I would suggest to revoke their licenses to do business, and involuntary dissolution of the corporate entity. Mandatory sale of all assets including customer lists and other intangibles to the highest bidder. The entity would essentially be absorbed by other businesses in their industry so the industry and economy as a whole probably wouldn't be affected too much by the \"\"execution.\"\" The shareholders would lose a lot obviously because the proceeds from the fire sale would probably be way lower than FMV. But fuck the shareholders, investing carries risk and their business failed. The relatively innocent employees could go work in the other businesses that bought up OldCo's assets. Higher level corporate executives should have to take personal responsibility legally. This is similar to how SOX requires the CEO and CFO to take personal responsibility for the financial statements they prepare and publish, with penalties up to and including millions of dollars of fines and jail time. But of course, as long as I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony too as the saying goes.\"" }, { "docid": "511139", "title": "", "text": "They'll never punish the people actually responsible. Because that would include people like current Treasury Secretary Jack Lew who was the Chief Operating Officer at Citigroup through the financial crisis. As much as I don't like the big banks, the current management, employees, and shareholders have very little to do with the fraud committed 7-10 years ago. If you put the previous generation of management in jail or if you bankrupt them with fines, then the current generation of management and employees will wise up and not do stupid/illegal shit. The settlement just shows the current generation that the next guy will pay for your crimes." }, { "docid": "175692", "title": "", "text": "Here would be the big two you don't mention: Time - How much of your own time are you prepared to commit to this? Are you going to find tenants, handle calls if something breaks down, and other possible miscellaneous issues that may arise with the property? Are you prepared to spend money on possible renovations and other maintenance on the property that may occur from time to time? Financial costs - You don't mention anything about insurance or taxes, as in property taxes since most municipalities need funds that would come from the owner of the home, that would be a couple of other costs to note in having real estate holdings as if something big happens are you expecting a government bailout automatically? If you chose to use a property management company for dealing with most issues then be aware of how much cash flow could be impacted here. Are you prepared to have an account to properly do the books for your company that will hold the property or would you be doing this as an individual without any corporate structure? Do you have lease agreements printed up or would you need someone to provide these for you?" }, { "docid": "271609", "title": "", "text": "I don't think there is a definite single answer for this. I think it largely depends on where you are on your financial journey. In the ideal world you'd have everything in bucket 2 built into your budget and be putting a little bit aside every paycheck to cover each of those things when they do come up but that takes a fair bit of discipline to do and experience (and data) to estimate reasonably. When you are just starting out in actually setting and keeping a budget or digging yourself out of CC debt/living paycheck to paycheck the odds are you aren't going to have the experience or disciple necessary to actually budget for those things in bucket 2 and even if you did the better option might well be to pay off that high interest debt you already have rather than saving up for an eventual expense. How ever as you start to improve your situation and pay off that debt, develop the disciple to set and follow a budget that is when you should start adding more of those things into your budget. How you track them doesn't really matter. A separate account at your bank. A total for a category in your budgeting software. An XLS file or even paper (ick). Ultimately it isn't about how you plan for and track things but more about actually doing that. So my question to the OP is where are you? If you already have a budget and do a good job of following it but don't have those items in it then consider that the next step in your financial journey." }, { "docid": "447502", "title": "", "text": "\"Chance presented me with the opportunities. Hard work enabled me to be prepared to take those opportunities when presented. Had the opportunities that I did take not presented themselves I was very prepared to move on to the next ones. I always say, \"\"I have backup plans for my backup plan's backup plan.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "278405", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Which one is Citibank I literally *just* told you retard. &gt;Those CEO's (including this prick) were responsible for it. No they werent. CDO's / MBS's are *not* from depository banks. The financial institutions that are responsible for the financial crisis are primarily Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and AIG. AKA 2 *investment* banks and an insurance firm. So as I've said, you don't understand the difference between a depository bank and an investment bank. You also have 0 idea on how a collateral works. And again, tax payers didn't lose a single cent. You're brainless." }, { "docid": "31911", "title": "", "text": "Yeah, it ends up being a bail out. But then again, the tax payers bailed out the banks during the financial crisis (a crisis that was largely perpetuated by them) so should it be okay not to help bail these homeowners out during an actual natural disaster..." }, { "docid": "137984", "title": "", "text": "\"We're in agreement, I just want retail investors to understand that in most of these types of discussions, the unspoken reality is the retail sector trading the market is *over*. This includes the mutual funds you mentioned, and even most index funds (most are so narrowly focused they lose their relevance for the retail investor). In the retail investment markets I'm familiar with, there are market makers of some sort or another for specified ranges. I'm perfectly fine with no market makers; but retail investors should be told the naked truth as well, and not sold a bunch of come-ons. What upsets me is seeing that just as computers really start to make an orderly market possible (you are right, the classic NYSE specialist structure was outrageously corrupt), regulators turned a blind eye to implementing better controls for retail investors. The financial services industry has to come to terms whether they want AUM from retail or not, and having heard messaging much like yours from other professionals, I've concluded that the industry does *not* want the constraints with accepting those funds, but neither do they want to disabuse retail investors of how tilted the game is against them. Luring them in with deceptively suggestive marketing and then taking money from those naturally ill-prepared for the rigors of the setting is like beating up the Downs' Syndrome kid on the short bus and boasting about it back on the campus about how clever and strong one is. If there was as stringent truth in marketing in financial services as cigarettes, like \"\"this service makes their profit by encouraging the churning of trades\"\", there would be a lot of kvetching from so-called \"\"pros\"\" as well. If all retail financial services were described like \"\"dead cold cow meat\"\" describes \"\"steak\"\", a lot of retail investors would be better off. As it stands today, you'd have to squint mighty hard to see the faintly-inscribed \"\"caveat emptor\"\" on financial services offerings to the retail sector. Note that depending upon the market setting, the definition of retail differs. I'm surprised the herd hasn't been spooked more by the MF Global disaster, for example, and yet there are some surprisingly large accounts detrimentally affected by that incident, which in a conventional equities setting would be considered \"\"pros\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "167895", "title": "", "text": "Based on Dalio's interviews, he seems to think it's kind of too little too late. He said the Fed did a great job maneuvering out of the crisis, but then coasted for too long when they should have been tightening. Now it's too late and trying to play catch up might destabilize things to the point where they would be the *cause* of the next recession." }, { "docid": "361442", "title": "", "text": "From my Capital Markets and Institutions assignment on 2007 - 2008 Financial Crisis The subprime financial crisis that emerged in the summer of 2007 is much too intricate and interwoven to place the blame solely on one organisation or group of individuals. Each actor involved is responsible for and party to—in varying degrees—the events that transpired. Mortgage brokers (individuals) • First line of contact between an originator and a borrower • Out to get theirs; greedy • Disregard for borrowers, only want to originate as many mortgages as possible • Engaged in controversial practices – confusing, pressuring, lying to borrowers in order to secure a mortgage • Took advantage of 2/28 mortgages in order to collect new origination fees • Offered piggyback mortgages requiring no money down Mortgage originators (organisations) • Began lending to subprime borrowers during the 1990s – done through brokers to whom they paid a commission • Largely supplanted loans made by the FHA through traditional lenders • Many originators acquired by large investment banks • Cashed in on and espoused the “American dream” of home ownership • Different interest rates charged to borrowers • Use of statistical software and credit scores to evaluate borrowers • Popularised 2/28 mortgages • Allowed borrowers to take out mortgages with little or no documentation • Rapidly increased $ amount of mortgages issued • In charge of servicing mortgages issued – making reasonable efforts to collect principal and interest, able to foreclose on properties when delinquent • Profited from massive fees (late and other) added when loans were delinquent • First firms to suffer from the increase in foreclosures Investment banks • Often acquired mortgage originators to gain yet another revenue stream • Responsible for creating CDO entities, often registered in tax havens • CDOs took on large positions in MBSs and created subordinate obligations, also CDOs • CDO entities held assets of other CDOs, creating a complex interwoven situation • CDOs were also involved with positions in other securities • IB-controlled hedge funds often hedged risks through buying highly-rated MBSs • CDOs holding long-term debt were funded through the short-term commercial paper market – high ratings secured through IB lines of credit • Also pioneered SIVs – relied on highly-rated CP market; lines of credit combined with investor equity allowed IBs to keep SIVs off B/S • IBs heavily invested in MBSs/CDOs began to run into liquidity problems • Required capital investment to remain operational – often found abroad (e.g. Abu Dhabi, Chinese, Singaporean governments) • Largely responsible for the monetary policy pursued by the Fed during 2007/2008 • Conduct raised questions as to the regulation of the entire financial industry • Contrast with their responsibility for much innovation and engineering in the financial services industry Credit ratings agencies • Party to major conflicts of interest • Overwhelmingly gave AAA ratings to MBSs • Agencies loosened their rating criteria and perhaps over-rated MBSs in an effort to gain more business from originators • Agencies also rated the debt of institutions that held positions in MBSs • CDOs holding MBSs obtained high ratings as well – statistical models used indicated them to be safe • Based high ratings in the commercial paper market on IB lines of credit – obliged the IBs in order to gain more business • Agency downgrades of MBSs/CDOs resulted in large IB losses, setting in motion further developments • Ratings became less useful as the MBS market froze up, with even AAA-rated MBSs struggling to find a market • Previously championed as an alternative to government intervention in the market • Role of ratings agencies heavily questioned in aftermath • Also questioned was how ratings in general should be used • RAs deflected claims that they acted irresponsibly during the subprime boom • Criticised for the large proportion of AAA-ratings given to MBSs o Argued that historical defaults on MBSs were lower than similar corporate bonds • Conflicts inherent in having issuers pay for ratings o Committees that assigned ratings were separate from negotiations regarding fees • Emphasized benefits of giving all investors free access to ratings rather than them paying for them • Wave of downgrades in 2nd half of 2007 a result of unexpectedly poor performance of subprime mortgages originated in 2006 o Attributed to: laxer underwriting standards, declines in housing prices, more restrictive borrowing standards that prevented borrowers from refinancing Investors • Backbone of many institutions – shareholders • Owned stock in IBs and GSEs, two major players in subprime crisis • Driving force behind institutions taking on riskier investments (e.g. MBSs) • Unwilling to inject more capital/equity into firms required them to turn elsewhere for aid • Worries that the crisis could spread to other markets (e.g. credit cards) added to worries • Grouped with IBs in being seen as responsible for the crisis o US government would not allow higher sale price for Bear Stearns to avoid appearance of bailing out investors" }, { "docid": "305901", "title": "", "text": "\"It's a problem from hell because all solutions have drawbacks/unintended consequences and because they are all pretty complex to implement in practice. Breaking up the big banks so that no bank is enough to bring down the economy with it is the strongest move, but is riddled with problems when you start looking at it practically. How do you determine the \"\"maximum size\"\" a bank should have? Should it be based on assets? Systemic importance (i.e. interconnectedness with other banks)? How do you enforce it? Banks will find ways to offload assets, etc. into special purpose corporations to get around the laws somehow. How do you compensate for the fact that size does help financial efficiency in some ways? Imposing higher capital requirements is the next solution. But that too is not so easy to implement with full success in practice. What should be classified as a low-risk asset? How much capital do you require against a CDO vs a Mexican government bond? How often do you need to revise these standards? At what point does the cost of higher capital requirements start to strangle lending and financial flows? The weaker maneuvers are things like constant government-imposed stress tests, orderly resolution mechanisms, higher standards for internal risk management practices, etc. but those may not be adequate and also have their implementation problems.\"" }, { "docid": "14997", "title": "", "text": "I could be wrong, but I doubt that Bernie started out with any intention of defrauding anyone, really. I suspect it began the first time he hit a quarter when his returns were lower than everyone else's, or at least not as high as he'd promised his investors they'd be, so he fudged the numbers and lied to get past the moment, thinking he'd just make up for it the next quarter. Only that never happened, and so the lie carried forward and maybe grew as things didn't improve as he expected. It only turned into a ponzi because he wasn't as successful at investing as he was telling his investors he was, and telling the truth would have meant the probability that he would have lost most of his clients as they went elsewhere. Bernie couldn't admit the truth, so he had to keep up the fiction by actually paying out returns that didn't exist, which required constantly finding new money to cover what he was paying out. The source of that money turned out to be new investors who were lured in by people already investing with Bernie who told them how great he was as a financial wizard, and they had the checks to prove it. I think this got so far out of hand, and it gradually dragged more and more people in because such things turn into black holes, swallowing up everything that gets close. Had the 2008 financial crisis not hit then Bernie might still be at it. The rapid downturns in the markets hit many of Bernie's investors with margin calls in other investments they held, so they requested redemptions from him to cover their calls, expecting that all of the money he'd convinced to leave with him really existed. When he realized he couldn't meet the flood of redemptions, that was when he 'fessed up and the bubble burst. Could he have succeeded by simple investing in Berkshire? Probably. But then how many people say that in hindsight about them or Amazon or Google, or any number of other stocks that turned out similarly? (grin) Taking people's money and parking it all in one stock doesn't make you a genius, and that's how Bernie wanted to be viewed. To accomplish that, he needed to find the opportunities nobody else saw and be the one to get there first. Unfortunately his personal crystal ball was wrong, and rather than taking his lumps by admitting it to his investors, his pride and ego led him down a path of deception that I'm sure he had every intention of making right if he could. The problem was, that moment never came. Keep in mind one thing: The $64 billion figure everyone cites isn't money that really existed in the first place. That number is what Bernie claimed his fund was worth, and it is not the amount he actually defrauded people out of. His actual cash intake was probably somewhere in the $20 billion range over that time. Everything else beyond that was nothing more than the fictionalized returns he was claiming to get for his clients. It's what they thought they had in the bank with him, rather than what was really there." }, { "docid": "264297", "title": "", "text": "\"My advice is to quit worrying about the salesman's tactics. They are a distraction. What do you want? How much are you willing to pay for it. If you want the instrument, decide how much you want to pay for it. Round down to the next even hundred. Take that much in $100 bills. Put the money in his hand and say, \"\"This is what I have, take it or leave it\"\". You must be prepared to walk out of the store without the instrument.\"" }, { "docid": "275410", "title": "", "text": "\"TARP was ~$475 billion of loans to institutions. Loans that are to be paid back, with interest (albeit very low interest). A significant percentage of the TARP loans have been (or will be) paid back. So, the final price tag of the TARP was only a few $billion (pretty low considering the scale of the program). There is ~$10 trillion in mortgage debt outstanding. That's a much higher price tag than TARP. Secondly, paying off the mortgages = no repayment to the government as there was with TARP. The initial price tag of your plan would be ~$10 trillion, instead of a few $billion. Furthermore how does a government with >$15 trillion in debt already come up with an extra ~$10 trillion to pay off people's mortgages? Should the government go deeper into debt? Print more money and trigger inflation? (Note: Some people like to talk about a \"\"secret bailout\"\" by the Fed, implying that the true cost of TARP was much higher than claimed by the government. The \"\"secret bailout\"\" was a series of short-term low/no interest loans to banks. Because they were loans, which were paid back, my point still stands.) Some other issues to consider: Remember that the principal balance of your mortgage is only a small portion of your payments to the bank. Over 30 years, you pay a lot of $$$ in interest to the bank (that's how banks make a profit). Banks are expecting that revenue, and it is factored into their financial projections. If those revenue streams suddenly disappeared, I expect it would majorly screw the up the financial industry. Many people bought houses during the real estate boom, when housing prices were inflated far beyond the \"\"real\"\" value of the house. Is it right to overpay for these houses? This rewards the banks for accepting the inflated value during the appraisal process. (Loan modification forces banks to accept the \"\"real\"\" value of the house.) The financial crisis was triggered by people buying houses they could not afford. Should they be rewarded with a free house for making poor financial decisions?\"" }, { "docid": "588153", "title": "", "text": "A derivative is a financial instrument of a special kind, the kind “whose price depends on, or is derived from, another asset”. This definition is from John Hull, Options, Futures and Other Derivatives – a book definitely worth to own if you are curious about this, you can easily find old copies for a few dollars. The first point is that a derivative is a financial instrument, like credits, or insurances, the second point is that its price depends closely from the price of something else, the mentioned asset. In most cases derivatives can be understood as financial insurances against some risk bound to the asset. In the sequel I give a small list of derivatives and highlight the assets and the risk they can be bound to. And first, let me point out that the definition is (marginally) wrong because some derivatives depend on things which are not assets, nor do they have a price, like temperature, sunlight, or even your own life in the case of mortgages. But before going in this list, let me go through the remaining points of your question. What is the basic idea and concept behind a derivative? As already noted, in most cases, a derivative can be understood as a financial insurance compensating from a risk of some sort. In a classical insurance contract, one party of the contract is an insurance company, but in the broader case of a derivative, that counterparty can be pretty anything: an insurance, a bank, a government, a large company, and most probably market makers. How is it really used, and how does this deviate from the first point? Briefly, how does is it affecting people, and how is it causing problems? An important point with derivatives is that it can be arbitrarily complicated to compute their prices. Actually what is hidden in the attempt of giving a definition for derivatives, is that they are products whose price Y is a measurable function of one or several random variables X_1, X_2, … X_n on which we can use the theory of arbitrage pricing to get hints on the actual price Y of the asset – this is what the depends on means in technical terms. In the most favorable case, we obtain an easy formula linking Y to the X_is which tells us what is the price of our financial instrument. But in practice, it can be very difficult, if at all possible, to determine a price for derivatives. This has two implications: Persons possessing sophisticated techniques to compute the price of derivatives have a strategic advantage on derivatives market, in comparison to less advanced actors on the market. Organisation owning assets they cannot price cannot compute their bilan anymore, so that they cannot know for sure their financial situation. They are somehow playing roulette. But wait, if derivatives are insurances they should help to mitigate some financial risk, which precisely means that they should help their owners to more accurately see their financial situation! How is this not a contradiction? Some persons with sophisticated techniques to compute the price of derivatives are actually selling complicated derivatives to less knowledgeable persons. For instance, many communes in France and Germany have contracted credits whose reimbursements have a fixed interest part, like in a classical credit, and a variable interest part whose rate is computed against a complicated formula involving the value of the Swiss frank at each quarter starting from the inception of the credit. (So, for a 25 years running credit of theis type, the price Y of the credit at its inception depends on 100 Xs, which are the uncertain prices for the Swiss frank each quarter of the 25 next years.) Some of these communes can be quite small, with 5.000 inhabitants, and needless to say, do not have the required expertise to analyse the risks bound to such instruments, which in that special case led the court call the credit a swindling and to cancel the credit. But what chain of events leads a 5.000 inhabitants city in France to own a credit whose reimbursements depends on the Swiss frank? After the credit crunch in 2007 and the fall of Lehman Brothers in 2008, it has begun to be very hard to organise funding, which basically means to conclude credits running long in time on large amounts of money. So, the municipality needs a 25 years credit of 10.000.000 EUROS and goes to its communal bank. The communal bank has hundreds or thousands of municipalities looking for credits and needs itself a financing. So the communal bank goes to one of the five largest financial institutions in the world, which insists on selling a huge credit whose reimbursements have a variable part depending on hundred of values the Swiss frank will have in the 25 next years. Since the the big bank has better computation techniques than the small bank it makes a big profit. Since the small bank has no idea, how to compute the correct price of the credit it bought, it cuts this in pieces and sell it in the same form to the various communes it works with. If we were to attribute this kind of intentions to the largest five banks, we could ask about the possibility that they designed the credit to take advantage of the primitive evaluation methods of the small bank. We could also ask if they organised a cartel to force communal banks to buy their bermudean snowballs. And we could also ask, if they are so influent that they eventually can manipulate the Swiss frank to secure an even higher profit. But I will not go into this. To the best of my understanding, the subprime crisis is a play along the same plot, with different actors, but I know this latter subject only by what I could read in French newspapers. So much for the “How is it causing problems?” part. What is some of the terminology in relation to derivatives (and there meanings of course)? Answering this question is basically the purpose of the 7 first chapters of the book by Hull, along with deriving some important mathematical principles. And I will not copy these seven chapters here! How would someone get started dealing in derivatives (I'm playing a realistic stock market simulation, so it doesn't matter if your answer to this costs me money)? If you ask the question, I understand that you are not a professional, so that your are actually trying to become the one that has money and zero knowledge in the play I outlined above. I would recommand not doing this. That said, if you have a good mathematical background and can program well, once you are confindent with the books of Hull and Joshi, you can have fun implementing various market models and implementing trading strategies. Once you are confident with this, you can also read the articles on quantitative finance on arXiv.org. And once you are done with this, you can decide for yourself if you want to play the same market as the guys writing these articles. (And yes, even for the simplest options, they have better models than you have and will systematically outperform you in the long run, even if some random successes will give you the feeling that you do well and could do better.) (indeed, I've made it a personal goal to somehow lose every last cent of my money) You know your weapons! :) Two parties agree today on a price for one to deliver a commodity to the other at some future instant. This is a classical future contract, it can be modified in every imaginable way, usually by embedding options. For instance one party could have the option to choose between different delivery points or delivery days. Two parties write today a contract allowing the one party to buy at some future time a commodity to the the second party. The price is written today, as part of the contract. (There is the corresponding option entitling the owner to sell something.) Unlike the future contract, only one party can be obliged to do something, the other jas a right but no obligation. If you buy and option, your are buying some sort of insurance against a change of price on some asset. This is the most familiar to anybody. Credits can come in many different flavours, especially the formula to compute interests, or also embed options. Common options are early settlement options or restructuration options. While this is not completely inutitive, the credit works like an insurance. This is most easily understood from the side of the organisation lending the money, that speculates that the ratio of creanciers going bankrupt will be low enough for her to make profit, just like a fire insurance company speculates that the ratio of fire accidents will be low enough for her to make a profit. This is like a mortgage on a financial institution. Two parties agree that one will recive an upfront today and give a compensation to the second one if some third party defaults. Here this is an explicit insurance against the unfortuante event, where a creancier goes bankrupt. One finds here more or less standard options on electricity. But electricity have delicious particularities as it can practically not be stored, and fallout is also (usually) avoided. As for classical options, these are insurances against price moves. A swap is like two complementary credits on the same amount of money, so that it ends up in the two parties not actually exchanging the credit nominal and only paying interest one to the other — which makes only sense if these interests are computed with different formulas. Typical example are fixed rate vs. EURIBOR on some given maturity, which we interpret as an insurance against fluctuations of the EURIBOR, or a fixed rate vs. the exchange ratio between two currencies, which we interpret as an insurance against the two currencies decorrelating. Swaps are the richest and the most generic category of financial derivatives. The off-the-counter market features very imaginative, very customised insurance products. The most basic form is the insurance against drought, but you can image different dangers, and once you have it you can put it in options, in a swap, etc. For instance, a restaurant with a terrasse could enter in a weather insurance, paying each year a fixed amount of money and becoming in return an amount of money based on the amount of rainy day in a year. Actually, this list is virtually without limits!" }, { "docid": "11508", "title": "", "text": "\"My favorite Fed \"\"admission\"\" was from Alan Greenspan during his testimony in Congress about what caused the 2008 financial crisis. Senator Waxman basically asked Greenspan if he had fucked up. Greenspan's glib reply was; \"\"I found a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak.\"\" In other words, his grand economic theory was fatally flawed. So to speak. Unbelievable. [YouTube link - 4:45 ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5lZPWNFizQ)\"" }, { "docid": "60379", "title": "", "text": "\"Looking at the list of bonds you listed, many of them are long dated. In short, in a rate rising environment (it's not like rates can go much lower in the foreseeable future), these bond prices will drop in general in addition to any company specific events occurred to these names, so be prepared for some paper losses. Just because a bond is rated highly by credit agencies like S&P or Moody's does not automatically mean their prices do not fluctuate. Yes, there is always a demand for highly rated bonds from pension funds, mutual funds, etc. because of their investment mandates. But I would suggest looking beyond credit ratings and yield, and look further into whether these bonds are secured/unsecured and if secured, by what. Keep in mind in recent financial crisis, prices of those CDOs/CLOs ended up plunging even though they were given AAA ratings by rating agencies because some were backed by housing properties that were over-valued and loans made to borrowers having difficulties to make repayments. Hence, these type of \"\"bonds\"\" have greater default risks and traded at huge discounts. Most of them are also callable, so you may not enjoy the seemingly high yield till their maturity date. Like others mentioned, buying bonds outright is usually a big ticket item. I would also suggest reviewing your cash liquidity and opportunity cost as oppose to investing in other asset classes and instruments.\"" }, { "docid": "351285", "title": "", "text": "In the US, for most mortgages: The rules for how you compute LTV vary. Usually it's based with current value. With FHA loans, you cannot have the property re-assessed -- LTV is based on the original loan amortization. Note that in the wake of the housing crisis, assessors have suddenly become very conservative with valuations, so be prepared to fight over the valuation." } ]

[ { "docid": "424511", "title": "", "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." } ]

[ { "docid": "566223", "title": "", "text": "I’ll start with what worked for me, to get me hooked. This list is by no means exhaustive. *One Up On Wall Street* by Peter Lynch discusses competitive advantages and staying close to the story of a business. Explores the concept of ‘buy what you know’. He has also written *Beating the Street*. *The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives* by Leonard Mlodinow is not dissimilar to *A Random Walk Down Wall Street*, but I preferred this book as it explores the concepts of randomness and survivors bias. *Against the Gods* by Peter Bernstein is a dense book, but in my opinion is the definitive text on the development of numbers, probability theory, and risk management. I absolutely love this book. *The Most Important Thing* by Howard Marks is immensely readable, enjoyable, and looks at value investing for the long run. Howard Marks has been a macro behavioural investor before behavioural investing was a thing. Speaking of behavioural biases, *Thinking, Fast and Slow* by Daniel Kahneman is a spectacular look at how your brain’s quick-trigger responses can often be wrong. On the subject of behaviour and biases, *Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion* by Robert Cialdini is another topic-defining book More books by long term veteran professional investment managers that should be enjoyed: - *The Little Book That (Still) Beats the Market* by Joel Greenblatt - *Beat the Crowd* by Ken Fisher - *Big Money Thinks Small* by Joel Tillinghast - *Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits* by Philip A. Fisher - *The Little Book of Behavioural Investing* by James Montier - *Margin of Safety* by Seth Klarman And I’ll be banned from this forum without mentioning *The Intelligent Investor* by Benjamin Graham. As per some other comments, my personal opinion is that books that describe events or periods of time like *Liars’ Poker* [80s Junk Bonds], *The Big Short* [Financial Crisis], *When Genius Failed* [the LTCM collapse, excellent read by Rogers Lowenstein], *All The Devils Are Here* [by McLean and Nocera, another Financial Crisis book, much better than Lewis’s, IMO] are all educational and quite entertaining, but don’t honestly have much to do with the actual nuts and bolts of the real financial industry. Enjoy!" }, { "docid": "583666", "title": "", "text": "Wikipedia has a nice definition of financial literacy (emphasis below is mine): [...] refers to an individual's ability to make informed judgments and effective decisions about the use and management of their money. Raising interest in personal finance is now a focus of state-run programs in countries including Australia, Japan, the United States and the UK. [...] As for how you can become financially literate, here are some suggestions: Learn about how basic financial products works: bank accounts, mortgages, credit cards, investment accounts, insurance (home, car, life, disability, medical.) Free printed & online materials should be available from your existing financial service providers to help you with your existing products. In particular, learn about the fees, interest, or other charges you may incur with these products. Becoming fee-aware is a step towards financial literacy, since financially literate people compare costs. Seek out additional information on each type of product from unbiased sources (i.e. sources not trying to sell you something.) Get out of debt and stay out of debt. This may take a while. Focus on your highest-interest loans first. Learn the difference between good debt and bad debt. Learn about compound interest. Once you understand compound interest, you'll understand why being in debt is bad for your financial well-being. If you aren't already saving money for retirement, start now. Investigate whether your employer offers an advantageous matched 401(k) plan (or group RRSP/DC plan for Canadians) or a pension plan. If your employer offers a good plan, sign up. If you get to choose your own investments, keep it simple and favor low-cost balanced index funds until you understand the different types of investments. Read the material provided by the plan sponsor, try online tools provided, and seek out additional information from unbiased sources. If your employer doesn't offer an advantageous retirement plan, open an individual retirement account or IRA (or personal RRSP for Canadians.) If your employer does offer a plan, you can set one of these up to save even more. You could start with access to a family of low-cost mutual funds (examples: Vanguard for Americans, or TD eFunds for Canadians) or earn advanced credit by learning about discount brokers and self-directed accounts. Understand how income taxes and other taxes work. If you have an accountant prepare your taxes, ask questions. If you prepare your taxes yourself, understand what you're doing and don't file blind. Seek help if necessary. There are many good books on how income tax works. Software packages that help you self-file often have online help worth reading – read it. Learn about life insurance, medical insurance, disability insurance, wills, living wills & powers of attorney, and estate planning. Death and illness can derail your family's finances. Learn how these things can help. Seek out and read key books on personal finance topics. e.g. Your Money Or Your Life, Why Smart People Make Big Money Mistakes, The Four Pillars of Investing, The Random Walk Guide to Investing, and many more. Seek out and read good personal finance blogs. There's a wealth of information available for free on the Internet, but do check facts and assumptions. Here are some suggested blogs for American readers and some suggested blogs for Canadian readers. Subscribe to a personal finance periodical and read it. Good ones to start with are Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine in the U.S. and MoneySense Magazine in Canada. The business section in your local newspaper may sometimes have personal finance articles worth reading, too. Shameless plug: Ask more questions on this site. The Personal Finance & Money Stack Exchange is here to help you learn about money & finance, so you can make better financial decisions. We're all here to learn and help others learn about money. Keep learning!" }, { "docid": "588153", "title": "", "text": "A derivative is a financial instrument of a special kind, the kind “whose price depends on, or is derived from, another asset”. This definition is from John Hull, Options, Futures and Other Derivatives – a book definitely worth to own if you are curious about this, you can easily find old copies for a few dollars. The first point is that a derivative is a financial instrument, like credits, or insurances, the second point is that its price depends closely from the price of something else, the mentioned asset. In most cases derivatives can be understood as financial insurances against some risk bound to the asset. In the sequel I give a small list of derivatives and highlight the assets and the risk they can be bound to. And first, let me point out that the definition is (marginally) wrong because some derivatives depend on things which are not assets, nor do they have a price, like temperature, sunlight, or even your own life in the case of mortgages. But before going in this list, let me go through the remaining points of your question. What is the basic idea and concept behind a derivative? As already noted, in most cases, a derivative can be understood as a financial insurance compensating from a risk of some sort. In a classical insurance contract, one party of the contract is an insurance company, but in the broader case of a derivative, that counterparty can be pretty anything: an insurance, a bank, a government, a large company, and most probably market makers. How is it really used, and how does this deviate from the first point? Briefly, how does is it affecting people, and how is it causing problems? An important point with derivatives is that it can be arbitrarily complicated to compute their prices. Actually what is hidden in the attempt of giving a definition for derivatives, is that they are products whose price Y is a measurable function of one or several random variables X_1, X_2, … X_n on which we can use the theory of arbitrage pricing to get hints on the actual price Y of the asset – this is what the depends on means in technical terms. In the most favorable case, we obtain an easy formula linking Y to the X_is which tells us what is the price of our financial instrument. But in practice, it can be very difficult, if at all possible, to determine a price for derivatives. This has two implications: Persons possessing sophisticated techniques to compute the price of derivatives have a strategic advantage on derivatives market, in comparison to less advanced actors on the market. Organisation owning assets they cannot price cannot compute their bilan anymore, so that they cannot know for sure their financial situation. They are somehow playing roulette. But wait, if derivatives are insurances they should help to mitigate some financial risk, which precisely means that they should help their owners to more accurately see their financial situation! How is this not a contradiction? Some persons with sophisticated techniques to compute the price of derivatives are actually selling complicated derivatives to less knowledgeable persons. For instance, many communes in France and Germany have contracted credits whose reimbursements have a fixed interest part, like in a classical credit, and a variable interest part whose rate is computed against a complicated formula involving the value of the Swiss frank at each quarter starting from the inception of the credit. (So, for a 25 years running credit of theis type, the price Y of the credit at its inception depends on 100 Xs, which are the uncertain prices for the Swiss frank each quarter of the 25 next years.) Some of these communes can be quite small, with 5.000 inhabitants, and needless to say, do not have the required expertise to analyse the risks bound to such instruments, which in that special case led the court call the credit a swindling and to cancel the credit. But what chain of events leads a 5.000 inhabitants city in France to own a credit whose reimbursements depends on the Swiss frank? After the credit crunch in 2007 and the fall of Lehman Brothers in 2008, it has begun to be very hard to organise funding, which basically means to conclude credits running long in time on large amounts of money. So, the municipality needs a 25 years credit of 10.000.000 EUROS and goes to its communal bank. The communal bank has hundreds or thousands of municipalities looking for credits and needs itself a financing. So the communal bank goes to one of the five largest financial institutions in the world, which insists on selling a huge credit whose reimbursements have a variable part depending on hundred of values the Swiss frank will have in the 25 next years. Since the the big bank has better computation techniques than the small bank it makes a big profit. Since the small bank has no idea, how to compute the correct price of the credit it bought, it cuts this in pieces and sell it in the same form to the various communes it works with. If we were to attribute this kind of intentions to the largest five banks, we could ask about the possibility that they designed the credit to take advantage of the primitive evaluation methods of the small bank. We could also ask if they organised a cartel to force communal banks to buy their bermudean snowballs. And we could also ask, if they are so influent that they eventually can manipulate the Swiss frank to secure an even higher profit. But I will not go into this. To the best of my understanding, the subprime crisis is a play along the same plot, with different actors, but I know this latter subject only by what I could read in French newspapers. So much for the “How is it causing problems?” part. What is some of the terminology in relation to derivatives (and there meanings of course)? Answering this question is basically the purpose of the 7 first chapters of the book by Hull, along with deriving some important mathematical principles. And I will not copy these seven chapters here! How would someone get started dealing in derivatives (I'm playing a realistic stock market simulation, so it doesn't matter if your answer to this costs me money)? If you ask the question, I understand that you are not a professional, so that your are actually trying to become the one that has money and zero knowledge in the play I outlined above. I would recommand not doing this. That said, if you have a good mathematical background and can program well, once you are confindent with the books of Hull and Joshi, you can have fun implementing various market models and implementing trading strategies. Once you are confident with this, you can also read the articles on quantitative finance on arXiv.org. And once you are done with this, you can decide for yourself if you want to play the same market as the guys writing these articles. (And yes, even for the simplest options, they have better models than you have and will systematically outperform you in the long run, even if some random successes will give you the feeling that you do well and could do better.) (indeed, I've made it a personal goal to somehow lose every last cent of my money) You know your weapons! :) Two parties agree today on a price for one to deliver a commodity to the other at some future instant. This is a classical future contract, it can be modified in every imaginable way, usually by embedding options. For instance one party could have the option to choose between different delivery points or delivery days. Two parties write today a contract allowing the one party to buy at some future time a commodity to the the second party. The price is written today, as part of the contract. (There is the corresponding option entitling the owner to sell something.) Unlike the future contract, only one party can be obliged to do something, the other jas a right but no obligation. If you buy and option, your are buying some sort of insurance against a change of price on some asset. This is the most familiar to anybody. Credits can come in many different flavours, especially the formula to compute interests, or also embed options. Common options are early settlement options or restructuration options. While this is not completely inutitive, the credit works like an insurance. This is most easily understood from the side of the organisation lending the money, that speculates that the ratio of creanciers going bankrupt will be low enough for her to make profit, just like a fire insurance company speculates that the ratio of fire accidents will be low enough for her to make a profit. This is like a mortgage on a financial institution. Two parties agree that one will recive an upfront today and give a compensation to the second one if some third party defaults. Here this is an explicit insurance against the unfortuante event, where a creancier goes bankrupt. One finds here more or less standard options on electricity. But electricity have delicious particularities as it can practically not be stored, and fallout is also (usually) avoided. As for classical options, these are insurances against price moves. A swap is like two complementary credits on the same amount of money, so that it ends up in the two parties not actually exchanging the credit nominal and only paying interest one to the other — which makes only sense if these interests are computed with different formulas. Typical example are fixed rate vs. EURIBOR on some given maturity, which we interpret as an insurance against fluctuations of the EURIBOR, or a fixed rate vs. the exchange ratio between two currencies, which we interpret as an insurance against the two currencies decorrelating. Swaps are the richest and the most generic category of financial derivatives. The off-the-counter market features very imaginative, very customised insurance products. The most basic form is the insurance against drought, but you can image different dangers, and once you have it you can put it in options, in a swap, etc. For instance, a restaurant with a terrasse could enter in a weather insurance, paying each year a fixed amount of money and becoming in return an amount of money based on the amount of rainy day in a year. Actually, this list is virtually without limits!" }, { "docid": "237353", "title": "", "text": "Where was it reported that it was six figures per month? It isn't clear from the article what Mandiant's scope was that they were brought in under. I'm not even sure the way it reads that Mandiant found the Apache Struts-based breach while investigating the breach they were brought in for. Also, companies with an emphasis on IT like Equifax vary greatly in how they handle out-of-budget projects, and so far as I've read, it wasn't revealed how Mandiant's project was procured. Equifax is going to be a case study in business schools on the handling of this incident, and what not getting in front of a crisis looks like (for comparison, see how the Tylenol tampering was handled). Equifax should have reached out to all affected and said they automatically put a freeze on their records, and all affected now have an account created if they didn't already have an account, 7 years of free 100 freeze/unfreeze requests per year, 52 free credit report requests per year, and credit monitoring. If I was on the board, I would have told the CEO to make a generous offer to buy out LifeLock and put all affected onto their most comprehensive plan while working behind the scenes to revamp IT and information security, as well as rethink the industry. It would have been expensive as hell to do, but this is starting to grow into a Wells Fargo-scale career ending and industry-defining incident, and whatever cost savings they thought they got by cutting so many corners that enabled this breach and the weak response might get wiped out for the next 100 years of potential savings as odds increase weekly they'll be forced to adopt more regulatory oversight in the future. If they quietly get LifeLock's most comprehensive plan for all US federal and state legislators though, then they probably will escape real reform and might skate by on the weak response." }, { "docid": "30340", "title": "", "text": "How do I get into Harvard Business School? I'm starting my first year in college next year and had to pass up Harvard (dream school) and two other ivies to go to my state school for financial reasons. I don't have to decide my major for two years. What should I do (classes, internships/work experience, major, etc.) to get into HBS? What tests do I need and what are the important parts of MBA application? Also, what jobs open up to someone with an MBA. I understand that this is a good way to get into Investment Banking? What level/salary would I start at and what other jobs/fields/companies do MBAs get hired for. What are other good business schools? How good is UVAs Darden?" }, { "docid": "330379", "title": "", "text": "\"Oracle is the most prevalent software in the Banking and financial system, if not in the front end then on the back end. Oracle has made so much profit for the financial sector that they ended up acquiring SUN systems and now bundle their own hardware along with their software and databases. There is perhaps not a single bank in the world that does not use oracle in some form or another, be it AML, MIS, ERP or Core banking. It remains a mystery to me how the Heads of Banking and the Fed can sit in front of the senate banking committee and when asked \"\" What is your exposure?\"\" Their response was \"\"I don't know!!!\"\" Bankers are dumb by their very nature and cultivated to look the other way, but even for them and their corrupt single digit IQ, I think Oracle must really suck as a database if they could not run a simple sum query. Conclusion : Oracle colluded in the 2007 financial crisis and sucks as a database and financial system\"" }, { "docid": "429012", "title": "", "text": "\"The best answer to this is: Read the fine print on your credit card agreement. What is common, at least in the US, is that you can make any charges you want during a time window. When the date comes around that your statement balance is calculated, you will owe interest on any amount that is showing up as outstanding in your account. Example... To revise the example you gave, let's say Jan 1. your account balance was $0. Jan. 3rd you went out and spent $1,000. Your account statement will be prepared every XX days... usually 30. So if your last statement was Dec. 27th, you can expect your next statement to be prepared ~Jan.24 or Jan. 27. To be safe, (i.e. not accrue any interest charges) you will want to make sure that your balance shows $0 when your statement is next prepared. So back to the example you gave--if your balance showed $1,000... and you paid it off, but then charged $2,000 to it... so that there was now a new set of $2,000 charges in your account, then the bank would begin charging you interest when your next statement was prepared. Note that there are some cards that give you a certain number of days to pay off charges before accruing interest... it just goes back to my saying \"\"the best answer is read the fine print on your card agreement.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "359950", "title": "", "text": "\"Its a good question. Off the top of my head I would suggest to revoke their licenses to do business, and involuntary dissolution of the corporate entity. Mandatory sale of all assets including customer lists and other intangibles to the highest bidder. The entity would essentially be absorbed by other businesses in their industry so the industry and economy as a whole probably wouldn't be affected too much by the \"\"execution.\"\" The shareholders would lose a lot obviously because the proceeds from the fire sale would probably be way lower than FMV. But fuck the shareholders, investing carries risk and their business failed. The relatively innocent employees could go work in the other businesses that bought up OldCo's assets. Higher level corporate executives should have to take personal responsibility legally. This is similar to how SOX requires the CEO and CFO to take personal responsibility for the financial statements they prepare and publish, with penalties up to and including millions of dollars of fines and jail time. But of course, as long as I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony too as the saying goes.\"" }, { "docid": "144002", "title": "", "text": "1) The risks are that you investing in financial markets and therefore should be prepared for volatility in the value of your holdings. 2) You should only ever invest in financial markets with capital that you can reasonably afford to put aside and not touch for 5-10 years (as an investor not a trader). Even then you should be prepared to write this capital off completely. No one can offer you a guarantee of what will happen in the future, only speculation from what has happened in the past. 3) Don't invest. It is simple. Keep your money in cash. However this is not without its risks. Interest rates rarely keep up with inflation so the spending power of cash investments quickly diminishes in real terms over time. So what to do? Extended your time horizon as you have mentioned to say 30 years, reinvest all dividends as these have been proven to make up the bulk of long term returns and drip feed your money into these markets over time. This will benefit you from what is known in as 'dollar cost averaging' and will negate the need for you to time the market." }, { "docid": "31911", "title": "", "text": "Yeah, it ends up being a bail out. But then again, the tax payers bailed out the banks during the financial crisis (a crisis that was largely perpetuated by them) so should it be okay not to help bail these homeowners out during an actual natural disaster..." }, { "docid": "62397", "title": "", "text": "\"how is the money the FDIC has collected Fees collected from the banks: The FDIC receives no Congressional appropriations – it is funded by premiums that banks and thrift institutions pay for deposit insurance coverage and from earnings on investments in U.S. Treasury securities. http://www.fdic.gov/about/learn/symbol/index.html They also use the proceeds from liquidating the assets of failed banks to make payouts. Are there country specific agencies with a similar mission? Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Instituto para la Ptotección al Ahorro Bancario (Mexico) Financial Services Compensation Scheme (UK) not quite like the FDIC You'll have to search for others yourself. :) Most importantly, are there any examples of a similar system that has failed? As the Mythbusters say, \"\"failure is always an option.\"\" There is a statement on FDIC's website to the effect that they are backed by the \"\"full faith and credit\"\" of the U.S. government. That said, the FDIC maintains its own fund to make insurance payouts. Granted, in the shakiness of the 2008-2009 financial crisis they did start waving a red flag about their realistic ability to cover their obligation. Practically speaking, the government will likely step in if necessary. This 2008 article regarding a propsed revamp of the UK's FSCS should be of general interest to you on this topic, though it does not answer the question of failed systems. (Well, as far as I know. I have only skimmed the article.)\"" }, { "docid": "93275", "title": "", "text": "So your argument is, all depository banks can do the functions of an investment bank, therefore all banks were responsible for the financial crisis? Awesome argument. Do tell me how citibank is the same as JP Morgan again. How are you this dense? Also, nothing I've said is false whereas everything you've said is." }, { "docid": "237043", "title": "", "text": "\"There are two ways that mortgages are sold: The loan is collateralized and sold to investors. This allows the bank to free up money for more loans. Of course sometime the loan may be treated like in the game of hot potato nobody want s to be holding a shaky loan when it goes into default. The second way that a loan is sold is through the servicing of the loan. This is the company or bank that collects your monthly payments, and handles the disbursement of escrow funds. Some banks lenders never sell servicing, others never do the servicing themselves. Once the servicing is sold the first time there is no telling how many times it will be sold. The servicing of the loan is separate from the collateralization of the loan. When you applied for the loan you should have been given a Servicing Disclosure Statement Servicing Disclosure Statement. RESPA requires the lender or mortgage broker to tell you in writing, when you apply for a loan or within the next three business days, whether it expects that someone else will be servicing your loan (collecting your payments). The language is set by the US government: [We may assign, sell, or transfer the servicing of your loan while the loan is outstanding.] [or] [We do not service mortgage loans of the type for which you applied. We intend to assign, sell, or transfer the servicing of your mortgage loan before the first payment is due.] [or] [The loan for which you have applied will be serviced at this financial institution and we do not intend to sell, transfer, or assign the servicing of the loan.] [INSTRUCTIONS TO PREPARER: Insert the date and select the appropriate language under \"\"Servicing Transfer Information.\"\" The model format may be annotated with further information that clarifies or enhances the model language.]\"" }, { "docid": "361442", "title": "", "text": "From my Capital Markets and Institutions assignment on 2007 - 2008 Financial Crisis The subprime financial crisis that emerged in the summer of 2007 is much too intricate and interwoven to place the blame solely on one organisation or group of individuals. Each actor involved is responsible for and party to—in varying degrees—the events that transpired. Mortgage brokers (individuals) • First line of contact between an originator and a borrower • Out to get theirs; greedy • Disregard for borrowers, only want to originate as many mortgages as possible • Engaged in controversial practices – confusing, pressuring, lying to borrowers in order to secure a mortgage • Took advantage of 2/28 mortgages in order to collect new origination fees • Offered piggyback mortgages requiring no money down Mortgage originators (organisations) • Began lending to subprime borrowers during the 1990s – done through brokers to whom they paid a commission • Largely supplanted loans made by the FHA through traditional lenders • Many originators acquired by large investment banks • Cashed in on and espoused the “American dream” of home ownership • Different interest rates charged to borrowers • Use of statistical software and credit scores to evaluate borrowers • Popularised 2/28 mortgages • Allowed borrowers to take out mortgages with little or no documentation • Rapidly increased $ amount of mortgages issued • In charge of servicing mortgages issued – making reasonable efforts to collect principal and interest, able to foreclose on properties when delinquent • Profited from massive fees (late and other) added when loans were delinquent • First firms to suffer from the increase in foreclosures Investment banks • Often acquired mortgage originators to gain yet another revenue stream • Responsible for creating CDO entities, often registered in tax havens • CDOs took on large positions in MBSs and created subordinate obligations, also CDOs • CDO entities held assets of other CDOs, creating a complex interwoven situation • CDOs were also involved with positions in other securities • IB-controlled hedge funds often hedged risks through buying highly-rated MBSs • CDOs holding long-term debt were funded through the short-term commercial paper market – high ratings secured through IB lines of credit • Also pioneered SIVs – relied on highly-rated CP market; lines of credit combined with investor equity allowed IBs to keep SIVs off B/S • IBs heavily invested in MBSs/CDOs began to run into liquidity problems • Required capital investment to remain operational – often found abroad (e.g. Abu Dhabi, Chinese, Singaporean governments) • Largely responsible for the monetary policy pursued by the Fed during 2007/2008 • Conduct raised questions as to the regulation of the entire financial industry • Contrast with their responsibility for much innovation and engineering in the financial services industry Credit ratings agencies • Party to major conflicts of interest • Overwhelmingly gave AAA ratings to MBSs • Agencies loosened their rating criteria and perhaps over-rated MBSs in an effort to gain more business from originators • Agencies also rated the debt of institutions that held positions in MBSs • CDOs holding MBSs obtained high ratings as well – statistical models used indicated them to be safe • Based high ratings in the commercial paper market on IB lines of credit – obliged the IBs in order to gain more business • Agency downgrades of MBSs/CDOs resulted in large IB losses, setting in motion further developments • Ratings became less useful as the MBS market froze up, with even AAA-rated MBSs struggling to find a market • Previously championed as an alternative to government intervention in the market • Role of ratings agencies heavily questioned in aftermath • Also questioned was how ratings in general should be used • RAs deflected claims that they acted irresponsibly during the subprime boom • Criticised for the large proportion of AAA-ratings given to MBSs o Argued that historical defaults on MBSs were lower than similar corporate bonds • Conflicts inherent in having issuers pay for ratings o Committees that assigned ratings were separate from negotiations regarding fees • Emphasized benefits of giving all investors free access to ratings rather than them paying for them • Wave of downgrades in 2nd half of 2007 a result of unexpectedly poor performance of subprime mortgages originated in 2006 o Attributed to: laxer underwriting standards, declines in housing prices, more restrictive borrowing standards that prevented borrowers from refinancing Investors • Backbone of many institutions – shareholders • Owned stock in IBs and GSEs, two major players in subprime crisis • Driving force behind institutions taking on riskier investments (e.g. MBSs) • Unwilling to inject more capital/equity into firms required them to turn elsewhere for aid • Worries that the crisis could spread to other markets (e.g. credit cards) added to worries • Grouped with IBs in being seen as responsible for the crisis o US government would not allow higher sale price for Bear Stearns to avoid appearance of bailing out investors" }, { "docid": "405584", "title": "", "text": "\"I love how you're being downvoted even though you're providing a very basic answer that is easy to look up and see that you are correct, no the majority of people Linhares just listed aren't \"\"economists\"\" - but then again redditors vote based on they feel, irregardless of the facts. I also love how everyone now feels as though the financial crisis was easy to spot - I bet if we went back and asked them in 2007 they would have all foreseen it as well. Yes, a few exceptionally intelligent people (Roubini, Shiller, Grantham etc.) foresaw it, but then again thousands of intelligent people make forecasts on financial markets every day and the majority fail to outperform it. The survivor bias in action I guess.\"" }, { "docid": "562934", "title": "", "text": "Congratulations on saving up $75,000. That requires discipline and tenacity. There are a lot of factors that would go into making your decision. First and foremost is the security of the income stream you have now. Being leveraged during times of hardship is not a pleasant experience. Unexpected job losses can and do happen. Only you can determine how secure your and your spouse's situation is. Second, I would consider the job market in the location that you live. If you live in a small town it will be hard to find income levels like you have now. Rental properties are additional ties to an area. Are you happy in the area in which you live? If you were laid off are there opportunities in the same area. Being a long distance landlord is again not a pleasant experience. I can throw being forced to sell to relocate at a reduced price into this same bucket. Third, you need to have 3 to 6 months of expenses saved for emergencies. This is in addition to having no consumer debt (credit cards, car loans, student loans). $75,000 feels like a lot. Life can throw you curve balls. You need to be prepared for them because of the fundamental nature of Murphy's Law. If you were to be a landlord you should err closer to the six month end of the scale. I own two rentals and can speak to people being late a given month, heating and air problems, plumbing issues, washers and dryers breaking, weather related issues, and even a tenant leaving behind for truckloads of trash. Over 20 years I guess I have seen it all. A rental agency will only act as a minor buffer. Fourth, your family situation is important. I personally save 10% of my income for my child's education. If you haven't started doing so or have different feelings on what you might contribute think about it before any financial move. Fifth, any mortgage payment you are making should be 25% or less than your take home pay for a 15 year fixed rate mortgage. Anything less than 20% down and you start burning up money on PMI insurance. 'House Poor' is a term for people that make high incomes but have too much being spent for housing. It is the cause of a lot of financial stress. Sixth, you need to save for retirement. The absolute minimum I recommend is 15% of your income. Even if the match is 6% you should invest the full 15% making it 21%. Social Security is a scary thing and depending on it is not wise. I think your income still qualifies you for contributions to a Roth IRA. If you aren't personally contributing 15% do so before making a move. There is an old joke that homeless people who have a 0 net worth often are richer than people driving fancy cars and living in fancy houses. Ultimately no one can tell you the right answer. Every situation is unique. You have a complex tapestry to your financial life that no else one knows." }, { "docid": "83610", "title": "", "text": "\"I do a lot of my own legal work, even sued the IRS, and I always win**. I would not attempt to do this myself. I'd run straight to a tax professional***. But if I did attempt this myself... My position is that I did a 401K to IRA rollover in good faith. Such a rollover is perfectly common. eTrade saw the paperwork and knew I was rolling over a 401K, and knew or reasonably should have known this rollover would be to an IRA, since rolling over to a cash account is a completely insane act which no-one would ever do. I would gather and prepare to present every document that supports this notion in any way. I would then take a hard look at my documentation and see how well I can support that argument. Then I would research cases in tax court to see how the courts treated situations like yours. I would not roll over the money to another IRA account until I had done that. And I would move quickly. This is a hard problem and there are no pat answers. It depends a lot on the finer details. One last thing. Next time you do a move like this, start small. Move $2000 over. ** My real skill is swallowing my pride and knowing when I'm wrong. I settle those, and only fight the guaranteed winners. *** This is not the usual SE kneejerk of \"\"hire a professional\"\". I almost never do; but I would here. It's an arcane area. Also acting on a professional's advice is a \"\"get out of jail free\"\" card regarding penalties or punishments.\"" }, { "docid": "175692", "title": "", "text": "Here would be the big two you don't mention: Time - How much of your own time are you prepared to commit to this? Are you going to find tenants, handle calls if something breaks down, and other possible miscellaneous issues that may arise with the property? Are you prepared to spend money on possible renovations and other maintenance on the property that may occur from time to time? Financial costs - You don't mention anything about insurance or taxes, as in property taxes since most municipalities need funds that would come from the owner of the home, that would be a couple of other costs to note in having real estate holdings as if something big happens are you expecting a government bailout automatically? If you chose to use a property management company for dealing with most issues then be aware of how much cash flow could be impacted here. Are you prepared to have an account to properly do the books for your company that will hold the property or would you be doing this as an individual without any corporate structure? Do you have lease agreements printed up or would you need someone to provide these for you?" }, { "docid": "129503", "title": "", "text": "\"You're conflating LLC with Corporation. They're different animals. LLC does not have \"\"S\"\" or \"\"C\"\" designations, those are just for corporations. I think what you're thinking about is electing pass through status with the IRS. This is the easiest way to go. The company can pay you at irregular intervals in irregular amounts. The IRS doesn't care about these payments. The company will show profit or loss at the end of the year (those payments to you aren't expenses and don't reduce your profit). You report this on your schedule C and pay tax on that amount. (Your state tax authority will have its own rules about how this works.) Alternatively you can elect to have the LLC taxed as a corporation. I don't know of a good reason why someone in your situation would do this, but I'm not an accountant so there may be reasons out there. My recommendation is to get an accountant to prepare your taxes. At least once -- if your situation is the same next year you can use the previous year's forms to figure out what you need to fill in. The investment of a couple hundred dollars is worthwhile. On the question of buying a home in the next couple of years... yes, it does affect things. (Pass through status? Probably doesn't affect much.) If all of your income is coming from self-employment, be prepared for hassles when you are shopping for a mortgage. You can ask around, maybe you have a friendly loan officer at your credit union who knows your history. But in general they will want to see at least two years of self-employment tax returns. You can plan for this in advance: talk to a couple of loan officers now to see what the requirements will be. That way you can plan to be ready when the time comes.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "328556", "title": "", "text": "In the 2008 housing crash, cash was king. Cash can make your mortgage payment, buy groceries, utilities, etc. Great deals on bank owned properties were available for those with cash. Getting a mortgage in 2008-2011 was tough. If you are worried about stock market crashing, then diversification is key. Don't have all your investments in one mutual fund or sector. Gold and precious metals have a place in one's portfolio, say 5-10 percent as an insurance policy. The days of using a Gold Double Eagle to pay the property taxes are largely gone, although Utah does allow it. The biggest lesson I took from the crash is you cant have too much cash saved. Build up the rainy day fund." } ]

[ { "docid": "83610", "title": "", "text": "\"I do a lot of my own legal work, even sued the IRS, and I always win**. I would not attempt to do this myself. I'd run straight to a tax professional***. But if I did attempt this myself... My position is that I did a 401K to IRA rollover in good faith. Such a rollover is perfectly common. eTrade saw the paperwork and knew I was rolling over a 401K, and knew or reasonably should have known this rollover would be to an IRA, since rolling over to a cash account is a completely insane act which no-one would ever do. I would gather and prepare to present every document that supports this notion in any way. I would then take a hard look at my documentation and see how well I can support that argument. Then I would research cases in tax court to see how the courts treated situations like yours. I would not roll over the money to another IRA account until I had done that. And I would move quickly. This is a hard problem and there are no pat answers. It depends a lot on the finer details. One last thing. Next time you do a move like this, start small. Move $2000 over. ** My real skill is swallowing my pride and knowing when I'm wrong. I settle those, and only fight the guaranteed winners. *** This is not the usual SE kneejerk of \"\"hire a professional\"\". I almost never do; but I would here. It's an arcane area. Also acting on a professional's advice is a \"\"get out of jail free\"\" card regarding penalties or punishments.\"" }, { "docid": "167895", "title": "", "text": "Based on Dalio's interviews, he seems to think it's kind of too little too late. He said the Fed did a great job maneuvering out of the crisis, but then coasted for too long when they should have been tightening. Now it's too late and trying to play catch up might destabilize things to the point where they would be the *cause* of the next recession." }, { "docid": "124149", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Note from the Editor: Hyperinflation is becoming more visible every day—just notice the next time you shop for groceries. All signs say America’s economic recovery is expected to take a nose dive and before it gets any worse you should read The Uncensored Survivalist. This book contains sensible advice on how to avoid total financial devastation and how to survive on your own if necessary. Click here for your free copy If someone includes this kind of stuff on their website, I assume whatever they say is probably uninformed at best." }, { "docid": "447385", "title": "", "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: &gt;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 &amp; 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.\"" }, { "docid": "405584", "title": "", "text": "\"I love how you're being downvoted even though you're providing a very basic answer that is easy to look up and see that you are correct, no the majority of people Linhares just listed aren't \"\"economists\"\" - but then again redditors vote based on they feel, irregardless of the facts. I also love how everyone now feels as though the financial crisis was easy to spot - I bet if we went back and asked them in 2007 they would have all foreseen it as well. Yes, a few exceptionally intelligent people (Roubini, Shiller, Grantham etc.) foresaw it, but then again thousands of intelligent people make forecasts on financial markets every day and the majority fail to outperform it. The survivor bias in action I guess.\"" }, { "docid": "480443", "title": "", "text": "Can someone who understands this part of the business explain what exactly happened and how they benefited? I have read a few articles, and I don't really understand. I work in a bank, and seeing how some other aspects of the financial crisis were portrayed in the news, I have a feeling the whole story isn't being told. How could this have possibly gone on undetected?" }, { "docid": "577940", "title": "", "text": "\"Credit cards are a reasonable if relatively expensive tool to gain liquidity. If you have $50k in liquid cash, you don't have a liquidity problem for credit to help you solve. You have 100 months of expenses in cash. I suppose you could see a balance as a motivational tool, but it's all stick and no carrot. Take the next part half seriously in the spirit of \"\"what if\"\" talking therapy: If you feel you need to be motivated to get back to work by the true risk of running out of cash, and take such advice from strangers on the internet, the traditional midlife crisis purchase is a sports car. At least have some fun in a (depreciating but resellable) asset instead of paying a financier's bonus in evaporated interest! If there is a luxury car tariff in your country, you may even be able to exploit a personal exemption if you drove in from the U.S. I suppose this advice could possibly get you booted from the family house as it'll probably come across as a seriously \"\"ugly American\"\" move though...\"" }, { "docid": "244079", "title": "", "text": "Weren't they one of the healthy banks during the financial crisis? I wonder what keeps them ahead of the pack or if the actual J. P. Morgan had any advise that they still adhere to today. I'm sure being part of a powerful organization that has shaped the financial industry has it perks in terms of having insider knowledge of how the innards of the industry work." }, { "docid": "264297", "title": "", "text": "\"My advice is to quit worrying about the salesman's tactics. They are a distraction. What do you want? How much are you willing to pay for it. If you want the instrument, decide how much you want to pay for it. Round down to the next even hundred. Take that much in $100 bills. Put the money in his hand and say, \"\"This is what I have, take it or leave it\"\". You must be prepared to walk out of the store without the instrument.\"" }, { "docid": "106673", "title": "", "text": "This sounds like a rental fee as described in the instructions for the 1099-MISC. Enter amounts of $600 or more for all types of rents, such as any of the following. ... Non-Employee compensation does not seem appropriate because you did not perform a service. You mention that your tax-preparer brought this up. I think you will need to consult with a CPA to receive a more reliable opinion. Make sure to bring the contract that describes the situation with you. From there, you may need to consult a tax attorney, but the CPA should be able to help you figure out what your next step is." }, { "docid": "436091", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "305901", "title": "", "text": "\"It's a problem from hell because all solutions have drawbacks/unintended consequences and because they are all pretty complex to implement in practice. Breaking up the big banks so that no bank is enough to bring down the economy with it is the strongest move, but is riddled with problems when you start looking at it practically. How do you determine the \"\"maximum size\"\" a bank should have? Should it be based on assets? Systemic importance (i.e. interconnectedness with other banks)? How do you enforce it? Banks will find ways to offload assets, etc. into special purpose corporations to get around the laws somehow. How do you compensate for the fact that size does help financial efficiency in some ways? Imposing higher capital requirements is the next solution. But that too is not so easy to implement with full success in practice. What should be classified as a low-risk asset? How much capital do you require against a CDO vs a Mexican government bond? How often do you need to revise these standards? At what point does the cost of higher capital requirements start to strangle lending and financial flows? The weaker maneuvers are things like constant government-imposed stress tests, orderly resolution mechanisms, higher standards for internal risk management practices, etc. but those may not be adequate and also have their implementation problems.\"" }, { "docid": "245480", "title": "", "text": "I heard Jim Grant say on his podcast that it's weird how long things take these days. It feels like problems never go away, and nothing is ever fixed quickly. It's been almost a decade since the financial crisis and things are basically unchanged." }, { "docid": "449367", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/15/top-1-of-households-in-uk-fully-recovered-from-financial-crisis) reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; New research from the Resolution Foundation showed that households with incomes of &amp;pound;275,000 or more quickly recovered from the impact of the deep recession and have seen their share of national income return to the level seen before the global banking system froze up in the summer of 2007. &gt; &amp;quot;Adam Corlett, senior economic analyst at the Resolution Foundation, said:&amp;quot;The incomes of the top 1% took a short, sharp hit following the financial crisis. &gt; The share of national disposable income for the richest 1% of households rose steadily after Margaret Thatcher became prime minister in 1979 and reached a peak of 8.5% on the eve of the financial crisis. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6njstj/top_1_of_households_in_uk_fully_recovered_from/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~167774 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*: **income**^#1 **year**^#2 **election**^#3 **Foundation**^#4 **standards**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "18631", "title": "", "text": "As much as people on the internet and ZH-like blogs like to harp on auto deliquencies and other narrow metrics as broader statements about how life around us is all a sham, I feel this article does a good job at discussing the mitigants here. Notably: 1) that the sub-prime auto market is rather small, so while delinquencies may rise it won't represent a catalyst for a broader financial crisis. 2) The securitized products Santander and others are putting together are structured in a way to account for these defaults and loss rates, so while the relative uptick in default rates is interesting to note, it doesn't necessarily spell doom in absolute terms. 3) The fact that many auto dealers don't verify income isn't uncommon and in fact an industry standard practice due to point #2 above. The statement these dealers have been lying about incomes and/or is not verifying incomes certainly pulls at the heart strings of the 2008 Housing Crisis, but when discussed within the context of how the auto lending market works, it isn't nearly as scary as those statements would suggest in isolation." }, { "docid": "11508", "title": "", "text": "\"My favorite Fed \"\"admission\"\" was from Alan Greenspan during his testimony in Congress about what caused the 2008 financial crisis. Senator Waxman basically asked Greenspan if he had fucked up. Greenspan's glib reply was; \"\"I found a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak.\"\" In other words, his grand economic theory was fatally flawed. So to speak. Unbelievable. [YouTube link - 4:45 ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5lZPWNFizQ)\"" }, { "docid": "361442", "title": "", "text": "From my Capital Markets and Institutions assignment on 2007 - 2008 Financial Crisis The subprime financial crisis that emerged in the summer of 2007 is much too intricate and interwoven to place the blame solely on one organisation or group of individuals. Each actor involved is responsible for and party to—in varying degrees—the events that transpired. Mortgage brokers (individuals) • First line of contact between an originator and a borrower • Out to get theirs; greedy • Disregard for borrowers, only want to originate as many mortgages as possible • Engaged in controversial practices – confusing, pressuring, lying to borrowers in order to secure a mortgage • Took advantage of 2/28 mortgages in order to collect new origination fees • Offered piggyback mortgages requiring no money down Mortgage originators (organisations) • Began lending to subprime borrowers during the 1990s – done through brokers to whom they paid a commission • Largely supplanted loans made by the FHA through traditional lenders • Many originators acquired by large investment banks • Cashed in on and espoused the “American dream” of home ownership • Different interest rates charged to borrowers • Use of statistical software and credit scores to evaluate borrowers • Popularised 2/28 mortgages • Allowed borrowers to take out mortgages with little or no documentation • Rapidly increased $ amount of mortgages issued • In charge of servicing mortgages issued – making reasonable efforts to collect principal and interest, able to foreclose on properties when delinquent • Profited from massive fees (late and other) added when loans were delinquent • First firms to suffer from the increase in foreclosures Investment banks • Often acquired mortgage originators to gain yet another revenue stream • Responsible for creating CDO entities, often registered in tax havens • CDOs took on large positions in MBSs and created subordinate obligations, also CDOs • CDO entities held assets of other CDOs, creating a complex interwoven situation • CDOs were also involved with positions in other securities • IB-controlled hedge funds often hedged risks through buying highly-rated MBSs • CDOs holding long-term debt were funded through the short-term commercial paper market – high ratings secured through IB lines of credit • Also pioneered SIVs – relied on highly-rated CP market; lines of credit combined with investor equity allowed IBs to keep SIVs off B/S • IBs heavily invested in MBSs/CDOs began to run into liquidity problems • Required capital investment to remain operational – often found abroad (e.g. Abu Dhabi, Chinese, Singaporean governments) • Largely responsible for the monetary policy pursued by the Fed during 2007/2008 • Conduct raised questions as to the regulation of the entire financial industry • Contrast with their responsibility for much innovation and engineering in the financial services industry Credit ratings agencies • Party to major conflicts of interest • Overwhelmingly gave AAA ratings to MBSs • Agencies loosened their rating criteria and perhaps over-rated MBSs in an effort to gain more business from originators • Agencies also rated the debt of institutions that held positions in MBSs • CDOs holding MBSs obtained high ratings as well – statistical models used indicated them to be safe • Based high ratings in the commercial paper market on IB lines of credit – obliged the IBs in order to gain more business • Agency downgrades of MBSs/CDOs resulted in large IB losses, setting in motion further developments • Ratings became less useful as the MBS market froze up, with even AAA-rated MBSs struggling to find a market • Previously championed as an alternative to government intervention in the market • Role of ratings agencies heavily questioned in aftermath • Also questioned was how ratings in general should be used • RAs deflected claims that they acted irresponsibly during the subprime boom • Criticised for the large proportion of AAA-ratings given to MBSs o Argued that historical defaults on MBSs were lower than similar corporate bonds • Conflicts inherent in having issuers pay for ratings o Committees that assigned ratings were separate from negotiations regarding fees • Emphasized benefits of giving all investors free access to ratings rather than them paying for them • Wave of downgrades in 2nd half of 2007 a result of unexpectedly poor performance of subprime mortgages originated in 2006 o Attributed to: laxer underwriting standards, declines in housing prices, more restrictive borrowing standards that prevented borrowers from refinancing Investors • Backbone of many institutions – shareholders • Owned stock in IBs and GSEs, two major players in subprime crisis • Driving force behind institutions taking on riskier investments (e.g. MBSs) • Unwilling to inject more capital/equity into firms required them to turn elsewhere for aid • Worries that the crisis could spread to other markets (e.g. credit cards) added to worries • Grouped with IBs in being seen as responsible for the crisis o US government would not allow higher sale price for Bear Stearns to avoid appearance of bailing out investors" }, { "docid": "489898", "title": "", "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.\"" }, { "docid": "445072", "title": "", "text": "I've tried to argue this to some close friends who bought homes, pre/post-crisis, if the crisis ever ended, they thought it was ridiculous. There is a clear fulcrum where renting makes more sense than buying, when appropriate inputs of data are entered into the model. I think Khan Academy did a good 10-minute run down on the subject and used a relatively good model, as well. Further than that, I read the first few paragraphs and stopped reading, it was a commercial. I was shocked. The entire thing up till' 2 paragraphs in is literally a commercial. The supposed 'antagonist', explicitly implied by the title isn't actually an antagonist, it's a click-bait commercial -article posing as a real article, (imitation), that actually might have some real science below the commercial, as you've indicated, but that part also sounds like junk finance; to sell the idea to consumers that they should in fact buy homes (instead of rent), and get loans from banks (preferably this one), and do anything to achieve that, if need be, even move in with their parents. This financial institution appears to have a sophisticated public relations marketing team doing their commercials-posing-as-news campaign(s). Very interesting to see the marketing beast morph itself into something so sophisticated, as to contain such clear imitation, junk science, and click-bait. I wonder what kind of penetration they are getting with this model, and what percentage of those see it for what it is. I suppose that would be a big-data question, answerable through analytics." } ]

[ { "docid": "460398", "title": "", "text": "A somewhat provocative (but not unserious) proposal: Rent, don't buy a house to live in. In 2007/8, the thing that got many people in deep trouble is their mortgage. It's not a productive investment but a speculative bet on what was in fact a bubble and a class of assets that is notoriously slow to recover after a slump. Before thinking about your savings or buying into silly ideas about gold, you should realise that as a middle class worker, the biggest risk after a crisis is losing your job. Renting your accommodation means being able to downgrade or move very quickly and not being forced to sell a house at the worse possible time. If you really do need to liquidate some of your investments at a bad time, having a more diversified portfolio means that you are not losing everything to meet some short-term obligations. Assuming you're in the US, this means forgoing some nice tax advantages that might be too tempting to resist (I'm not so I am basing this on what I read on this site) but, bubbles aside, there is nothing that makes real estate a particularly good investment as such, especially if you also live in the house you're buying. You might very well come out on top but you expose yourself to several risks and are less prepared to face a crisis." } ]

[ { "docid": "305600", "title": "", "text": "With trillion dollar plus deficits, it's not like we're running an austerity program here. When you say sacrifice, compared to what? Two trillion dollar deficits? Your observation of constant predictions of imminent doom is valid. The timeline has been extended by a series of bubbles- market, housing, fiscal deficits... The shortcoming of doom prognosticators is that they underestimate the willingness of those in power to do whatever it takes to prolong the status quo, regardless of the long term consequences. The game is perpetuated by ever increasing debt, and government became the borrower of last resort once the rest of the economy was tapped out. The govt's ability to continue along this course in the open market is questionable as the Fed appears to be monetizing a large portion of newly issued debt. The end game is a currency crisis. It's nice to have a timeline accompanying a prediction, and critical for investing, but it is often very difficult to do, and in this case, it has been extremely difficult because the policy decisions have been rational from the perspective of elites maintaining their status, but not optimal from the standpoint of solving the problem. That doesn't mean the predictions are useless though. You could live in a flood zone and not be able to predict with accuracy when the next flood will occur, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't prepare. Given the uncertainty with timing this, it seems to me the best course of action is not to try to time it, especially with respect to investing based on market timing, but to prepare the best you can for what will inevitably eventually occur." }, { "docid": "11508", "title": "", "text": "\"My favorite Fed \"\"admission\"\" was from Alan Greenspan during his testimony in Congress about what caused the 2008 financial crisis. Senator Waxman basically asked Greenspan if he had fucked up. Greenspan's glib reply was; \"\"I found a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak.\"\" In other words, his grand economic theory was fatally flawed. So to speak. Unbelievable. [YouTube link - 4:45 ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5lZPWNFizQ)\"" }, { "docid": "37601", "title": "", "text": "Secondly, should we pay off his student loans before investing? The subsidized loans won't be gaining any interest until he graduates so I was wondering if we should just pay off the unsubsidized loans and keep the subsidized ones for the next two years? From a purely financial standpoint, if the interest you gain on your savings is higher than the interest of the debt, then no. Otherwise, yes. If we were to keep 5,000 in savings and pay of the 3,000 of unsubsidized loans as I described above, that would leave us with about 15,000 dollars that is just lying around in my savings account. How should I invest this? Would you recommend high risk or low risk investments? I'm not from the US so take my answer with caution, but to me $15,000 seems a minimum safety net. Then again, it depends very much on any external help you can get in case of an emergency." }, { "docid": "594226", "title": "", "text": "Edit: This is paywalled so I pasted it here. LONDON—The synthetic CDO, a villain of the global financial crisis, is back. A decade ago, investors’ bad bets on collateralized debt obligations helped fuel the crisis. Billed as safe, they turned out to be anything but. Now, more investors are returning to CDOs—and so are concerns that excess is seeping into the aging bull market. In the U.S., the CDO market sunk steadily in the years after the financial crisis but has been fairly flat since 2014. In Europe, the total size of market is now rising again—up 5.6% annually in the first quarter of the year and 14.4% in the last quarter of 2016, according to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. Collateralized debt obligations package a bunch of assets, such as mortgage or corporate loans, into a security that is chopped up into pieces and sold to investors. The assets inside a synthetic CDO aren’t physical debt securities but rather derivatives, which in turn reference other investments such as loans or corporate debt. During the financial crisis, synthetic CDOs became a symbol of the financial excesses of the era. Labelled an “atomic bomb” in the movie “The Big Short,” they ultimately were the vehicle that spread the risks from the mortgage market throughout the financial system. Synthetic CDOs crammed with exposure to subprime mortgages—or even other CDOs—are long gone. The ones that remain contain credit-default swaps referencing a range of European and U.S. companies, effectively allowing investors to bet whether corporate defaults will pick up. Desperate for something that pays better than basic government bonds, insurance companies, asset managers and high-net worth investors are scooping up investments like synthetic CDOs, bankers say, which had largely become the preserve of hedge funds after 2008. Investment banks, which create and sell CDOs, are happy to oblige. Placid markets have made trading revenue weak this year, and such structured products are an increasingly important business line. Synthetic CDOs got “bad press,” says Renaud Champion, head of credit strategies at Paris-based hedge fund La Française Investment Solutions. But “that market has never ceased to fully function,” he added. These days, Mr. Champion still trades synthetic CDOs, receiving a stream of income for effectively insuring against a sharp rise in European corporate defaults. Many investors, though, still view the products as unnecessarily complex and are concerned they may be hard to offload when markets get choppy—as they did in the last crisis. From the DepthsThe amount outstanding of European collateralized debt obligations has been growing again after years of shrinking. “We don’t see that demand from our clients and we wouldn’t recommend it,” said Markus Stadlmann, chief investment officer at Lloyds Private Banking, citing concerns over the products’ lack of transparency and lack of liquidity, meaning it could be hard to offload a position when needed. The return of synthetic CDOs could present other risks. Even if banks are currently less willing to loan money to help clients juice returns, credit default swaps can be very leveraged, potentially allowing investors to make outsize bets. Structured products accounted for nearly all the $2.6 billion year-on-year growth in trading-division revenue at the top 12 global investment banks in the first quarter, according to Amrit Shahani, research director at financial consultancy Coalition. “There has been an uptick in interest in any kind of yield-enhancement structure,” said Kokou Agbo-Bloua, a managing director in Société Générale SA’s investment bank. The fastest growth this year has come in credit—the epicenter of the 2007-08 crisis. The top global 12 investment banks had around $1.5 billion in revenue in structured credit in the first quarter, according to Coalition, more than doubling since the first quarter of 2016. Structured equities are largest overall, a business dominated by sales of derivatives linked to moves in stock prices, with revenue of $5 billion in the first quarter. “The low-yield environment hurts,” said Lionel Pernias, a credit-fund manager at AXA Investment Managers. “So there are a lot of asset owners looking at structured credit.” These days, the typical synthetic CDO involves a portfolio of credit-default swaps on a range of companies. The portfolio is sliced into tranches, and investors receive payouts based on the performance of the swaps. Those investors owning lower tranches tend to get paid more but are subject to higher losses if the swaps sour. Structured GrowthBank revenues from structured products such as collateralized debt obligations are rising faster than conventionaltrading of stocks, bonds and currencies. For instance, an investor can sell insurance against a pick-up in defaults in the lowest—or “equity”—tranche of the iTraxx Europe index, a widely traded CDS benchmark that tracks European investment-grade companies. In return, the investor will receive regular payments, but those will shrink with every company default and stop altogether once 3% of the portfolio has been wiped out through defaults. During the financial crisis, synthetic CDOs based on standardized indexes like iTraxx Europe suffered losses as traders expected defaults to pick up. Investors who held on, though, have since done “great,” says Mr. Champion. Investors who agreed to insure against a rise in defaults for 10 years on the equity tranche of the iTraxx Europe index in March 2008 have made roughly 10% a year, according to an analysis of data from IHS Markit . That’s despite defaults from two companies in the index: Italian lender Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Portugal Telecom International Finance BV. In contrast, investors who sold insurance on tailored CDOs packed with riskier credits—such as Icelandic banks or monoline insurers—would have been on the hook for losses. Synthetic CDOs have evolved since the crisis, bankers say. For instance, most are shorter-dated, running up to around two to three years rather than seven to 10 years. Some banks will only slice and dice standardized CDS indexes that trade frequently in the market rather than craft tailored baskets of credits. There are also fewer banks involved in arranging these trades. Those active include BNP Paribas SA, Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase &amp; Co. and Société Générale. Postcrisis regulations have forced banks to set aside more capital against these transactions and use less leverage. That has encouraged banks to parcel out the risk to clients rather than keeping it on their own books. “There is a lot more regulation and scrutiny and a lot less leverage,” said Mr. Agbo-Bloua. Mr. Champion says he only trades tranches based on standardized CDS indexes, which he says are easier to buy and sell than more tailored products. Currently, he sees value in selling default protection on super-senior tranches. Mr. Champion said he has to lay down only around $1 million in upfront margin costs on a $100 million trade of this kind. “The cost of leverage in the derivatives space is very low,” he said. Any expectations of default rates picking up could inflict losses on synthetic CDOs, though at the moment analysts forecast they should decline. Still, the memory of how the market behaved in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis is likely to keep many investors on the sidelines. “If you’re the person responsible for buying the synthetic CDO that suddenly goes wrong, your career risk is bigger than if you’d bought a plain vanilla bond that goes wrong. It has a bad name,” said Ulf Erlandsson, a portfolio manager at start-up hedge fund Glacier Impact, who until recently oversaw credit for one of Sweden’s public pension funds." }, { "docid": "129503", "title": "", "text": "\"You're conflating LLC with Corporation. They're different animals. LLC does not have \"\"S\"\" or \"\"C\"\" designations, those are just for corporations. I think what you're thinking about is electing pass through status with the IRS. This is the easiest way to go. The company can pay you at irregular intervals in irregular amounts. The IRS doesn't care about these payments. The company will show profit or loss at the end of the year (those payments to you aren't expenses and don't reduce your profit). You report this on your schedule C and pay tax on that amount. (Your state tax authority will have its own rules about how this works.) Alternatively you can elect to have the LLC taxed as a corporation. I don't know of a good reason why someone in your situation would do this, but I'm not an accountant so there may be reasons out there. My recommendation is to get an accountant to prepare your taxes. At least once -- if your situation is the same next year you can use the previous year's forms to figure out what you need to fill in. The investment of a couple hundred dollars is worthwhile. On the question of buying a home in the next couple of years... yes, it does affect things. (Pass through status? Probably doesn't affect much.) If all of your income is coming from self-employment, be prepared for hassles when you are shopping for a mortgage. You can ask around, maybe you have a friendly loan officer at your credit union who knows your history. But in general they will want to see at least two years of self-employment tax returns. You can plan for this in advance: talk to a couple of loan officers now to see what the requirements will be. That way you can plan to be ready when the time comes.\"" }, { "docid": "351285", "title": "", "text": "In the US, for most mortgages: The rules for how you compute LTV vary. Usually it's based with current value. With FHA loans, you cannot have the property re-assessed -- LTV is based on the original loan amortization. Note that in the wake of the housing crisis, assessors have suddenly become very conservative with valuations, so be prepared to fight over the valuation." }, { "docid": "583666", "title": "", "text": "Wikipedia has a nice definition of financial literacy (emphasis below is mine): [...] refers to an individual's ability to make informed judgments and effective decisions about the use and management of their money. Raising interest in personal finance is now a focus of state-run programs in countries including Australia, Japan, the United States and the UK. [...] As for how you can become financially literate, here are some suggestions: Learn about how basic financial products works: bank accounts, mortgages, credit cards, investment accounts, insurance (home, car, life, disability, medical.) Free printed & online materials should be available from your existing financial service providers to help you with your existing products. In particular, learn about the fees, interest, or other charges you may incur with these products. Becoming fee-aware is a step towards financial literacy, since financially literate people compare costs. Seek out additional information on each type of product from unbiased sources (i.e. sources not trying to sell you something.) Get out of debt and stay out of debt. This may take a while. Focus on your highest-interest loans first. Learn the difference between good debt and bad debt. Learn about compound interest. Once you understand compound interest, you'll understand why being in debt is bad for your financial well-being. If you aren't already saving money for retirement, start now. Investigate whether your employer offers an advantageous matched 401(k) plan (or group RRSP/DC plan for Canadians) or a pension plan. If your employer offers a good plan, sign up. If you get to choose your own investments, keep it simple and favor low-cost balanced index funds until you understand the different types of investments. Read the material provided by the plan sponsor, try online tools provided, and seek out additional information from unbiased sources. If your employer doesn't offer an advantageous retirement plan, open an individual retirement account or IRA (or personal RRSP for Canadians.) If your employer does offer a plan, you can set one of these up to save even more. You could start with access to a family of low-cost mutual funds (examples: Vanguard for Americans, or TD eFunds for Canadians) or earn advanced credit by learning about discount brokers and self-directed accounts. Understand how income taxes and other taxes work. If you have an accountant prepare your taxes, ask questions. If you prepare your taxes yourself, understand what you're doing and don't file blind. Seek help if necessary. There are many good books on how income tax works. Software packages that help you self-file often have online help worth reading – read it. Learn about life insurance, medical insurance, disability insurance, wills, living wills & powers of attorney, and estate planning. Death and illness can derail your family's finances. Learn how these things can help. Seek out and read key books on personal finance topics. e.g. Your Money Or Your Life, Why Smart People Make Big Money Mistakes, The Four Pillars of Investing, The Random Walk Guide to Investing, and many more. Seek out and read good personal finance blogs. There's a wealth of information available for free on the Internet, but do check facts and assumptions. Here are some suggested blogs for American readers and some suggested blogs for Canadian readers. Subscribe to a personal finance periodical and read it. Good ones to start with are Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine in the U.S. and MoneySense Magazine in Canada. The business section in your local newspaper may sometimes have personal finance articles worth reading, too. Shameless plug: Ask more questions on this site. The Personal Finance & Money Stack Exchange is here to help you learn about money & finance, so you can make better financial decisions. We're all here to learn and help others learn about money. Keep learning!" }, { "docid": "293173", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-yellen-idUSKBN19I2I5) reduced by 64%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; LONDON U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said on Tuesday that she does not believe that there will be another financial crisis for at least as long as she lives, thanks largely to reforms of the banking system since the 2007-09 crash. &gt; Yellen said it would &amp;quot;Not be a good thing&amp;quot; if reforms of the financial services industry since the crisis were unwound, and urged those who had helped manage the fallout at the time to be vocal in preventing such a dilution. &gt; Yellen declined to comment when asked about her relationship with Trump but said she had a good working relationship with U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6jys86/feds_yellen_expects_no_new_financial_crisis_in/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~154464 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 **Yellen**^#2 **bank**^#3 **crisis**^#4 **financial**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "62397", "title": "", "text": "\"how is the money the FDIC has collected Fees collected from the banks: The FDIC receives no Congressional appropriations – it is funded by premiums that banks and thrift institutions pay for deposit insurance coverage and from earnings on investments in U.S. Treasury securities. http://www.fdic.gov/about/learn/symbol/index.html They also use the proceeds from liquidating the assets of failed banks to make payouts. Are there country specific agencies with a similar mission? Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Instituto para la Ptotección al Ahorro Bancario (Mexico) Financial Services Compensation Scheme (UK) not quite like the FDIC You'll have to search for others yourself. :) Most importantly, are there any examples of a similar system that has failed? As the Mythbusters say, \"\"failure is always an option.\"\" There is a statement on FDIC's website to the effect that they are backed by the \"\"full faith and credit\"\" of the U.S. government. That said, the FDIC maintains its own fund to make insurance payouts. Granted, in the shakiness of the 2008-2009 financial crisis they did start waving a red flag about their realistic ability to cover their obligation. Practically speaking, the government will likely step in if necessary. This 2008 article regarding a propsed revamp of the UK's FSCS should be of general interest to you on this topic, though it does not answer the question of failed systems. (Well, as far as I know. I have only skimmed the article.)\"" }, { "docid": "271609", "title": "", "text": "I don't think there is a definite single answer for this. I think it largely depends on where you are on your financial journey. In the ideal world you'd have everything in bucket 2 built into your budget and be putting a little bit aside every paycheck to cover each of those things when they do come up but that takes a fair bit of discipline to do and experience (and data) to estimate reasonably. When you are just starting out in actually setting and keeping a budget or digging yourself out of CC debt/living paycheck to paycheck the odds are you aren't going to have the experience or disciple necessary to actually budget for those things in bucket 2 and even if you did the better option might well be to pay off that high interest debt you already have rather than saving up for an eventual expense. How ever as you start to improve your situation and pay off that debt, develop the disciple to set and follow a budget that is when you should start adding more of those things into your budget. How you track them doesn't really matter. A separate account at your bank. A total for a category in your budgeting software. An XLS file or even paper (ick). Ultimately it isn't about how you plan for and track things but more about actually doing that. So my question to the OP is where are you? If you already have a budget and do a good job of following it but don't have those items in it then consider that the next step in your financial journey." }, { "docid": "31911", "title": "", "text": "Yeah, it ends up being a bail out. But then again, the tax payers bailed out the banks during the financial crisis (a crisis that was largely perpetuated by them) so should it be okay not to help bail these homeowners out during an actual natural disaster..." }, { "docid": "361442", "title": "", "text": "From my Capital Markets and Institutions assignment on 2007 - 2008 Financial Crisis The subprime financial crisis that emerged in the summer of 2007 is much too intricate and interwoven to place the blame solely on one organisation or group of individuals. Each actor involved is responsible for and party to—in varying degrees—the events that transpired. Mortgage brokers (individuals) • First line of contact between an originator and a borrower • Out to get theirs; greedy • Disregard for borrowers, only want to originate as many mortgages as possible • Engaged in controversial practices – confusing, pressuring, lying to borrowers in order to secure a mortgage • Took advantage of 2/28 mortgages in order to collect new origination fees • Offered piggyback mortgages requiring no money down Mortgage originators (organisations) • Began lending to subprime borrowers during the 1990s – done through brokers to whom they paid a commission • Largely supplanted loans made by the FHA through traditional lenders • Many originators acquired by large investment banks • Cashed in on and espoused the “American dream” of home ownership • Different interest rates charged to borrowers • Use of statistical software and credit scores to evaluate borrowers • Popularised 2/28 mortgages • Allowed borrowers to take out mortgages with little or no documentation • Rapidly increased $ amount of mortgages issued • In charge of servicing mortgages issued – making reasonable efforts to collect principal and interest, able to foreclose on properties when delinquent • Profited from massive fees (late and other) added when loans were delinquent • First firms to suffer from the increase in foreclosures Investment banks • Often acquired mortgage originators to gain yet another revenue stream • Responsible for creating CDO entities, often registered in tax havens • CDOs took on large positions in MBSs and created subordinate obligations, also CDOs • CDO entities held assets of other CDOs, creating a complex interwoven situation • CDOs were also involved with positions in other securities • IB-controlled hedge funds often hedged risks through buying highly-rated MBSs • CDOs holding long-term debt were funded through the short-term commercial paper market – high ratings secured through IB lines of credit • Also pioneered SIVs – relied on highly-rated CP market; lines of credit combined with investor equity allowed IBs to keep SIVs off B/S • IBs heavily invested in MBSs/CDOs began to run into liquidity problems • Required capital investment to remain operational – often found abroad (e.g. Abu Dhabi, Chinese, Singaporean governments) • Largely responsible for the monetary policy pursued by the Fed during 2007/2008 • Conduct raised questions as to the regulation of the entire financial industry • Contrast with their responsibility for much innovation and engineering in the financial services industry Credit ratings agencies • Party to major conflicts of interest • Overwhelmingly gave AAA ratings to MBSs • Agencies loosened their rating criteria and perhaps over-rated MBSs in an effort to gain more business from originators • Agencies also rated the debt of institutions that held positions in MBSs • CDOs holding MBSs obtained high ratings as well – statistical models used indicated them to be safe • Based high ratings in the commercial paper market on IB lines of credit – obliged the IBs in order to gain more business • Agency downgrades of MBSs/CDOs resulted in large IB losses, setting in motion further developments • Ratings became less useful as the MBS market froze up, with even AAA-rated MBSs struggling to find a market • Previously championed as an alternative to government intervention in the market • Role of ratings agencies heavily questioned in aftermath • Also questioned was how ratings in general should be used • RAs deflected claims that they acted irresponsibly during the subprime boom • Criticised for the large proportion of AAA-ratings given to MBSs o Argued that historical defaults on MBSs were lower than similar corporate bonds • Conflicts inherent in having issuers pay for ratings o Committees that assigned ratings were separate from negotiations regarding fees • Emphasized benefits of giving all investors free access to ratings rather than them paying for them • Wave of downgrades in 2nd half of 2007 a result of unexpectedly poor performance of subprime mortgages originated in 2006 o Attributed to: laxer underwriting standards, declines in housing prices, more restrictive borrowing standards that prevented borrowers from refinancing Investors • Backbone of many institutions – shareholders • Owned stock in IBs and GSEs, two major players in subprime crisis • Driving force behind institutions taking on riskier investments (e.g. MBSs) • Unwilling to inject more capital/equity into firms required them to turn elsewhere for aid • Worries that the crisis could spread to other markets (e.g. credit cards) added to worries • Grouped with IBs in being seen as responsible for the crisis o US government would not allow higher sale price for Bear Stearns to avoid appearance of bailing out investors" }, { "docid": "577940", "title": "", "text": "\"Credit cards are a reasonable if relatively expensive tool to gain liquidity. If you have $50k in liquid cash, you don't have a liquidity problem for credit to help you solve. You have 100 months of expenses in cash. I suppose you could see a balance as a motivational tool, but it's all stick and no carrot. Take the next part half seriously in the spirit of \"\"what if\"\" talking therapy: If you feel you need to be motivated to get back to work by the true risk of running out of cash, and take such advice from strangers on the internet, the traditional midlife crisis purchase is a sports car. At least have some fun in a (depreciating but resellable) asset instead of paying a financier's bonus in evaporated interest! If there is a luxury car tariff in your country, you may even be able to exploit a personal exemption if you drove in from the U.S. I suppose this advice could possibly get you booted from the family house as it'll probably come across as a seriously \"\"ugly American\"\" move though...\"" }, { "docid": "588153", "title": "", "text": "A derivative is a financial instrument of a special kind, the kind “whose price depends on, or is derived from, another asset”. This definition is from John Hull, Options, Futures and Other Derivatives – a book definitely worth to own if you are curious about this, you can easily find old copies for a few dollars. The first point is that a derivative is a financial instrument, like credits, or insurances, the second point is that its price depends closely from the price of something else, the mentioned asset. In most cases derivatives can be understood as financial insurances against some risk bound to the asset. In the sequel I give a small list of derivatives and highlight the assets and the risk they can be bound to. And first, let me point out that the definition is (marginally) wrong because some derivatives depend on things which are not assets, nor do they have a price, like temperature, sunlight, or even your own life in the case of mortgages. But before going in this list, let me go through the remaining points of your question. What is the basic idea and concept behind a derivative? As already noted, in most cases, a derivative can be understood as a financial insurance compensating from a risk of some sort. In a classical insurance contract, one party of the contract is an insurance company, but in the broader case of a derivative, that counterparty can be pretty anything: an insurance, a bank, a government, a large company, and most probably market makers. How is it really used, and how does this deviate from the first point? Briefly, how does is it affecting people, and how is it causing problems? An important point with derivatives is that it can be arbitrarily complicated to compute their prices. Actually what is hidden in the attempt of giving a definition for derivatives, is that they are products whose price Y is a measurable function of one or several random variables X_1, X_2, … X_n on which we can use the theory of arbitrage pricing to get hints on the actual price Y of the asset – this is what the depends on means in technical terms. In the most favorable case, we obtain an easy formula linking Y to the X_is which tells us what is the price of our financial instrument. But in practice, it can be very difficult, if at all possible, to determine a price for derivatives. This has two implications: Persons possessing sophisticated techniques to compute the price of derivatives have a strategic advantage on derivatives market, in comparison to less advanced actors on the market. Organisation owning assets they cannot price cannot compute their bilan anymore, so that they cannot know for sure their financial situation. They are somehow playing roulette. But wait, if derivatives are insurances they should help to mitigate some financial risk, which precisely means that they should help their owners to more accurately see their financial situation! How is this not a contradiction? Some persons with sophisticated techniques to compute the price of derivatives are actually selling complicated derivatives to less knowledgeable persons. For instance, many communes in France and Germany have contracted credits whose reimbursements have a fixed interest part, like in a classical credit, and a variable interest part whose rate is computed against a complicated formula involving the value of the Swiss frank at each quarter starting from the inception of the credit. (So, for a 25 years running credit of theis type, the price Y of the credit at its inception depends on 100 Xs, which are the uncertain prices for the Swiss frank each quarter of the 25 next years.) Some of these communes can be quite small, with 5.000 inhabitants, and needless to say, do not have the required expertise to analyse the risks bound to such instruments, which in that special case led the court call the credit a swindling and to cancel the credit. But what chain of events leads a 5.000 inhabitants city in France to own a credit whose reimbursements depends on the Swiss frank? After the credit crunch in 2007 and the fall of Lehman Brothers in 2008, it has begun to be very hard to organise funding, which basically means to conclude credits running long in time on large amounts of money. So, the municipality needs a 25 years credit of 10.000.000 EUROS and goes to its communal bank. The communal bank has hundreds or thousands of municipalities looking for credits and needs itself a financing. So the communal bank goes to one of the five largest financial institutions in the world, which insists on selling a huge credit whose reimbursements have a variable part depending on hundred of values the Swiss frank will have in the 25 next years. Since the the big bank has better computation techniques than the small bank it makes a big profit. Since the small bank has no idea, how to compute the correct price of the credit it bought, it cuts this in pieces and sell it in the same form to the various communes it works with. If we were to attribute this kind of intentions to the largest five banks, we could ask about the possibility that they designed the credit to take advantage of the primitive evaluation methods of the small bank. We could also ask if they organised a cartel to force communal banks to buy their bermudean snowballs. And we could also ask, if they are so influent that they eventually can manipulate the Swiss frank to secure an even higher profit. But I will not go into this. To the best of my understanding, the subprime crisis is a play along the same plot, with different actors, but I know this latter subject only by what I could read in French newspapers. So much for the “How is it causing problems?” part. What is some of the terminology in relation to derivatives (and there meanings of course)? Answering this question is basically the purpose of the 7 first chapters of the book by Hull, along with deriving some important mathematical principles. And I will not copy these seven chapters here! How would someone get started dealing in derivatives (I'm playing a realistic stock market simulation, so it doesn't matter if your answer to this costs me money)? If you ask the question, I understand that you are not a professional, so that your are actually trying to become the one that has money and zero knowledge in the play I outlined above. I would recommand not doing this. That said, if you have a good mathematical background and can program well, once you are confindent with the books of Hull and Joshi, you can have fun implementing various market models and implementing trading strategies. Once you are confident with this, you can also read the articles on quantitative finance on arXiv.org. And once you are done with this, you can decide for yourself if you want to play the same market as the guys writing these articles. (And yes, even for the simplest options, they have better models than you have and will systematically outperform you in the long run, even if some random successes will give you the feeling that you do well and could do better.) (indeed, I've made it a personal goal to somehow lose every last cent of my money) You know your weapons! :) Two parties agree today on a price for one to deliver a commodity to the other at some future instant. This is a classical future contract, it can be modified in every imaginable way, usually by embedding options. For instance one party could have the option to choose between different delivery points or delivery days. Two parties write today a contract allowing the one party to buy at some future time a commodity to the the second party. The price is written today, as part of the contract. (There is the corresponding option entitling the owner to sell something.) Unlike the future contract, only one party can be obliged to do something, the other jas a right but no obligation. If you buy and option, your are buying some sort of insurance against a change of price on some asset. This is the most familiar to anybody. Credits can come in many different flavours, especially the formula to compute interests, or also embed options. Common options are early settlement options or restructuration options. While this is not completely inutitive, the credit works like an insurance. This is most easily understood from the side of the organisation lending the money, that speculates that the ratio of creanciers going bankrupt will be low enough for her to make profit, just like a fire insurance company speculates that the ratio of fire accidents will be low enough for her to make a profit. This is like a mortgage on a financial institution. Two parties agree that one will recive an upfront today and give a compensation to the second one if some third party defaults. Here this is an explicit insurance against the unfortuante event, where a creancier goes bankrupt. One finds here more or less standard options on electricity. But electricity have delicious particularities as it can practically not be stored, and fallout is also (usually) avoided. As for classical options, these are insurances against price moves. A swap is like two complementary credits on the same amount of money, so that it ends up in the two parties not actually exchanging the credit nominal and only paying interest one to the other — which makes only sense if these interests are computed with different formulas. Typical example are fixed rate vs. EURIBOR on some given maturity, which we interpret as an insurance against fluctuations of the EURIBOR, or a fixed rate vs. the exchange ratio between two currencies, which we interpret as an insurance against the two currencies decorrelating. Swaps are the richest and the most generic category of financial derivatives. The off-the-counter market features very imaginative, very customised insurance products. The most basic form is the insurance against drought, but you can image different dangers, and once you have it you can put it in options, in a swap, etc. For instance, a restaurant with a terrasse could enter in a weather insurance, paying each year a fixed amount of money and becoming in return an amount of money based on the amount of rainy day in a year. Actually, this list is virtually without limits!" }, { "docid": "446402", "title": "", "text": "\"Most of those countries had debt that was well beyond prudent levels (~70% of GDP) before the crisis, levels such that any crisis would put them over the safe limit and into trouble. The only exception was Spain whose debt levels were still marginally dangerous. Greece was off the charts, which is why they left off the graph for Greece. Second problem. On top of the high or marginal levels of government debt, the governments implicitly or explicitly guaranteed the banks, without limiting in any effective way their levels of leverage and risk (inb4 Basel II - a lot of paper that made no difference). Protip: if someone guarantees your debt, they should be able to oversee your level of risk, but the governments didn't. As a result these banks, and their CEOs in particular, have a bet that goes \"\"heads I win, tails I win (and you the taxpayer lose)\"\". If the loans are paid off the CEOs rake in millions. If the loans go bad the government bails them out and the CEOs and other top executives - you guessed it - rake in millions. Of course when faced with these incentives the banks will lend too much. This is not free market capitalism, it is crony capitalism. **Bailouts of private companies are not part of unfettered free market capitalism.** The third problem is that the same governments cannot print money like the US can because the Euro is not owned by the individual governments. The answer to excessive levels of government debt is for governments not to borrow too much and not to take on excessive unfunded liabilities such as pensions. This probably needs to be enforced by a constitutional amendment, so it can't be easily overruled. The answer to governments getting dragged into bailing out insolvent banks and then going under themselves, is to allow the banks to go under and to guarantee only small deposits. Let shareholders, bond holders and large (&gt;$500k) lenders to the banks to lose their money. Second, hold bank executives and shareholders liable for the bank's debts. Eg executive salaries and other remuneration need to be clawed back up to a 5 year window. Shareholders should be liable (as they used to be) for debts up to an additional 100% of the par value of the shares. I can assure you this would concentrate minds wonderfully - as it did in the old days when Wall St investment banks were partnerships with each partner liable for all the debts of the firm. Another alternative would be for governments to enforce limits on financial risk, but unfortunately they do not have the courage to do this, nor the morality to resist \"\"campaign contributions\"\" / bribes to look the other way. If these steps were taken the issue of the Euro currency would not be a problem. However printing money (which requires having your own currency) is a solution if it comes to that although it comes at the expense of people who have saved and invested prudently. Printing money (keeping interest rates excessively low for years on end) subsidizes borrowers - the ones who created the problem - at the expense of savers. Clearly this creates terribly perverse incentives the next time around. Anyone who thinks this problem is a result of unfettered free market capitalism is not paying attention.\"" }, { "docid": "468047", "title": "", "text": "Don't let tax considerations be the main driver. That's generally a bad idea. You should keep tax in mind when making the decision, but don't let it be the main reason for an action. selling the higher priced shares (possibly at a loss even) - I think it's ok to do that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be FIFO? It is OK to do that, but consider also the term. Long term gain has much lower taxes than short term gain, and short term loss will be offsetting long term gain - means you can lose some of the potential tax benefit. any potential writeoffs related to buying a home that can offset capital gains? No, and anyway if you're buying a personal residence (a home for yourself) - there's nothing to write off (except for the mortgage interest and property taxes of course). selling other investments for a capital loss to offset this sale? Again - why sell at a loss? anything related to retirement accounts? e.g. I think I recall being able to take a loan from your retirement account in order to buy a home You can take a loan, and you can also withdraw up to 10K without a penalty (if conditions are met). Bottom line - be prepared to pay the tax on the gains, and check how much it is going to be roughly. You can apply previous year refund to the next year to mitigate the shock, you can put some money aside, and you can raise your salary withholding to make sure you're not hit with a high bill and penalties next April after you do that. As long as you keep in mind the tax bill and put aside an amount to pay it - you'll be fine. I see no reason to sell at loss or pay extra interest to someone just to reduce the nominal amount of the tax. If you're selling at loss - you're losing money. If you're selling at gain and paying tax - you're earning money, even if the earnings are reduced by the tax." }, { "docid": "511139", "title": "", "text": "They'll never punish the people actually responsible. Because that would include people like current Treasury Secretary Jack Lew who was the Chief Operating Officer at Citigroup through the financial crisis. As much as I don't like the big banks, the current management, employees, and shareholders have very little to do with the fraud committed 7-10 years ago. If you put the previous generation of management in jail or if you bankrupt them with fines, then the current generation of management and employees will wise up and not do stupid/illegal shit. The settlement just shows the current generation that the next guy will pay for your crimes." }, { "docid": "332585", "title": "", "text": "I bet you also believe that the financial crisis is the fault of people who borrowed more than they could afford. The mortgage brokers and banks are not at fault and its the dumb consumers who should have hired an attorney and an financial planner before singing any paperwork that got us into this mess." }, { "docid": "175692", "title": "", "text": "Here would be the big two you don't mention: Time - How much of your own time are you prepared to commit to this? Are you going to find tenants, handle calls if something breaks down, and other possible miscellaneous issues that may arise with the property? Are you prepared to spend money on possible renovations and other maintenance on the property that may occur from time to time? Financial costs - You don't mention anything about insurance or taxes, as in property taxes since most municipalities need funds that would come from the owner of the home, that would be a couple of other costs to note in having real estate holdings as if something big happens are you expecting a government bailout automatically? If you chose to use a property management company for dealing with most issues then be aware of how much cash flow could be impacted here. Are you prepared to have an account to properly do the books for your company that will hold the property or would you be doing this as an individual without any corporate structure? Do you have lease agreements printed up or would you need someone to provide these for you?" } ]

[ { "docid": "79807", "title": "", "text": "The daily Volume is usually compared to the average daily volume over the past 50 days for a stock. High volume is usually considered to be 2 or more times the average daily volume over the last 50 days for that stock, however some traders might set the crireia to be 3x or 4x the ADV for confirmation of a particular pattern or event. The volume is compared to the ADV of the stock itself, as comparing it to the volume of other stocks would be like comparing apples with oranges, as difference companies would have different number of total stocks available, different levels of liquidity and different levels of volatility, which can all contribute to the volumes traded each day." } ]

[ { "docid": "225818", "title": "", "text": "You need a source of delisted historical data. Such data is typically only available from paid sources. According to my records 20 Feb 2006 was not a trading day - it was Preisdent's Day and the US exchanges were closed. The prior trading date to this was 17 Feb 2006 where the stock had the following data: Open: 14.40 High 14.46 Low 14.16 Close 14.32 Volume 1339800 (consolidated volume) Source: Symbol NVE-201312 within Premium Data US delisted stocks historical data set available from http://www.premiumdata.net/products/premiumdata/ushistorical.php Disclosure: I am a co-owner of Norgate / Premium Data." }, { "docid": "127268", "title": "", "text": "The prices seem very low even considering the risk? The prices are low because of the risk. Nothing happens to the banks if the sovereign defaults. However, the sovereign debt holders - lose some or all the money they lent to that sovereign. Incidentally, many banks invest in the treasury bonds of various countries, especially those they're located in. They also invest in other companies that rely on the government, or the currency. If that dependency is too high - the bank may fail. If the dependency is not high, or non-existent - the bank will survive. If the bank fails - yes, your shares will be wiped out, that's what happens with bankrupt companies. If you considering investing in banks in a country that you think may default - research them and see how much investments they have that will be affected by that default." }, { "docid": "556005", "title": "", "text": "That's true about normalizing but that's not the problem with TV advertising; the problem is compressing. If you've ever listened to talk radio, sometimes the host gets really quiet and almost whispers... and then he lights up and begins yelling and shouting. Yet during this time, you don't need to adjust your radio's volume; the sound from the radio studio has been very heavily compressed so that the quiet and loud parts are all the same volume. If you compress the crap out of your commercial's sound and then normalize it to 95% of the peak of the TV show's sound, which is typically not nearly as compressed, then your commercial is going to be perceived as *vastly* louder than the TV show, even though it never exceeds 95% of the TV show's peak volume. Thus a law referencing the average volume is thought to be more effective than one that simply requires normalization. It still seems easy to work around though; just have 29 seconds of silence and 1 second of horrendously loud, house-waking marketing slime. What they need to do is require that neither the average *nor* the peak dB level of the commercial may exceed the average dB level of the show. There might be cute little tricks that can get around that too, but at some point the ad agency has to actually talk and sell their product rather than performing mathematical backflips on the audio just to wake everyone up." }, { "docid": "466883", "title": "", "text": "\"Note: the answer below is speculative and not based on any first-hand knowledge of pump-and-dump schemes. The explanation with spamming doesn't really makes sense for me. Often you see a stock jump 30% or more in a single day at a particular moment in time. Unlikely that random people read their emails at that time and decide to buy. What I think happens is the pumper does a somewhat risky thing: starts buying a lot of shares of a stock that has declined a lot and had low volumes during the previous days. As the price starts to increase other people start to notice the jump and join the buying spree (also don't forget that some probably use buy-stop orders which are triggered when the price reaches a particular level). Also there should be some automatic trading involved (maybe HFT firms do pump-and-dumps) as you have to trade a big volume in a relatively short time span. I think it is unlikely to be done by human operators. Another explanation would be that there is a group of pumpers (to spread the risk so to speak). Update: As I think more of it, it is not necessary to buy \"\"a lot of shares\"\". You could buy some shares, sell them to another pumper and buy from them again at a higher price in several iterations. I think this could also work if you do it fast enough. These scheme makes sense only you previously bought many shares at the low price, possibly during several weeks. Once the price is pumped high enough you can start selling the shares you previously bought (in the days preceding the pump).\"" }, { "docid": "418057", "title": "", "text": "\"When considering such a major life decision, with such high potential costs and high potential rewards, I encourage you to consider multiple different potential options. Even if loans were available, they might not be the best option. Less debt and an engineering degree is better than more debt and an engineering degree, both of which are likely better than your current debt and no engineering degree. I encourage you to consider: revisit your aid (which is not just loans), cut expenses, consider alternative aid sources, use your engineering student status to get a better paying job (including more profitable summer employment), check for methods to cut down the cost of your degree, and double-check your plans to make sure you have a long-term plan that makes sense. The first issue, raised in the comments, is whether or not you are getting appropriate financial aid. This does not just mean loans, it includes grants and other forms of assistance. You should be getting in-state tuition, and by searching the tuition of UNC I believe you are. But for future readers, you should make sure you are getting in-state rates, and it not there are options to return to a state where you would get in-state tuition rates, or look into the possibility of pausing your study for one year until you meet in-state funding requirements. You should also ensure your FAFSA information is correct, including your income, family situation (whether or not you are an independent study, as it sounds like you probably are), etc. This effects how many grants you get, and if you are independent this changes maximum federal loan amounts (see website for details). While you don't say what your pay is, the fact that you are working two jobs and having trouble making ends-meet suggests either that you have a spending issue, or that your jobs pay sucks, and possibly both. I've been in both situations, and there are methods for dealing with both. If your spending is not very carefully controlled, that's a big issue. I won't try to rehash all the personal finance advice about this, but I will just warn that when you are desperate and you know there isn't enough money even if you spend perfectly, there is a strong tendency to just give up and not even try because what's the point? Learned helplessness is hell, but it can be overcome with effort and tightly holding on to any glimmer of hope you find to do better each day. If you are in a field like engineering or computing (and some other fields, though I am less personally familiar with the current employment climate in those), there are usually companies who want to hire you as a paid intern or part-time employee in the hopes of getting you when you graduate. Those last two semesters of undergrad are a technicality to employers, they know it doesn't really change your skill set much. Many companies are actually more interesting in hiring someone on who hasn't finished the degree yet than getting someone recently post-degree, because they can get you cheaper and learn if this is a good match before they have to take the big risk of full-time hiring. You need to use this system to your advantage. Its hard when you feel destitute, but talk with career councilors in your school, your department advisor, and/or main administrative staff in your main academic department. Make sure you are on the right mailing lists to see the job offers (many schools require you to subscribe to one because at a school like UNC it easily gets way too much traffic each day). You need field-relevant experience, not just to finish the degree, but to be able to really open up your job opportunities and earning potential. Do not be shy about directly calling/emailing a contact who reaches out to your school looking for \"\"recent graduates\"\", and especially any mention of flexibility on early start for those who are almost finished. You can say you are in your final year (you are), and even ask if they are open to working around a light school schedule while you finish up. Most can end up to be \"\"no\"\", but it doesn't matter - the recruiting contacts want to hire people, so just reaching out early means you can follow up later once you get your degree and finances sorted out and you will have an even easier time getting that opportunity. In technology and engineering, the importance of summer internships cannot be understated, especially as you are now technically at the end of your degree. In engineering and tech fields, internships pay - often very well. Don't worry about it being the job of your dreams. Depending on your set of skills, apply to insurance companies, IT departments in hospitals and banks (even if you thought your coding skills in engineering were minimal), and of course any paying position that might be more directly in your field of interest. Consider ones outside your immediate area or even the more national internships from the bigger name companies, where possible. It is not at all uncommon for tech and engineering internships for undergraduate students to pay $15-$25+ per hour, even where most non-degree jobs might only pay $8 (and I've seen as high as $40 per hour+ in the high cost of living markets, depending on your skill set). I know many people who were paid more as a student intern than they were previously paid as a full-time professional employee. Many schools - including UNC - charge different tuition for distance learning and satellite campuses, and often also offer University-approved online classes. While this is not always a possibility for every student, you should consider the options. It could be that one of the final classes you need towards your degree can be taken at one of these other options, with reduced tuition. This is not always possible with all courses, but is certainly true if you have any of those general education requirements to knock out. Also consider if any of those final requirements have test-out options, such as CLEP test alternatives. Again, not always available, but sometimes you can get class credit for a general education class for Finally, make sure you aren't paying unnecessarily for text books, once you do get the money for tuition. You can sometimes get hand-me-down copies, rent ebooks or physical books from online companies, creative searches for PDF copies, get your book from off-campus local stores, etc. It isn't tuition, but money is money. Attend Part-Time While Working Look into the option of being a half-time student, which is usually 6-8 credit hours, if you can't afford full-time tuition. There is generally a greatly reduced rate, you still qualify for aid programs, and you are still working towards the degree - so you still get access to student resources like internships and job listings that may not be publicly posted. Inquire About Scholarships and School Emergency Assistance While this varies hugely by institution, make sure you check into scholarships you can apply to (even if they are just a few hundred bucks, it helps a lot) in your school (I don't believe the big online searches help, ask the school - but YMMV). Also inquire about any sort of possible help the school provides to students who've had life emergencies, such as your medical issues. Many have programs that are not advertised, designed to help students finish their degree and recover from personal hard times. It's worth the inquiry if you are willing to ask. Any little bit of assistance can help. Don't be afraid to talk with an institution's mental health councilors either, who can help you deal with the psychological difficulty of your situation as well as often being able to connect you to other potential support resources. The pressure can take its tole, and you'll have better long-term opportunities if you build up your support network and options. Student Loan Forbearance While In School If you are trying to save up every last dollar for tuition to finish the degree, but you have to pay loans now, call up the provider to ask about temporary delays on your student loan payments. Many have time-limited hardship allowances, and between the medical bills, low income, and returning to school, they may be willing to give you a few months break until you get back to school and the in-school provisions kick in. Skip a Semester If Necessary To Save Money If you can only raise enough for one semester, then need to skip a semester to build up more funds, that happens, it's OK. Be strategic, and check on loan forbearance. Usually being out for one semester is allowed by student loan companies before you owe them payment, and if you re-enroll you don't have to start making payments yet. Double-check on Credit Expiration and Degree Requirements Make sure you talk to someone who knows what they are talking about, especially in terms of credit expiration. Policies vary, and sometimes an advisor is able to put in a special request to waive you through some of these issues. Academia is heavily, heavily reliant on developing a good relationship and clear communication with an advisor who is willing to work with you to achieve your goals. Written policies are sometimes very firm, and sometimes all you have to do is ask the right person and poof, suddenly the rules change. It's a weird system, but don't be afraid to explain your situation and ask what can be done. Don't assume a written policy is 100% ironclad - sometimes it is, but it often isn't. Inquire About Other Government and Community-based Assistance Being destitute is awful, and having to ask for help can feel terrible in it's own way, but doing what you have to do to have a better future can mean pushing through and being willing to ask for help. This can mean asking parents and close family if they can contribute to help you finish your degree, but this also means checking with your local community programs to see if you qualify for anything. Many communities have food pantries and related programs that will help you even if you don't qualify for something like SNAP (aka food stamps), because they know times can get hard for anyone and they want you to spend what little money you have on building a better life. Your university may even run a food pantry for students in need - use it. Get what assistance you can, minimize spending in any way you can manage, put all the money towards doing what you need to do to get to a better place. It's even nicely reciprocal - once you work through your hard times and get things on track, you can return the favor and help give back to programs like the ones that helped you. Make Sure Your Long-Term Goal Makes Sense Finally, this is all predicated on pulling out all the stops to finish your degree. But this assumes that this is a good plan. Not all degrees are helpful for all people in all areas of the country. Do your own research to make sure you aren't throwing good money after bad, and are pursuing a goal that will make sense for you and what you want. The cost of a degree keeps going up, but it remains true that many sets of skills and degree-holding candidates are in demand and can command high salaries that blow away the cost of college in comparison. If you actually have a good chance of going from struggling to make $8/hour to making $50k-90k a year, based on your developed skills, experience, and professional network, then reasonable student loan debt is a worthy investment. If, on the other hand, you wrack up tens of thousands of more dollars in debt just to say you did and still have to work the same kinds of jobs, that's not really much of an investment at all. Good luck on your journey, and best wishes towards better days - regardless of what path you choose. Finally, make sure you aren't paying unnecessarily for text books, once you do get the money for tuition. You can sometimes get hand-me-down copies, rent ebooks or physical books from online companies, creative searches for PDF copies, get your book from off-campus local stores, etc. It isn't tuition, but money is money. Look into the option of being a half-time student, which is usually 6-8 credit hours, if you can't afford full-time tuition. There is generally a greatly reduced rate, you still qualify for aid programs, and you are still working towards the degree - so you still get access to student resources like internships and job listings that may not be publicly posted. While this varies hugely by institution, make sure you check into scholarships you can apply to (even if they are just a few hundred bucks, it helps a lot) in your school (I don't believe the big online searches help, ask the school - but YMMV). Also inquire about any sort of possible help the school provides to students who've had life emergencies, such as your medical issues. Many have programs that are not advertised, designed to help students finish their degree and recover from personal hard times. It's worth the inquiry if you are willing to ask. Any little bit of assistance can help. Don't be afraid to talk with an institution's mental health councilors either, who can help you deal with the psychological difficulty of your situation as well as often being able to connect you to other potential support resources. The pressure can take its tole, and you'll have better long-term opportunities if you build up your support network and options. If you are trying to save up every last dollar for tuition to finish the degree, but you have to pay loans now, call up the provider to ask about temporary delays on your student loan payments. Many have time-limited hardship allowances, and between the medical bills, low income, and returning to school, they may be willing to give you a few months break until you get back to school and the in-school provisions kick in. If you can only raise enough for one semester, then need to skip a semester to build up more funds, that happens, it's OK. Be strategic, and check on loan forbearance. Usually being out for one semester is allowed by student loan companies before you owe them payment, and if you re-enroll you don't have to start making payments yet. Make sure you talk to someone who knows what they are talking about, especially in terms of credit expiration. Policies vary, and sometimes an advisor is able to put in a special request to waive you through some of these issues. Academia is heavily, heavily reliant on developing a good relationship and clear communication with an advisor who is willing to work with you to achieve your goals. Written policies are sometimes very firm, and sometimes all you have to do is ask the right person and poof, suddenly the rules change. It's a weird system, but don't be afraid to explain your situation and ask what can be done. Don't assume a written policy is 100% ironclad - sometimes it is, but it often isn't. Being destitute is awful, and having to ask for help can feel terrible in it's own way, but doing what you have to do to have a better future can mean pushing through and being willing to ask for help. This can mean asking parents and close family if they can contribute to help you finish your degree, but this also means checking with your local community programs to see if you qualify for anything. Many communities have food pantries and related programs that will help you even if you don't qualify for something like SNAP (aka food stamps), because they know times can get hard for anyone and they want you to spend what little money you have on building a better life. Your university may even run a food pantry for students in need - use it. Get what assistance you can, minimize spending in any way you can manage, put all the money towards doing what you need to do to get to a better place. It's even nicely reciprocal - once you work through your hard times and get things on track, you can return the favor and help give back to programs like the ones that helped you. Finally, this is all predicated on pulling out all the stops to finish your degree. But this assumes that this is a good plan. Not all degrees are helpful for all people in all areas of the country. Do your own research to make sure you aren't throwing good money after bad, and are pursuing a goal that will make sense for you and what you want. The cost of a degree keeps going up, but it remains true that many sets of skills and degree-holding candidates are in demand and can command high salaries that blow away the cost of college in comparison. If you actually have a good chance of going from struggling to make $8/hour to making $50k-90k a year, based on your developed skills, experience, and professional network, then reasonable student loan debt is a worthy investment. If, on the other hand, you wrack up tens of thousands of more dollars in debt just to say you did and still have to work the same kinds of jobs, that's not really much of an investment at all. Good luck on your journey, and best wishes towards better days - regardless of what path you choose.\"" }, { "docid": "333916", "title": "", "text": "Let me first give you my definitions of the words 'investor' and 'speculator'. To me, anyone looking to 'buy low, sell high' is a speculator. Only 'buy and hold' people are investors. The news agencies love to report on changes in the price of a stock. This gives them something to talk about. So speculation is encouraged by the news media. What investors care about is dividends. In my opinion whatwhat news agencies should report on are changes to the dividend provided by a security. I used to be a speculator, but now that I am retired I am an investor." }, { "docid": "133158", "title": "", "text": "&gt; We're talking about low paying jobs.. and if there's more applicants than jobs than why are staffing companies HUGE right now? Yeah I'm talking about low paying also. Staffing companies are huge because you can try before you buy. Understand? Your argument just fell apart. Just because there is correlation, it doesn't mean they are related. ***We have tons of illegals and even more unemployed people*** &gt; . Because can't fill the jobs like they want. There's absolutely a ton of demand for low paying workers all around. Lets see some proof because there is no shortage in most of the country unless you're talking about the ones on farms possibly. We have an extremely high unemployment rate. &gt; Places can't keep or find people even to stay for a month. Maybe thats because they are drug addicted losers or shitty workers. Ever thought of that? That doesn't mean there is a shortage of employees, there is a shortage of good ones &gt; Anyone that's ever applied knows these places also end up having tons of overtime because they don't have enough help Wrong, zero evidence and its clearly wrong. No one wants to give these people benefits so they often don't even hire them as full time in any medium-large size company &gt; Your idea is to take all three of illegals , felons and potheads out of jobs yet somehow still filll these jobs that staffing companies have been trying to fill. In LA, we have no shortage and it applies to tons of places. Throw the illegals out, they don't belong here. Felons, someone can hire them, I won't. Potheads, someone will hire them too, but I won't hire someone that comes to work high, lacks motivation, and is not happy. I want employees that want to work and want to grow. With those type of employees, not only do businesses grow and become more successful, but those employees can get promoted and do better in life. I want my employees to do well in life because to me, the good ones are family." }, { "docid": "396657", "title": "", "text": "The study of technical analysis is generally used (sometimes successfully) to time the markets. There are many aspects to technical analysis, but the simplest form is to look for uptrends and downtrends in the charts. Generally higher highs and higher lows is considered an uptrend. And lower lows and lower highs is considered a downtrend. A trend follower would go with the trend, for example see a dip to the trend-line and buy on the rebound. A simple strategy for this is shown in the chart below: I would be buying this stock when the price hits or gets very close to the trendline and then it bounces back above it. I would then have sold this stock once it has broken through below the trendline. This may also be an appropriate time if you were looking to short this stock. Other indicators could also be used in combination for additional confirmation of what is happening to the price. Another type of trader is called a bottom fisher. A bottom fisher would wait until a break above the downtrend line (second chart) and buy after confirmation of a higher high and possibly a higher low (as this could be the start of a new uptrend). There are many more strategies dealing with the study of technical analysis, and if you are interested you would need to find and learn about ones that suit your investment styles, whether you prefer short term trading or longer term investing, and your appetite for risk. You can develop strategies using various indicators and then paper trade or backtest these strategies. You can also manually backtest a strategy in most charting packages. You can go back in time on the chart so that the right side of the chart shows a date in the past (say one year ago or 10 years ago), then you can click forward one day at a time (or one week at a time if using weekly charts). With your indicators on the chart you can do virtual trades to buy or sell whenever a signal is given as you move forward in time. This way you may be able to check years of data in a day to see if your strategy works. Whatever you do, you need to document your strategies in writing in a written trading or investment plan together with a risk management strategy. You should always follow the rules in your written plan to avoid you making decisions based on emotions. By backtesting or paper trading your strategies it will give you confidence that they will work over the long term. There is a lot of work involved at the start, but once you have developed a documented strategy that has been thoroughly backtested, it will take you minimal time to successfully manage your investments. In my shorter term trading (positions held from a couple of days to a few weeks) I spend about half an hour per night to manage my trades and am up about 50% over the last 7 months. For my longer term investing (positions held from months to years) I spend about an hour per week and have been averaging over 25% over the last 4 years. Technical Analysis does work for those who have a documented plan, have approached it in a systematic way and use risk management to protect their existing and future capital. Most people who say that is doesn't work either have not used it themselves or have used it ad-hock without putting in the initial time and work to develop a documented and systematic approach to their trading or investing." }, { "docid": "495007", "title": "", "text": "I suspect that the times you are referring to are those times when there is relatively low volumes of foreign exchange trading. Lower volumes of trading make it possible for large orders to have a disproportionate effect on the market price. This implies that the times to avoid will be the times with the lowest relative volumes. This will occur on the cusp between the New York market winding down and the Asia/Tokyo market revving up. This will be in the hours preceding Tokyo's opening at 06:00 Tokyo time, so the time to avoid is about 04:00-06:00 Tokyo time, or about 20:00-22:00 GMT (if I've worked out the time difference correctly). Foreign exchange is a 24 hour, global market. Although each of the three main trading centres - London, New York, Asia - will operate 24 hours a day, they will maintain only a skeleton staff outside of normal working hours. The time difference between London and New York is only 5 hours, so there is no period of time when both centres are operating with a skeleton staff. The time difference between London and Tokyo is 8 hours, so again there is no period of time when both centres are operating with a skeleton staff. The time difference between New York and Tokyo is 13 hours. This does include a period where both centres are operating with a skeleton staff, as well as London operating on a skeleton staff. Thus, in the couple of hours immediately preceding Tokyo's opening for the regular trading day there is minimal coverage in each of the three main trading centres. As mentioned above, this is the time when large orders can have a disproportionate effect on fx rates and so this is the time to avoid." }, { "docid": "257980", "title": "", "text": "\"Here are some important things to think about. Alan and Denise Fields discuss them in more detail in Your New House. Permanent work. Where do you want to live? Are there suitable jobs nearby? How much do they pay? Emergency fund. Banks care that you have \"\"reserves\"\" (and/or an unsecured line of credit) in case you have a run of bad luck. This also helps with float the large expenses when closing a loan. Personal line of credit. Who are you building for? If you are not married, then you should consider whether building a home makes that easier, or harder. If you hope to have kids, you should consider whether your home will make it easier to have kids, or harder. If you are married (or seriously considering it), make sure that your spouse helps with the shopping, and is in agreement on the priorities and choices. If you are not married, then what will you do if/when you get married? Will you sell? expand? build another house on the same lot? rent the home out? Total budget. How much can the lot, utilities, permits, taxes, financing charges, building costs, and contingency allowance come to? Talk with a banker about how much you can afford. Talk with a build-on-your-lot builder about how much house you can get for that budget. Consider a new mobile or manufactured home. But if you do choose one, ask your banker how that affects what you can borrow, and how it affects your rates and terms. Talk with a good real estate agent about how much the resale value might be. Finished lot budget. How much can you budget for the lot, utilities, permits required to get zoning approval, fees, interest, and taxes before you start construction? Down payment. It sounds like you have a plan for this. Loan underwriting. Talk with a good bank loan officer about what their expectations are. Ask about the \"\"front-end\"\" and \"\"back-end\"\" Debt-To-Income ratios. In Oregon, I recommend Washington Federal for lot loans and construction loans. They keep all of their loans, and service the loans themselves. They use appraisers who are specially trained in evaluating new home construction. Their appraisers tend to appraise a bit low, but not ridiculously low like the incompetent appraisers used by some other banks in the area. (I know two banks with lots of Oregon branches that use an appraiser who ignores 40% of the finished, heated area of some to-be-built homes.) Avoid any institution (including USAA and NavyFed) that outsources their lending to PHH. Lot loan. In Oregon, Washington Federal offers lot loans with 30% down payments, 20-year amortization, and one point, on approved credit. The interest rate can be a fixed rate, but is typically a few percentage points per year higher than for a mortgage secured by a permanent house. If you have the financial wherewithal to start building within two years, Washington Federal also offers short-term lot loans. Ask about the costs of appraisals, points, and recording fees. Rent. How much will it cost to rent a place to live, between when you move back to Oregon, and when your new home is ready to move into? Commute. How much time will it take to get from your new home to work? How much will it cost? (E.g., car ownership, depreciation, maintenance, insurance, taxes, fuel? If public transportation is an option, how much will it cost?) Lot availability. How many are there to choose from? Can you talk a farmer into selling off a chunk of land? Can you homestead government land? How much does a lot cost? Is it worth getting a double lot (or an extra large lot)? Utilities. Do you want to live off the grid? Are you willing to make the choices needed to do that? (E.g., well, generator, septic system, satellite TV and telephony, fuel storage) If not, how much will it cost to connect to such systems? (For practical purposes, subtract twice the value of these installation costs from the cost of a finished lot, when comparing lot deals.) Easements. These provide access to your property, access for others through your property, and affect your rights. Utility companies often ask for far more rights than they need. Until you sign on the dotted line, you can negotiate them down to just what they need. Talk to a good real estate attorney. Zoning. How much will you be allowed to build? (In terms of home square footage, garage square footage, roof area, and impermeable surfaces.) How can the home be used? (As a business, as a farm, how many unrelated people can live there, etc.) What setbacks are required? How tall can the building(s) be? Are there setbacks from streams, swamps, ponds, wetlands, or steep slopes? Choosing a builder. For construction loans, banks want builders who will build what is agreed upon, in a timely fashion. If you want to build your own house, talk to your loan officer about what the bank expects in a builder. Plansets and permits. The construction loan process. If you hire a general contractor, and if you have difficulties with the contractor, you might be forced to refuse to accept some work as being complete. A good bank will back you up. Ask about points, appraisal charges, and inspection fees. Insurance during construction. Some companies have good plans -- if the construction takes 12 months or less. Some (but not all) auto insurance companies also offer good homeowners' insurance for homes under construction. Choose your auto insurance company accordingly. Property taxes. Don't forget to include them in your post-construction budget. Homeowners' insurance. Avoid properties that need flood insurance. Apply a sanity check to flood maps -- some of them are unrealistic. Strongly consider earthquake insurance. Don't forget to include these costs in your post-construction budget. Energy costs. Some jurisdictions require you to calculate how large a heating system you need. Do not trust their design temperatures -- they may not allow for enough heating during a cold snap, especially if you have a heat pump. (Some heat pumps work at -10°F -- but most lose their effectiveness between 10°F and 25°F.) You can use these calculations, in combination with the number of \"\"heating degree days\"\" and \"\"cooling degree days\"\" at your site, to accurately estimate your energy bills. If you choose a mobile or manufactured home, calculate how much extra its energy bills will be. Home design. Here are some good sources of ideas: A Pattern Language, by Christopher Alexander. Alexander emphasizes building homes and neighborhoods that can grow, and that have niches within niches within niches. The Not-So-Big House, by Sarah Susanka. This book applies many Alexander's design patterns to medium and large new houses. Before the Architect. The late Ralph Pressel emphasized the importance of plywood sheathing, flashing, pocket doors, wide hallways, wide stairways, attic trusses, and open-truss or I-joist floor systems. Lots of outlets and incandescent lighting are good too. (It is possible to have too much detail in a house plan, and too much room in a house. For examples, see any of his plans.) Tim Garrison, \"\"the builder's engineer\"\". Since Oregon is in earthquake country -- and the building codes do not fully reflect that risk -- emphasize that you want a building that would meet San Jose, California's earthquake code.\"" }, { "docid": "268966", "title": "", "text": "Prop (proprietary) traders trade using huge amounts of a bank's money (i.e. other people's money) so the reason why they have such low commissions (and they certainly do) is that the firms for which they work negotiate low commissions as the quantities and volumes (as they also trade very frequently) will be high and so the total commission will be very high. There is no such thing as a prop trading account unless you are a big bank with a very large bank roll (tens of millions of USD) so you cannot open one to enjoy those benefits unless you have enough money that you can negotiate your commission with brokers. 25k CAD is definitely not enough money to even start a conversation about those sorts of commissions. note: prop traders are generally banned from trading intraday with their own money by their employers and the law as it is a massive conflict of interests. Those who do and get caught face lengthy prison sentences." }, { "docid": "429704", "title": "", "text": "\"First it is worth noting the two sided nature of the contracts (long one currency/short a second) make leverage in currencies over a diverse set of clients generally less of a problem. In equities, since most margin investors are long \"\"equities\"\" making it more likely that large margin calls will all be made at the same time. Also, it's worth noting that high-frequency traders often highly levered make up a large portion of all volume in all liquid markets ~70% in equity markets for instance. Would you call that grossly artificial? What is that volume number really telling us anyway in that case? The major players holding long-term positions in the FX markets are large banks (non-investment arm), central banks and corporations and unlike equity markets which can nearly slow to a trickle currency markets need to keep trading just for many of those corporations/banks to do business. This kind of depth allows these brokers to even consider offering 400-to-1 leverage. I'm not suggesting that it is a good idea for these brokers, but the liquidity in currency markets is much deeper than their costumers.\"" }, { "docid": "379392", "title": "", "text": "Kek. &gt; Amazon is big enough to take full advantage of “postal injection,” and that has tipped the scales in the internet giant’s favor. **Select** high-volume shippers are able to drop off presorted packages at the local Postal Service depot for “last mile” delivery at cut-rate prices. With high volumes and warehouses near the local depots, Amazon enjoys low rates unavailable to its competitors." }, { "docid": "185809", "title": "", "text": "The study of technical analysis is generally used (sometimes successfully) to time the markets. There are many aspects to technical analysis, but the simplest form is to look for uptrends and downtrends in the charts. Generally higher highs and higher lows is considered an uptrend. And lower lows and lower highs is considered a downtrend. A trend follower would go with the trend, for example see a dip to the trend-line and buy on the rebound. Whilst a bottom fisher would wait until a break in the downtrend line and buy after confirmation of a higher high (as this could be the start of a new uptrend). There are many more strategies dealing with the study of technical analysis, and if you are interested you would need to find and learn about ones that suit your investment styles and your appetite for risk." }, { "docid": "224918", "title": "", "text": "TL/DR Yes, The David popularized the Debt Snowball. The method of paying low balance first. It's purely psychological. The reward or sense of accomplishment is a motivator to keep pushing to the next card. There's also the good feeling of following one you believe to be wise. The David is very charismatic, and speaks in a no-nonsense my way or the highway voice. History is riddled with religious leaders who offer advice which is followed without question. The good feeling, in theory, leads to a greater success rate. And really, it's easier to follow a plan that comes at a cost than to follow one that your guru takes issue with. In the end, when I produce a spreadsheet showing the cost difference, say $1000 over a 3 year period, the response is that it's worth the $1000 to actually succeed. My sole purpose is to simply point out the cost difference between the two methods. $100? Go with the one that makes you feel good. $2000? Just think about it first. If it's not clear, my issue is less with the fact that the low balance method is inferior and more with its proponents wishing to obfuscate the fact that the high interest method is not only valid but has some savings built in. When a woman called into The David's radio show and said her friend recommended the high rate first method, he dismissed it, and told her that low balance was the only way to go. The rest of this answer is tangent to the real issue, answered above. The battle reminds me of how people brag about getting a tax refund. With all due respect to the Tax Software people, the goal should be minimizing one's tax bill. Getting a high refund means you misplanned all year, and lent Uncle Sam money at zero interest(1). And yet you feel good about getting $3000 back in April. (Disclosure - when my father in law passed away, I took over my mother in law's finances. Her IRA RMD, and taxes. First year, I converted some money to Roth, and we had a $100 tax bill. Frowny face on mom. Since then, I have Schwab hold too much federal tax, and we always get about $100 back. This makes her happy, and I'll ignore the 27 cents lost interest.) (1) - I need to acknowledge that there are cases where the taxpayer has had zero dollars withheld, yet receives a 'tax refund.' The earned income tax credit (EITC) produces a refundable benefit, i.e. a payment that's not conditional on tax due. Obviously, those who benefit from this are not whom I am talking about. Also, in response to a comment below, the opportunity cost is not the sub-1% rate the bank would have paid you on the money had you held on to it. It's the 18% card you should be paying off. That $3000 refund likely cost over $400 in the interest paid over the prior year." }, { "docid": "284968", "title": "", "text": "Make sure you are paid on volume, not people. Almost all companies have a requirement to recruit a certain number of others. That's not bad - it ensures the company continues to grow without having to pay advertising and training costs. That's what the commissions are for. The largest cost of distributing a product (outside of MLM) is advertising and marketing. If I remember correctly, this adds up to about 66% of the cost of the product. If that's true, an MLM has quite a bit of money available to pay commissions and still have their products remain relatively competitive. But, when all is said and done, you should be paid on volume, just like a sales manager position in a company. A sales manager has to hire and train a sales staff, but once they are out producing, the manager is paid a percentage based on the volume of their sales staff. If an MLM is setup the same way, then this is good. If they are setup to pay on recruiting people, then run away as quickly as you can. The biggest problem with recruiting is not whether or not you can do it. It's whether or not the people you recruit can do it. I have been involved with an MLM of sorts for 10 years. It pays a nice continual flow of income. I worked it hard for about 6 years and have coasted ever since. The problem was attrition. It was greater than I ever imagined. It became very disheartening. I never have and never will be a high pressure person. I would show them the business and if they were interested, great, if not, great. The problem was that people became interested, but didn't have the skills to be successful. I should never have let them join the business. So, they leave the business and say that MLM is bad. No, it just wasn't right for them or they weren't right for it. Regardless of what business you join, make sure that you believe that EVERYONE you introduce to the business has the ability to do the same thing you are doing. If they do, great, otherwise don't even show it to them." }, { "docid": "81652", "title": "", "text": "In summary, you are correct that the goal of investing is to maximize returns, while paying low management fees. Index investing has become very popular because of the low fees. There are many actively traded mutual funds out there with very high management fees of 2.5% and up that do not beat the market. This begs the question of why you are paying high management fees and not just investing in index funds. Consider maxing out your tax sheltered accounts (401(k) and ROTH IRA) to avoid even more fees on your returns. Also consider having a growth component of your portfolio which is generally filled with equity, along with a secure component for assets such as bonds. Bonds may not have the exciting returns of equity, but they help to smooth out the volatility of your portfolio, which may help to keep peace of mind when the market dips." }, { "docid": "160965", "title": "", "text": "Given your premise is correct: How do you cash in a large sum of YetAnotherCryptoCoin shortly after it´s ICO? The crypto-exchanges take some time to add a new currency, if they do at all. And even if they already have, trading volume is usually low. I think that´s what really makes it unattractive for Investors as opposed to tec-enthusiasts (aside from the high volatility). Total lack of any reliable trading capability." }, { "docid": "122339", "title": "", "text": "I thought we could have a friendly conversation, but it seems like this went out the window; I feel very comfortable given that 4 of my years at my current firms were about analyzing those fees and how open each of the firms are open about the rebates Prices, as well as exchanges having the same openness about it. The current volume intraday is around 5.6B shares traded; when it used to be 100 times bigger around 2010; you do not make a significant part of money with the lack of volitality and volume on the markets today. The author is just a sheltered university teacher that does not seem to know what reality looks like, and you seem to protect him which speaks volume about you as well." } ]

[ { "docid": "303325", "title": "", "text": "\"Volume is really only valuable when compared to some other volume, either from a historical value, or from some other stock. The article you linked to doesn't provide specific numbers for you to evaluate whether volume is high or low. Many people simply look at the charts and use a gut feel for whether a day's volume is \"\"high\"\" or \"\"low\"\" in their estimation. Typically, if a day's volume is not significantly taller than the usual volume, you wouldn't call it high. The same goes for low volume. If you want a more quantitative approach, a simple approach would be to use the normal distribution statistics: Calculate the mean volume and the standard deviation. Anything outside of 1.5 to 2.0 standard deviations (either high or low) could be significant in your analysis. You'll need to pick your own numbers (1.5 or 2.0 are just numbers I pulled out of thin air.) It's hard to read anything specific into volume, since for every seller, there's a buyer, and each has their reasons for doing so. The article you link to has some good examples of using volume as a basis for strengthening conclusions drawn using other factors.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "175226", "title": "", "text": "\"As JoeTaxpayer notes in his comment, \"\"answers\"\" to this are really just opinions, so here's mine, for what it's worth. If your risk tolerance is 5 out of 5, you shouldn't have anything in Treasuries. Those are basically the most conservative of all investments. This would probably mean no TIPS as well. If you're more like 4.5 out of 5, you could have some, but just a little; a 30% allocation to government securities is quite conservative. If you want to diversify across different asset classes, you could consider a bond fund like (for instance VBMFX, the Vanguard total bond market index fund). Your portfolio doesn't currently contain any (non-government) bonds, which is something to consider. 20% seems like quite a large allocation to REITs. Most sample portfolios I've seen allocate no more than 10% to REITs, often no more than 5%. There are some that have more like the 20% you're envisioning, but you might want to ponder that a bit more especially in light of your concerns about REITs being at an all-time high. As for your question about all-time highs, it's reasonable to think about, but I think waiting for 30-50% off all-time highs is unrealistic. Looking at a chart of VFINX (essentially the S&P 500), I see that at the nadir of the recent downturn, in early 2009, the market was at about 50% of its pre-crash all-time high. At the nadir of the dot-com bust, the market was about 45% off its pre-crash high. If you're waiting for it to be 50% off it's all-time high, you're not just waiting for \"\"a good time to invest\"\", you're waiting for a major crash. It could certainly make sense not to immediately put everything into US stocks, but that doesn't mean you should put nothing in. As Trevor Wilson commented, you could put some of the money in and then gradually add the rest over time, reducing the risk of unluckily buying at the peak. (This can also reduce the psychological angst of worrying about whether you're doing the right thing, which is worth taking into account.) Also note that if you get rid of the treasuries, you eliminate a good chunk of the stuff that you thought was too close to the peak anyway. Your two basic points (asset allocation and low-cost funds) have a strong Boglehead flavor. You may already have looked at the Bogleheads wiki; if not you should take a look. If you are comfortable with that philosophy (and I think it's a sound one), you should remember that part of that philosophy is not worrying about \"\"timing the market\"\". You pursue a buy-and-hold strategy if you believe the market will go up in the long term and don't care much about what it does in the short term. That said, as mentioned above, you might want to ease in your investment over time, rather than buying all at once, if only to avoid tearing your hair out if the market goes down in the short term. Incidentally, your proposed portfolio is similar to this one that they mention, although as I said above I think this is too conservative if you are 30 years old and consider yourself a \"\"5 out of 5\"\" in terms of risk tolerance. I'm not sure if you already saw that in your research, but since that portfolio apparently has a name and is known, you might be able to find information about its risks and benefits by searching for discussion of it by name.\"" }, { "docid": "169954", "title": "", "text": "\"Insofar as a 52 week high indicates a peak, yes. However, the truth is that \"\"buying low and selling high\"\" means \"\"Act a Fool!\"\" You see, when you buy low, you are perceived to be buying total garbage - throwing your money away and conversely when selling high you are perceived to be a total idiot - selling a winner. That's how people will see you when you are in fact buying low and/or selling high, right? It's those people that (mis)value the asset, right? An asset is worth what the people will pay for it, right? ...And don't forget that holding a loser is MUCH easier than holding a winner. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "208346", "title": "", "text": "Seriously? This is what my taxes go to? Telling private companies how loud their commercials should be. If their commercials are too loud do I also pay of a dude to call them up and fine them? If they don't pay do I also pay of an attorney to represent them? And if they lose in court do I pay of a jail to house them? Why not just be a big boy and turn the volume down when it's too loud. What's next, I buy a CD and it has to be a constant level? If one track is louder and it upsets me I can ask the government to regulate how loud CD's are!! **FUCKING REGULATE IT YOURSELF, WITH YOUR GOD DAMN REMOTE CONTROL!!** How fucked up is America? We are talking about something so pointless here." }, { "docid": "556005", "title": "", "text": "That's true about normalizing but that's not the problem with TV advertising; the problem is compressing. If you've ever listened to talk radio, sometimes the host gets really quiet and almost whispers... and then he lights up and begins yelling and shouting. Yet during this time, you don't need to adjust your radio's volume; the sound from the radio studio has been very heavily compressed so that the quiet and loud parts are all the same volume. If you compress the crap out of your commercial's sound and then normalize it to 95% of the peak of the TV show's sound, which is typically not nearly as compressed, then your commercial is going to be perceived as *vastly* louder than the TV show, even though it never exceeds 95% of the TV show's peak volume. Thus a law referencing the average volume is thought to be more effective than one that simply requires normalization. It still seems easy to work around though; just have 29 seconds of silence and 1 second of horrendously loud, house-waking marketing slime. What they need to do is require that neither the average *nor* the peak dB level of the commercial may exceed the average dB level of the show. There might be cute little tricks that can get around that too, but at some point the ad agency has to actually talk and sell their product rather than performing mathematical backflips on the audio just to wake everyone up." }, { "docid": "435363", "title": "", "text": "\"You can do a lot of deduction FINRA keeps a \"\"REG-SHO\"\" list created daily that tells what the daily short volume is. March 26th 2014's list: http://regsho.finra.org/FNSQshvol20140326.txt If you are talking about the United States, this answer may be better ;)\"" }, { "docid": "224918", "title": "", "text": "TL/DR Yes, The David popularized the Debt Snowball. The method of paying low balance first. It's purely psychological. The reward or sense of accomplishment is a motivator to keep pushing to the next card. There's also the good feeling of following one you believe to be wise. The David is very charismatic, and speaks in a no-nonsense my way or the highway voice. History is riddled with religious leaders who offer advice which is followed without question. The good feeling, in theory, leads to a greater success rate. And really, it's easier to follow a plan that comes at a cost than to follow one that your guru takes issue with. In the end, when I produce a spreadsheet showing the cost difference, say $1000 over a 3 year period, the response is that it's worth the $1000 to actually succeed. My sole purpose is to simply point out the cost difference between the two methods. $100? Go with the one that makes you feel good. $2000? Just think about it first. If it's not clear, my issue is less with the fact that the low balance method is inferior and more with its proponents wishing to obfuscate the fact that the high interest method is not only valid but has some savings built in. When a woman called into The David's radio show and said her friend recommended the high rate first method, he dismissed it, and told her that low balance was the only way to go. The rest of this answer is tangent to the real issue, answered above. The battle reminds me of how people brag about getting a tax refund. With all due respect to the Tax Software people, the goal should be minimizing one's tax bill. Getting a high refund means you misplanned all year, and lent Uncle Sam money at zero interest(1). And yet you feel good about getting $3000 back in April. (Disclosure - when my father in law passed away, I took over my mother in law's finances. Her IRA RMD, and taxes. First year, I converted some money to Roth, and we had a $100 tax bill. Frowny face on mom. Since then, I have Schwab hold too much federal tax, and we always get about $100 back. This makes her happy, and I'll ignore the 27 cents lost interest.) (1) - I need to acknowledge that there are cases where the taxpayer has had zero dollars withheld, yet receives a 'tax refund.' The earned income tax credit (EITC) produces a refundable benefit, i.e. a payment that's not conditional on tax due. Obviously, those who benefit from this are not whom I am talking about. Also, in response to a comment below, the opportunity cost is not the sub-1% rate the bank would have paid you on the money had you held on to it. It's the 18% card you should be paying off. That $3000 refund likely cost over $400 in the interest paid over the prior year." }, { "docid": "396657", "title": "", "text": "The study of technical analysis is generally used (sometimes successfully) to time the markets. There are many aspects to technical analysis, but the simplest form is to look for uptrends and downtrends in the charts. Generally higher highs and higher lows is considered an uptrend. And lower lows and lower highs is considered a downtrend. A trend follower would go with the trend, for example see a dip to the trend-line and buy on the rebound. A simple strategy for this is shown in the chart below: I would be buying this stock when the price hits or gets very close to the trendline and then it bounces back above it. I would then have sold this stock once it has broken through below the trendline. This may also be an appropriate time if you were looking to short this stock. Other indicators could also be used in combination for additional confirmation of what is happening to the price. Another type of trader is called a bottom fisher. A bottom fisher would wait until a break above the downtrend line (second chart) and buy after confirmation of a higher high and possibly a higher low (as this could be the start of a new uptrend). There are many more strategies dealing with the study of technical analysis, and if you are interested you would need to find and learn about ones that suit your investment styles, whether you prefer short term trading or longer term investing, and your appetite for risk. You can develop strategies using various indicators and then paper trade or backtest these strategies. You can also manually backtest a strategy in most charting packages. You can go back in time on the chart so that the right side of the chart shows a date in the past (say one year ago or 10 years ago), then you can click forward one day at a time (or one week at a time if using weekly charts). With your indicators on the chart you can do virtual trades to buy or sell whenever a signal is given as you move forward in time. This way you may be able to check years of data in a day to see if your strategy works. Whatever you do, you need to document your strategies in writing in a written trading or investment plan together with a risk management strategy. You should always follow the rules in your written plan to avoid you making decisions based on emotions. By backtesting or paper trading your strategies it will give you confidence that they will work over the long term. There is a lot of work involved at the start, but once you have developed a documented strategy that has been thoroughly backtested, it will take you minimal time to successfully manage your investments. In my shorter term trading (positions held from a couple of days to a few weeks) I spend about half an hour per night to manage my trades and am up about 50% over the last 7 months. For my longer term investing (positions held from months to years) I spend about an hour per week and have been averaging over 25% over the last 4 years. Technical Analysis does work for those who have a documented plan, have approached it in a systematic way and use risk management to protect their existing and future capital. Most people who say that is doesn't work either have not used it themselves or have used it ad-hock without putting in the initial time and work to develop a documented and systematic approach to their trading or investing." }, { "docid": "468025", "title": "", "text": "Opening - is the price at which the first trade gets executed at the start of the trading day (or trading period). High - is the highest price the stock is traded at during the day (or trading period). Low - is the lowest price the stock is traded at during the day (or trading period). Closing - is the price at which the last trade gets executed at the end of the trading day (or trading period). Volume - is the amount of shares that get traded during the trading day (or trading period). For example, if you bought 1000 shares during the day and another 9 people also bought 1000 shares each, then the trading volume for the day would be 10 x 1000 = 10,000." }, { "docid": "230612", "title": "", "text": "\"No you should not borrow money at 44.9%. I would recommend not borrowing money except for a home with a healthy deposit (called down payment outside UK). in December 2016, i had financial crisis So that was like 12 days ago. You make it sound like the crisis was a total random event, that you did nothing to cause it. Financial crises are rarely without fault. Common causes are failure to understand risk, borrowing too much, insuring too little, improper maintenance, improper reserves, improper planning, etc... Taking a good step or two back and really understanding the cause of your financial crisis and how it could be avoided in the future is very useful. Talk to someone who is actually wealthy about how you could have behaved differently to avoid the \"\"crisis\"\". There are some small set of crises that are no fault of your own. However in those cases the recipe to recovery is patience. Attempting to recover in 12 days is a recipe for further disaster. Your willingness to consider borrowing at 44% suggests this crisis was self-inflicted. It also indicates you need a whole lot more education in personal finance. This is reinforced by your insatiable desire for a high credit score. Credit score is no indication of wealth, and is meaningless until you desire to borrow money. From what I read, you should not be borrowing money. When the time comes for you to buy a home with a mortgage, its fairly easy to have a high enough credit score to borrow at a good rate. You get there by paying your bills on time and having a sufficient deposit. Don't chase a high credit score at the expense of building real wealth.\"" }, { "docid": "87548", "title": "", "text": "&gt; It seems like another way to have more artificial leverage in the future market, without having to borrow any money. Leverage is plentiful in the futures markets, and without borrowing. &gt; Why aren't future options talked about more? Because they don't as easily connect to predictions that people mean to make. Because they have worse pricing because people are paying more along the way. Because they lack volume. But they're talked about and used plenty. There's not much to them that there isn't to equity options at a low level. &gt; It seems like a safer way to play commodities compared to just futures. You mean hedging your futures contracts? Yes, the people who want to do that buy options." }, { "docid": "79807", "title": "", "text": "The daily Volume is usually compared to the average daily volume over the past 50 days for a stock. High volume is usually considered to be 2 or more times the average daily volume over the last 50 days for that stock, however some traders might set the crireia to be 3x or 4x the ADV for confirmation of a particular pattern or event. The volume is compared to the ADV of the stock itself, as comparing it to the volume of other stocks would be like comparing apples with oranges, as difference companies would have different number of total stocks available, different levels of liquidity and different levels of volatility, which can all contribute to the volumes traded each day." }, { "docid": "502247", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; A good cashier is not someone who is better at sliding packages over a scanner. Good cashiers are friendly, engaging, fast, and have a sharp eye for shoplifting. They have good judgment and relate well to their colleagues. They care about the customer's experience. Those are nice qualities, but Wal-Mart feels they are getting enough of those qualities for the price, and let's not delude ourselves into thinking that they are high skill. Anyone could be trained in the basics of watching for theft in less than 2 weeks. &gt; Walmart has chosen to compete solely on price, not on service; therefore, they hire the cheapest cashiers and sacrifice all of the soft skills that make a cashier a pleasurable part of someone's shopping experience. Wal-Mart has realized that these qualities are nice, but not really worth that much extra money. Most people don't want to have a wonderful conversation with their checker, especially if this comes at a much higher cost at the counter. Most people have friends, and even the best shopping experience is taking away from their life. Few of us want to prolong the experience with artificial and feigned conversation with our checker, which feels like a social obligation on most days. We want an accurate total and a swift checkout. When people are trying to get out of the grocery store, they don't search for the line with the friendliest checker. They search for the one who is sliding packages across the scanner like lightning. &gt; are they missing out on an opportunity to build customer loyalty Customer loyalty is overrated. The most loyal customer isn't going to impoverish their family for a really great checker experience, and Wal-Mart knows that. I'm reminded of people complaining that Wal-Mart has manufacturers make a cheaper version of their drills for their customers. Supposedly, this was a dastardly plan to make items disposable, so people would have to buy more. In reality, Wal-Mart just realizes the average guy who buys a drill isn't seriously going to get into woodworking, like he's always saying. He's going to pull it out 2-3 times, after the initial enthusiasm wears off. I thin Wal-Mart pisses people off, because they know what we really are, as opposed to the people we pretend to be. &gt; they're creating a disenchanted workforce incentivized to get back at the company whenever possible Wal-Mart has a pretty good bead on their workforce. They're not losing money. This \"\"getting back\"\" is highly theoretical. In reality, they're going to gripe about their job and cycle through a lot of low wage jobs on their way back to Wal-Mart again. I don't know if you've worked with low skill workers before, but there's a reason they are where they are. They're not these noble creatures from Steinbeck novels. I worked at quite a few of these low wage jobs while putting myself through college. These are the people who show up hungover to work. These are the people who work for a few weeks and then suddenly flip out for seemingly no reason at all. These are the people who, when told to perform a task, say, \"\"No one tells me what to do.\"\" That's what the check is for dummy. That's what a job is. These are the same people who sat in the back of the classroom in school and talked shit about how the teacher was stupid; school was stupid; they didn't need that shit to be successful. They are mostly ignorant and filled with overweaning pride, which they've been told they should have not for accomplishments, but for simply existing. When you've actually been around the poor masses for a while—raised around them as I was as a child—you stop idealizing and objectifying them. They're not all bad workers, but most of them are *bad* at working. These are those soft skills that you were talking about. Wal-Mart raising wages won't make those people good workers. It'll put them out of a job. Wal-Mart only hires those people, because they're a bargain. If they're forced to raise wages tomorrow, most of those people are going to be cycled out and replaced with higher skill workers, like you would prefer. At the very least, Wal-Mart would start hiring higher skill workers to replace their lower skill workers. So what problem have you solved? Do the low skill workers now have magically more wages? No. They're low skill and wages are higher. They've been priced out of the market. &gt; But I must note that a good cashier enhances the shopping experience, rather than simply being a human scantron. You obviously come from a different place. I think you'd be shocked by how many of us would like exactly that. Don't be surprised when Wal-Mart moves to rfid tags and get's rid of cashiers altogether.\"" }, { "docid": "189920", "title": "", "text": "\"That amount of shares is too low to create \"\"ripples\"\" in the market. Usually you don't specify the price to sell the stock, unless you are personally on the floor trading the securities. And even then, with a volume of $50,000 it would just mean you threw away $45,000. For most people it would mean setting a $5 sell order, and the broker would understand that as \"\"sell this security so long the price is above $5\"\". When you get to the trading volume required to influence the price, usually you are also bound by some regulations banning some moves. One of them is the Pump and Dump, and even if you are suggesting the opposite, it might be in preparation of this scam. Also, the software used for High Frequency Trading (what all the cool kids[a] in Wall Street are using these days) employ advanced (and proprietary) heuristics to analyze the market and make thousands of trades in a short interval of time. On HTF's speed: Decisions happen in milliseconds, and this could result in big market moves without reason. So a human trader attempting to manipulate the market versus these HTF setups, would be like a kid in a tricile attempting to outrun the Flash (DC comics). [a] Cool Kid: not really kids, more like suited up sharks. Money-eating sharks.\"" }, { "docid": "495007", "title": "", "text": "I suspect that the times you are referring to are those times when there is relatively low volumes of foreign exchange trading. Lower volumes of trading make it possible for large orders to have a disproportionate effect on the market price. This implies that the times to avoid will be the times with the lowest relative volumes. This will occur on the cusp between the New York market winding down and the Asia/Tokyo market revving up. This will be in the hours preceding Tokyo's opening at 06:00 Tokyo time, so the time to avoid is about 04:00-06:00 Tokyo time, or about 20:00-22:00 GMT (if I've worked out the time difference correctly). Foreign exchange is a 24 hour, global market. Although each of the three main trading centres - London, New York, Asia - will operate 24 hours a day, they will maintain only a skeleton staff outside of normal working hours. The time difference between London and New York is only 5 hours, so there is no period of time when both centres are operating with a skeleton staff. The time difference between London and Tokyo is 8 hours, so again there is no period of time when both centres are operating with a skeleton staff. The time difference between New York and Tokyo is 13 hours. This does include a period where both centres are operating with a skeleton staff, as well as London operating on a skeleton staff. Thus, in the couple of hours immediately preceding Tokyo's opening for the regular trading day there is minimal coverage in each of the three main trading centres. As mentioned above, this is the time when large orders can have a disproportionate effect on fx rates and so this is the time to avoid." }, { "docid": "499735", "title": "", "text": "\"Wow... where to start... Your ad hominem attack was when you shifted away from the discussion and started questioning me on whether or not I had been around low-skilled workers and even going as far as to give a judgment on if was around average people. The definition is \"\"(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.\"\" You went away from the topic, and instead directed your argument at me, which has nothing to do with my position on minimum wage. You seek to discredit me as to say my views are invalid because, in your opinion, I haven't had enough experience with low skill workers. It doesn't matter if I have or hadn't, one's experience or lack thereof with low skilled workers doesn't make their position any more wrong or right. This is a textbook example of ad hominem. Your straw man was when you shifted the position to suggest things I didn't say in order to argue against them. The definition is \"\"an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.\"\" You say I assumed things I never even mentioned, such as your claim that I would say rich people didn't earn their success and that poor people were not at fault for their low achievement. Once again, no where did I suggest this and this suggestion by you strayed away from my argument on paying people a live-able wage. Basically one could say this was brought up by you to argue about something you felt would be easier to defeat. There were clear reasons I threw those fallacies out. You condescendingly tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, yet you don't even get it right and overlook everything that was stated... smh Your whole response keeps proving my point. Once again, you are so focused on whether I've had experience working with or managing people (nice goal post moving btw), as if that makes your position more qualified (ad hominem again), when the reality is I can have a rational thought about something by reading up on logical and rational positions on this and seeing what the statistics and research say. Oh by the way, I have had multiple economics classes in college, did you? I read up and studied this stuff and aced my tests and papers on it. So now what? Does my collegiate-backed economics understanding now outweigh the fact you just simply hired some low skilled workers? There are many topics out there you and I have no experience with but we can have a well thought out position on them because we talk to experts and read up on the research. Let me restate this again, just because you have more experience with low skill labor does not make you any more qualified over me to have a smart, logical, and rational understanding of the effects of raising the minimum wage. The same with the fact that just because I probably have had more collegiate studies on economics than you, it doesn't mean my position is any more right than yours or someone else's. &gt;You read a study that is incredibly biased and take it to the grave. This gave me a laugh because it's the equivalent of \"\"your arguments don't agree with mine so clearly your's is the biased one.\"\" Dude, we all are biased and stand for things. You are just as biased as me. I don't have to give equal time to every position out there as if both are equal. It's often a false equivalence to do so anyways. For example the idea that \"\"we should not raise minimum wage more because poor people are lazy and undeserving\"\" does not deserve the same consideration as \"\"inflation has caused the purchasing power of workers on the minimum wage to decrease to levels where they cannot afford to live and thus now must seek out tax-payer backed public assistance programs in order to make ends meet, so a solution would be to raise the minimum wage.\"\" Last, your argument against raising the minimum wage comes down to \"\"I don't think they deserve it because some people don't work hard.\"\" And my response is, I don't give a shit. If someone works that job, no matter how low-skilled it is, they deserve to be paid at a level that is live-able. Other than that, it's their fault if they don't do a good job and get fired. Have you ever considered why the minimum wage came about in the first place? It was to keep businesses in check because they were taking advantage of people and paying them poor wages. Wages were so low that some would argue they were technically \"\"slave wages.\"\" Yet as inflation rises and the purchasing power falls, instead of bumping those wages back up, people like you sit there and are like \"\"Nah, they are lazy and don't deserve it. Trust me. I know a guy that's lazy that works those jobs. He's dumb too and doesn't have a high school diploma.\"\" You argument one again is just attacking their character with no consideration of statistical analysis and the economic effect of a change in the minimum wage. Now to step away from the whole argument, you and I have different values. You don't value people at low-skilled levels, as if their job is almost worthless, yet you need them for your business. Sure, you smile and say hello to the guy that brings you your burger or your coffee, but the reality is you mostly don't care about him. In your mind, if he only makes $7.25 then you have the right to assume that he doesn't work hard and is undeserving of proper pay, unless he's proven it in some way to you. Your mindset is a problem because you are okay with stereotyping people, and then you assume whatever negative traits about them that you can as your justification for it. *I don't give a shit about how many houses have been built in Houston or how many painters your friend brought to Seattle. It's completely irrelevant to all of this.\"" }, { "docid": "517750", "title": "", "text": "As of now in 2016, is is safe to assume that mortgage rates would/should not get back to 10%? What would the rates be in future is speculation. It depends on quite a few things, overall economy, demand / supply, liquidity in market etc ... Chances are less that rates would show a dramatic rise in near future. Does this mean that one should always buy a house ONLy when mortgage rates are low? Is it worth the wait IF the rates are high right now? Nope. House purchase decision are not solely based on interest rates. There are quite a few other aspects to consider, the housing industry, your need, etc. Although interest rate do form one of the aspect to consider specially affordability of the EMI. Is refinancing an option on the table, if I made a deal at a bad time when rates are high? This depends on the terms of current mortgage. Most would allow refinance, there may be penal charges breaking the current mortgage. Note refinance does not always mean that you would get a better rate. Many mortgages these days are on variable interest rates, this means that they can go down or go up. How can people afford 10% mortgage? Well if you buy a small cheaper [Less expensive] house you can afford a higher interest rate." }, { "docid": "81652", "title": "", "text": "In summary, you are correct that the goal of investing is to maximize returns, while paying low management fees. Index investing has become very popular because of the low fees. There are many actively traded mutual funds out there with very high management fees of 2.5% and up that do not beat the market. This begs the question of why you are paying high management fees and not just investing in index funds. Consider maxing out your tax sheltered accounts (401(k) and ROTH IRA) to avoid even more fees on your returns. Also consider having a growth component of your portfolio which is generally filled with equity, along with a secure component for assets such as bonds. Bonds may not have the exciting returns of equity, but they help to smooth out the volatility of your portfolio, which may help to keep peace of mind when the market dips." }, { "docid": "391605", "title": "", "text": "\"Should I invest the money I don't need immediately and only withdraw it next year when I need it for living expenses or should I simply leave it in my current account? This might come as a bit of a surprise, but your money is already invested. We talk of investment vehicles. An investment vehicle is basically a place where you can put money and have it either earn a return, or be able to get it back later, or both. (The neither case is generally called \"\"spending\"\".) There are also investment classes which are things like cash, stocks, bonds, precious metals, etc.: different things that you can buy within an investment vehicle. You currently have the money in a bank account. Bank accounts currently earn very low interest rates, but they are also very liquid and very secure (in the sense of being certain that you will get the principal back). Now, when you talk about \"\"investing the money\"\", you are probably thinking of moving it from where it is currently sitting earning next to no return, to somewhere it can earn a somewhat higher return. And that's fine, but you should keep in mind that you aren't really investing it in that case, only moving it. The key to deciding about an asset allocation (how much of your money to put into what investment classes) is your investment horizon. The investment horizon is simply for how long you plan on letting the money remain where you put it. For money that you do not expect to touch for more than five years, common advice is to put it in the stock market. This is simply because in the long term, historically, the stock market has outperformed most other investment classes when looking at return versus risk (volatility). However, money that you expect to need sooner than that is often recommended against putting it in the stock market. The reason for this is that the stock market is volatile -- the value of your investment can fluctuate, and there's always the risk that it will be down when you need the money. If you don't need the money within several years, you can ride that out; but if you need the money within the next year, you might not have time to ride out the dip in the stock market! So, for money that you are going to need soon, you should be looking for less volatile investment classes. Bonds are generally less volatile than stocks, with government bonds generally being less volatile than corporate bonds. Bank accounts are even less volatile, coming in at practically zero volatility, but also have much lower expected rates of return. For the money that you need within a year, I would recommend against any volatile investment class. In other words, you might take whichever part you don't need within a year and put in bonds (except for what you don't foresee needing within the next half decade or more, which you can put in stocks), then put the remainder in a simple high-yield deposit-insured savings account. It won't earn much, but you will be basically guaranteed that the money will still be there when you want it in a year. For the money you put into bonds and stocks, find low-cost index mutual funds or exchange-traded funds to do so. You cannot predict the future rate of return of any investment, but you can predict the cost of the investment with a high degree of accuracy. Hence, for any given investment class, strive to minimize cost, as doing so is likely to lead to better return on investment over time. It's extremely rare to find higher-cost alternatives that are actually worth it in the long term.\"" }, { "docid": "133158", "title": "", "text": "&gt; We're talking about low paying jobs.. and if there's more applicants than jobs than why are staffing companies HUGE right now? Yeah I'm talking about low paying also. Staffing companies are huge because you can try before you buy. Understand? Your argument just fell apart. Just because there is correlation, it doesn't mean they are related. ***We have tons of illegals and even more unemployed people*** &gt; . Because can't fill the jobs like they want. There's absolutely a ton of demand for low paying workers all around. Lets see some proof because there is no shortage in most of the country unless you're talking about the ones on farms possibly. We have an extremely high unemployment rate. &gt; Places can't keep or find people even to stay for a month. Maybe thats because they are drug addicted losers or shitty workers. Ever thought of that? That doesn't mean there is a shortage of employees, there is a shortage of good ones &gt; Anyone that's ever applied knows these places also end up having tons of overtime because they don't have enough help Wrong, zero evidence and its clearly wrong. No one wants to give these people benefits so they often don't even hire them as full time in any medium-large size company &gt; Your idea is to take all three of illegals , felons and potheads out of jobs yet somehow still filll these jobs that staffing companies have been trying to fill. In LA, we have no shortage and it applies to tons of places. Throw the illegals out, they don't belong here. Felons, someone can hire them, I won't. Potheads, someone will hire them too, but I won't hire someone that comes to work high, lacks motivation, and is not happy. I want employees that want to work and want to grow. With those type of employees, not only do businesses grow and become more successful, but those employees can get promoted and do better in life. I want my employees to do well in life because to me, the good ones are family." } ]

[ { "docid": "382236", "title": "", "text": "\"The most common use of non-deductible Traditional IRA contributions these days, as JoeTaxpayer mentioned, is as an intermediate step in a \"\"backdoor Roth IRA contribution\"\" -- contribute to a Traditional IRA and then immediately convert it to a Roth IRA, which, if you had no previous pre-tax money in Traditional or other IRAs, is a tax-free process that achieves the same result as a regular Roth IRA contribution except that there are no income limits. (This is something you should consider since you are unable to directly contribute to a Roth IRA due to income limits.) Also, I want to note that your comparison is only true assuming you are holding tax-efficient assets, ones where you get taxed once at the end when you take it out. If you are holding tax-inefficient assets, like an interest-bearing CD or bond or a stock that regularly produces dividends, in a taxable account you would be taxed many times on that earnings, and that would be much worse than with the non-deductible Traditional IRA, where you would only be taxed once at the end when you take it out.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "452592", "title": "", "text": "You are already doing everything you can. If your employer does not have a 401(k) you are limited to investing in a Roth or a traditional IRA (Roth is post tax money, traditional IRA gives you a deduction so it is essentially pre tax money). The contribution limits are the same for both and contributing to either adds to the limit (so you can't duplicate). CNN wrote an article on some other ways to save: One thing you may want to bring up with your employer is that they could set up a SEP-IRA. This allows them to set a % (up to 25%) that they contribute pre-tax to an IRA for everyone at the company that has worked there at least 3 years. If you are at a small company, maybe everyone with that kind of seniority would take an equivalent pay cut to get the automatic retirement contribution? (Note that a SEP-IRA has to apply to everyone equally percentage wise that has worked there for 3 years, and the employer makes the contribution, not you)." }, { "docid": "329497", "title": "", "text": "You are right; Rollover is a process, and not an account type; the result is a Traditional IRA. There is no such thing as a 'Rollover IRA Account'. Rolling a 401(k) over to a Traditional IRA makes sense if a) you have to, because you leave the employer the 401(k) is with; b) because you Traditional IRA is cheaper or more flexible or in other ways 'better' for you, or c) if your next step is a backdoor rollover to a Roth IRA. Most of the time, it doesn't make sense, because employer 401(k) are often better and cheaper. Of course, for the investment company where you roll it too, it makes a lot of sense, because they get your money, so they recommend it. But that's only good for them, not for you. Of course you can roll into an existing account, if you want to roll. Making a new account has no advantage. I cannot imagine any IRA custodian wouldn't take rollovers; they would shoot themselves in the foot by that. What can happen - and you should consider this - that your IRA only accepts cash, and does not allow to transfer the shares you have in the 401(k). That means you have to sell and then re-buy, and you might lose a lot in fees there." }, { "docid": "502150", "title": "", "text": "\"The biggest and primary question is how much money you want to live on within retirement. The lower this is, the more options you have available. You will find that while initially complex, it doesn't take much planning to take complete advantage of the tax system if you are intending to retire early. Are there any other investment accounts that are geared towards retirement or long term investing and have some perk associated with them (tax deferred, tax exempt) but do not have an age restriction when money can be withdrawn? I'm going to answer this with some potential alternatives. The US tax system currently is great for people wanting to early retire. If you can save significant money you can optimize your taxes so much over your lifetime! If you retire early and have money invested in a Roth IRA or a traditional 401k, that money can't be touched without penalty until you're 55/59. (Let's ignore Roth contributions that can technically be withdrawn) Ok, the 401k myth. The \"\"I'm hosed if I put money into it since it's stuck\"\" perspective isn't true for a variety of reasons. If you retire early you get a long amount of time to take advantage of retirement accounts. One way is to primarily contribute to pretax 401k during working years. After retiring, begin converting this at a very low tax rate. You can convert money in a traditional IRA whenever you want to be Roth. You just pay your marginal tax rate which.... for an early retiree might be 0%. Then after 5 years - you now have a chunk of principle that has become Roth principle - and can be withdrawn whenever. Let's imagine you retire at 40 with 100k in your 401k (pretax). For 5 years, you convert $20k (assuming married). Because we get $20k between exemptions/deduction it means you pay $0 taxes every year while converting $20k of your pretax IRA to Roth. Or if you have kids, even more. After 5 years you now can withdraw that 20k/year 100% tax free since it has become principle. This is only a good idea when you are retired early because you are able to fill up all your \"\"free\"\" income for tax conversions. When you are working you would be paying your marginal rate. But your marginal rate in retirement is... 0%. Related thread on a forum you might enjoy. This is sometimes called a Roth pipeline. Basically: assuming you have no income while retired early you can fairly simply convert traditional IRA money into Roth principle. This is then accessible to you well before the 55/59 age but you get the full benefit of the pretax money. But let's pretend you don't want to do that. You need the money (and tax benefit!) now! How beneficial is it to do traditional 401ks? Imagine you live in a state/city where you are paying 25% marginal tax rate. If your expected marginal rate in your early retirement is 10-15% you are still better off putting money into your 401k and just paying the 10% penalty on an early withdrawal. In many cases, for high earners, this can actually still be a tax benefit overall. The point is this: just because you have to \"\"work\"\" to get money out of a 401k early does NOT mean you lose the tax benefits of it. In fact, current tax code really does let an early retiree have their cake and eat it too when it comes to the Roth/traditional 401k/IRA question. Are you limited to a generic taxable brokerage account? Currently, a huge perk for those with small incomes is that long term capital gains are taxed based on your current federal tax bracket. If your federal marginal rate is 15% or less you will pay nothing for long term capital gains, until this income pushes you into the 25% federal bracket. This might change, but right now means you can capture many capital gains without paying taxes on them. This is huge for early retirees who can manipulate income. You can have significant \"\"income\"\" and not pay taxes on it. You can also stack this with before mentioned Roth conversions. Convert traditional IRA money until you would begin owing any federal taxes, then capture long term capital gains until you would pay tax on those. Combined this can represent a huge amount of money per year. So littleadv mentioned HSAs but.. for an early retiree they can be ridiculously good. What this means is you can invest the maximum into your HSA for 10 years, let it grow 100% tax free, and save all your medical receipts/etc. Then in 10 years start withdrawing that money. While it sucks healthcare costs so much in America, you might as well take advantage of the tax opportunities to make it suck slightly less. There are many online communities dedicated to learning and optimizing their lives in order to achieve early retirement. The question you are asking can be answered superficially in the above, but for a comprehensive plan you might want other resources. Some you might enjoy:\"" }, { "docid": "59600", "title": "", "text": "It is really hard to tell where you should withdraw money from. So instead, I'll give you some pointers to make it easier for you to make the decision for yourself, while keeping the answer useful to others as well. I have 3 401ks, ... and some has post tax, non Roth money Why keeping 3 401ks? You can roll them over into an IRA or the one 401k which is still active (I assume here you're not currently employed with 3 different employers). This will also help you avoiding fees for too low balances on your IRAs. However, for the 401k with after tax (not Roth) balance - read the next part carefully. Post tax amounts are your basis. Generally, it is not a good idea to keep post-tax amounts in 401k/IRA, you usually do post-tax contributions to convert them to Roth ASAP. Withdrawing from 401k with basis may become a mess since you'll have to account for the basis portion of each withdrawal. Especially if you pool it with IRAs, so that one - don't rollover, keep it separately to make that accounting easier. I also have several smaller IRAs and Roth IRAs, Keep in mind the RMD requirements. Roth IRAs don't have those, and are non-taxable income, so you would probably want to keep them as long as possible. This is relevant for 401k as well. Again, consolidating will help you with the fees. I'm concerned about having easily accessible cash for emergencies. I suggest keeping Roth amounts for this purpose as they're easily accessible and bear no taxable consequence. Other than emergencies don't touch them for as long as you can. I do have some other money in taxable investments For those, consider re-balancing to a more conservative style, but beware of the capital gains taxes if you have a lot of gains accumulated. You may want consider loss-harvesting (selling the positions in the red) to liquidate investments without adverse tax consequences while getting some of your cash back into the checking account. In any case, depending on your tax bracket, capital gains taxes are generally lower (down to 0%) than ordinary income taxes (which is what you pay for IRA/401k withdrawals), so you would probably want to start with these, after careful planning and taking the RMD and the Social Security (if you're getting any) into account." }, { "docid": "568322", "title": "", "text": "There is little advantage to waiting or combining accounts. If it makes sense to put money into a Roth now (which I can easily believe because your current tax rate is crazy low) go ahead and do so. Your later opportunities for investment in a 401(k) do not affect your optimal decision today. There's nothing wrong with having multiple types of retirement accounts and many people do. Over time the best place to put money can change. After retirement you can roll all your Roth style investments into a single Roth IRA and your traditional investments (IRA and 401k) into a single traditional IRA." }, { "docid": "162592", "title": "", "text": "Using the default values for age and retirement and only making the changes you specified in the question. assumed ROR: 6%, current tax rate: 25%, retirement tax rate: 15%, married, have an employer retirement plan. The results from the two calculators are: Traditional IRA: 631,341 IRA before taxes 536,640 IRA after taxes. Roth IRA: 631,341 Roth IRA 450,207 Taxable Savings where: Total taxable savings The total amount you would have accumulated by retirement in a taxable savings account. your question: The (Traditional) IRA After Taxes value is 6.3% higher than the (Roth) Taxable Savings amount. (Both had an equal gross amount.) Does that mean I should put my money in a tIRA instead of a Roth? My percentages don't match your percentages because you didn't specify the numbers you used. In any case the 450K number shows you what you would have if the money was not invested in an IRA or 401K. To decide between a Roth and a traditional IRA ignore the taxable savings number, that only shows what happens if you decide not not use a retirement account." }, { "docid": "264023", "title": "", "text": "\"when you contribute to a 401k, you get to invest pre-tax money. that means part of it (e.g. 25%) is money you would otherwise have to pay in taxes (deferred money) and the rest (e.g. 75%) is money you could otherwise invest (base money). growth in the 401k is essentially tax free because the taxes on the growth of the base money are paid for by the growth in the deferred portion. that is of course assuming the same marginal tax rate both now and when you withdraw the money. if your marginal tax rate is lower in retirement than it is now, you would save even more money using a traditional 401k or ira. an alternative is to invest in a roth account (401k or ira). in which case the money goes in after tax and the growth is untaxed. this would be advantageous if you expect to have a higher marginal tax rate during retirement. moreover, it reduces tax risk, which could give you peace of mind considering u.s. marginal tax rates were over 90% in the 1940's. a roth could also be advantageous if you hit the contribution limits since the contributions are after-tax and therefore more valuable. lastly, contributions to a roth account can be withdrawn at any time tax and penalty free. however, the growth in a roth account is basically stuck there until you turn 60. unlike a traditional ira/401k where you can take early retirement with a SEPP plan. another alternative is to invest the money in a normal taxed account. the advantage of this approach is that the money is available to you whenever you need it rather than waiting until you retire. also, investment losses can be deducted from earned income (e.g. 15-25%), while gains can be taxed at the long term capital gains rate (e.g. 0-15%). the upshot being that even if you make money over the course of several years, you can actually realize negative taxes by taking gains and losses in different tax years. finally, when you decide to retire you might end up paying 0% taxes on your long term capital gains if your income is low enough (currently ~50k$/yr for a single person). the biggest limitation of this strategy is that losses are limited to 3k$ per year. also, this strategy works best when you invest in individual stocks rather than mutual funds, increasing volatility (aka risk). lastly, this makes filing your taxes more complicated since you need to report every purchase and sale and watch out for the \"\"wash sale\"\" rules. side note: you should contribute enough to get all the 401k matching your employer offers. even if you cash out the whole account when you want the money, the matching (typically 50%-200%) should exceed the 10% early withdrawal penalty.\"" }, { "docid": "519129", "title": "", "text": "\"Your confusion is that that answerer is not comparing a $5500 Roth IRA contribution to a $5500 Traditional IRA contribution. Rather, they were comparing a $3600 Roth IRA contribution to a $5000 Traditional IRA contribution. It is fairer to do such a comparison because (assuming that this person's marginal tax rate is 28%) both of them start with the same amount of pre-tax money ($5000 of pre-tax money is equivalent to $3600 of post-tax money in 28% tax bracket). As a result, both a $5000 Traditional IRA contribution and a $3600 Roth IRA contribution will leave you with the same amount of cash in your bank account at the end (after taxes are filed). That's why it's a fair comparison. And when you do such a comparison, it will mathematically indeed always turn out to the same result for Traditional and Roth if the contribution and withdrawal are at the same tax rate. On the other hand, if you were to compare a $5000 Roth IRA contribution to a $5000 Traditional IRA contribution, even though it's the same nominal dollar figure, you would be comparing apples and oranges because in one case it's a post-tax dollar amount and in the other case a pre-tax dollar amount. The Roth IRA contribution actually leaves you with less in your bank account at the end (after taxes are filed) than the same nominal dollar amount of Traditional IRA contribution. So you are comparing an (effectively) \"\"larger\"\" Roth IRA contribution to a \"\"smaller\"\" Traditional IRA contribution. Of course the \"\"larger\"\" contribution gets more tax advantages over time, and so the result looks better. Note that since Traditional IRA contribution and Roth IRA contributions share the same nominal dollar amount annual limit, but we know that $1 of Roth IRA contributions is effectively larger than $1 of Traditional IRA contributions, that means that Roth IRA contributions has an effectively \"\"higher\"\" annual limit than Traditional IRA contributions. For example, a $5500 Traditional IRA contribution is equivalent to a $3960 Roth IRA contribution for someone in the 28% bracket; whereas a $5500 Roth IRA contribution would be equivalent to a $7638.89 Traditional IRA contribution, which you can't do. So it's not possible to do a fair comparison when you go near the limit. If it is important to you to tax-advantage the \"\"largest\"\" amount of money, then that is a reason to go for Roth IRA, since it has an effectively higher annual limit. You cannot replicate the tax advantage of a $5500 Roth IRA contribution with a Traditional IRA contribution, because that money in pre-tax dollars is beyond the limit of a Traditional IRA contribution.\"" }, { "docid": "308150", "title": "", "text": "\"If I understand correctly, the Traditional IRA, if you have 401k with an employer already, has the following features: Actually, #1 and #2 are characteristics of Roth IRAs, not Traditional IRAs. Only #3 is a characteristic of a Traditional IRA. Whether you have a 401(k) with your employer or not makes absolutely no difference in how your IRAs are taxed for the vast majority of people. (The rules for IRAs are different if you have a very high income, though). You're allowed to have and contribute to both kinds of accounts. (In fact, I personally have both). Traditional IRAs are tax deferred (not tax-free as people sometimes mistakenly call them - they're very different), meaning that you don't have to pay taxes on the contributions or profits you make inside the account (e.g. from dividends, interest, profits from stock you sell, etc.). Rather, you pay taxes on any money you withdraw. For Roth IRAs, the contributions are taxed, but you never have to pay taxes on the money inside the account again. That means that any money you get over and above the contributions (e.g. through interest, trading profits, dividends, etc.) are genuinely tax-free. Also, if you leave any of the money to people, they don't have to pay any taxes, either. Important point: There are no tax-free retirement accounts in the U.S. The distinction between different kinds of IRAs basically boils down to \"\"pay now or pay later.\"\" Many people make expensive mistakes in their retirement strategy by not understanding that point. Please note that this applies equally to Traditional and Roth 401(k)s as well. You can have Roth 401(k)s and Traditional 401(k)s just like you can have Roth IRAs and Traditional IRAs. The same terminology and logic applies to both kinds of accounts. As far as I know, there aren't major differences tax-wise between them, with two exceptions - you're allowed to contribute more money to a 401(k) per year, and you're allowed to have a 401(k) even if you have a high income. (By way of contrast, people with very high incomes generally aren't allowed to open IRAs). A primary advantage of a Traditional IRA is that you can (in theory, at least) afford to contribute more money to it due to the tax break you're getting. Also, you can defer taxes on any profits you make (e.g. through dividends or selling stock at a profit), so you can grow your money faster.\"" }, { "docid": "384564", "title": "", "text": "tl;dr: Please please please do the conversion first. JoeTaxpayer's answer is correct, but I am of the opposite opinion. First, there's just about no reason to have post-tax dollars in a Traditional IRA. You'll eventually have to pay tax on the earnings those dollars generate, so it's essentially the same as having that money in a regular taxable account. Meanwhile, if you roll those dollars into a Roth IRA, you get to earn tax-free money on them for the rest of your life (and even after your death)! Second, even if you did have some reason for keeping those post-tax dollars where they are, the last thing you ever want to do is mix them with pre-tax dollars (from, say, your 401k). As soon as you mix them, all the dollars become subject to pro-rata taxation (as Joe mentioned), so any future decision you were planning to make about what to do with just your post-tax dollars is moot -- you have given away your right to think separately about your pre- and post-tax dollars. As an example, let's say the accounts you want to combine look like this: In the future you decide you want to move $2,000 from the above account into a Roth. Because you mixed the money, the IRS insists that your rollover consists of: So now you owe tax (and it's regular income tax, I believe, not even capital gains tax) on $1,500. That was money that you socked away specifically to avoid taxes, and now you've gone and paid taxes on it! Now, there are valid arguments for intentionally moving pre-tax dollars from a Traditional to a Roth like this, but the point is that you shouldn't even have to be having that argument -- you have post-tax dollars in your Traditional IRA that almost certainly belong in a Roth. By mixing your 401k into your Traditional IRA, you can no longer do anything with just the post-tax dollars. The IRS will forever insist that you do these pro-rated calculations. Say in the future you suddenly realize that a Roth is much better for your financial situation than a Traditional IRA. (Or you might still prefer a Traditional IRA, but as explained in the next sentence it's not available to you.) Unfortunately, because you're covered by a (new) 401k -- or maybe because you earn too much money to contribute pre-tax dollars to either a Traditional or Roth IRA -- you're out of luck. You're simply not allowed to contribute to a Roth. Most people in this situation can make use of what's called a back-door Roth. They contribute up to the maximum amount per year ($5,500 or whatever it is now) post-tax to a Traditional IRA and then immediately roll it over to their Roth. You can still try this, but guess what? Yep, because you're mixing these new post-tax dollars with pre-tax money in your Traditional IRA, every year your rollover will be tainted with that pre-tax money, diluting the whole point of the back-door Roth. You'll be paying taxes on money you never wanted to pay taxes on, and you'll be leaving post-tax money behind in your traditional IRA. (If it sounds like I'm annoyed about this situation from personal experience, it's because I am. :) By doing the conversion first, you never mix pre- and post-tax money, and your money goes where you want it. Of course, assuming you eventually do roll over your 401(k) into a Traditional IRA, the Really Annoying Consequence above will still plague you, but at least you'll have cleanly converted that first post-tax amount." }, { "docid": "446226", "title": "", "text": "\"First off, high five on the paycheck. There are a few retirement issues to deal with. 401k issues - At that income level, you will probably fall into the \"\"Highly Compensated Employee\"\" category, which means things get a little more complicated, both for you and your employer. (Wikipedia link) IRA issues - As you already realized, you make too much to directly open and contribute to a Roth IRA. You can open a Traditional IRA, however. Your income is already over the limit for Traditional IRA deduction (bummer), so it would seem there is little point to opening an IRA at all. However, there is a way to take advantage of a Roth IRA, even at your income level. It is possible to convert a Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. There used to be income limits on the ability to do the conversion, which would have normally made this off limits to you. Starting in 2010, the income limit is removed, so you can do this. Basically, you open a Traditional IRA, max it out, then convert it to a Roth. Since there was no income deduction, you shouldn't have to pay any more taxes. (link) Disclaimer: I've never tried this, nor do I know anyone who has, so you might want to research it a bit more before you try it yourself.\"" }, { "docid": "152603", "title": "", "text": "Don't forget inflation. With a Roth 401k (or IRA), you don't pay any taxes on inflationary or real gains. You pay taxes at the beginning and then no more taxes (unless you invest money after you distributed from it). With a regular, taxable investment account (not a 401k or IRA), you pay taxes on the initial amount. And then you pay taxes on the gains, both inflationary and real. So you effectively pay taxes on the inflated principal twice. Once at initial earning and once when it shows up as inflationary gains. I'll give an example later. With a traditional 401k (or IRA), you pay no taxes on the initial amount. You pay taxes on the distributed amount. That includes taxes on gains, but it only taxes them once, not twice. All the taxes are paid at distribution time. Here's a semirealistic example. This is not a real example with real numbers, but the numbers shouldn't be ridiculously off. They could happen. I'm going to ignore variation and pretend that all the numbers will be the same each year so as to simplify the math. So you pay a 25% marginal tax rate and want to invest $12,000 plus any tax savings. Roth: $12,000 principal Traditional IRA (Trad): $16,000 principal with $4000 in tax savings Taxable Investment Account (TIA): $12,000 principal Let's assume that you make an 8% rate of return and inflation is 3%. Both numbers are possible, although higher and lower numbers have occurred in the past. That gives you returns of $960 for the Roth and TIA cases and a return of $1280 for the Trad case. Pay no annual taxes on the Roth or Trad cases. Pay 25% marginal tax on the TIA case, that's $240. Balances after one year: Roth: $12,960 Trad: $17,280 TIA: $12,720 Inflation decreases the value of the Roth and TIA cases by $360 in the Roth and TIA cases. And by $480 in the Trad case. Ten years of inflationary gains (cumulative): Roth: $5354 Trad: $7138 TIA: $4872 Net buildup (including inflationary gains): Roth: $25,907 Trad: $34,543 TIA: $23,168 Real value (minus inflation to maintain spending power): Roth: $20,554 Trad: $27,405 TIA: $18,109 Now take out $3000 per year, after taxes. That's $3000 in the the Roth and TIA cases, as you already paid the taxes. In the Trad case, that's $4000 because you have to pay 25% tax which will cost $1000. Do that for five years and the new balances are Roth: $9931 Trad: $13,241 TIA: $5973 The TIA will run out in the 8th year. The Roth and Trad will both run out in the 9th year. So to summarize. The Traditional IRA initially grows the most. The TIA grows the least. The TIA is tax-advantaged over the Traditional IRA at that point, but it still runs out first. The Roth IRA grows about the same as the Traditional after taxes are included. Note that I left out the matching contribution from a 401k. That would help both those options. I assumed that the marginal tax rate would be 25% on the Traditional IRA distributions. It might be only 15%, which would increase the advantage of the Traditional IRA. I assumed that the 15% rate on capital returns would still be true for the entire period. If that is increased, the TIA option gets a lot worse. Inflation could be higher or lower. As stated earlier, the TIA account is hit the worst by inflation." }, { "docid": "462481", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll add 2 observations regarding current answers. Jack nailed it - a 401(k) match beats all. But choose the right flavor account. You are currently in the 15% bracket (i.e. your marginal tax rate, the rate paid on the last taxed $100, and next taxed $100.) You should focus on Roth. Roth 401(k) (and if any company match, that goes into a traditional pretax 401(k). But if they permit conversions to the Roth side, do it) You have a long time before retirement to earn your way into the next tax bracket, 25%. As your income rises, use the deductible IRA/ 401(k) to take out money pretax that would otherwise be taxed at 25%. One day, you'll be so far into the 25% bracket, you'll benefit by 100% traditional. But why waste the opportunity to deposit to Roth money that's taxed at just 15%? To clarify the above, this is the single rate table for 2015: For this discussion, I am talking taxable income, the line on the tax return designating this number. If that line is $37,450 or less, you are in the 15% bracket and I recommend Roth. Say it's $40,000. In hindsight on should put $2,550 in a pretax account (Traditional 401(k) or IRA) to bring it down to the $37,450. In other words, try to keep the 15% bracket full, but not push into 25%. Last, after enough raises, say you at $60,000 taxable. That, to me is \"\"far into the 25% bracket.\"\" $20,000 or 1/3 of income into the 401(k) and IRA and you're still in the 25% bracket. One can plan to a point, and then use the IRA flavors to get it dead on in April of the following year. To Ben's point regarding paying off the Student Loan faster - A $33K income for a single person, about to have the new expense of rent, is not a huge income. I'll concede that there's a sleep factor, the long tern benefit of being debt free, and won't argue the long term market return vs the rate on the loan. But here we have the probability that OP is not investing at all. It may take $2000/yr to his 401(k) capture the match (my 401 had a dollar for dollar match up to first 6% of income). This $45K, after killing the card, may be his only source for the extra money to replace what he deposits to his 401(k). And also serve as his emergency fund along the way.\"" }, { "docid": "27495", "title": "", "text": "There are a couple reasons for having a Traditional or Roth IRA in addition to a 401(k) program in general, starting with the Traditional IRA: With regards to the Roth IRA: Also, both the Traditional and Roth IRA allow you to make a $10,000 withdraw as a first time home buyer for the purposes of buying a home. This is much more difficult with the 401(k) and generally you end up having to take a loan against the 401(k) instead. So even if you can't take advantage of the tax deductions from contributions to a Traditional IRA, there are still good reasons to have one around. Unless you plan on staying with the same company for your entire career (and even if you do, they may have other plans) the Traditional IRA tends to be a much better place to park the funds from the 401(k) than just rolling them over to a new employer. Also, don't forget that just because you can't take deductions for the income doesn't mean that you might not need the income that savings now will bring you in retirement. If you use a retirement savings calculator is it saying that you need to be saving more than your current monthly 401(k) contributions? Then odds are pretty good that you also need to be adding additional savings and an IRA is a good location to put those assets because of the other benefits that they confer. Also, some people don't have the fiscal discipline to not use the money when it isn't hard to get to (i.e. regular savings or investment account) and as such it also helps to ensure you aren't going to go and spend the money unless you really need it." }, { "docid": "237457", "title": "", "text": "\"One difference is in the ability to split the pre-tax and after-tax portions of the Traditional account. (Note that earnings in a Traditional IRA or Traditional 401(k) are always pre-tax, even if it was earned from after-tax money, so if you left the money for some amount of time after an after-tax contribution, chances are it's a mix of pre-tax and after-tax money.) When you take money out of a Traditional IRA, including for conversion to a Roth IRA, you are generally subject to the \"\"pro-rata rule\"\", which means that your withdrawal will consist of pre-tax and after-tax amounts in the same proportion as in your whole Traditional IRA. This means that a conversion of a Traditional IRA with any mix of pre-tax and after-tax amounts, will always be taxed on a portion of the withdrawal (the pre-tax portion), and it will leave some after-tax amounts in the Traditional IRA unless you take everything out. The only way to separate the pre-tax and after-tax amounts is to roll over to a Traditional 401(k) (if you have a 401(k) plan that allows this); rules say that only pre-tax amounts can be rolled over into a 401(k), so only pre-tax amounts are rolled over, and if you roll over all the pre-tax amounts, only after-tax amounts will remain. On the other hand, when you rollover your entire Traditional 401(k) to IRAs, you can choose to have the pre-tax portion rolled over to a Traditional IRA and the after-tax portion rolled over to a Roth IRA, separating them, due to IRS Notice 2014-54.\"" }, { "docid": "576263", "title": "", "text": "\"Does your current 401(k) have low fees and good investment choices? If so you might be able to \"\"roll-in\"\" your rollover IRA to your 401(k), then do a backdoor Roth IRA contribution. A Roth IRA would be far more useful than a non-deductible traditional IRA.\"" }, { "docid": "388021", "title": "", "text": "Post-86 After tax contributions to a 401k are after tax. The earnings on that money is taxable, but not the contributions. This means: You'll have $15,000 in the 401k and $10,000 is considered after-tax and $5,000 is considered pre-tax. The after-tax portion can be converted to a Roth IRA without paying taxes or penalties. New in September 2014 The IRS has made substantial changes that now enable this to happen. You can request a distribution from your 401k provider where they divide the money into pre-tax and after-tax funds. In my example, you'd get a check for $10,000 that you could send to a Roth IRA and a check for $5,000 you could add to a traditional Roll-over IRA. Neither of those would be taxable events and you'd end with a Roth IRA with $10K and a Traditional, Rollover IRA with $5K in it. Notes:" }, { "docid": "520924", "title": "", "text": "I would definitely recommend contributing to an IRA. You don't know for sure you'll get hired full-time and be eligible for the 401(k) with match, so you should save for retirement on your own. I would recommend Roth over Traditional IRA in your situation, because let's say you do get hired full-time. Since the company offers a retirement plan, your 2015 Traditional IRA contribution would no longer be deductible at your income level (assuming you're single), and non-deductible Traditional IRAs aren't a very good deal (see here and here). If there's a decent chance you would get hired, this factor would override the pre-tax versus post-tax debate for me. At your income level you could go either way on that anyway. A Solo 401(k) would be worth looking into if you wanted to increase your contribution limit beyond what IRAs offer, but given that it sounds like you're just starting out saving for retirement, and you may be eligible for a 401(k) soon, it's probably overkill at this point." }, { "docid": "387906", "title": "", "text": "I would like to bring up some slightly different points than the ones raised in the excellent answers from JoeTaxpayer and littleadv. The estate can be the beneficiary of an IRA -- indeed, as has been pointed out, this is the default beneficiary if the owner does not specify a beneficiary -- but a testamentary trust cannot be the designated beneficiary of an IRA. A testamentary trust that meets the requirements laid out on page 36 of Publication 590 is essentially a pass-through entity that takes distributions from the IRA and passes them on to the beneficiaries. For the case being considered here of minor beneficiaries, the distributions from the IRA that pass through the trust must be sent to the legal guardians (or other custodians) of the minors' UTMA accounts, and said guardians must invest these sums for the benefit of the minors and hand the monies over when the minors reach adulthood. Minors are not responsible for their support, and so these monies cannot be used by the legal guardian for oaying the minors' living expenses except as provided for in the UTMA regulations. When the minors become adults, they get all the accumulated value on their UTMA accounts, and can start taking the RMDs personally after that, and blowing them on motorcycles if they wish. Thus, the advantage of the testamentary trust is essentially that it lets the trustee of the trust to decide how much money (over and above the RMD) gets distributed each year. The minors and soon-to-be young adults cannot take the entire IRA in a lump sum etc but must abide by the testamentary trustee's ideas of whether extra money (over and above the RMD) should be taken out in any given year. How much discretion is allowed to the trustee is also something to be thought through carefully. But at least the RMD must be taken from the IRA and distributed to the minors' UTMA accounts (or to the persons as they reach adulthood) each year. Regardless of whether the Traditional IRA goes to beneficiaries directly or through a testamentary trust, its value (as of the date of death) is still included in the estate, and estate tax might be due. However, beneficiaries can deduct the portion of estate tax paid by the estate from the income tax that they have to pay on the IRA withdrawals. Estate planning is very tricky business, and even lawyers very competent in estate and trust issues fall far short in their understanding of tax law, especially income tax law." } ]

[ { "docid": "152096", "title": "", "text": "The simplest answer is that you can convert the IRA to a Roth, and since it was already taxed, pay no tax on conversion. If, in your hypothetical situation, you happen to have an IRA already in place, you are subject to pro-rata rules on conversions, e.g. your balance is total $40K, $10K 'not deducted', a conversion is 75% taxed, convert $20K and the tax is on $15K of that money. But, there also might be a time when you are able to transfer IRA money into a 401(k), effectively removing the pretax deposits, and leaving just post tax money for a free conversion." } ]

[ { "docid": "446226", "title": "", "text": "\"First off, high five on the paycheck. There are a few retirement issues to deal with. 401k issues - At that income level, you will probably fall into the \"\"Highly Compensated Employee\"\" category, which means things get a little more complicated, both for you and your employer. (Wikipedia link) IRA issues - As you already realized, you make too much to directly open and contribute to a Roth IRA. You can open a Traditional IRA, however. Your income is already over the limit for Traditional IRA deduction (bummer), so it would seem there is little point to opening an IRA at all. However, there is a way to take advantage of a Roth IRA, even at your income level. It is possible to convert a Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. There used to be income limits on the ability to do the conversion, which would have normally made this off limits to you. Starting in 2010, the income limit is removed, so you can do this. Basically, you open a Traditional IRA, max it out, then convert it to a Roth. Since there was no income deduction, you shouldn't have to pay any more taxes. (link) Disclaimer: I've never tried this, nor do I know anyone who has, so you might want to research it a bit more before you try it yourself.\"" }, { "docid": "568322", "title": "", "text": "There is little advantage to waiting or combining accounts. If it makes sense to put money into a Roth now (which I can easily believe because your current tax rate is crazy low) go ahead and do so. Your later opportunities for investment in a 401(k) do not affect your optimal decision today. There's nothing wrong with having multiple types of retirement accounts and many people do. Over time the best place to put money can change. After retirement you can roll all your Roth style investments into a single Roth IRA and your traditional investments (IRA and 401k) into a single traditional IRA." }, { "docid": "508219", "title": "", "text": "\"Basically, the idea of an IRA is that the money is earned by you and would normally be taxed at the individual rate, but the government is allowing you to avoid paying the taxes on it now by instead putting it in the account. This \"\"tax deferral\"\" encourages retirement savings by reducing your current taxable income (providing a short-term \"\"carrot\"\"). However, the government will want their cut; specifically, when you begin withdrawing from that account, the principal which wasn't taxed when you put it in will be taxed at the current individual rate when you take it out. When you think about it, that's only fair; you didn't pay taxes on it when it came out of your paycheck, so you should pay that tax once you're withdrawing it to live on. Here's the rub; the interest is also taxed at the individual rate. At the time, that was a good thing; the capital gains rate in 1976 (when the Regular IRA was established) was 35%, the highest it's ever been. Now, that's not looking so good because the current cap gains rate is only 15%. However, these rates rise and fall, cap gains more than individual rates, and so by contributing to a Traditional IRA you simplify your tax bill; the principal and interest is taxed at the individual rate as if you were still making a paycheck. A Roth IRA is basically the government trying to get money now by giving up money later. You pay the marginal individual rate on the contributions as you earn them (it becomes a \"\"post-tax deduction\"\") but then that money is completely yours, and the kicker is that the government won't tax the interest on it if you don't withdraw it before retirement age. This makes Roths very attractive to retirement investors as a hedge against higher overall tax rates later in life. If you think that, for any reason, you'll be paying more taxes in 30 years than you would be paying for the same money now, you should be investing in a Roth. A normal (non-IRA) investment account, at first, seems to be the worst of both worlds; you pay individual tax on all earned wages that you invest, then capital gains on the money your investment earns (stock gains and dividends, bond interest, etc) whenever you cash out. However, a traditional account has the most flexibility; you can keep your money in and take your money out on a timeline you choose. This means you can react both to market moves AND to tax changes; when a conservative administration slashes tax rates on capital gains, you can cash out, pay that low rate on the money you made from your account, and then the money's yours to spend or to reinvest. You can, if you're market- and tax-savvy, use all three of these instruments to your overall advantage. When tax rates are high now, contribute to a traditional IRA, and then withdraw the money during your retirement in times where individual tax rates are low. When tax rates are low (like right now), max out your Roth contributions, and use that money after retirement when tax rates are high. Use a regular investment account as an overage to Roth contributions when taxes are low; contribute when the individual rate is low, then capitalize and reinvest during times when capital gains taxes are low (perhaps replacing a paycheck deduction in annual contributions to a Roth, or you can simply fold it back into the investment account). This isn't as good as a Roth but is better than a Traditional; by capitalizing at an advantageous time, you turn interest earned into principal invested and pay a low tax on it at that time to avoid a higher tax later. However, the market and the tax structure have to coincide to make ordinary investing pay off; you may have bought in in the early 90s, taking advantage of the lowest individual rates since the Great Depression. While now, capital gains taxes are the lowest they've ever been, if you cash out you may not be realizing much of a gain in the first place.\"" }, { "docid": "457249", "title": "", "text": "\"It is not an either/or decision. If you \"\"want to retire decades early\"\", then you will need to have a taxable account anyway, as you won't be able to stuff enough money into the tax-advantaged accounts to meet that goal. And if you are \"\"making a huge sum\"\", then you will be in a high tax bracket and so the tax advantages of saving into a 401K or IRA will be substantial. So, max out your 401K/IRA, and then save the rest into the taxable brokerage account. When you retire at 39, live off your taxable account until you are old enough to tap the other ones without penalty. Unless you plan to die decades early, as well as retire decades early. In that case, you can bypass the 401K/IRA.\"" }, { "docid": "538462", "title": "", "text": "Assuming that the conversion was completely non-taxable (i.e. your Traditional IRA was 100% basis), then the converted money can be taken out at any time whatsoever (no 5 year or age stuff), without tax or penalty, similar to directly contributed money. For withdrawing conversions and rollovers within 5 years of the conversion or rollover, the penalty only applies to the part of the conversion or rollover that was taxable. Since in this case the conversion was completely non-taxable, there is no penalty on the withdrawal. However, note that the ordering of the conversion money is not the same as for contribution money, and this may be significant in some cases. When you take money out of Roth IRA, it goes 1) contributions, 2) rollovers and conversions, and 3) earnings. However, money within (2) is then further divided by year, with rollovers and contributions for earlier years ordered before rollovers and contributions for later years, and then within each year, the taxable rollover and conversion money are ordered first, before the non-taxable money. So what does that mean? Well, suppose you made a Roth IRA conversion that was taxable one year, and then the next year you make a contribution. If you withdraw a little bit, it comes from the contribution which is ordered first, which means no penalty. Now suppose in that second year you had a backdoor Roth IRA contribution instead of a regular contribution. If you withdraw, the first year's conversion is ordered first, and since it's within 5 years, there's a penalty. It's still true that withdrawing the backdoor Roth IRA has no penalty; but, you don't get to that money until you finish the other one. If you've never made a taxable conversion before, then this issue doesn't exist." }, { "docid": "520924", "title": "", "text": "I would definitely recommend contributing to an IRA. You don't know for sure you'll get hired full-time and be eligible for the 401(k) with match, so you should save for retirement on your own. I would recommend Roth over Traditional IRA in your situation, because let's say you do get hired full-time. Since the company offers a retirement plan, your 2015 Traditional IRA contribution would no longer be deductible at your income level (assuming you're single), and non-deductible Traditional IRAs aren't a very good deal (see here and here). If there's a decent chance you would get hired, this factor would override the pre-tax versus post-tax debate for me. At your income level you could go either way on that anyway. A Solo 401(k) would be worth looking into if you wanted to increase your contribution limit beyond what IRAs offer, but given that it sounds like you're just starting out saving for retirement, and you may be eligible for a 401(k) soon, it's probably overkill at this point." }, { "docid": "527010", "title": "", "text": "\"the deadline for roth conversions is december 31st. more precisely, roth conversions are considered to have happened in the tax year the distribution was taken. this creates a kind of loop hole for people who do an ira rollover (not a trustee-to-trustee transfer). technically, you can take money out of your traditional ira on december 31st and hold it for 60 days before deciding to roll it over into either another traditional ira or a roth ira. if you decide to put it in another traditional account, it is not a taxable event. but if you decide to put it in a roth account, the \"\"conversion\"\" is considered to have happened in december. unfortunately non-trustee rollovers are tricky. for one, the source trustee will probably take withholding that you will have to make up with non-ira funds. and rollovers are limitted to a certain number per year. also, if you miss the 60-day deadline, you will have to pay an early-withdrawal penalty (with some exceptions). if you really want to push the envelope, you could try to do this with a 60-day-rule extension, but i wouldn't try it. source: https://www.irs.gov/publications/p590a/ch01.html oddly, recharacterizations (basically reverse roth conversions) have a deadline of october 15th of the year after the original roth conversion it is reversing. so, you could do the conversion in december, then you have up to 10 months to change your mind and \"\"undo\"\" the conversion with a \"\"recharacterization\"\". again, this is tricky business. at the very least, you should be aware that the tax calculations for recharacterization are different if you convert the funds into a new empty roth account vs an existing roth account with a previous balance. honestly, if you want to get into the recharacterization business, you can probably save more on taxes by converting in january before 20-month stock market climb rather than simply converting in the year your tax brackets are low. that is the typical recharacterization strategy. source: https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Retirement-Plans-FAQs-regarding-IRAs-Recharacterization-of-Roth-Rollovers-and-Conversions\"" }, { "docid": "459589", "title": "", "text": "Yes, you may make non-deductible contributions to an IRA. The main benefit of a non-deductible IRA is tax-deferred earnings. If the investment pays out dividends, they will be kept in the IRA (whether you take them in cash and put them in a Cash Management Account, or you automatically reinvest them). You do not get taxed on these earnings until you withdraw from the IRA during retirement. If your income at that time is significantly lower than your income while you're working, you will be in a lower tax bracket (unless tax rates change drastically between now and then), so the taxes you pay on these earnings will be lower than if you'd invested outside the IRA and paid taxes along the way. You also get the benefit of compounding of the tax-deferred earnings. There's one caveat -- when you withdraw from the IRA, all the growth is treated as ordinary income. Even if some of it is capital gains, it will be taxed at your ordinary income rate, not your capital gains rate. So this is most beneficial for investments that produce dividends. If you have a mix of deductible and non-deductible contributions to your IRA, the tax on the principle portion of your withdrawals is pro-rated based on the ratio of deductible to total contributions. This ensures that you eventually get taxed for the deductible portion (it's not really tax-free, it's tax-deferred), but don't get taxed twice for the non-deductible portion. Another option, if your 401(k) plan allows it, is to make after-tax contributions to the 401(k). At the end of the year, you can make an in-service distribution of these contributions and their earnings from the 401(k) to a Roth Conversion IRA. This allows you to contribute to a Roth IRA even if you're above the income limit for normal Roth IRA contributions. You can also do this even if you're also making non-deductible contributions to your regular IRA." }, { "docid": "475397", "title": "", "text": "There is no advantage to using one type of account or the other if you are in the same tax bracket at retirement that you are in during your working years. However, for tax planning reasons, it is good to have some money in both a Roth and a traditional IRA plan. JoeTaxpayer has often advocated a good rule of thumb to use a Roth when your tax bracket is 15% or lower, and use a traditional account when in the 25% bracket or above. The reason for this rule of thumb is that you are less likely to be in the higher tax bracket when you are living off retirement savings unless you put away an awful lot of money between now and then. If you are making enough money to be paying a 25% marginal rate on some of the money you would be putting away for retirement, then by all means, put all of that money in a traditional 401k. If after contributing that portion of your savings taxed at the higher rate, you still have money to put away for retirement, put the rest in a Roth and pay the 15% taxes on it. When you are younger, it is likely that you are making less than you will a few years hence, and it is also likely that a larger portion of your income will be paying tax deductible interest on a mortgage. If those are true for you, then by all means, use the Roth. That was true of me when I was single and just getting started. When you do finally retire, it is possible that the tax brackets will be increased to match inflation, and if so, then there is no benefit to having tax free money at retirement vs. paying taxes on deferred accounts, but there is also usually more flexibility in when to spend money. You may find that you have a year where you have to spend a lot, so it is good to be able to pull money out without it increasing your marginal rate for that year, and other years where you spend relatively smaller amounts, and you can withdraw taxable money and pay a lower rate on that money. No one knows what the tax code will look like in 40 years, but having some money in each type of account will give you flexibility to minimize your tax bill at retirement." }, { "docid": "27495", "title": "", "text": "There are a couple reasons for having a Traditional or Roth IRA in addition to a 401(k) program in general, starting with the Traditional IRA: With regards to the Roth IRA: Also, both the Traditional and Roth IRA allow you to make a $10,000 withdraw as a first time home buyer for the purposes of buying a home. This is much more difficult with the 401(k) and generally you end up having to take a loan against the 401(k) instead. So even if you can't take advantage of the tax deductions from contributions to a Traditional IRA, there are still good reasons to have one around. Unless you plan on staying with the same company for your entire career (and even if you do, they may have other plans) the Traditional IRA tends to be a much better place to park the funds from the 401(k) than just rolling them over to a new employer. Also, don't forget that just because you can't take deductions for the income doesn't mean that you might not need the income that savings now will bring you in retirement. If you use a retirement savings calculator is it saying that you need to be saving more than your current monthly 401(k) contributions? Then odds are pretty good that you also need to be adding additional savings and an IRA is a good location to put those assets because of the other benefits that they confer. Also, some people don't have the fiscal discipline to not use the money when it isn't hard to get to (i.e. regular savings or investment account) and as such it also helps to ensure you aren't going to go and spend the money unless you really need it." }, { "docid": "402523", "title": "", "text": "HSAs are very similar to IRAs. Any investment returns grow tax-deferred and once you reach age 59 1/2 65, you can withdraw the funds for any purpose (subject to ordinary income tax), just like a traditional IRA. If you can afford to do so, I would recommend you to pay medical expenses out-of-pocket and let the funds in your HSA accumulate and grow. In general, the best way to allocate your funds is in the following order: Contribute to a 401(k) if your employer matches funds at a substantial rate Pay off high-interest debt (8% of more in current environment in 2011) Contribute to an IRA (traditional or Roth) Contribute to an HSA Contribute to a 401(k) without the benefit of employer matching One advantage of HSAs versus IRAs is that you don't have to have earned income (salary or self-employment income) in order to contribute. If you derive income solely from rents, interest or dividends, you can contribute the maximum amount ($3,050 for individuals in 2011) and get a full deduction from your income (Of course, you will need to maintain a high-deductible health plan in order to qualify). One downside of HSAs is the lack of competitively priced providers. Wells Fargo offers HSAs for free, but only allows you to keep your funds in cash, earning a very measly interest rate, or invest them in rather mediocre and expensive Wells Fargo mutual funds. Vanguard, known for its low-fee investment options, provides HSAs through a partner company, but the account maintenance charges are still quite high. Overall, HSAs are a worthwhile option as part of your investment plan." }, { "docid": "67393", "title": "", "text": "\"He will receive it just like any other non-spouse beneficiary you could have named. The money can stay in your 401K account if he wants to keep it there. For simplicity, your nephew will want to roll the money over to another qualified account, such as an IRA. The account must be titled in your name, for the benefit of him as beneficiary (aka, \"\"beneficiary IRA\"\"). Regardless of where the money is kept, he will be required to start withdrawing the funds a little bit each year, known as the Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) and it will appear as taxable income to him each year. There is no early withdrawal penalty in this case. Optionally, he can stretch out his RMDs over his own life expectancy. He would do this to lower his potential tax obligation, and to keep the money in his account longer, hopefully growing over time. See Publication 590-B , Distributions from IRA.\"" }, { "docid": "395840", "title": "", "text": "If you exceed the income limit for deducting a traditional IRA (which is very low if you are covered by a 401(k) ), then your IRA options are basically limited to a Roth IRA. The Cramer person probably meant to compare 401(k) and IRA from the same pre-/post-tax-ness, so i.e. Traditional 401(k) vs. Traditional IRA, or Roth 401(k) vs. Roth IRA. Comparing a Roth investment against a Traditional investment goes into a whole other topic that only confuses what is being discussed here. So if deducting a traditional IRA is ruled out, then I don't think Cramer's advice can be as simply applied regarding a Traditional 401(k). (However, by that logic, and since most people on 401(k) have Traditional 401(k), and if you are covered by a 401(k) then you cannot deduct a Traditional IRA unless you are super low income, that would mean Cramer's advice is not applicable in most situations. So I don't really know what to think here.)" }, { "docid": "187571", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "110114", "title": "", "text": "All data for a single adult in tax year 2010. Roth IRA 401K Roth 401k Traditional IRA and your employer offers a 401k Traditional IRA and your employer does NOT offer a 401k So, here are your options. If you have a 401k at work, you could max that out. If you make close to $120K, you could reduce your AGI enough to contribute to a Roth IRA. If you do not have a 401k at work, you could contribute to a Traditional IRA and deduct the $5K from your AGI similar to how a 401k works. Other than that, I think you are looking at investing outside of a retirement plan which means more flexibility, but no tax advantage." }, { "docid": "265973", "title": "", "text": "They're wrong, and it's easy to show that if you pay the same % in taxes then you end up the same either way. If you have an initial investment of 10k, an effective tax rate of 25%, and gains of 10% a year, here are the numbers: You invest 10k into a traditional. After 50 years, you have $1,173,908. After paying taxes, you end up with $880,431. You invest 10k into a Roth. After paying the taxes, your initial investment is $7500. After 50 years, you have $880,431 - the same you have with the traditional. The advantage from the Roth comes from two things - the assumption that taxes are lower now for you than they will be in the future (a good bet, given that taxes are relatively low in the US) and the ability to have a mix of taxable and non-taxable income to draw from in retirement to lower your effective tax rate (draw down the taxable up to a certain tax bracket then use your non-taxable above that)." }, { "docid": "237457", "title": "", "text": "\"One difference is in the ability to split the pre-tax and after-tax portions of the Traditional account. (Note that earnings in a Traditional IRA or Traditional 401(k) are always pre-tax, even if it was earned from after-tax money, so if you left the money for some amount of time after an after-tax contribution, chances are it's a mix of pre-tax and after-tax money.) When you take money out of a Traditional IRA, including for conversion to a Roth IRA, you are generally subject to the \"\"pro-rata rule\"\", which means that your withdrawal will consist of pre-tax and after-tax amounts in the same proportion as in your whole Traditional IRA. This means that a conversion of a Traditional IRA with any mix of pre-tax and after-tax amounts, will always be taxed on a portion of the withdrawal (the pre-tax portion), and it will leave some after-tax amounts in the Traditional IRA unless you take everything out. The only way to separate the pre-tax and after-tax amounts is to roll over to a Traditional 401(k) (if you have a 401(k) plan that allows this); rules say that only pre-tax amounts can be rolled over into a 401(k), so only pre-tax amounts are rolled over, and if you roll over all the pre-tax amounts, only after-tax amounts will remain. On the other hand, when you rollover your entire Traditional 401(k) to IRAs, you can choose to have the pre-tax portion rolled over to a Traditional IRA and the after-tax portion rolled over to a Roth IRA, separating them, due to IRS Notice 2014-54.\"" }, { "docid": "240651", "title": "", "text": "First of all an IRA is a type of account that says nothing about how your money is invested. It seems like you are trying to compare an IRA with a market ETF (like Vanguard Total Market Admiral VTSAX), but the reality is that you can have both. Depending on your IRA some of the investment options may be limited, but you will probably be able to find some version of a passive fund following an index you are interested in. The IRA account is tax advantaged, but you may invest the money in your IRA in an ETF. As for how often a non-IRA account is taxed and how much, that depends on how often you sell. If you park your money in an ETF and do not sell, the IRS will not claim any taxes from it. The taxable event happens when you sell. But if you gain $1000 in a year and a day and you decide to sell, you will owe $150 (assuming 15% capital gains tax), bringing your earnings down to $850. If your investments go poorly and you lose money, there will be no capital gains tax to pay." }, { "docid": "225282", "title": "", "text": "\"If you have already maxed your TSP contributions, the \"\"401k\"\" for military folks, you could consider a Traditional IRA contribution. They are tax-deductible, based on some limits, so it may reduce your tax liability. Many online services (Vanguard, Fidelity, etc.) offer quick and free setup of Traditional IRA accounts. If you have already maxed the Traditional IRA as well, you could look at making taxable investments through an online service. Like homer150mw, I would recommend low-cost funds. For reasons why, see this article by John Bogle.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "300721", "title": "", "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." } ]

[ { "docid": "502150", "title": "", "text": "\"The biggest and primary question is how much money you want to live on within retirement. The lower this is, the more options you have available. You will find that while initially complex, it doesn't take much planning to take complete advantage of the tax system if you are intending to retire early. Are there any other investment accounts that are geared towards retirement or long term investing and have some perk associated with them (tax deferred, tax exempt) but do not have an age restriction when money can be withdrawn? I'm going to answer this with some potential alternatives. The US tax system currently is great for people wanting to early retire. If you can save significant money you can optimize your taxes so much over your lifetime! If you retire early and have money invested in a Roth IRA or a traditional 401k, that money can't be touched without penalty until you're 55/59. (Let's ignore Roth contributions that can technically be withdrawn) Ok, the 401k myth. The \"\"I'm hosed if I put money into it since it's stuck\"\" perspective isn't true for a variety of reasons. If you retire early you get a long amount of time to take advantage of retirement accounts. One way is to primarily contribute to pretax 401k during working years. After retiring, begin converting this at a very low tax rate. You can convert money in a traditional IRA whenever you want to be Roth. You just pay your marginal tax rate which.... for an early retiree might be 0%. Then after 5 years - you now have a chunk of principle that has become Roth principle - and can be withdrawn whenever. Let's imagine you retire at 40 with 100k in your 401k (pretax). For 5 years, you convert $20k (assuming married). Because we get $20k between exemptions/deduction it means you pay $0 taxes every year while converting $20k of your pretax IRA to Roth. Or if you have kids, even more. After 5 years you now can withdraw that 20k/year 100% tax free since it has become principle. This is only a good idea when you are retired early because you are able to fill up all your \"\"free\"\" income for tax conversions. When you are working you would be paying your marginal rate. But your marginal rate in retirement is... 0%. Related thread on a forum you might enjoy. This is sometimes called a Roth pipeline. Basically: assuming you have no income while retired early you can fairly simply convert traditional IRA money into Roth principle. This is then accessible to you well before the 55/59 age but you get the full benefit of the pretax money. But let's pretend you don't want to do that. You need the money (and tax benefit!) now! How beneficial is it to do traditional 401ks? Imagine you live in a state/city where you are paying 25% marginal tax rate. If your expected marginal rate in your early retirement is 10-15% you are still better off putting money into your 401k and just paying the 10% penalty on an early withdrawal. In many cases, for high earners, this can actually still be a tax benefit overall. The point is this: just because you have to \"\"work\"\" to get money out of a 401k early does NOT mean you lose the tax benefits of it. In fact, current tax code really does let an early retiree have their cake and eat it too when it comes to the Roth/traditional 401k/IRA question. Are you limited to a generic taxable brokerage account? Currently, a huge perk for those with small incomes is that long term capital gains are taxed based on your current federal tax bracket. If your federal marginal rate is 15% or less you will pay nothing for long term capital gains, until this income pushes you into the 25% federal bracket. This might change, but right now means you can capture many capital gains without paying taxes on them. This is huge for early retirees who can manipulate income. You can have significant \"\"income\"\" and not pay taxes on it. You can also stack this with before mentioned Roth conversions. Convert traditional IRA money until you would begin owing any federal taxes, then capture long term capital gains until you would pay tax on those. Combined this can represent a huge amount of money per year. So littleadv mentioned HSAs but.. for an early retiree they can be ridiculously good. What this means is you can invest the maximum into your HSA for 10 years, let it grow 100% tax free, and save all your medical receipts/etc. Then in 10 years start withdrawing that money. While it sucks healthcare costs so much in America, you might as well take advantage of the tax opportunities to make it suck slightly less. There are many online communities dedicated to learning and optimizing their lives in order to achieve early retirement. The question you are asking can be answered superficially in the above, but for a comprehensive plan you might want other resources. Some you might enjoy:\"" }, { "docid": "162592", "title": "", "text": "Using the default values for age and retirement and only making the changes you specified in the question. assumed ROR: 6%, current tax rate: 25%, retirement tax rate: 15%, married, have an employer retirement plan. The results from the two calculators are: Traditional IRA: 631,341 IRA before taxes 536,640 IRA after taxes. Roth IRA: 631,341 Roth IRA 450,207 Taxable Savings where: Total taxable savings The total amount you would have accumulated by retirement in a taxable savings account. your question: The (Traditional) IRA After Taxes value is 6.3% higher than the (Roth) Taxable Savings amount. (Both had an equal gross amount.) Does that mean I should put my money in a tIRA instead of a Roth? My percentages don't match your percentages because you didn't specify the numbers you used. In any case the 450K number shows you what you would have if the money was not invested in an IRA or 401K. To decide between a Roth and a traditional IRA ignore the taxable savings number, that only shows what happens if you decide not not use a retirement account." }, { "docid": "452592", "title": "", "text": "You are already doing everything you can. If your employer does not have a 401(k) you are limited to investing in a Roth or a traditional IRA (Roth is post tax money, traditional IRA gives you a deduction so it is essentially pre tax money). The contribution limits are the same for both and contributing to either adds to the limit (so you can't duplicate). CNN wrote an article on some other ways to save: One thing you may want to bring up with your employer is that they could set up a SEP-IRA. This allows them to set a % (up to 25%) that they contribute pre-tax to an IRA for everyone at the company that has worked there at least 3 years. If you are at a small company, maybe everyone with that kind of seniority would take an equivalent pay cut to get the automatic retirement contribution? (Note that a SEP-IRA has to apply to everyone equally percentage wise that has worked there for 3 years, and the employer makes the contribution, not you)." }, { "docid": "17633", "title": "", "text": "There can be Federal estate tax as well as State estate tax due on an estate, but it is not of direct concern to you. Estate taxes are paid by the estate of the decedent, not by the beneficiaries, and so you do not owe any estate tax. As a matter of fact, most estates in the US do not pay Federal estate tax at all because only the amount that exceeds the Federal exemption ($5.5M) is taxable, and most estates are smaller. State estate taxes might be a different matter because while many states exempt exactly what the Federal Government does, others exempt different (usually smaller) amounts. But in any case, estate taxes are not of concern to you except insofar as what you inherit is reduced because the estate had to pay estate tax before distributing the inheritances. As JoeTaxpayer's answer says more succinctly, what you inherit is net of estate tax, if any. What you receive as an inheritance is not taxable income to you either. If you receive stock shares or other property, your basis is the value of the property when you inherit it. Thus, if you sell at a later time, you will have to pay taxes only on the increase in the value of the property from the time you inherit it. The increase in value from the time the decedent acquired the property till the date of death is not taxable income to you. Exceptions to all these favorable rules to you is the treatment of Traditional IRAs, 401ks, pension plans etc that you inherit that contain money on which the decedent never paid income tax. Distributions from such inherited accounts are (mostly) taxable income to you; any part of post-tax money such as nondeductible contributions to Traditional IRAs that is included in the distribution is tax-free. Annuities present another source of complications. For annuities within IRAs, even the IRS throws up its hands at explaining things to mere mortals who are foolhardy enough to delve into Pub 950, saying in effect, talk to your tax advisor. For other annuities, questions arise such as is this a tax-deferred annuity and whether it was purchased with pre-tax money or with post-tax money, etc. One thing that you should check out is whether it is beneficial to take a lump sum distribution or just collect the money as it is distributed in monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, or annual payments. Annuities in particular have heavy surrender charges if they are terminated early and the money taken as a lump sum instead of over time as the insurance company issuing the annuity had planned on happening. So, taking a lump sum would mean more income tax immediately due not just on the lump sum but because the increase in AGI might reduce deductions for medical expenses as well as reduce the overall amount of itemized deductions that can be claimed, increase taxability of social security benefits, etc. You say that you have these angles sussed out, and so I will merely re-iterate Beware the surrender charges." }, { "docid": "406239", "title": "", "text": "The benefit is that your earnings in the 401k are not subject to income tax until you make withdrawals. This allows you to grow your money faster than if you made equivalent investments in a taxable account and had to pay taxes on dividends and capital gains along the way. Also, the theory is that you will be in a lower tax bracket in retirement and thus you will pay lower taxes overall. If this is not true (especially if you will be in a higher tax bracket in retirement), then there may not be any advantage for you to contribute to a 401k. One advantage over the Traditional IRA is the higher contribution limit. Some 401k plans also allow you to take loans from the plan, I don't think this is possible with a Traditional IRA. An alternative to both the 401k and Traditional IRA is the Roth version of either plan. With a Roth, you pay taxes up front, but your withdrawals during retirement are tax free." }, { "docid": "119051", "title": "", "text": "You must file as married for 2013 if you were married as of December 31, 2013. It is true that the Roth IRA contribution phaseout for Married Filing Separately is 0 - $10K. But you can still do backdoor Roth IRA contribution (contribute to a Traditional IRA, then convert it to a Roth IRA; assuming you do not have any pre-tax IRAs, this is identical to a Roth IRA contribution). But you already made a Roth IRA contribution for 2013, and did not do the backdoor. Let's assume that you want to turn it into a backdoor Roth IRA contribution, and that you don't have any pre-tax IRAs. There are two ways to do this: Withdraw the Roth IRA you contributed (including earnings). Then, do a normal backdoor Roth IRA contribution (contribute to a Traditional IRA, then immediately convert it to Roth IRA). The earnings you had in the Roth IRA that you withdrew will be treated as normal income and taxed. The conversion will not be taxable because all of the Traditional IRA was non-deductible when you converted. Re-characterize your original Roth IRA contribution as a Traditional IRA contribution, then convert it to Roth IRA. It will be treated as if you made a Traditional IRA contribution originally, and then waited until now to convert. The earnings in the IRA up till now will be taxed on conversion. So in both cases, you will need to pay income tax on the earnings in the account up to now. The difference between the two is in the amount of money in the IRA now. With the first way, you can only contribute $5500 now. With the second way, you will keep the same amount of money you have in the IRA now." }, { "docid": "382894", "title": "", "text": "I'll add this to others: Having non-deductible portion in your IRA requires additional tax forms to be attached to your tax return, and tracking. If you plan to have long-term investments in your non-deductible IRA (such as, say, target funds or long-term stock positions that you expect to hold till retirement) it may be better to keep them in a non-IRA account. This is because the income tax on the withdrawals from the IRA is at ordinary rates, and from the regular investment account is at capital gains rate. While the rates can definitely change, traditionally capital gains rates are significantly lower than the ordinary income bracket rates. So generally I think that having non-deductible IRA deposits is only useful if you're planning a ROTH conversion in a near future." }, { "docid": "492971", "title": "", "text": "\"Whether you contribute to an IRA (Traditional or Roth) and whether you contribute to a 401k (Traditional or Roth) are independent. IRAs have one contribution limit, and 401ks have another contribution limits, and these limits are independent. I see no reason why you wouldn't maximize the amount of money in tax-advantaged accounts, if you can afford to. In your first year of work, especially if you only work for part of the year, you're likely in a lower tax bracket than in the future, so Roth is better than Traditional. Another thing to note is that the money in the Roth IRA can be part of your \"\"safety net\"\" -- contributions to a Roth IRA (but not earnings) can be withdrawn at any time without tax or penalty. So if there is an emergency you can withdraw it, and it wouldn't be any worse than in a taxable account. And if you don't need it, then it will enjoy the tax benefits of being in the IRA.\"" }, { "docid": "126756", "title": "", "text": "The main reasons are that investment are deducted from your gross income and earnings are not taxed until withdrawal. This applies to both traditional IRAs and 401Ks. Roth accounts have different rules but valuable benefits. My effective income tax rate is around 35%. This means that for every $1000 I earn in wage I only get to keep $650. Since my 401K contributions are deferred reductions from my income I can invest 35% more money into my 401K than I would be able to invest in a non-tax-advantaged account. Where I can invest $1000 into my 401K I would only be able to invest $650 into a non-advantaged account with the same wages. If I put $650 into an account yielding 10% then my one-year return on my income is $65 The 10% return on my $1000 is $100. Compared to what I would have been able to take home in the first place this makes my ROI $100/$650 = 15.3% Interest earned in non-advantaged accounts incurs taxes every year. Interest earned in advantaged accounts does not incur taxes until withdrawn. Compounding 10% annually for 20 years is significantly more than 6.5% compounded annually for 20 years. Imagine 10% on a 1000 investment with no additional cash flows over 20 year. The result is $6727, or 672%. Imagine your income tax rate does not reduce below 35%, your after-tax return is 4372, or %437 return. Now imagine you pay taxes every year on 10% take, so your take annually is only 6.5%... Now over 20 years you have $3523 (but you've already paid all taxes on this) and your return is %352 You have earned 24% more money because taxes were deferred until withdrawal! EDIT: Some tabular info for the commenters Your take home from the investment is $3752 because you have diligently paid your taxes every year on the earnings. Now, with the tax deferred until withdrawal! You then owe 35% tax on the withdrawal so you keep 7400 * .65 = $4810 $4810 versus $3750 means you have made an additional $1060, or 28%, from the compounding against tax-advantaged earnings. But Matthew! you say... Annual proceeds from your investments are not taxed at your income tax rate. This is true for now but the political winds are pushing this direction. However, even if you use a reduced rate in the first situation (let's say 30% instead of 35%, if you're a California resident) then the effect is $4140 rather than $3750. Less of a gain, but still a gain. In fact your capital-gains rate would have to be as low as 22% to even this difference out (versus a 35% income tax rate).... And remember that this assumes you're in the same bracket at retirement (which more people are not) You may also note that I used $1000 as the principle in both calculations. This was intentional to show the effects of compounding the taxable earnings alone. If you replace the taxable principle with $650 instead of $1000 then the effect is even more pronounced and only balanced out if your capital gains rate is actually zero!" }, { "docid": "240651", "title": "", "text": "First of all an IRA is a type of account that says nothing about how your money is invested. It seems like you are trying to compare an IRA with a market ETF (like Vanguard Total Market Admiral VTSAX), but the reality is that you can have both. Depending on your IRA some of the investment options may be limited, but you will probably be able to find some version of a passive fund following an index you are interested in. The IRA account is tax advantaged, but you may invest the money in your IRA in an ETF. As for how often a non-IRA account is taxed and how much, that depends on how often you sell. If you park your money in an ETF and do not sell, the IRS will not claim any taxes from it. The taxable event happens when you sell. But if you gain $1000 in a year and a day and you decide to sell, you will owe $150 (assuming 15% capital gains tax), bringing your earnings down to $850. If your investments go poorly and you lose money, there will be no capital gains tax to pay." }, { "docid": "72960", "title": "", "text": "\"What you should do is called \"\"re-characterization\"\". See the instructions for form 8606 for details (that is also the form to use to report the incident). See example 3: You made a contribution to a Roth IRA and later recharacterized part or all of it to a traditional IRA. Report the nondeductible traditional IRA portion, if any, on Form 8606, Part I. If you did not recharacterize the entire contribution, do not report the remaining Roth IRA portion of the contribution on Form 8606. Attach a statement to your return explaining the recharacterization. If the recharacterization occurred in 2012, include the amount transferred from the Roth IRA on Form 1040, line 15a; Form 1040A, line 11a; or Form 1040NR, line 16a. If the recharacterization occurred in 2013, report the amount transferred only in the attached statement, and not on your 2012 or 2013 tax return. You re-characterize it back to traditional IRA contribution, which will not be deductible. You then convert it back to a Roth IRA. Basically you end up at exactly the same place, except that if you already had some gains on that amount - you'll have to pay tax on them now (for the conversion, since because of the re-characterization, it will now be gains in a traditional IRA). You should of course contact your broker to do the re characterization (reassigning of the amount and its gains from a Roth IRA account to a traditional IRA account).\"" }, { "docid": "446226", "title": "", "text": "\"First off, high five on the paycheck. There are a few retirement issues to deal with. 401k issues - At that income level, you will probably fall into the \"\"Highly Compensated Employee\"\" category, which means things get a little more complicated, both for you and your employer. (Wikipedia link) IRA issues - As you already realized, you make too much to directly open and contribute to a Roth IRA. You can open a Traditional IRA, however. Your income is already over the limit for Traditional IRA deduction (bummer), so it would seem there is little point to opening an IRA at all. However, there is a way to take advantage of a Roth IRA, even at your income level. It is possible to convert a Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. There used to be income limits on the ability to do the conversion, which would have normally made this off limits to you. Starting in 2010, the income limit is removed, so you can do this. Basically, you open a Traditional IRA, max it out, then convert it to a Roth. Since there was no income deduction, you shouldn't have to pay any more taxes. (link) Disclaimer: I've never tried this, nor do I know anyone who has, so you might want to research it a bit more before you try it yourself.\"" }, { "docid": "527010", "title": "", "text": "\"the deadline for roth conversions is december 31st. more precisely, roth conversions are considered to have happened in the tax year the distribution was taken. this creates a kind of loop hole for people who do an ira rollover (not a trustee-to-trustee transfer). technically, you can take money out of your traditional ira on december 31st and hold it for 60 days before deciding to roll it over into either another traditional ira or a roth ira. if you decide to put it in another traditional account, it is not a taxable event. but if you decide to put it in a roth account, the \"\"conversion\"\" is considered to have happened in december. unfortunately non-trustee rollovers are tricky. for one, the source trustee will probably take withholding that you will have to make up with non-ira funds. and rollovers are limitted to a certain number per year. also, if you miss the 60-day deadline, you will have to pay an early-withdrawal penalty (with some exceptions). if you really want to push the envelope, you could try to do this with a 60-day-rule extension, but i wouldn't try it. source: https://www.irs.gov/publications/p590a/ch01.html oddly, recharacterizations (basically reverse roth conversions) have a deadline of october 15th of the year after the original roth conversion it is reversing. so, you could do the conversion in december, then you have up to 10 months to change your mind and \"\"undo\"\" the conversion with a \"\"recharacterization\"\". again, this is tricky business. at the very least, you should be aware that the tax calculations for recharacterization are different if you convert the funds into a new empty roth account vs an existing roth account with a previous balance. honestly, if you want to get into the recharacterization business, you can probably save more on taxes by converting in january before 20-month stock market climb rather than simply converting in the year your tax brackets are low. that is the typical recharacterization strategy. source: https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Retirement-Plans-FAQs-regarding-IRAs-Recharacterization-of-Roth-Rollovers-and-Conversions\"" }, { "docid": "576263", "title": "", "text": "\"Does your current 401(k) have low fees and good investment choices? If so you might be able to \"\"roll-in\"\" your rollover IRA to your 401(k), then do a backdoor Roth IRA contribution. A Roth IRA would be far more useful than a non-deductible traditional IRA.\"" }, { "docid": "567255", "title": "", "text": "It sounds like the two best options would be to roll it over into a traditional IRA or roll it over into your new 401(k). If there isn't much money in your SIMPLE IRA, it might make more sense to just roll it over into your 401(k) so you have fewer retirement accounts to keep track of. However, if you do have a significant amount of money in the SIMPLE IRA then you may wish to take advantage of the greater freedom in investment options that IRAs offer over most 401(k) plans. Keep in mind the 2-year rule for SIMPLE IRAs. You will face tax penalties if you roll it and it hasn't yet been 2 years since the SIMPLE IRA was opened." }, { "docid": "396066", "title": "", "text": "Yes, if you can split your income up over multiple years it will be to your advantage over earning it all in one year. The reasons are as you mentioned, you get to apply multiple deductions/credits/exemptions to the same income. Rather than just 1 standard deduction, you get to deduct 2 standard deductions, you can double the max saved in an IRA, you benefit more from any non-refundable credits etc. This is partly due to the fact that when you are filing your taxes in Year 1, you can't include anything from Year 2 since it hasn't happened yet. It doesn't make sense for the Government to take into account actions that may or may not happen when calculating your tax bill. There are factors where other year profit/loss can affect your tax liability, however as far as I know these are limited to businesses. Look into Loss Carry Forwarded/Back if you want to know more. Regarding the '30% simple rate', I think you are confusing something that is simple to say with something that is simple to implement. Are we going to go change the rules on people who expected their mortgage deduction to continue? There are few ways I can think of that are more sure to cause home prices to plummet than to eliminate the Mortgage Interest Deduction. What about removing Student Loan Interest? Under a 30% 'simple' rate, what tools would the government use to encourage trade in specific areas? Will state income tax deduction also be removed? This is going to punish those in a state with a high income tax more than those in states without income tax. Those are all just 'common' deductions that affect a lot of people, you could easily say 'no' to all of them and just piss off a bunch of people, but what about selling stock though? I paid $100 for the stock and I sold it for $120, do I need to pay $36 tax on that because it is a 'simple' 30% tax rate or are we allowing the cost of goods sold deduction (it's called something else I believe when talking about stocks but it's the same idea?) What about if I travel for work to tutor individuals, can I deduct my mileage expenses? Do I need to pay 30% income tax on my earnings and principal from a Roth IRA? A lot of people have contributed to a Roth with the understanding that withdrawals will be tax free, changing those rules are punishing people for using vehicles intentionally created by the government. Are we going to go around and dismantle all non-profits that subsist entirely on tax-deductible donations? Do I need to pay taxes on the employer's cost of my health insurance? What about 401k's and IRA's? Being true to a 'simple' 30% tax will eliminate all 'benefits' from every job as you would need to pay taxes on the value of the benefits. I should mention that this isn't exactly too crazy, there was a relatively recent IRS publication about businesses needing to withhold taxes from their employees for the cost of company supplied food but I don't know if it was ultimately accepted. At the end of the day, the concept of simplifying the tax law isn't without merit, but realize that the complexities of tax law are there due to the complexities of life. The vast majority of tax laws were written for a reason other than to benefit special interests, and for that reason they cannot easily be ignored." }, { "docid": "222836", "title": "", "text": "It sounds like you're comparing (1) the backdoor Roth IRA and (2) the mega backdoor Roth. Although the names are similar they are considerably different, and not mutually exclusive. The goal of the backdoor Roth IRA is to contribute to a Roth IRA even if you are over the income limits. This is accomplished by contributing to a non-deductible Traditional IRA and then converting to Roth. Both of these steps have no income limit (unlike a direct Roth IRA contribution, which does), and only the earnings (which should be minimal) will be taxed. More info here (mirror). The goal of the mega backdoor Roth is to get a lot of money into Roth accounts through salary deferral. This is accomplished by making non-Roth after-tax contributions to your 401(k) after exhausting the $18,000 limit (in 2017) for pre-tax + Roth employee contributions. The after-tax contributions (potentially up to $36,000 for 2017) can be rolled over to the Roth 401(k) or to a Roth IRA, while the earnings can be rolled over to the pre-tax 401(k) or a Traditional IRA, or taxed like regular income and converted to Roth along with the contributions. More info here (mirror)." }, { "docid": "264023", "title": "", "text": "\"when you contribute to a 401k, you get to invest pre-tax money. that means part of it (e.g. 25%) is money you would otherwise have to pay in taxes (deferred money) and the rest (e.g. 75%) is money you could otherwise invest (base money). growth in the 401k is essentially tax free because the taxes on the growth of the base money are paid for by the growth in the deferred portion. that is of course assuming the same marginal tax rate both now and when you withdraw the money. if your marginal tax rate is lower in retirement than it is now, you would save even more money using a traditional 401k or ira. an alternative is to invest in a roth account (401k or ira). in which case the money goes in after tax and the growth is untaxed. this would be advantageous if you expect to have a higher marginal tax rate during retirement. moreover, it reduces tax risk, which could give you peace of mind considering u.s. marginal tax rates were over 90% in the 1940's. a roth could also be advantageous if you hit the contribution limits since the contributions are after-tax and therefore more valuable. lastly, contributions to a roth account can be withdrawn at any time tax and penalty free. however, the growth in a roth account is basically stuck there until you turn 60. unlike a traditional ira/401k where you can take early retirement with a SEPP plan. another alternative is to invest the money in a normal taxed account. the advantage of this approach is that the money is available to you whenever you need it rather than waiting until you retire. also, investment losses can be deducted from earned income (e.g. 15-25%), while gains can be taxed at the long term capital gains rate (e.g. 0-15%). the upshot being that even if you make money over the course of several years, you can actually realize negative taxes by taking gains and losses in different tax years. finally, when you decide to retire you might end up paying 0% taxes on your long term capital gains if your income is low enough (currently ~50k$/yr for a single person). the biggest limitation of this strategy is that losses are limited to 3k$ per year. also, this strategy works best when you invest in individual stocks rather than mutual funds, increasing volatility (aka risk). lastly, this makes filing your taxes more complicated since you need to report every purchase and sale and watch out for the \"\"wash sale\"\" rules. side note: you should contribute enough to get all the 401k matching your employer offers. even if you cash out the whole account when you want the money, the matching (typically 50%-200%) should exceed the 10% early withdrawal penalty.\"" }, { "docid": "175968", "title": "", "text": "\"In a Roth IRA scenario, this $5,000 would be reduced to $3,750 if we assume a (nice and round) 25% tax rate. For the Traditional IRA, the full $5,000 would be invested. No, that's not how it works. Taxes aren't removed from your Roth account. You'll have $5,000 invested either way. The difference is that you'll have a tax deduction if you invest in a traditional IRA, but not a Roth. So you'll \"\"save\"\" $1,250 in taxes up front if you invest in a traditional IRA versus a Roth. The flip side is when you withdraw the money. Since you've already paid tax on the Roth investment, and it grows tax free, you'll pay no tax when you withdraw it. But you'll pay tax on the investment and the gains when you withdraw from a traditional IRA. Using your numbers, you'd pay tax on $2.2MM from the traditional IRA, but NO TAX on $2.2MM from the Roth. At that point, you've saved over $500,000 in taxes. Now if you invested the tax savings from the traditional IRA and it earned the same amount, then yes, you'd end up in the same place in the end, provided you have the same marginal tax rate. But I suspect that most don't invest that savings, and if you withdraw significant amount, you'll likely move into higher tax brackets. In your example, suppose you only had $3,750 of \"\"discretionary\"\" income that you could put toward retirement. You could put $5,000 in a traditional IRA (since you'll get a $1,250 tax deduction), or $3,750 in a Roth. Then your math works out the same. If you invest the same amount in either, though, the math on the Roth is a no-brainer.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "8266", "title": "", "text": "You aren't in trouble yet, but you are certainly on a trajectory to be later. The longer you wait the more painful it will be because you won't have the benefit of time for your money to grow. You may think you will have more disposable income at some point later when things are paid off, but trust me you wont. When college tuition kicks in for that kid, you are going to LAUGH at those student loan amounts as paltry. The wording of your question was confusing because you say in one place that you have no savings, but in another you claim to be putting away around $5k/year. The important point is how much you have saved at this point and how much you are putting in going forward. Some rules of thumb from Fidelity: (Based on your scenario) Take a look at your retirement account. Are you on track for that? It doesn't sound like it. Can you get away with your current plan? Sure, lots of people do, but unless you die young, hit the jackpot in the stock market or lottery, you are probably going to have to live WELL below your current standard of living to make that happen." } ]

[ { "docid": "228488", "title": "", "text": "You say you have 90% in stocks. I'll assume that you have the other 10% in bonds. For the sake of simplicity, I'll assume that your investments in stocks are in nice, passive indexed mutual funds and ETFs, rather than in individual stocks. A 90% allocation in stocks is considered aggressive. The problem is that if the stock market crashes, you may lose 40% or more of your investment in a single year. As you point out, you are investing for the long term. That's great, it means you can rest easy if the stock market crashes, safe in the hope that you have many years for it to recover. So long as you have the emotional willpower to stick with it. Would you be better off with a 100% allocation in stocks? You'd think so, wouldn't you. After all, the stock market as a whole gives better expected returns than the bond market. But keep in mind, the stock market and the bond market are (somewhat) negatively correlated. That means when the stock market goes down, the bond market often goes up, and vice versa. Investing some of your money in bonds will slightly reduce your expected return but will also reduce your standard deviation and your maximum annual loss. Canadian Couch Potato has an interesting write-up on how to estimate stock and bond returns. It's based on your stocks being invested equally in the Canadian, U.S., and international markets. As you live in the U.S., that likely doesn't directly apply to you; you probably ignore the Canadian stock market, but your returns will be fairly similar. I've reproduced part of that table here: As you can see, your expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. With a 20 year window, you likely can recover from any crash. If you have the stomach for it, it's the allocation with the highest expected return. Once you get closer to retirement, though, you have less time to wait for the stock market to recover. If you still have 90% or 100% of your investment in stocks and the market crashes by 44%, it might well take you more than 6 years to recover. Canadian Couch Potato has another article, Does a 60/40 Portfolio Still Make Sense? A 60/40 portfolio is a fairly common split for regular investors. Typically considered not too aggressive, not too conservative. The article references an AP article that suggests, in the current financial climate, 60/40 isn't enough. Even they aren't recommending a 90/10 or a 100/0 split, though. Personally, I think 60/40 is too conservative. However, I don't have the stomach for a 100/0 split or even a 90/10 split. Okay, to get back to your question. So long as your time horizon is far enough out, the expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. Be sure that you can tolerate the risk, though. A 30% or 40% hit to your investments is enough to make anyone jittery. Investing a portion of your money in bonds slightly lowers your expected return but can measurably reduce your risk. As you get closer to retirement and your time horizon narrows, you have less time to recover from a stock market crash and do need to be more conservative. 6 years is probably too short to keep all your money in stocks. Is your stated approach reasonable? Well, only you can answer that. :)" }, { "docid": "532787", "title": "", "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!\"" }, { "docid": "352851", "title": "", "text": "Sorry to hear about your spouse's health issues. May he have a speedy and, as far as possible, full recovery. The Patient Protectection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, aka Obamacare) is now the law of the land. Among its many provisions are that insurers may no longer deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, they may not put lifetime caps on benefits, and they may not charge different premiums based on any criteria except age cohort and geographic area (i.e. rates may be higher for 50 year olds than 30 year olds, but sick and healthy 50 year olds living in the same area pay the same). If he gets government health coverage because he's on disability, this may not matter. On the other hand, you might find it better to put him on your employer's policy, because you like the coverage better, the employer covers part of the dependent premium, or some other reason. In any case, they can't discriminate against him or you based on his condition. ETA: Rates may vary by geography as well as age." }, { "docid": "253545", "title": "", "text": "If your SIMPLE IRA is over two years old then you can roll your money to another qualified account such as a rollover IRA. The usual rollover rules apply. You have 60 days to deposit the funds in another qualified account and you are only allowed one such rollover in a 12 month window. If you are still within two years of opening your SIMPLE IRA, you can roll your funds to a SIMPLE IRA with another vendor, but you would then have to wait until that account is two years old before rolling it elsewhere. If you roll the money another type of IRA before your SIMPLE IRA account is two-years old, and under 59 1/2 years old, you will be subject to a 25% penalty (which is much higher than for other types of accounts). Many of the early distribution exceptions apply such as disability, etc. Edit: The first document linked above covers rules for running a SIMPLE IRA. All the specific regulations linked in the second document apply to all IRAs of all types. There is no specific prohibition from rolling only a portion of the money to another qualified account. There are prohibitions against rolling money more than one time in a 12 month period. The usual obstacle to rolling money from a retirement account--like a 401(k)--is that the 401(k) plan is written to prohibit withdrawals while the employee is still employed at the company." }, { "docid": "368504", "title": "", "text": "Have you looked at conventional financing rather than VA? VA loans are not a great deal. Conventional tends to be the best, and FHA being better than VA. While your rate looks very competitive, it looks like there will be a .5% fee for a refinance on top of other closing costs. If I have the numbers correct, you are looking to finance about 120K, and the house is worth about 140K. Given your salary and equity, you should have no problem getting a conventional loan assuming good enough credit. While the 30 year is tempting, the thing I hate about it is that you will be 78 when the home is paid off. Are you intending on working that long? Also you are restarting the clock on your mortgage. Presumably you have paid on it for a number of years, and now you will start that long journey over. If you were to take the 15 year how much would go to retirement? You claim that the $320 in savings will go toward retirement if you take the 30 year, but could you save any if you took the 15 year? All in all I would rate your plan a B-. It is a plan that will allow you to retire with dignity, and is not based on crazy assumptions. Your success comes in the execution. Will you actually put the $320 into retirement, or will the needs of the kids come before that? A strict budget is really a key component with a stay at home spouse. The A+ plan would be to get the 15 year, and put about $650 toward retirement each month. Its tough to do, but what sacrifices can you make to get there? Can you move your plan a bit closer to the ideal plan? One thing you have not addressed is how you will handle college for the kids. While in the process of long term planning, you might want to get on the same page with your wife on what you will offer the kids for help with college. A viable plan is to pay their room and board, have them work, and for them to pay their own tuition to community college. They are responsible for their own spending money and transportation. Thank you for your service." }, { "docid": "570117", "title": "", "text": "The benefit of the 401K and IRAs are that reallocating and re balancing are easy. They don't want you to move the funds every day, but you are not locked in to your current allocations. The fact that you mentioned in a comment that you also have a Roth IRA means that you should look at all retirements as a whole. Look at what options you have in the 401K and also what options you have with the IRA. Then determine the overall allocation between bonds, stocks, international, REIT, etc. Then use the mix of funds in the IRA and 401K to meet that goal. Asking if the 401K should be small and mid cap only can't be answered without knowing not just your risk tolerances but the total money in the 401K and IRA. Pick an allocation, map the available funds to that allocation. Rebalance every year. But review the allocation in a few years or after a life event such as: change of job, getting married, having kids, or buying a house." }, { "docid": "332373", "title": "", "text": "As others have shown, if you assume that you can get 6% and you invest 15% of a reasonable US salary then you can hit 1 million by the time you retire. If you invest in property in a market like the UK (where I come from...) then insane house price inflation will do it for you as well. In 1968 my parents bought a house for £8000. They had a mortgage on it for about 75% of the value. They don't live there but that house is now valued at about £750,000. Okay, that's close to 60 years, but with a 55 year working life that's not so unreasonable. If you assume the property market (or the shares market) can go on rising forever... then invest in as much property as you can with your 15% as mortgage payments... and watch the million roll in. Of course, you've also got rent on your property portfolio as well in the intervening years. However, take the long view. Inflation will hit what a million is worth. In 1968, a million was a ridiculously huge amount of money. Now it's 'Pah, so what, real rich people have billions'. You'll get your million and it will not be enough to retire comfortably on! In 1968 my parents salaries as skilled people were about £2000 a year... equivalent jobs now pay closer to £50,000... 25x salary inflation in the time. Do that again, skilled professional salary in 60 years of £125000 a year... so your million is actually 4 years salary. Not being relentlessly negative... just suggesting that a financial target like 'own a million (dollars)' isn't a good strategy. 'Own something that yields a decent amount of money' is a better one." }, { "docid": "453639", "title": "", "text": "(All for US.) Yes you (will) have a realized long-term capital gain, which is taxable. Long-term gains (including those distributed by a mutual fund or other RIC, and also 'qualified' dividends, both not relevant here) are taxed at lower rates than 'ordinary' income but are still bracketed almost (not quite) like ordinary income, not always 15%. Specifically if your ordinary taxable income (after deductions and exemptions, equivalent to line 43 minus LTCG/QD) 'ends' in the 25% to 33% brackets, your LTCG/QD income is taxed at 15% unless the total of ordinary+preferred reaches the top of those brackets, then any remainder at 20%. These brackets depend on your filing status and are adjusted yearly for inflation, for 2016 they are: * single 37,650 to 413,350 * married-joint or widow(er) 75,300 to 413,350 * head-of-household 50,400 to 441,000 (special) * married-separate 37,650 to 206,675 which I'd guess covers at least the middle three quintiles of the earning/taxpaying population. OTOH if your ordinary income ends below the 25% bracket, your LTCG/QD income that 'fits' in the lower bracket(s) is taxed at 0% (not at all) and only the portion that would be in the ordinary 25%-and-up brackets is taxed at 15%. IF your ordinary taxable income this year was below those brackets, or you expect next year it will be (possibly due to status/exemption/deduction changes as well as income change), then if all else is equal you are better off realizing the stock gain in the year(s) where some (or more) of it fits in the 0% bracket. If you're over about $400k a similar calculation applies, but you can afford more reliable advice than potential dogs on the Internet. (update) Near dupe found: see also How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket? Also, a warning on estimated payments: in general you are required to pay most of your income tax liability during the year (not wait until April 15); if you underpay by more than 10% or $1000 (whichever is larger) you usually owe a penalty, computed on Form 2210 whose name(?) is frequently and roundly cursed. For most people, whose income is (mostly) from a job, this is handled by payroll withholding which normally comes out close enough to your liability. If you have other income, like investments (as here) or self-employment or pension/retirement/disability/etc, you are supposed to either make estimated payments each 'quarter' (the IRS' quarters are shifted slightly from everyone else's), or increase your withholding, or a combination. For a large income 'lump' in December that wasn't planned in advance, it won't be practical to adjust withholding. However, if this is the only year increased, there is a safe harbor: if your withholding this year (2016) is enough to pay last year's tax (2015) -- which for most people it is, unless you got a pay cut this year, or a (filed) status change like marrying or having a child -- you get until next April 15 (or next business day -- in 2017 it is actually April 18) to pay the additional amount of this year's tax (2016) without underpayment penalty. However, if you split the gain so that both 2016 and 2017 have income and (thus) taxes higher than normal for you, you will need to make estimated payment(s) and/or increase withholding for 2017. PS: congratulations on your gain -- and on the patience to hold anything for 10 years!" }, { "docid": "282379", "title": "", "text": "\"I think there's value in charging family members/friends interest if it will make them take the loan seriously. The problem is that if you're thinking about charging interest because the person seems to be borrowing from you too cavalierly, it may be too late to make them take it seriously. In the situation you describe, if you're concerned about the loans being paid back, I think you need to have a serious conversation with the kids and make it clear you expect them to pay the loans back on whatever schedule you agreed to. If, based on your knowledge of your kids, you think charging interest would help motivate them to do this, great. If not, charging interest is unlikely to accomplish anything that the conversation itself won't accomplish. If you haven't previously outlined a specific schedule or set of expectations for how you want to be paid back, just doing that (in writing) may be enough to make them realize it's not a joke. The conventional wisdom is that you shouldn't lend money to anyone unless you're either a) okay with never being paid back; or b) willing to pursue legal remedies to ensure you're paid back. Most people aren't willing to sue their own family members over small loans, which means in most cases it's not a good idea to loan money to family unless you're \"\"okay with\"\" never being repaid (whatever level of \"\"okay with\"\" makes sense for you). I should note that I don't have kids; my advice here is just how I would handle it if I were considering loaning money to my brother or a close friend or the like. This means I don't really know anything about \"\"teaching the kids about the real world\"\", but I have to say my hunch is that if your kids are 25+ and married, it's too late to radically change their views on how \"\"the real world\"\" works; unless they had a very sheltered early adulthood, they've been living in the real world for too long and will have their own ideas of how it works.\"" }, { "docid": "67276", "title": "", "text": "\"Your real question, \"\"why is this not discussed more?\"\" is intriguing. I think the media are doing a better job bringing these things into the topics they like to ponder, just not enough, yet. You actually produced the answer to How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket? so you understand how it works. I am a fan of bracket topping. e.g. A young couple should try to top off their 15% bracket by staying with Roth but then using pretax IRA/401(k) to not creep into 25% bracket. For this discussion, 2013 numbers, a blank return (i.e. no schedule A, no other income) shows a couple with a gross $92,500 being at the 15%/25% line. It happens that $20K is exactly the sum of their standard deduction, and 2 exemptions. The last clean Distribution of Income Data is from 2006, but since wages haven't exploded and inflation has been low, it's fair to say that from the $92,000 representing the top 20% of earners, it won't have many more than top 25% today. So, yes, this is a great opportunity for most people. Any married couple with under that $92,500 figure can use this strategy to exploit your observation, and step up their basis each year. To littleadv objection - I imagine an older couple grossing $75K, by selling stock with $10K in LT gains just getting rid of the potential 15% bill at retirement. No trading cost if a mutual fund, just $20 or so if stocks. The more important point, not yet mentioned - even in a low cost 401(k), a lifetime of savings results in all gains being turned in ordinary income. And the case is strong for 'deposit to the match but no no more' as this strategy would let 2/3 of us pay zero on those gains. (To try to address the rest of your questions a bit - the strategy applies to a small sliver of people. 25% have income too high, the bottom 50% or so, have virtually no savings. Much of the 25% that remain have savings in tax sheltered accounts. With the 2013 401(k) limit of $17,500, a 40 year old couple can save $35,000. This easily suck in most of one's long term retirement savings. We can discuss demographics all day, but I think this addresses your question.) If you add any comments, I'll probably address them via edits, avoiding a long dialog below.\"" }, { "docid": "81343", "title": "", "text": "\"I disagree with the selected answer. There's no one rule of thumb and certainly not simple ones like \"\"20 cents of every dollar if you're 35\"\". You've made a good start by making a budget of your expected expenses. If you read the Mr. Money Mustache blogpost titled The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement, you will understand that it is usually a mistake to think of your expenses as a fixed percentage of your income. In most cases, it makes more sense to keep your expenses as low as possible, regardless of your actual income. In the financial independence community, it is a common principle that one typically needs 25-30 times one's annual spending to have enough money to sustain oneself forever off the investment returns that those savings generate (this is based on the assumption of a 7% average annual return, 4% after inflation). So the real answer to your question is this: UPDATE Keats brought to my attention that this formula doesn't work that well when the savings rates are low (20% range). This is because it assumes that money you save earns no returns for the entire period that you are saving. This is obviously not true; investment returns should also count toward your 25-times annual spending goal. For that reason, it's probably better to refer to the blog post that I linked to in the answer above for precise calculations. That's where I got the \"\"37 years at 20% savings rate\"\" figure from. Depending on how large and small x and y are, you could have enough saved up to retire in 7 years (at a 75% savings rate), 17 years (at a 50% savings rate), or 37 years! (at the suggested 20% savings rate for 35-year olds). As you go through life, your expenses may increase (eg. starting a family, starting a new business, unexpected health event etc) or decrease (kid wins full scholarship to college). So could your income. However, in general, you should negotiate the highest salary possible (if you are salaried), use the 25x rule, and consider your life and career goals to decide how much you want to save. And stop thinking of expenses as a percentage of income.\"" }, { "docid": "139559", "title": "", "text": "There is another factor to consider when refinancing is the remaining term left on your loan. If you have 20 years left, and you re-fi into another 30 year loan that extends the length that you will be paying off the house for another 10 years. You are probably better off going with 20, or even 15. If this is a new loan, that is less of an issue, although if you moving and buying a house in a similar price range it is still something to consider. My goal is to have my house paid off before I retire (hopefully early semi-retirement around 55)." }, { "docid": "424220", "title": "", "text": "\"short answer: any long term financial planning (~10yrs+). e.g. mortgage and retirement planning. long answer: inflation doesn't really matter in short time frames. on any given day, you might get a rent hike, or a raise, or the grocery store might have a sale. inflation is really only relevant over the long term. annual inflation is tiny (2~4%) compared to large unexpected expenses(5-10%). however, over 10 years, even your \"\"large unexpected expenses\"\" will still average out to a small fraction of your spending (5~10%) compared to the impact of compounded inflation (30~40%). inflation is really critical when you are trying to plan for retirement, which you should start doing when you get your first job. when making long-term projections, you need to consider not only your expected nominal rate of investment return (e.g. 7%) but also subtract the expected rate of inflation (e.g. 3%). alternatively, you can add the inflation rate to your projected spending (being sure to compound year-over-year). when projecting your income 10+ years out, you can use inflation to estimate your annual raises. up to age 30, people tend to get raises that exceed inflation. thereafter, they tend to track inflation. if you ever decide to buy a house, you need to consider the impact of inflation when calculating the total cost over a 30-yr mortgage. generally, you can expect your house to appreciate over 30 years in line with inflation (possibly more in an urban area). so a simple mortgage projection needs to account for interest, inflation, maintenance, insurance and closing costs. you could also consider inflation for things like rent and income, but only over several years. generally, rent and income are such large amounts of money it is worth your time to research specific alternatives rather than just guessing what market rates are this year based on average inflation. while it is true that rent and wages go up in line with inflation in the long run, you can make a lot of money in the short run if you keep an eye on market rates every year. over 10-20 years your personal rate of inflation should be very close to the average rate when you consider all your spending (housing, food, energy, clothing, etc.).\"" }, { "docid": "591705", "title": "", "text": "I would focus first on maxing out your RRSPs (or 401k) each year, and once you've done that, try to put another 10% of your income away into unregistered long term growth savings. Let's say you're 30 and you've been doing that since you graduated 7 years ago, and maybe you averaged 8% p.a. return and an average of $50k per year salary (as a round number). I would say you should have 60k to 120k in straight up investments around age 30. If that's the case, you're probably well on your way to a very comfortable retirement." }, { "docid": "152839", "title": "", "text": "The Trinity study looked at 'safe' withdrawal rates from retirement portfolios. They found it was safe to withdraw 4% of a portfolio consisting of stocks and bonds. I cannot immediately find exactly what specific investment allocations they used, but note that they found a portfolio consisting largely of stocks would allow for the withdrawal of 3% - 4% and still keep up with inflation. In this case, if you are able to fund $30,000, the study claims it would be safe to withdraw $900 - $1200 a year (that is, pay out as scholarships) while allowing the scholarship to grow sufficiently to cover inflation, and that this should work in perpetuity. My guess is that they invest such scholarship funds in a fairly aggressive portfolio. Most likely, they choose something along these lines: 70 - 80% stocks and 20 - 30% bonds. This is probably more risky than you'd want to take, but should give higher returns than a more conservative portfolio of perhaps 50 - 60% stocks, 40 - 50% bonds, over the long term. Just a regular, interest-bearing savings account isn't going to be enough. They almost never even keep up with inflation. Yes, if the stock market or the bond market takes a hit, the investment will suffer. But over the long term, it should more than recover the lost capital. Such scholarships care far more about the very long term and can weather a few years of bad returns. This is roughly similar to retirement planning. If you expect to be retired for, say, 10 years, you won't worry too much about pulling out your retirement funds. But it's quite possible to retire early (say, at 40) and plan for an infinite retirement. You just need a lot more money to do so. $3 million, invested appropriately, should allow you to pull out approximately $90,000 a year (adjusted upward for inflation) forever. I leave the specifics of how to come up with $3 million as an exercise for the reader. :) As an aside, there's a Memorial and Traffic Safety Fund which (kindly and gently) solicited a $10,000 donation after my wife was killed in a motor vehicle accident. That would have provided annual donations in her name, in perpetuity. This shows you don't need $30,000 to set up a scholarship or a fund. I chose to go another way, but it was an option I seriously considered. Edit: The Trinity study actually only looked at a 30 year withdrawal period. So long as the investment wasn't exhausted within 30 years, it was considered a success. The Trinity study has also been criticised when it comes to retirement. Nevertheless, there's some withdrawal rate at which point your investment is expected to last forever. It just may be slightly smaller than 3-4% per year." }, { "docid": "597595", "title": "", "text": "\"**Q: \"\"Why aren't you giving your grandmother children before she dies?\"\"** A: Stop being selfish, it's my life and I decide what I want to do, whenever I want to. **Q: \"\"I bought a house at 23. Why are you still renting?\"\"** A: I want to be very wealthy, and not have my own house owned by a bank for 3/4ths of my life. Worry about your own life. **Q: \"\"Who is going to take care of your parents when we they get old?\"\"** A: I'm going to be doing that, and my parent's retirement will help. I'm going to be able to do that because I decided to be financially intelligent rather than indulge in selfish personal pride and temporary happiness. **Q: \"\"If you don't have X by age Y, then there's something wrong with you\"\"** A: Fuck you, I'm rich. Have fun with your wife and kids while you slave away hoping for a raise someday and pray for the weekends to come. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I've used all of these except the parents getting old situation. Stop letting other people dictate what's important in your life. If your parents are mad that you won't have kids or get married, fuck them. You got a nice loft, an AMG Mercedes, a Lexus, saving for a Lamborghini, and enough money in the bank to make people feel inferior just by looking at your account balance. Not to mention that's it's completely possible to have casual, safe sex with many women nowadays. But hey man, make your family happy and appease society. Lol, hope it works out for you.\"" }, { "docid": "508433", "title": "", "text": "That whole sexual harassment thing isn't really enforced. Most married couples meet at work and it has to start somewhere. If you see a nice piece of ass and there isn't a ring on the finger, go for it. If there is a ring, well, that's makes it a bit more fun. Besides, nobody stays at companies for 30 years anything, the tail you're nailing will most likely move up and out or something." }, { "docid": "402852", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "248536", "title": "", "text": "According to the IRS, you can still put money in your IRA. Here (https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/Retirement-Topics-IRA-Contribution-Limits) they say: Can I contribute to an IRA if I participate in a retirement plan at work? You can contribute to a traditional or Roth IRA whether or not you participate in another retirement plan through your employer or business. However, you might not be able to deduct all of your traditional IRA contributions if you or your spouse participates in another retirement plan at work. Roth IRA contributions might be limited if your income exceeds a certain level. In addition, in this link (https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/IRA-Deduction-Limits), the IRS says: Retirement plan at work: Your deduction may be limited if you (or your spouse, if you are married) are covered by a retirement plan at work and your income exceeds certain levels. The word 'covered' should clarify that - you are not covered anymore in that year, you just got a contribution in that year which was triggered by work done in a previous year. You cannot legally be covered in a plan at an employer where you did not work in that year." } ]

[ { "docid": "11378", "title": "", "text": "You are making close to 200 K a year which is great. The aggressive payments on loans takes out around 30K which is good. The fact that you are not able to save is bad. Rather than pushing off your savings to later, scale down the lifestyle and push the upgrade to lifestyle for later" } ]

[ { "docid": "202459", "title": "", "text": "I don't use a rule of thumb for this. Instead, I use a budget. Throwing money into a savings account for the purpose of building a savings account is okay, but I only put money into a savings account that I have a purpose for. For example, there are bills that come up once a year, such as insurance premiums, property tax, annual subscriptions and memberships, etc. I plan for these in my budget each month, and the money goes into my savings. I also have an emergency fund, which is used in the event that a large, one-time, unexpected expense comes up that I hadn't planned for. I have a goal for how large I want this fund to be, so I put money in savings until it is built up to the level I want it at. There are other long range saving goals I have: my next car, vacation, furniture replacement, technology replacement, etc. Each of these gets some money each month, which goes into savings. I also have retirement savings in the budget, but that doesn't go into the savings account; it gets invested in my retirement account. My point is that instead of arbitrarily choosing a percentage of your income to put into a savings account, think about the purpose of that money. That will help you determine how much needs to be saved, and it will also help motivate you to do so." }, { "docid": "7323", "title": "", "text": "You want to take the hit now. There are tons of calculators out there, but the rule of 70 should be enough to help convince you: Assume you can put an extra $10k in a 401k now, or keep it. If you pay ~30% in taxes, you can have either: A) $7k now, or: B) What $10K will grow to in your 40 years till retirement less taxes at the end. The rule of 70 is a quick, dirty way to calculate compounded returns. It says that if you divide 70 by your assumed return, you get the approximate number of years it will take to double your money. So let's say you assume a 5% rate of return (you can replace that with whatever you want): 1) 70/5 is 14, so you'll double your $10k every 14 years. 2) In 40 years, you'll double your money almost 3 times (2.86) 3) That means you'll end up with almost $80k before taxes 4) Even if we assume the same tax rate at retirement of 30% (odds are decent it's lower, since you'll have less income, presumably), you still have $56k. Whatever you think inflation will be, $56k later is a LOT better than $7k now." }, { "docid": "464080", "title": "", "text": "\"Given that the 6 answers all advocate similar information, let me offer you the alternate scenario - You earn $60K and have an employer offering a 50% match on all deposits. All deposits. (Note, I recently read a Q&A here describing such an offer. If I see it again, I'll link). Let the thought of the above settle in. You think about the fact that $42K isn't a bad salary, and decide to deposit 30%, to gain the full match on your $18K deposit. Now, you budget to live your life, pay your bills, etc, but it's tight. When you accumulate $2000, and a strong want comes up (a toy, a trip, anything, no judgement) you have a tough decision. You think to yourself, \"\"after the match, I am literally saving 45% of my income. I'm on a pace to have the ability to retire in 20 years. Why do I need to save even more?\"\" Your budget has enough discretionary spending that if you have a $2000 'emergency', you charge it and pay it off over the next 6-8 months. Much larger, and you know that your super-funded 401(k) has the ability to tap a loan. Your choice to turn away from the common wisdom has the recommended $20K (about 6 months of your spending) sitting in your 401(k), pretax deposited as $26K, and matched to nearly $40K, growing long term. Note: This is a devil's advocate answer. Had I been the first to answer, it would reflect the above. In my own experience, when I got married, we built up the proper emergency fund. As interest rates fell, we looked at our mortgage balance, and agreed that paying down the loan would enable us to refinance and save enough in mortgage interest that the net effect was as if we were getting 8% on the money. At the same time as we got that new mortgage, the bank offered a HELOC, which I never needed to use. Did we somehow create high risk? Perhaps. Given that my wife and I were both still working, and had similar incomes, it seemed reasonable.\"" }, { "docid": "175463", "title": "", "text": "Michigan's 529 plan offers a wide variety of investment options, ranging from a very conservative guaranteed investment option (currently earning 1.75% interest) to a variety of index-based funds, most of which are considered aggressive. You said that you are unhappy with the 5% you have earned the past year, and that you thought you should be able to get 8% elsewhere. But according to your comment, you have 30% of your money earning a fixed 1.75% rate, and another 40% of your money invested in one of the moderate balanced options (which includes both stocks and bonds). You've only got 30% invested in the more aggressive investments that you seem to be looking for. If you want to be invested more agressively (which is reasonable, since your daughter won't need this money for many years), you can select more aggressive investments inside the 529. Michigan's 529 offers you the ability to deduct up to $10,000 (if you are married filing jointly) of contributions off your Michigan state income tax each year. In addition, the earnings inside the 529 are federally tax-free if the money is spent on college education." }, { "docid": "338703", "title": "", "text": "\"So you're making $150,000 per year and you have $245,000 in debts. You're in your late 30s and have $41,000, or less than 1/3 of a year's pay, put away for retirement. That's a bad situation, but not disastrous. Lots of people have recovered from far worse. But like the old joke goes, when you realize that you're deep in a hole, STOP DIGGING. The worst thing you could do right now is liquidate the few assets you have and go deeper into debt. I don't know where you live or what the housing market is there. But the easy answer is: find a cheaper house. I'm not sure what you mean about \"\"affect the resale value\"\". Yes, if you buy a cheaper house it will have a lower resale value. So what? The days when a house was an investment that would skyrocket in value are over. (And even in those days, it didn't help most people. So when you move, you get a big profit on the sale of your house. But the house you're moving to probably went up by a similar percentage, so you really didn't gain anything.) Even if your house did increase in value, unless you sell it, that doesn't help you make the mortgage payments. It's a paper profit. Get yourself out of debt. Step 1 is to stop taking on new debts. And if at all possible, you should be putting bare minimum 6% into your retirement plan. I don't know where you work, but most employers match some percentage of the first 6% you put in. If you don't take advantage of that, you're giving up free money.\"" }, { "docid": "479213", "title": "", "text": "\"Concise answers to your questions: Depends on the loan and the bank; when you \"\"accelerate\"\" repayment of a loan by applying a pre-payment balance to the principal, your monthly payment may be reduced. However, standard practice for most loan types is that the repayment schedule will be accelerated; you'll pay no less each month, but you'll pay it off sooner. I can neither confirm nor deny that an internship counts as job experience in the field for the purpose of mortgage lending. It sounds logical, especially if it were a paid internship (in which case you'd just call it a \"\"job\"\"), but I can't be sure as I don't know of anyone who got a mortgage without accruing the necessary job experience post-graduation. A loan officer will be happy to talk to you and answer specific questions, but if you go in today, with no credit history (the student loan probably hasn't even entered repayment) and a lot of unknowns (an offer can be rescinded, for instance), you are virtually certain to be denied a mortgage. The bank is going to want evidence that you will make good on the debt you have over time. One $10,000 payment on the loan, though significant, is just one payment as far as your credit history (and credit score) is concerned. Now, a few more reality checks: $70k/yr is not what you'll be bringing home. As a single person without dependents, you'll be taxed at the highest possible withholdings rate. Your effective tax rate on $70k, depending on the state in which you live, can be as high as 30% (including all payroll/SS taxes, for a 1099 earner and/or an employee in a state with an income tax), so you're actually only bringing home 42k/yr, or about $1,600/paycheck if you're paid biweekly. To that, add a decent chunk for your group healthcare plan (which, as of 2014, you will be required to buy, or else pay another $2500 - effectively another 3% of gross earnings - in taxes). And even now with your first job, you should be at least trying to save up a decent chunk o' change in a 401k or IRA as a retirement nest egg. That student loan, beginning about 6 months after you leave school, will cost you about $555/mo in monthly payments for the next 10 years (if it's all Stafford loans with a 50/50 split between sub/unsub; that could be as much as $600/mo for all-unsub Stafford, or $700 or more for private loans). If you were going to pay all that back in two years, you're looking at paying a ballpark of $2500/mo leaving just $700 to pay all your bills and expenses each month. With a 3-year payoff plan, you're turning around one of your two paychecks every month to the student loan servicer, which for a bachelor is doable but still rather tight. Your mortgage payment isn't the only payment you will make on your house. If you get an FHA loan with 3.5% down, the lender will demand PMI. The city/county will likely levy a property tax on the assessed value of land and building. The lender may require that you purchase home insurance with minimum acceptable coverage limits and deductibles. All of these will be paid into escrow accounts, managed by your lending bank, from a single check you send them monthly. I pay all of these, in a state (Texas) that gets its primary income from sales and property tax instead of income, and my monthly payment isn't quite double the simple P&I. Once you have the house, you'll want to fill the house. Nice bed: probably $1500 between mattress and frame for a nice big queen you can stretch out on (and have lady friends over). Nice couch: $1000. TV: call it $500. That's probably the bare minimum you'll want to buy to replace what you lived through college with (you'll have somewhere to eat and sleep other than the floor of your new home), and we're already talking almost a month's salary, or payments of up to 10% of your monthly take-home pay over a year on a couple of store credit cards. Plates, cookware, etc just keeps bumping this up. Yes, they're (theoretically) all one-time costs, but they're things you need, and things you may not have if you've been living in dorms and eating in dining halls all through college. The house you buy now is likely to be a \"\"starter\"\", maybe 3bed/2bath and 1600 sqft at the upper end (they sell em as small as 2bd/1bt 1100sqft). It will support a spouse and 2 kids, but by that point you'll be bursting at the seams. What happens if your future spouse had the same idea of buying a house early while rates were low? The cost of buying a house may be as little as 3.5% down and a few hundred more in advance escrow and a couple other fees the seller can't pay for you. The cost of selling the same house is likely to include all the costs you made the seller pay when you bought it, because you'll be selling to someone in the same position you're in now. I didn't know it at the time I bought my house, but I paid about $5,000 to get into it (3.5% down and 6 months' escrow up front), while the sellers paid over $10,000 to get out (the owner got married to another homeowner, and they ended up selling both houses to move out of town; I don't even know what kind of bath they took on the house we weren't involved with). I graduated in 2005. I didn't buy my first house until I was married and pretty much well-settled, in 2011 (and yes, we were looking because mortgage rates were at rock bottom). We really lucked out in terms of a home that, if we want to or have to, we can live in for the rest of our lives (only 1700sqft, but it's officially a 4/2 with a spare room, and a downstairs master suite and nursery/office, so when we're old and decrepit we can pretty much live downstairs). I would seriously recommend that you do the same, even if by doing so you miss out on the absolute best interest rates. Last example: let's say, hypothetically, that you bite at current interest rates, and lock in a rate just above prime at 4%, 3.5% down, seller pays closing, but then in two years you get married, change jobs and have to move. Let's further suppose an alternate reality in which, after two years of living in an apartment, all the same life changes happen and you are now shopping for your first house having been pre-approved at 5%. That one percentage point savings by buying now, on a house in the $200k range, is worth about $120/mo or about $1440/yr off of your P&I payment ($921.42 on a $200,000 home with a 30-year term). Not chump change (over 30 years if you had been that lucky, it's $43000), but it's less than 5% of your take-home pay (month-to-month or annually). However, when you move in two years, the buyer's probably going to want the same deal you got - seller pays closing - because that's the market level you bought in to (low-priced starters for first-time homebuyers). That's a 3% commission for both agents, 1% origination, 0.5%-1% guarantor, and various fixed fees (title etc). Assuming the value of the house hasn't changed, let's call total selling costs 8% of the house value of $200k (which is probably low); that's $16,000 in seller's costs. Again, assuming home value didn't change and that you got an FHA loan requiring only 3.5% down, your down payment ($7k) plus principal paid (about another $7k; 6936.27 to be exact) only covers $14k of those costs. You're now in the hole $2,000, and you still have to come up with your next home's down payment. With all other things being equal, in order to get back to where you were in net worth terms before you bought the house (meaning $7,000 cash in the bank after selling it), you would need to stay in the house for 4 and a half years to accumulate the $16,000 in equity through principal payments. That leaves you with your original $7,000 down payment returned to you in cash, and you're even in accounting terms (which means in finance terms you're behind; that $7,000 invested at 3% historical average rate of inflation would have earned you about $800 in those four years, meaning you need to stick around about 5.5 years before you \"\"break even\"\" in TVM terms). For this reason, I would say that you should be very cautious when buying your first home; it may very well be the last one you'll ever buy. Whether that's because you made good choices or bad is up to you.\"" }, { "docid": "402852", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "502109", "title": "", "text": "Time &amp; money. People have one or the other. Even with a Pell Grant to attend school, it can be very hard to get a job that will accommodate a class schedule and also pay enough for basic living expenses. And many people around here were not encouraged to pursue education, because of the expense. And because, until 10-15 years ago, there were always factories hired and it was expected to start at 18 and stay until retirement. I'm in my 30s and in school now, and it's taking me forever because I've had to change jobs, shuffle classes, and take time off in order to be able to pay bills and pursue my education. If you do too well at work, they don't want to give you the time off to move forward (problem I had at a law office where I was working way more hours than hired for, then told I couldn't cut back to our original agreement when the next semester required more seated classes). If you don't excel, it's not worth their trouble to accommodate you because there are plenty of others begging for a job that can work whenever they're told. And, in towns like this, I suspect part of it is a crabs in the bucket mentality. 40+ year old supervisors with GEDs sometimes don't like it when workers on the bottom rung are getting bachelor's degrees. The same in nursing - some of those LPNs &amp; ADN/RNs get a little touchy when the newer younger ones immediately go to work on their RN. (And EMTs that try to jump straight to Paramedic, or those going for 4 year Paramedicine degrees, are met with outright scorn. Although there are some reasons for that, mainly lack of real world experience)." }, { "docid": "569539", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "237923", "title": "", "text": "Since cashiers, and everyone else, should have to suffer for the failures of our upper classes over the past 30 years, I propose we include the upper classes in this roster of those who should suffer. Would that be okay, or should they continue to do better and better while the rest of us do worse?" }, { "docid": "332113", "title": "", "text": "You are in the perfect window for making an IRA contribution. The IRS allows you to make IRA contributions for last year until tax day. So you know that for 2014 you didn't have access to a 401K at work. You want to avoid making a deductible IRA contribution for this year (2015) until you are sure that you wont have a 401K at work this year. Take your time and decide if the detectible IRA or the Roth works best for your situation. Having a IRA now will be good becasue you have many years for it to grow. Keep in mind that it is not unusual to have multiple retirement accounts: Current 401K; rolled over into a IRA; Roth IRA... Each has different rules, limits, and benefits. There is no reason to pick one way of investing for retirement becasue you never know if the next employer will have the type of plan you like. I am assuming that your spouse, if you are married, doesn't have access to a 401K; otherwise you would have to consider the applicable limits." }, { "docid": "351658", "title": "", "text": "Yes, it is normal. I'm single & pay 32% in North Carolina. Single men & married people ask me all the time why it's so high and it gets frustrating having to explain to average people. I assume it's because I have no kids, live alone, don't own a house, am not in school, am not self employed etc. I've been at this job for 10 years and it's been over 30% since I can remember." }, { "docid": "113660", "title": "", "text": "I love how this probably won't get many replies because your in the trenches doing it, keep up the hard work. I graduated high school with 1k in savings and dropped out of college to help support my depressed and unemployed mother with some help from my Father. I am now a married new construction homeowner and we take home enough money to have new cars, save for retirement, and enjoy life with no college degrees. I went from 8 an hour to over 35 now in 4-5 years. We both had to get off social media because of all our old high school friends who went to college for garbage degrees, never tried to get entry level jobs in their industry while in school or network, and now cry all day about how Bernie sanders didn't win the election and why school should be free so they don't have to pay off debt for a worthless degree as they wait tables. No sympathy" }, { "docid": "81343", "title": "", "text": "\"I disagree with the selected answer. There's no one rule of thumb and certainly not simple ones like \"\"20 cents of every dollar if you're 35\"\". You've made a good start by making a budget of your expected expenses. If you read the Mr. Money Mustache blogpost titled The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement, you will understand that it is usually a mistake to think of your expenses as a fixed percentage of your income. In most cases, it makes more sense to keep your expenses as low as possible, regardless of your actual income. In the financial independence community, it is a common principle that one typically needs 25-30 times one's annual spending to have enough money to sustain oneself forever off the investment returns that those savings generate (this is based on the assumption of a 7% average annual return, 4% after inflation). So the real answer to your question is this: UPDATE Keats brought to my attention that this formula doesn't work that well when the savings rates are low (20% range). This is because it assumes that money you save earns no returns for the entire period that you are saving. This is obviously not true; investment returns should also count toward your 25-times annual spending goal. For that reason, it's probably better to refer to the blog post that I linked to in the answer above for precise calculations. That's where I got the \"\"37 years at 20% savings rate\"\" figure from. Depending on how large and small x and y are, you could have enough saved up to retire in 7 years (at a 75% savings rate), 17 years (at a 50% savings rate), or 37 years! (at the suggested 20% savings rate for 35-year olds). As you go through life, your expenses may increase (eg. starting a family, starting a new business, unexpected health event etc) or decrease (kid wins full scholarship to college). So could your income. However, in general, you should negotiate the highest salary possible (if you are salaried), use the 25x rule, and consider your life and career goals to decide how much you want to save. And stop thinking of expenses as a percentage of income.\"" }, { "docid": "438326", "title": "", "text": "Mines 3 years old, aside from 1 memory hungry game where it still mostly plays well but sometimes stutters on, it's all a-okay. Updates and all. Probably will keep it 1 more year as a game isn't worth upgrading a phone over. Might switch if the competition is good, I do hate lightning jack with a passion though." }, { "docid": "139559", "title": "", "text": "There is another factor to consider when refinancing is the remaining term left on your loan. If you have 20 years left, and you re-fi into another 30 year loan that extends the length that you will be paying off the house for another 10 years. You are probably better off going with 20, or even 15. If this is a new loan, that is less of an issue, although if you moving and buying a house in a similar price range it is still something to consider. My goal is to have my house paid off before I retire (hopefully early semi-retirement around 55)." }, { "docid": "502150", "title": "", "text": "\"The biggest and primary question is how much money you want to live on within retirement. The lower this is, the more options you have available. You will find that while initially complex, it doesn't take much planning to take complete advantage of the tax system if you are intending to retire early. Are there any other investment accounts that are geared towards retirement or long term investing and have some perk associated with them (tax deferred, tax exempt) but do not have an age restriction when money can be withdrawn? I'm going to answer this with some potential alternatives. The US tax system currently is great for people wanting to early retire. If you can save significant money you can optimize your taxes so much over your lifetime! If you retire early and have money invested in a Roth IRA or a traditional 401k, that money can't be touched without penalty until you're 55/59. (Let's ignore Roth contributions that can technically be withdrawn) Ok, the 401k myth. The \"\"I'm hosed if I put money into it since it's stuck\"\" perspective isn't true for a variety of reasons. If you retire early you get a long amount of time to take advantage of retirement accounts. One way is to primarily contribute to pretax 401k during working years. After retiring, begin converting this at a very low tax rate. You can convert money in a traditional IRA whenever you want to be Roth. You just pay your marginal tax rate which.... for an early retiree might be 0%. Then after 5 years - you now have a chunk of principle that has become Roth principle - and can be withdrawn whenever. Let's imagine you retire at 40 with 100k in your 401k (pretax). For 5 years, you convert $20k (assuming married). Because we get $20k between exemptions/deduction it means you pay $0 taxes every year while converting $20k of your pretax IRA to Roth. Or if you have kids, even more. After 5 years you now can withdraw that 20k/year 100% tax free since it has become principle. This is only a good idea when you are retired early because you are able to fill up all your \"\"free\"\" income for tax conversions. When you are working you would be paying your marginal rate. But your marginal rate in retirement is... 0%. Related thread on a forum you might enjoy. This is sometimes called a Roth pipeline. Basically: assuming you have no income while retired early you can fairly simply convert traditional IRA money into Roth principle. This is then accessible to you well before the 55/59 age but you get the full benefit of the pretax money. But let's pretend you don't want to do that. You need the money (and tax benefit!) now! How beneficial is it to do traditional 401ks? Imagine you live in a state/city where you are paying 25% marginal tax rate. If your expected marginal rate in your early retirement is 10-15% you are still better off putting money into your 401k and just paying the 10% penalty on an early withdrawal. In many cases, for high earners, this can actually still be a tax benefit overall. The point is this: just because you have to \"\"work\"\" to get money out of a 401k early does NOT mean you lose the tax benefits of it. In fact, current tax code really does let an early retiree have their cake and eat it too when it comes to the Roth/traditional 401k/IRA question. Are you limited to a generic taxable brokerage account? Currently, a huge perk for those with small incomes is that long term capital gains are taxed based on your current federal tax bracket. If your federal marginal rate is 15% or less you will pay nothing for long term capital gains, until this income pushes you into the 25% federal bracket. This might change, but right now means you can capture many capital gains without paying taxes on them. This is huge for early retirees who can manipulate income. You can have significant \"\"income\"\" and not pay taxes on it. You can also stack this with before mentioned Roth conversions. Convert traditional IRA money until you would begin owing any federal taxes, then capture long term capital gains until you would pay tax on those. Combined this can represent a huge amount of money per year. So littleadv mentioned HSAs but.. for an early retiree they can be ridiculously good. What this means is you can invest the maximum into your HSA for 10 years, let it grow 100% tax free, and save all your medical receipts/etc. Then in 10 years start withdrawing that money. While it sucks healthcare costs so much in America, you might as well take advantage of the tax opportunities to make it suck slightly less. There are many online communities dedicated to learning and optimizing their lives in order to achieve early retirement. The question you are asking can be answered superficially in the above, but for a comprehensive plan you might want other resources. Some you might enjoy:\"" }, { "docid": "247132", "title": "", "text": "So don't retire. But plan like you will retire. I am sure that some billionaire put some money away into a pension, 401K, or IRA for their retirement when they were young. It turns out they never had to worry about outliving their money. The next few paragraphs use United States examples. What happens if you have to retire, but you never saved. All the matching funds you could have collected in a 401K are gone, they disappeared with every paycheck you didn't contribute. Every year you didn't contribute to an IRA can never be replayed. You gave up the magic of compounding, because you thought you would never want to retire. If you save but don't need it, you will have more money to play with as you cut back your hours to part time. If you skip all the plans that make it hard to spend the money until you are 59 1/2, you can still save, but it takes even more discipline to not spend it before you are old." }, { "docid": "67276", "title": "", "text": "\"Your real question, \"\"why is this not discussed more?\"\" is intriguing. I think the media are doing a better job bringing these things into the topics they like to ponder, just not enough, yet. You actually produced the answer to How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket? so you understand how it works. I am a fan of bracket topping. e.g. A young couple should try to top off their 15% bracket by staying with Roth but then using pretax IRA/401(k) to not creep into 25% bracket. For this discussion, 2013 numbers, a blank return (i.e. no schedule A, no other income) shows a couple with a gross $92,500 being at the 15%/25% line. It happens that $20K is exactly the sum of their standard deduction, and 2 exemptions. The last clean Distribution of Income Data is from 2006, but since wages haven't exploded and inflation has been low, it's fair to say that from the $92,000 representing the top 20% of earners, it won't have many more than top 25% today. So, yes, this is a great opportunity for most people. Any married couple with under that $92,500 figure can use this strategy to exploit your observation, and step up their basis each year. To littleadv objection - I imagine an older couple grossing $75K, by selling stock with $10K in LT gains just getting rid of the potential 15% bill at retirement. No trading cost if a mutual fund, just $20 or so if stocks. The more important point, not yet mentioned - even in a low cost 401(k), a lifetime of savings results in all gains being turned in ordinary income. And the case is strong for 'deposit to the match but no no more' as this strategy would let 2/3 of us pay zero on those gains. (To try to address the rest of your questions a bit - the strategy applies to a small sliver of people. 25% have income too high, the bottom 50% or so, have virtually no savings. Much of the 25% that remain have savings in tax sheltered accounts. With the 2013 401(k) limit of $17,500, a 40 year old couple can save $35,000. This easily suck in most of one's long term retirement savings. We can discuss demographics all day, but I think this addresses your question.) If you add any comments, I'll probably address them via edits, avoiding a long dialog below.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "35680", "title": "", "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." } ]

[ { "docid": "198045", "title": "", "text": "&gt; The point was the 30% threshold is too low... Okay, my bad. Although [the average household spends closer to 15% on housing](https://www.valuepenguin.com/average-household-budget). &gt; ...as you in fact get 100% takehome to work with. No, these people still pay FICA, state, and sales taxes. Regardless, 70% of minimum wage isn't enough to cover a car, a child, a good vacation, a serious health care problem, an aging parent, or a modest retirement. Basically you are fine provided live throws you no curve balls." }, { "docid": "361126", "title": "", "text": "Here is something that should help your decision: Currently you are 57, suppose that means that you will still work for 10 years, and then be retired for another 20 before you sell the house. Your retirement account is nearly flat, so you will have to support yourself with your own income. If there are no surprises, you and your wife could expect to earn 1.16 million over the next 10 years. There will be interest on your savings, but also inflation, so to simplify I will ignore both. That means you will have an average of 40k (gross?) per year available to live from during the next 30 years. If you get a mortgage where you only pay nett 3% interest (no payback of the loan), that would cost you 6k per year on interest (based on 350k-150k), if you also want to pay back the 200k difference within 30 years, it would totally be close to 13k in annual interest+payback. Now consider whether you would rather live on 40k per year in your current place, or on a lower amount in a bigger place. Personally I would not choose to make a 200k investment at this point, perhaps after trying to live on a budget for a while. (This has the additional benefit that you can even build some cash reserve before buying anything.)" }, { "docid": "403226", "title": "", "text": "The OP invests a large amount of money each year (30-40k), and has significant amount already invested. Some in the United States that face this situation may want to look at using the bonus to fund two years worth of IRA or Roth IRA. During the period between January 1st and tax day they can put money into a IRA or Roth IRA for the previous year, and for the current year. The two deposits might have to be made separately, because the tax year for each deposit must be specified. If the individual is married, they can also fund their spouses IRA or Roth IRA. If this bonus is this large every year, the double deposit can only be done the first time, but if the windfall was unexpected getting the previous years deposit done before tax day could be useful. The deposits for the current year could still be spread out over the next 12 months. EDIT: Having thought about the issue a little more I have realized there are other timing issues that need to be considered." }, { "docid": "459906", "title": "", "text": "You're extremely fortunate to have $50k in CDs, no debt, and $3800 disposable after food and rent. Congrats. Here's how I would approach it. If you see yourself getting into a home in the next couple of years, stay safe and liquid. CDs (depending on the duration) fit that description. Because you have disposable income and you're young, you should be contributing to a Roth IRA. This will build in value and compound over your lifetime, so that when you're in your 70s you'll actually have a retirement. Financial planners love life insurance because that's how they make all their money. I have whole life insurance because its cash value will be part of my retirement. It may also cover my wife if I ever decide to get married. It may or may not make sense for you now depending on how soon you want to buy a home and home expensive they are in your zip code. Higher risk, higher reward- you can count on that. Keep the funds in the United States and don't try to get into any slick financial moves. If you have a school in town, see if you can take an Intro to Financial Planning class. It's extremely helpful for anyone with these kinds of questions." }, { "docid": "581635", "title": "", "text": "\"Okay. Savings-in-a-nutshell. So, take at least year's worth of rent - $30k or so, maybe more for additional expenses. That's your core emergency fund for when you lose your job or total a few cars or something. Keep it in a good savings account, maybe a CD ladder - but the point is it's liquid, and you can get it when you need it in case of emergency. Replenish it immediately after using it. You may lose a little cash to inflation, but you need liquidity to protect you from risk. It is worth it. The rest is long-term savings, probably for retirement, or possibly for a down payment on a home. A blended set of stocks and bonds is appropriate, with stocks storing most of it. If saving for retirement, you may want to put the stocks in a tax-deferred account (if only for the reduced paperwork! egads, stocks generate so much!). Having some money (especially bonds) in something like a Roth IRA or a non-tax-advantaged account is also useful as a backup emergency fund, because you can withdraw it without penalties. Take the money out of stocks gradually when you are approaching the time when you use the money. If it's closer than five years, don't use stocks; your money should be mostly-bonds when you're about to use it. (And not 30-year bonds or anything like that either. Those are sensitive to interest rates in the short term. You should have bonds that mature approximately the same time you're going to use them. Keep an eye on that if you're using bond funds, which continually roll over.) That's basically how any savings goal should work. Retirement is a little special because it's sort of like 20 years' worth of savings goals (so you don't want all your savings in bonds at the beginning), and because you can get fancy tax-deferred accounts, but otherwise it's about the same thing. College savings? Likewise. There are tools available to help you with this. An asset allocation calculator can be found from a variety of sources, including most investment firms. You can use a target-date fund for something this if you'd like automation. There are also a couple things like, say, \"\"Vanguard LifeStrategy funds\"\" (from Vanguard) which target other savings goals. You may be able to understand the way these sorts of instruments function more easily than you could other investments. You could do a decent job for yourself by just opening up an account at Vanguard, using their online tool, and pouring your money into the stuff they recommend.\"" }, { "docid": "496752", "title": "", "text": "As mentioned, the main advantage of a 15-year loan compared to a 30-year loan is that the 15-year loan should come at a discounted rate. All things equal, the main advantage of the 30-year loan is that the payment is lower. A completely different argument from what you are hearing is that if you can get a low interest rate, you should get the longest loan possible. It seem unlikely that interest rates are going to get much lower than they are and it's far more likely that they will get higher. In 15 years, if interest rates are back up around 6% or more (where they were when I bought my first home) and you are 15 years into a 30 year mortgage, you'll being enjoying an interest rate that no one can get. You need to keep in mind that as the loan is paid off, you will earn exactly 0% on the principal you've paid. If for some reason the value of the home drops, you lose that portion of the principal. The only way you can get access to that capital is to sell the house. You (generally) can't sell part of the house to send a kid to college. You can take out another mortgage but it is going to be at the current going rate which is likely higher than current rates. Another thing to consider that over the course of 30 years, inflation is going to make a fixed payment cheaper over time. Let's say you make $60K and you have a monthly payment of $1000 or 20% of your annual income. In 15 years at a 1% annualized wage growth rate, it will be 17% of your income. If you get a few raises or inflation jumps up, it will be a lot more than that. For example, at a 2% annualized growth rate, it's only 15% of your income after 15 years. In places where long-term fixed rates are not available, shorter mortgages are common because of the risk of higher rates later. It's also more common to pay them off early for the same reason. Taking on a higher payment to pay off the loan early only really only helps you if you can get through the entire payment and 15 years is still a long way off. Then if you lose your job then, you only have to worry about taxes and upkeep but that means you can still lose the home. If you instead take the extra money and keep a rainy day fund, you'll have access to that money if you hit a rough patch. If you put all of your extra cash in the house, you'll be forced to sell if you need that capital and it may not be at the best time. You might not even be able to pay off the loan at the current market value. My father took out a 30 year loan and followed the advice of an older coworker to 'buy as much house as possible because inflation will pay for it'. By the end of the loan, he was paying something like $250 a month and the house was worth upwards of $200K. That is, his mortgage payment was less than the payment on a cheap car. It was an insignificant cost compared to his income and he had been able to invest enough to retire in comfort. Of course when he bought it, inflation was above 10% so it's bit different today but the same concepts still apply, just different numbers. I personally would not take anything less than a 30 year loan at current rates unless I planned to retire in 15 years." }, { "docid": "361509", "title": "", "text": "\"if you have 401k with an employer already, has the following features: Your contributions are taxed That's only true if you're a high income earner. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/2017-ira-deduction-limits-effect-of-modified-agi-on-deduction-if-you-are-covered-by-a-retirement-plan-at-work For example, married filing jointly allows full deduction up to $99,000 even if you have a 401(k). \"\"the timing is just different\"\" And that's a good thing, since if your retirement tax rate is less than your current tax rate, you'll pay less tax on that money.\"" }, { "docid": "332373", "title": "", "text": "As others have shown, if you assume that you can get 6% and you invest 15% of a reasonable US salary then you can hit 1 million by the time you retire. If you invest in property in a market like the UK (where I come from...) then insane house price inflation will do it for you as well. In 1968 my parents bought a house for £8000. They had a mortgage on it for about 75% of the value. They don't live there but that house is now valued at about £750,000. Okay, that's close to 60 years, but with a 55 year working life that's not so unreasonable. If you assume the property market (or the shares market) can go on rising forever... then invest in as much property as you can with your 15% as mortgage payments... and watch the million roll in. Of course, you've also got rent on your property portfolio as well in the intervening years. However, take the long view. Inflation will hit what a million is worth. In 1968, a million was a ridiculously huge amount of money. Now it's 'Pah, so what, real rich people have billions'. You'll get your million and it will not be enough to retire comfortably on! In 1968 my parents salaries as skilled people were about £2000 a year... equivalent jobs now pay closer to £50,000... 25x salary inflation in the time. Do that again, skilled professional salary in 60 years of £125000 a year... so your million is actually 4 years salary. Not being relentlessly negative... just suggesting that a financial target like 'own a million (dollars)' isn't a good strategy. 'Own something that yields a decent amount of money' is a better one." }, { "docid": "253545", "title": "", "text": "If your SIMPLE IRA is over two years old then you can roll your money to another qualified account such as a rollover IRA. The usual rollover rules apply. You have 60 days to deposit the funds in another qualified account and you are only allowed one such rollover in a 12 month window. If you are still within two years of opening your SIMPLE IRA, you can roll your funds to a SIMPLE IRA with another vendor, but you would then have to wait until that account is two years old before rolling it elsewhere. If you roll the money another type of IRA before your SIMPLE IRA account is two-years old, and under 59 1/2 years old, you will be subject to a 25% penalty (which is much higher than for other types of accounts). Many of the early distribution exceptions apply such as disability, etc. Edit: The first document linked above covers rules for running a SIMPLE IRA. All the specific regulations linked in the second document apply to all IRAs of all types. There is no specific prohibition from rolling only a portion of the money to another qualified account. There are prohibitions against rolling money more than one time in a 12 month period. The usual obstacle to rolling money from a retirement account--like a 401(k)--is that the 401(k) plan is written to prohibit withdrawals while the employee is still employed at the company." }, { "docid": "470173", "title": "", "text": "\"This is a great question! The IRS is not 100% clear on this. IRS publications do however very strongly suggest that assuming your wife has a plan providing family coverage, you can contribute up to your family maximum. If she does NOT have a family coverage plan then the answer is definitively no, you may only contribute the individual limit. Note if you have children covered by her plan then she is considered to have \"\"family coverage\"\" even if you are not covered by her plan (see here, question 12). From the 2012 IRS publication, bottom of Page 4. For 2012, if you have self-only HDHP coverage, you can contribute up to $3,100. If you have family HDHP coverage, you can contribute up to $6,250. This is presumably the referencing the definition which is introduced and discussed for married couples on Page 6: Rules for married people. If either spouse has family HDHP coverage, both spouses are treated as having family HDHP coverage. If each spouse has family coverage under a separate plan, the contribution limit for 2012 is $6,250. You must reduce the limit on contributions, before taking into account any additional contributions, by the amount contributed to both spouse's Archer MSAs. After that reduction, the contribution limit is split equally between the spouses unless you agree on a different division. Example. For 2012, Mr. Auburn and his wife are both eligible individuals. They each have family coverage under separate HDHPs. Mr. Auburn is 58 years old and Mrs. Auburn is 53. Mr. and Mrs. Auburn can split the family contribution limit ($6,250) equally or they can agree on a different division. If they split it equally, Mr. Auburn can contribute $4,125 to an HSA (one-half the maximum contribution for family coverage ($3,125) + $1,000 additional contribution) and Mrs. Auburn can contribute $3,125 to an HSA. The last example is nearly the exact situation you are in assuming your wife's plan is family coverage. The only assumption beyond what is explicitly written you need to make is that you are considered to have family coverage in the example as per the \"\"Rules for married people\"\" section, even though your plan only is a single-coverage plan. This conclusion seems to logically follow from information in the FAQs here (see Q32), as well as this document. Neither the above example nor any IRS documents referenced in this answer cover your situation completely.\"" }, { "docid": "202459", "title": "", "text": "I don't use a rule of thumb for this. Instead, I use a budget. Throwing money into a savings account for the purpose of building a savings account is okay, but I only put money into a savings account that I have a purpose for. For example, there are bills that come up once a year, such as insurance premiums, property tax, annual subscriptions and memberships, etc. I plan for these in my budget each month, and the money goes into my savings. I also have an emergency fund, which is used in the event that a large, one-time, unexpected expense comes up that I hadn't planned for. I have a goal for how large I want this fund to be, so I put money in savings until it is built up to the level I want it at. There are other long range saving goals I have: my next car, vacation, furniture replacement, technology replacement, etc. Each of these gets some money each month, which goes into savings. I also have retirement savings in the budget, but that doesn't go into the savings account; it gets invested in my retirement account. My point is that instead of arbitrarily choosing a percentage of your income to put into a savings account, think about the purpose of that money. That will help you determine how much needs to be saved, and it will also help motivate you to do so." }, { "docid": "81343", "title": "", "text": "\"I disagree with the selected answer. There's no one rule of thumb and certainly not simple ones like \"\"20 cents of every dollar if you're 35\"\". You've made a good start by making a budget of your expected expenses. If you read the Mr. Money Mustache blogpost titled The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement, you will understand that it is usually a mistake to think of your expenses as a fixed percentage of your income. In most cases, it makes more sense to keep your expenses as low as possible, regardless of your actual income. In the financial independence community, it is a common principle that one typically needs 25-30 times one's annual spending to have enough money to sustain oneself forever off the investment returns that those savings generate (this is based on the assumption of a 7% average annual return, 4% after inflation). So the real answer to your question is this: UPDATE Keats brought to my attention that this formula doesn't work that well when the savings rates are low (20% range). This is because it assumes that money you save earns no returns for the entire period that you are saving. This is obviously not true; investment returns should also count toward your 25-times annual spending goal. For that reason, it's probably better to refer to the blog post that I linked to in the answer above for precise calculations. That's where I got the \"\"37 years at 20% savings rate\"\" figure from. Depending on how large and small x and y are, you could have enough saved up to retire in 7 years (at a 75% savings rate), 17 years (at a 50% savings rate), or 37 years! (at the suggested 20% savings rate for 35-year olds). As you go through life, your expenses may increase (eg. starting a family, starting a new business, unexpected health event etc) or decrease (kid wins full scholarship to college). So could your income. However, in general, you should negotiate the highest salary possible (if you are salaried), use the 25x rule, and consider your life and career goals to decide how much you want to save. And stop thinking of expenses as a percentage of income.\"" }, { "docid": "558800", "title": "", "text": "Make sure that you have the smallest house in the neighborhood. Then hopefully anyone with nefarious intent ill go elsewhere. Don't have anything visible from the street that is expensive. This includes cars (park the BMW in the windowless garage), fancy grills, pools, bikes, etc. For maximum effect, put a broken down car in front of the house. Preferably something 20-30 years old and up on blocks, like an old pickup truck. A couch on the front porch and a old tub in the yard (unmowed) will complete the effect." }, { "docid": "248536", "title": "", "text": "According to the IRS, you can still put money in your IRA. Here (https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/Retirement-Topics-IRA-Contribution-Limits) they say: Can I contribute to an IRA if I participate in a retirement plan at work? You can contribute to a traditional or Roth IRA whether or not you participate in another retirement plan through your employer or business. However, you might not be able to deduct all of your traditional IRA contributions if you or your spouse participates in another retirement plan at work. Roth IRA contributions might be limited if your income exceeds a certain level. In addition, in this link (https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/IRA-Deduction-Limits), the IRS says: Retirement plan at work: Your deduction may be limited if you (or your spouse, if you are married) are covered by a retirement plan at work and your income exceeds certain levels. The word 'covered' should clarify that - you are not covered anymore in that year, you just got a contribution in that year which was triggered by work done in a previous year. You cannot legally be covered in a plan at an employer where you did not work in that year." }, { "docid": "107780", "title": "", "text": "Investing is good. Insurance when you have something to insure is good. But using a single account for investing and insurance is not so good. You need to determine how much you need to invest for retirement. You also need to determine if you need life insurance. As a single person you might determine that you don't have a great need for life insurance. If you get married, or have kids, your needs may grow. So you will want to revisit your decisions every so often. You may need to save for retirement, or setup a college fund. You may need to protect your spouse or children in case you die. It doesn't seem to make sense to invest and insure in a plan with complicated rules, fees and schedules. What happens if in 3 years you need to blow it up and start over? What surrender charges will they hit you with?" }, { "docid": "453639", "title": "", "text": "(All for US.) Yes you (will) have a realized long-term capital gain, which is taxable. Long-term gains (including those distributed by a mutual fund or other RIC, and also 'qualified' dividends, both not relevant here) are taxed at lower rates than 'ordinary' income but are still bracketed almost (not quite) like ordinary income, not always 15%. Specifically if your ordinary taxable income (after deductions and exemptions, equivalent to line 43 minus LTCG/QD) 'ends' in the 25% to 33% brackets, your LTCG/QD income is taxed at 15% unless the total of ordinary+preferred reaches the top of those brackets, then any remainder at 20%. These brackets depend on your filing status and are adjusted yearly for inflation, for 2016 they are: * single 37,650 to 413,350 * married-joint or widow(er) 75,300 to 413,350 * head-of-household 50,400 to 441,000 (special) * married-separate 37,650 to 206,675 which I'd guess covers at least the middle three quintiles of the earning/taxpaying population. OTOH if your ordinary income ends below the 25% bracket, your LTCG/QD income that 'fits' in the lower bracket(s) is taxed at 0% (not at all) and only the portion that would be in the ordinary 25%-and-up brackets is taxed at 15%. IF your ordinary taxable income this year was below those brackets, or you expect next year it will be (possibly due to status/exemption/deduction changes as well as income change), then if all else is equal you are better off realizing the stock gain in the year(s) where some (or more) of it fits in the 0% bracket. If you're over about $400k a similar calculation applies, but you can afford more reliable advice than potential dogs on the Internet. (update) Near dupe found: see also How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket? Also, a warning on estimated payments: in general you are required to pay most of your income tax liability during the year (not wait until April 15); if you underpay by more than 10% or $1000 (whichever is larger) you usually owe a penalty, computed on Form 2210 whose name(?) is frequently and roundly cursed. For most people, whose income is (mostly) from a job, this is handled by payroll withholding which normally comes out close enough to your liability. If you have other income, like investments (as here) or self-employment or pension/retirement/disability/etc, you are supposed to either make estimated payments each 'quarter' (the IRS' quarters are shifted slightly from everyone else's), or increase your withholding, or a combination. For a large income 'lump' in December that wasn't planned in advance, it won't be practical to adjust withholding. However, if this is the only year increased, there is a safe harbor: if your withholding this year (2016) is enough to pay last year's tax (2015) -- which for most people it is, unless you got a pay cut this year, or a (filed) status change like marrying or having a child -- you get until next April 15 (or next business day -- in 2017 it is actually April 18) to pay the additional amount of this year's tax (2016) without underpayment penalty. However, if you split the gain so that both 2016 and 2017 have income and (thus) taxes higher than normal for you, you will need to make estimated payment(s) and/or increase withholding for 2017. PS: congratulations on your gain -- and on the patience to hold anything for 10 years!" }, { "docid": "569539", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "309840", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't know about the technicalities of retirement accounts, but I would advise you to please please please do not use retirement money to buy a home. The reason for not ever wanting to spend your retirement is.. when can you make it up? When you retire, you are by definition no longer earning money, so all your expenses can only come from the money you have saved. If you are willing to borrow from your retirement, it is not hard to imagine you are willing are willing to get a new car, or a new barbecue, or a new fishing boat before you repay yourself. So the question to ask yourself is, \"\"can I deal with renting for a few years knowing that I can retire comfortably, or am I willing to risk retirement to have a house now.\"\" Part of the will power it takes to pay yourself first is not taking from your own savings. You cannot count on anybody but yourself to take care of you when you are old. It is just opinion, but risking a comfortable retirement for a home now is not a risk anybody should take.\"" }, { "docid": "479213", "title": "", "text": "\"Concise answers to your questions: Depends on the loan and the bank; when you \"\"accelerate\"\" repayment of a loan by applying a pre-payment balance to the principal, your monthly payment may be reduced. However, standard practice for most loan types is that the repayment schedule will be accelerated; you'll pay no less each month, but you'll pay it off sooner. I can neither confirm nor deny that an internship counts as job experience in the field for the purpose of mortgage lending. It sounds logical, especially if it were a paid internship (in which case you'd just call it a \"\"job\"\"), but I can't be sure as I don't know of anyone who got a mortgage without accruing the necessary job experience post-graduation. A loan officer will be happy to talk to you and answer specific questions, but if you go in today, with no credit history (the student loan probably hasn't even entered repayment) and a lot of unknowns (an offer can be rescinded, for instance), you are virtually certain to be denied a mortgage. The bank is going to want evidence that you will make good on the debt you have over time. One $10,000 payment on the loan, though significant, is just one payment as far as your credit history (and credit score) is concerned. Now, a few more reality checks: $70k/yr is not what you'll be bringing home. As a single person without dependents, you'll be taxed at the highest possible withholdings rate. Your effective tax rate on $70k, depending on the state in which you live, can be as high as 30% (including all payroll/SS taxes, for a 1099 earner and/or an employee in a state with an income tax), so you're actually only bringing home 42k/yr, or about $1,600/paycheck if you're paid biweekly. To that, add a decent chunk for your group healthcare plan (which, as of 2014, you will be required to buy, or else pay another $2500 - effectively another 3% of gross earnings - in taxes). And even now with your first job, you should be at least trying to save up a decent chunk o' change in a 401k or IRA as a retirement nest egg. That student loan, beginning about 6 months after you leave school, will cost you about $555/mo in monthly payments for the next 10 years (if it's all Stafford loans with a 50/50 split between sub/unsub; that could be as much as $600/mo for all-unsub Stafford, or $700 or more for private loans). If you were going to pay all that back in two years, you're looking at paying a ballpark of $2500/mo leaving just $700 to pay all your bills and expenses each month. With a 3-year payoff plan, you're turning around one of your two paychecks every month to the student loan servicer, which for a bachelor is doable but still rather tight. Your mortgage payment isn't the only payment you will make on your house. If you get an FHA loan with 3.5% down, the lender will demand PMI. The city/county will likely levy a property tax on the assessed value of land and building. The lender may require that you purchase home insurance with minimum acceptable coverage limits and deductibles. All of these will be paid into escrow accounts, managed by your lending bank, from a single check you send them monthly. I pay all of these, in a state (Texas) that gets its primary income from sales and property tax instead of income, and my monthly payment isn't quite double the simple P&I. Once you have the house, you'll want to fill the house. Nice bed: probably $1500 between mattress and frame for a nice big queen you can stretch out on (and have lady friends over). Nice couch: $1000. TV: call it $500. That's probably the bare minimum you'll want to buy to replace what you lived through college with (you'll have somewhere to eat and sleep other than the floor of your new home), and we're already talking almost a month's salary, or payments of up to 10% of your monthly take-home pay over a year on a couple of store credit cards. Plates, cookware, etc just keeps bumping this up. Yes, they're (theoretically) all one-time costs, but they're things you need, and things you may not have if you've been living in dorms and eating in dining halls all through college. The house you buy now is likely to be a \"\"starter\"\", maybe 3bed/2bath and 1600 sqft at the upper end (they sell em as small as 2bd/1bt 1100sqft). It will support a spouse and 2 kids, but by that point you'll be bursting at the seams. What happens if your future spouse had the same idea of buying a house early while rates were low? The cost of buying a house may be as little as 3.5% down and a few hundred more in advance escrow and a couple other fees the seller can't pay for you. The cost of selling the same house is likely to include all the costs you made the seller pay when you bought it, because you'll be selling to someone in the same position you're in now. I didn't know it at the time I bought my house, but I paid about $5,000 to get into it (3.5% down and 6 months' escrow up front), while the sellers paid over $10,000 to get out (the owner got married to another homeowner, and they ended up selling both houses to move out of town; I don't even know what kind of bath they took on the house we weren't involved with). I graduated in 2005. I didn't buy my first house until I was married and pretty much well-settled, in 2011 (and yes, we were looking because mortgage rates were at rock bottom). We really lucked out in terms of a home that, if we want to or have to, we can live in for the rest of our lives (only 1700sqft, but it's officially a 4/2 with a spare room, and a downstairs master suite and nursery/office, so when we're old and decrepit we can pretty much live downstairs). I would seriously recommend that you do the same, even if by doing so you miss out on the absolute best interest rates. Last example: let's say, hypothetically, that you bite at current interest rates, and lock in a rate just above prime at 4%, 3.5% down, seller pays closing, but then in two years you get married, change jobs and have to move. Let's further suppose an alternate reality in which, after two years of living in an apartment, all the same life changes happen and you are now shopping for your first house having been pre-approved at 5%. That one percentage point savings by buying now, on a house in the $200k range, is worth about $120/mo or about $1440/yr off of your P&I payment ($921.42 on a $200,000 home with a 30-year term). Not chump change (over 30 years if you had been that lucky, it's $43000), but it's less than 5% of your take-home pay (month-to-month or annually). However, when you move in two years, the buyer's probably going to want the same deal you got - seller pays closing - because that's the market level you bought in to (low-priced starters for first-time homebuyers). That's a 3% commission for both agents, 1% origination, 0.5%-1% guarantor, and various fixed fees (title etc). Assuming the value of the house hasn't changed, let's call total selling costs 8% of the house value of $200k (which is probably low); that's $16,000 in seller's costs. Again, assuming home value didn't change and that you got an FHA loan requiring only 3.5% down, your down payment ($7k) plus principal paid (about another $7k; 6936.27 to be exact) only covers $14k of those costs. You're now in the hole $2,000, and you still have to come up with your next home's down payment. With all other things being equal, in order to get back to where you were in net worth terms before you bought the house (meaning $7,000 cash in the bank after selling it), you would need to stay in the house for 4 and a half years to accumulate the $16,000 in equity through principal payments. That leaves you with your original $7,000 down payment returned to you in cash, and you're even in accounting terms (which means in finance terms you're behind; that $7,000 invested at 3% historical average rate of inflation would have earned you about $800 in those four years, meaning you need to stick around about 5.5 years before you \"\"break even\"\" in TVM terms). For this reason, I would say that you should be very cautious when buying your first home; it may very well be the last one you'll ever buy. Whether that's because you made good choices or bad is up to you.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "437879", "title": "", "text": "\"First, I would recommend getting rid of this ridiculous debt, or remember this day and this answer, \"\"you will be living this way for many years to come and maybe worse, no/not enough retirement\"\". Hold off on any retirement savings right now so that the money can be used to crush this debt. Without knowing all of your specifics (health insurance deductions, etc.) and without any retirement contribution, given $190,000 you should probably be taking home around $12,000 per month total. Assuming a $2,000 mortgage payment (30 year term), that is $10,000 left per month. If you were serious about paying this off, you could easily live off of $3,000 per month (probably less) and have $7,000 left to throw at the student loan debt. This assumes that you haven't financed automobiles, especially expensive ones or have other significant debt payments. That's around 3 years until the entire $300,000 is paid! I have personally used and endorse the snowball method (pay off smallest to largest regardless of interest rate), though I did adjust it slightly to pay off some debts first that had a very high monthly payment so that I would then have this large payment to throw at the next debt. After the debt is gone, you now have the extra $7,000 per month (probably more if you get raises, bonuses etc.) to enjoy and start saving for retirement and kid's college. You may have 20-25 years to save for retirement; at $4,000 per month that's $1 million in just savings, not including the growth (with moderate growth this could easily double or more). You'll also have about 14 years to save for college for this one kid; at $1,500 per month that's $250,000 (not including investment growth). This is probably overkill for one kid, so adjust accordingly. Then there's at least $1,500 per month left to pay off the mortgage in less than half the time of the original term! So in this scenario, conservatively you might have: Obviously I don't know your financials or circumstances, so build a good budget and play with the numbers. If you sacrifice for a short time you'll be way better off, trust me from experience. As a side note: Assuming the loan debt is 50/50 you and your husband, you made a good investment and he made a poor one. Unless he is a public defender or charity attorney, why is he making $60,000 when you are both attorneys and both have huge student loan debt? If it were me, I would consider a job change. At least until the debt was cleaned up. If he can make $100,000 to $130,000 or more, then your debt may be gone in under 2 years! Then he can go back to the charity gig.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "418864", "title": "", "text": "\"Keep in mind, there are too many variables to address in a single post. I could (and might) write a full book on the topic. One simple way to comprehend your perceived observation. In the 25% bracket, you have $1000 of income and two choices. Net out $750, and deposit to Roth, or deposit the full $1000 to the traditional IRA or 401(k). Sufficient time passes for the investment to grow 10 fold. For what it's worth, 8% at 30 years will do that. The Roth is now worth $7500 tax free. The traditional 401(k) is worth $10000 but subject to tax. At 25%, we're at the same $7500. For those looking to invest more than a gross $18,000, the Roth flavor is an effective $24,000, as post tax, this is $18,000. I wrote a bit more on this in the whimsically titled The Density of Your IRA. This is really a top 10%er issue, as it takes quite a bit of income for the $23,000 combined IRA and 401(k) limits to be a problem. In my writing, the larger case to be made is for taking advantage of the tax rate difference between the time of deposit and withdrawal. A look at the 2016 tax rates is in order. Let's stick with 25% while working. Now, at retirement, but before social security, as that's another story, the couple has $20,600 in standard deduction and exemption, and both the 10 and 15% brackets to enjoy. Ignoring any other deductions, potential credits, etc, let's look at a gross $80,000 withdrawal. The numbers happen to work out to an average 10%, with the couple being in a marginal 15% bracket. A full 25% or $20,000 tax would be the break-even to the \"\"same bracket in/out\"\" analysis, so this produces a $12,000 benefit. This issue is often treated as if there were 2 points in time, the deposit, and the withdrawal. For most people, that may be the case. Keep in mind, current law allows a conversion to Roth any time in between. This gives an opportunity to make a deposit while in the 25% bracket, and convert in any year the marginal rate drops back to 15% for whatever reason. Last - I can't ignore the Social Security problem. Simply put, when half of your Social Security benefits plus other income exceed $25,000 ($32,000 if married filing joint) your benefits start to become taxable, until 85% of your benefits are fully taxed. This issue is worthy of multiple posts by itself. It's not a deal killer, just another point to consider. A very high income earner might be beyond these levels already, in which case the point is moot. A low income earner, not impacted at all. It's those who are in the range to navigate this that would benefit to take advantage of the scenario I presented above and spend down pre-tax accounts, while planning to use the Roths when Social Security starts. This should make it clear - it's not all or none. Those retiring with $2M in 100% pretax, or $1.5M 100% in Roth have both missed the chance to have the optimal mix.\"" }, { "docid": "108672", "title": "", "text": "You can withdraw from CPP as early as 60. However, by doing so, you will permanently reduce the payments. The reduction is calculated based on average life expectancies. If you live for an average amount of time, that means you'll receive approximately the same total amount (after inflation adjustments) whether you start pulling from CPP at 60, 65, or even delay your pension later. People may have pensions through systems other than CPP. This is often true for big business or government work. They may work differently. People who retire at 55 with a pension are not getting their pension through CPP. A person retiring at 55 would need to wait at least five years to draw from the CPP, and ten years before he or she was eligible for a full pension through CPP. Canada also offers Old Age Security (OAS). This is only available once you are 65 years old or older, though this is changing. Starting in 2023, this will gradually change to 67 years or older. See this page for more details. As always, it's worth pointing out that the CPP and OAS will almost certainly not cover your full retirement expenses and you will need supplementary funds." }, { "docid": "479213", "title": "", "text": "\"Concise answers to your questions: Depends on the loan and the bank; when you \"\"accelerate\"\" repayment of a loan by applying a pre-payment balance to the principal, your monthly payment may be reduced. However, standard practice for most loan types is that the repayment schedule will be accelerated; you'll pay no less each month, but you'll pay it off sooner. I can neither confirm nor deny that an internship counts as job experience in the field for the purpose of mortgage lending. It sounds logical, especially if it were a paid internship (in which case you'd just call it a \"\"job\"\"), but I can't be sure as I don't know of anyone who got a mortgage without accruing the necessary job experience post-graduation. A loan officer will be happy to talk to you and answer specific questions, but if you go in today, with no credit history (the student loan probably hasn't even entered repayment) and a lot of unknowns (an offer can be rescinded, for instance), you are virtually certain to be denied a mortgage. The bank is going to want evidence that you will make good on the debt you have over time. One $10,000 payment on the loan, though significant, is just one payment as far as your credit history (and credit score) is concerned. Now, a few more reality checks: $70k/yr is not what you'll be bringing home. As a single person without dependents, you'll be taxed at the highest possible withholdings rate. Your effective tax rate on $70k, depending on the state in which you live, can be as high as 30% (including all payroll/SS taxes, for a 1099 earner and/or an employee in a state with an income tax), so you're actually only bringing home 42k/yr, or about $1,600/paycheck if you're paid biweekly. To that, add a decent chunk for your group healthcare plan (which, as of 2014, you will be required to buy, or else pay another $2500 - effectively another 3% of gross earnings - in taxes). And even now with your first job, you should be at least trying to save up a decent chunk o' change in a 401k or IRA as a retirement nest egg. That student loan, beginning about 6 months after you leave school, will cost you about $555/mo in monthly payments for the next 10 years (if it's all Stafford loans with a 50/50 split between sub/unsub; that could be as much as $600/mo for all-unsub Stafford, or $700 or more for private loans). If you were going to pay all that back in two years, you're looking at paying a ballpark of $2500/mo leaving just $700 to pay all your bills and expenses each month. With a 3-year payoff plan, you're turning around one of your two paychecks every month to the student loan servicer, which for a bachelor is doable but still rather tight. Your mortgage payment isn't the only payment you will make on your house. If you get an FHA loan with 3.5% down, the lender will demand PMI. The city/county will likely levy a property tax on the assessed value of land and building. The lender may require that you purchase home insurance with minimum acceptable coverage limits and deductibles. All of these will be paid into escrow accounts, managed by your lending bank, from a single check you send them monthly. I pay all of these, in a state (Texas) that gets its primary income from sales and property tax instead of income, and my monthly payment isn't quite double the simple P&I. Once you have the house, you'll want to fill the house. Nice bed: probably $1500 between mattress and frame for a nice big queen you can stretch out on (and have lady friends over). Nice couch: $1000. TV: call it $500. That's probably the bare minimum you'll want to buy to replace what you lived through college with (you'll have somewhere to eat and sleep other than the floor of your new home), and we're already talking almost a month's salary, or payments of up to 10% of your monthly take-home pay over a year on a couple of store credit cards. Plates, cookware, etc just keeps bumping this up. Yes, they're (theoretically) all one-time costs, but they're things you need, and things you may not have if you've been living in dorms and eating in dining halls all through college. The house you buy now is likely to be a \"\"starter\"\", maybe 3bed/2bath and 1600 sqft at the upper end (they sell em as small as 2bd/1bt 1100sqft). It will support a spouse and 2 kids, but by that point you'll be bursting at the seams. What happens if your future spouse had the same idea of buying a house early while rates were low? The cost of buying a house may be as little as 3.5% down and a few hundred more in advance escrow and a couple other fees the seller can't pay for you. The cost of selling the same house is likely to include all the costs you made the seller pay when you bought it, because you'll be selling to someone in the same position you're in now. I didn't know it at the time I bought my house, but I paid about $5,000 to get into it (3.5% down and 6 months' escrow up front), while the sellers paid over $10,000 to get out (the owner got married to another homeowner, and they ended up selling both houses to move out of town; I don't even know what kind of bath they took on the house we weren't involved with). I graduated in 2005. I didn't buy my first house until I was married and pretty much well-settled, in 2011 (and yes, we were looking because mortgage rates were at rock bottom). We really lucked out in terms of a home that, if we want to or have to, we can live in for the rest of our lives (only 1700sqft, but it's officially a 4/2 with a spare room, and a downstairs master suite and nursery/office, so when we're old and decrepit we can pretty much live downstairs). I would seriously recommend that you do the same, even if by doing so you miss out on the absolute best interest rates. Last example: let's say, hypothetically, that you bite at current interest rates, and lock in a rate just above prime at 4%, 3.5% down, seller pays closing, but then in two years you get married, change jobs and have to move. Let's further suppose an alternate reality in which, after two years of living in an apartment, all the same life changes happen and you are now shopping for your first house having been pre-approved at 5%. That one percentage point savings by buying now, on a house in the $200k range, is worth about $120/mo or about $1440/yr off of your P&I payment ($921.42 on a $200,000 home with a 30-year term). Not chump change (over 30 years if you had been that lucky, it's $43000), but it's less than 5% of your take-home pay (month-to-month or annually). However, when you move in two years, the buyer's probably going to want the same deal you got - seller pays closing - because that's the market level you bought in to (low-priced starters for first-time homebuyers). That's a 3% commission for both agents, 1% origination, 0.5%-1% guarantor, and various fixed fees (title etc). Assuming the value of the house hasn't changed, let's call total selling costs 8% of the house value of $200k (which is probably low); that's $16,000 in seller's costs. Again, assuming home value didn't change and that you got an FHA loan requiring only 3.5% down, your down payment ($7k) plus principal paid (about another $7k; 6936.27 to be exact) only covers $14k of those costs. You're now in the hole $2,000, and you still have to come up with your next home's down payment. With all other things being equal, in order to get back to where you were in net worth terms before you bought the house (meaning $7,000 cash in the bank after selling it), you would need to stay in the house for 4 and a half years to accumulate the $16,000 in equity through principal payments. That leaves you with your original $7,000 down payment returned to you in cash, and you're even in accounting terms (which means in finance terms you're behind; that $7,000 invested at 3% historical average rate of inflation would have earned you about $800 in those four years, meaning you need to stick around about 5.5 years before you \"\"break even\"\" in TVM terms). For this reason, I would say that you should be very cautious when buying your first home; it may very well be the last one you'll ever buy. Whether that's because you made good choices or bad is up to you.\"" }, { "docid": "361509", "title": "", "text": "\"if you have 401k with an employer already, has the following features: Your contributions are taxed That's only true if you're a high income earner. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/2017-ira-deduction-limits-effect-of-modified-agi-on-deduction-if-you-are-covered-by-a-retirement-plan-at-work For example, married filing jointly allows full deduction up to $99,000 even if you have a 401(k). \"\"the timing is just different\"\" And that's a good thing, since if your retirement tax rate is less than your current tax rate, you'll pay less tax on that money.\"" }, { "docid": "569539", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "237923", "title": "", "text": "Since cashiers, and everyone else, should have to suffer for the failures of our upper classes over the past 30 years, I propose we include the upper classes in this roster of those who should suffer. Would that be okay, or should they continue to do better and better while the rest of us do worse?" }, { "docid": "579584", "title": "", "text": "There IS an amount of money you can pay to make people deal with very unpleasant situations. Offer me my old pay + 50% to go back into the workplace daily and deal with my last boss? Yeah, I'll tell you to go fuck yourself. Offer me 3M+ a year to do it? Okay. I'll take that and do JUST ENOUGH to keep the job for a year or two, and then I'll never fucking work again. Or I'll get fired and laugh all the way to the bank anyway." }, { "docid": "458943", "title": "", "text": "\"Compared to a lot of other parts of the country it most certainly is, specially near the coast. My old neighbors in NH just sold their 2200 sqft 20 year-old home on about an acre for $420k. 4 bed, 3 bath, pool, 2 car garage, nice driveway on a quiet cul-de-sac, updated inside, excellent school district and all that crap. Listed for $405k and sold in less than 2 days. That home is 15 mins from the MA state line and 30 mins West of Hampton Beach. Now I'm in San Diego and $420k would buy me a 1100 sqft 60 year-old home on maybe a 7-10k sqft lot out in East County (mountains and desert, not the CA most people think of). Still only 30 mins from the beach, which is nice, but if it was anything close to my neighbor's old house it would be $800k-$1M, so yeah, while maybe not \"\"cheap\"\", Southern NH is pretty affordable for what you get.\"" }, { "docid": "438326", "title": "", "text": "Mines 3 years old, aside from 1 memory hungry game where it still mostly plays well but sometimes stutters on, it's all a-okay. Updates and all. Probably will keep it 1 more year as a game isn't worth upgrading a phone over. Might switch if the competition is good, I do hate lightning jack with a passion though." }, { "docid": "228488", "title": "", "text": "You say you have 90% in stocks. I'll assume that you have the other 10% in bonds. For the sake of simplicity, I'll assume that your investments in stocks are in nice, passive indexed mutual funds and ETFs, rather than in individual stocks. A 90% allocation in stocks is considered aggressive. The problem is that if the stock market crashes, you may lose 40% or more of your investment in a single year. As you point out, you are investing for the long term. That's great, it means you can rest easy if the stock market crashes, safe in the hope that you have many years for it to recover. So long as you have the emotional willpower to stick with it. Would you be better off with a 100% allocation in stocks? You'd think so, wouldn't you. After all, the stock market as a whole gives better expected returns than the bond market. But keep in mind, the stock market and the bond market are (somewhat) negatively correlated. That means when the stock market goes down, the bond market often goes up, and vice versa. Investing some of your money in bonds will slightly reduce your expected return but will also reduce your standard deviation and your maximum annual loss. Canadian Couch Potato has an interesting write-up on how to estimate stock and bond returns. It's based on your stocks being invested equally in the Canadian, U.S., and international markets. As you live in the U.S., that likely doesn't directly apply to you; you probably ignore the Canadian stock market, but your returns will be fairly similar. I've reproduced part of that table here: As you can see, your expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. With a 20 year window, you likely can recover from any crash. If you have the stomach for it, it's the allocation with the highest expected return. Once you get closer to retirement, though, you have less time to wait for the stock market to recover. If you still have 90% or 100% of your investment in stocks and the market crashes by 44%, it might well take you more than 6 years to recover. Canadian Couch Potato has another article, Does a 60/40 Portfolio Still Make Sense? A 60/40 portfolio is a fairly common split for regular investors. Typically considered not too aggressive, not too conservative. The article references an AP article that suggests, in the current financial climate, 60/40 isn't enough. Even they aren't recommending a 90/10 or a 100/0 split, though. Personally, I think 60/40 is too conservative. However, I don't have the stomach for a 100/0 split or even a 90/10 split. Okay, to get back to your question. So long as your time horizon is far enough out, the expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. Be sure that you can tolerate the risk, though. A 30% or 40% hit to your investments is enough to make anyone jittery. Investing a portion of your money in bonds slightly lowers your expected return but can measurably reduce your risk. As you get closer to retirement and your time horizon narrows, you have less time to recover from a stock market crash and do need to be more conservative. 6 years is probably too short to keep all your money in stocks. Is your stated approach reasonable? Well, only you can answer that. :)" }, { "docid": "247132", "title": "", "text": "So don't retire. But plan like you will retire. I am sure that some billionaire put some money away into a pension, 401K, or IRA for their retirement when they were young. It turns out they never had to worry about outliving their money. The next few paragraphs use United States examples. What happens if you have to retire, but you never saved. All the matching funds you could have collected in a 401K are gone, they disappeared with every paycheck you didn't contribute. Every year you didn't contribute to an IRA can never be replayed. You gave up the magic of compounding, because you thought you would never want to retire. If you save but don't need it, you will have more money to play with as you cut back your hours to part time. If you skip all the plans that make it hard to spend the money until you are 59 1/2, you can still save, but it takes even more discipline to not spend it before you are old." }, { "docid": "328101", "title": "", "text": "\"my taxable income was roughly $230,000 in 2012. Indeed it is relevant. The highest AGI limit for deductible IRA contributions is 112K. So no, IRA contribution will not help you reducing your tax bill this year. The deduction phases out starting from AGI limits of $10K in certain cases (for married filing separately), and phases out entirely for anyone at AGI of 112K (for 2012). The table linked describes the various deduction phase-out parameters depending on your filing status, and will probably be updated yearly by the IRS. However this is only relevant if your company provides a retirement plan, as Joe mentioned. If your company doesn't provide a retirement plan but your spouse's does - then the AGI phase-out limit is $178K. If neither you nor your spouse (if you have one) is covered - then there's no AGI limit, and you can indeed make an IRA contribution before April 15th that would be attributed to the previous year and reduce your tax bill. Note that \"\"provides\"\" means the plan is available, even if you don't participate in it, any time during the year.\"" }, { "docid": "332373", "title": "", "text": "As others have shown, if you assume that you can get 6% and you invest 15% of a reasonable US salary then you can hit 1 million by the time you retire. If you invest in property in a market like the UK (where I come from...) then insane house price inflation will do it for you as well. In 1968 my parents bought a house for £8000. They had a mortgage on it for about 75% of the value. They don't live there but that house is now valued at about £750,000. Okay, that's close to 60 years, but with a 55 year working life that's not so unreasonable. If you assume the property market (or the shares market) can go on rising forever... then invest in as much property as you can with your 15% as mortgage payments... and watch the million roll in. Of course, you've also got rent on your property portfolio as well in the intervening years. However, take the long view. Inflation will hit what a million is worth. In 1968, a million was a ridiculously huge amount of money. Now it's 'Pah, so what, real rich people have billions'. You'll get your million and it will not be enough to retire comfortably on! In 1968 my parents salaries as skilled people were about £2000 a year... equivalent jobs now pay closer to £50,000... 25x salary inflation in the time. Do that again, skilled professional salary in 60 years of £125000 a year... so your million is actually 4 years salary. Not being relentlessly negative... just suggesting that a financial target like 'own a million (dollars)' isn't a good strategy. 'Own something that yields a decent amount of money' is a better one." }, { "docid": "361126", "title": "", "text": "Here is something that should help your decision: Currently you are 57, suppose that means that you will still work for 10 years, and then be retired for another 20 before you sell the house. Your retirement account is nearly flat, so you will have to support yourself with your own income. If there are no surprises, you and your wife could expect to earn 1.16 million over the next 10 years. There will be interest on your savings, but also inflation, so to simplify I will ignore both. That means you will have an average of 40k (gross?) per year available to live from during the next 30 years. If you get a mortgage where you only pay nett 3% interest (no payback of the loan), that would cost you 6k per year on interest (based on 350k-150k), if you also want to pay back the 200k difference within 30 years, it would totally be close to 13k in annual interest+payback. Now consider whether you would rather live on 40k per year in your current place, or on a lower amount in a bigger place. Personally I would not choose to make a 200k investment at this point, perhaps after trying to live on a budget for a while. (This has the additional benefit that you can even build some cash reserve before buying anything.)" }, { "docid": "591705", "title": "", "text": "I would focus first on maxing out your RRSPs (or 401k) each year, and once you've done that, try to put another 10% of your income away into unregistered long term growth savings. Let's say you're 30 and you've been doing that since you graduated 7 years ago, and maybe you averaged 8% p.a. return and an average of $50k per year salary (as a round number). I would say you should have 60k to 120k in straight up investments around age 30. If that's the case, you're probably well on your way to a very comfortable retirement." }, { "docid": "309840", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't know about the technicalities of retirement accounts, but I would advise you to please please please do not use retirement money to buy a home. The reason for not ever wanting to spend your retirement is.. when can you make it up? When you retire, you are by definition no longer earning money, so all your expenses can only come from the money you have saved. If you are willing to borrow from your retirement, it is not hard to imagine you are willing are willing to get a new car, or a new barbecue, or a new fishing boat before you repay yourself. So the question to ask yourself is, \"\"can I deal with renting for a few years knowing that I can retire comfortably, or am I willing to risk retirement to have a house now.\"\" Part of the will power it takes to pay yourself first is not taking from your own savings. You cannot count on anybody but yourself to take care of you when you are old. It is just opinion, but risking a comfortable retirement for a home now is not a risk anybody should take.\"" }, { "docid": "434869", "title": "", "text": "\"It is difficult to become a millionaire in the short term (a few years) working at a 9-to-5 job, unless you get lucky (win the lottery, inheritance, gambling at a casino, etc). However, if you max out your employer's Retirement Plan (401k, 403b) for the next 30 years, and you average a 5% rate of return on your investment, you will reach millionaire status. Many people would consider this \"\"easy\"\" and \"\"automatic\"\". Of course, this assumes you are able to max our your retirement savings at the start of your career, and keep it going. The idea is that if you get in the habit of saving early in your career and live modestly, it becomes an automatic thing. Unfortunately, the value of $1 million after 30 years of inflation will be eroded somewhat. (Sorry.) If you don't want to wait 30 years, then you need to look at a different strategy. Work harder or take risks. Some options:\"" }, { "docid": "74041", "title": "", "text": "Ben Miller's answer is very thorough, and I up voted it. I believe that the ability to rebalance without tax implications is very import, but there are two aspects of the question that were not covered: The 401K in many cases comes with a company match. Putting enough money into the fund each year to maximize the match, give you free money that is not available in the non-retirement accounts. The presence of that match is to encourage employees to contribute: even if they are tying up their funds until retirement age; and they are into a plan with only a handful of investment options; and they may have higher expenses in the 401K. The question also had a concern about the annual limits for the 401K (18,000) and the IRA (5,500). The use of a retirement account doesn't in any way limit your ability to invest in non-retirement accounts. You can choose to invest from 0 to 23,500 in the retirement accounts and from 0 to unlimited into the non-retirement accounts. Double those amounts if you are married." }, { "docid": "368504", "title": "", "text": "Have you looked at conventional financing rather than VA? VA loans are not a great deal. Conventional tends to be the best, and FHA being better than VA. While your rate looks very competitive, it looks like there will be a .5% fee for a refinance on top of other closing costs. If I have the numbers correct, you are looking to finance about 120K, and the house is worth about 140K. Given your salary and equity, you should have no problem getting a conventional loan assuming good enough credit. While the 30 year is tempting, the thing I hate about it is that you will be 78 when the home is paid off. Are you intending on working that long? Also you are restarting the clock on your mortgage. Presumably you have paid on it for a number of years, and now you will start that long journey over. If you were to take the 15 year how much would go to retirement? You claim that the $320 in savings will go toward retirement if you take the 30 year, but could you save any if you took the 15 year? All in all I would rate your plan a B-. It is a plan that will allow you to retire with dignity, and is not based on crazy assumptions. Your success comes in the execution. Will you actually put the $320 into retirement, or will the needs of the kids come before that? A strict budget is really a key component with a stay at home spouse. The A+ plan would be to get the 15 year, and put about $650 toward retirement each month. Its tough to do, but what sacrifices can you make to get there? Can you move your plan a bit closer to the ideal plan? One thing you have not addressed is how you will handle college for the kids. While in the process of long term planning, you might want to get on the same page with your wife on what you will offer the kids for help with college. A viable plan is to pay their room and board, have them work, and for them to pay their own tuition to community college. They are responsible for their own spending money and transportation. Thank you for your service." } ]

[ { "docid": "204035", "title": "", "text": "As a rule, one should have a retirement. HOWEVER, you also have over a half a million dollars of debt. Paying down debt is another way to prepare for retirement. I would say throwing your excess money at your debts is a fine strategy right now. Especially the student loan (the mortgage probably has a lower rate and brings tax savings, so paying it off is less urgent). If I were you I'd probably put SOMETHING into tax deferred retirement accounts because in your tax bracket, the savings from doing so are significant. The max you can put in tax deferred is $5,500 per year (each) in IRA's and up to $17,000 to your 401(k) each. The tax-saving contribution opportunities will not come up again...you can't make up for it later. Any retirement saving beyond the tax advantaged part makes no sense while you have outstanding debt." } ]

[ { "docid": "434869", "title": "", "text": "\"It is difficult to become a millionaire in the short term (a few years) working at a 9-to-5 job, unless you get lucky (win the lottery, inheritance, gambling at a casino, etc). However, if you max out your employer's Retirement Plan (401k, 403b) for the next 30 years, and you average a 5% rate of return on your investment, you will reach millionaire status. Many people would consider this \"\"easy\"\" and \"\"automatic\"\". Of course, this assumes you are able to max our your retirement savings at the start of your career, and keep it going. The idea is that if you get in the habit of saving early in your career and live modestly, it becomes an automatic thing. Unfortunately, the value of $1 million after 30 years of inflation will be eroded somewhat. (Sorry.) If you don't want to wait 30 years, then you need to look at a different strategy. Work harder or take risks. Some options:\"" }, { "docid": "502150", "title": "", "text": "\"The biggest and primary question is how much money you want to live on within retirement. The lower this is, the more options you have available. You will find that while initially complex, it doesn't take much planning to take complete advantage of the tax system if you are intending to retire early. Are there any other investment accounts that are geared towards retirement or long term investing and have some perk associated with them (tax deferred, tax exempt) but do not have an age restriction when money can be withdrawn? I'm going to answer this with some potential alternatives. The US tax system currently is great for people wanting to early retire. If you can save significant money you can optimize your taxes so much over your lifetime! If you retire early and have money invested in a Roth IRA or a traditional 401k, that money can't be touched without penalty until you're 55/59. (Let's ignore Roth contributions that can technically be withdrawn) Ok, the 401k myth. The \"\"I'm hosed if I put money into it since it's stuck\"\" perspective isn't true for a variety of reasons. If you retire early you get a long amount of time to take advantage of retirement accounts. One way is to primarily contribute to pretax 401k during working years. After retiring, begin converting this at a very low tax rate. You can convert money in a traditional IRA whenever you want to be Roth. You just pay your marginal tax rate which.... for an early retiree might be 0%. Then after 5 years - you now have a chunk of principle that has become Roth principle - and can be withdrawn whenever. Let's imagine you retire at 40 with 100k in your 401k (pretax). For 5 years, you convert $20k (assuming married). Because we get $20k between exemptions/deduction it means you pay $0 taxes every year while converting $20k of your pretax IRA to Roth. Or if you have kids, even more. After 5 years you now can withdraw that 20k/year 100% tax free since it has become principle. This is only a good idea when you are retired early because you are able to fill up all your \"\"free\"\" income for tax conversions. When you are working you would be paying your marginal rate. But your marginal rate in retirement is... 0%. Related thread on a forum you might enjoy. This is sometimes called a Roth pipeline. Basically: assuming you have no income while retired early you can fairly simply convert traditional IRA money into Roth principle. This is then accessible to you well before the 55/59 age but you get the full benefit of the pretax money. But let's pretend you don't want to do that. You need the money (and tax benefit!) now! How beneficial is it to do traditional 401ks? Imagine you live in a state/city where you are paying 25% marginal tax rate. If your expected marginal rate in your early retirement is 10-15% you are still better off putting money into your 401k and just paying the 10% penalty on an early withdrawal. In many cases, for high earners, this can actually still be a tax benefit overall. The point is this: just because you have to \"\"work\"\" to get money out of a 401k early does NOT mean you lose the tax benefits of it. In fact, current tax code really does let an early retiree have their cake and eat it too when it comes to the Roth/traditional 401k/IRA question. Are you limited to a generic taxable brokerage account? Currently, a huge perk for those with small incomes is that long term capital gains are taxed based on your current federal tax bracket. If your federal marginal rate is 15% or less you will pay nothing for long term capital gains, until this income pushes you into the 25% federal bracket. This might change, but right now means you can capture many capital gains without paying taxes on them. This is huge for early retirees who can manipulate income. You can have significant \"\"income\"\" and not pay taxes on it. You can also stack this with before mentioned Roth conversions. Convert traditional IRA money until you would begin owing any federal taxes, then capture long term capital gains until you would pay tax on those. Combined this can represent a huge amount of money per year. So littleadv mentioned HSAs but.. for an early retiree they can be ridiculously good. What this means is you can invest the maximum into your HSA for 10 years, let it grow 100% tax free, and save all your medical receipts/etc. Then in 10 years start withdrawing that money. While it sucks healthcare costs so much in America, you might as well take advantage of the tax opportunities to make it suck slightly less. There are many online communities dedicated to learning and optimizing their lives in order to achieve early retirement. The question you are asking can be answered superficially in the above, but for a comprehensive plan you might want other resources. Some you might enjoy:\"" }, { "docid": "424220", "title": "", "text": "\"short answer: any long term financial planning (~10yrs+). e.g. mortgage and retirement planning. long answer: inflation doesn't really matter in short time frames. on any given day, you might get a rent hike, or a raise, or the grocery store might have a sale. inflation is really only relevant over the long term. annual inflation is tiny (2~4%) compared to large unexpected expenses(5-10%). however, over 10 years, even your \"\"large unexpected expenses\"\" will still average out to a small fraction of your spending (5~10%) compared to the impact of compounded inflation (30~40%). inflation is really critical when you are trying to plan for retirement, which you should start doing when you get your first job. when making long-term projections, you need to consider not only your expected nominal rate of investment return (e.g. 7%) but also subtract the expected rate of inflation (e.g. 3%). alternatively, you can add the inflation rate to your projected spending (being sure to compound year-over-year). when projecting your income 10+ years out, you can use inflation to estimate your annual raises. up to age 30, people tend to get raises that exceed inflation. thereafter, they tend to track inflation. if you ever decide to buy a house, you need to consider the impact of inflation when calculating the total cost over a 30-yr mortgage. generally, you can expect your house to appreciate over 30 years in line with inflation (possibly more in an urban area). so a simple mortgage projection needs to account for interest, inflation, maintenance, insurance and closing costs. you could also consider inflation for things like rent and income, but only over several years. generally, rent and income are such large amounts of money it is worth your time to research specific alternatives rather than just guessing what market rates are this year based on average inflation. while it is true that rent and wages go up in line with inflation in the long run, you can make a lot of money in the short run if you keep an eye on market rates every year. over 10-20 years your personal rate of inflation should be very close to the average rate when you consider all your spending (housing, food, energy, clothing, etc.).\"" }, { "docid": "338703", "title": "", "text": "\"So you're making $150,000 per year and you have $245,000 in debts. You're in your late 30s and have $41,000, or less than 1/3 of a year's pay, put away for retirement. That's a bad situation, but not disastrous. Lots of people have recovered from far worse. But like the old joke goes, when you realize that you're deep in a hole, STOP DIGGING. The worst thing you could do right now is liquidate the few assets you have and go deeper into debt. I don't know where you live or what the housing market is there. But the easy answer is: find a cheaper house. I'm not sure what you mean about \"\"affect the resale value\"\". Yes, if you buy a cheaper house it will have a lower resale value. So what? The days when a house was an investment that would skyrocket in value are over. (And even in those days, it didn't help most people. So when you move, you get a big profit on the sale of your house. But the house you're moving to probably went up by a similar percentage, so you really didn't gain anything.) Even if your house did increase in value, unless you sell it, that doesn't help you make the mortgage payments. It's a paper profit. Get yourself out of debt. Step 1 is to stop taking on new debts. And if at all possible, you should be putting bare minimum 6% into your retirement plan. I don't know where you work, but most employers match some percentage of the first 6% you put in. If you don't take advantage of that, you're giving up free money.\"" }, { "docid": "42430", "title": "", "text": "Imagine a married couple without a mortgage, but live in a house fully paid for. They pay state income taxes, and property tax, and make charitable deductions that together total $12,599. That is $1 below the standard deduction for 2015, therefore they don't itemize. Now they decide to get a mortgage: $100,000 for 30 years at 4%. That first year they pay about $4,000 in interest. Now it makes sense to itemize. That $4,000 in interest plus their other deductions means that if they are in the 25% bracket they cut their tax bill by $1,000. These numbers will decrease each year. If they have a use for that pile of cash: such as a new roof, or a 100% sure investment that is guaranteed make more money for them then they are losing in interest it makes sense. But spending $4,000 to save $1,000 doesn't. Using the pile of cash to pay off the new mortgage means that the bank is collecting $4,000 a year so you can send $1,000 less to Uncle Sam." }, { "docid": "124009", "title": "", "text": "Graduating from college is probably one of the most fulfilling triumphs you’ll ever achieve in your entire life. However, that joy also brings bigger responsibilities in life that could affect tax time too. This specific time in your life will have a lot to offer and before the winds of change take you to wherever you dream of, here are some advices from [Southbourne Tax Group](http://www.thesouthbournegroup.com/) to make your taxes easier where you can get a refund during filing time and save money as well. If your modified adjusted gross income is below $80,000 and you’re single, up to $2,500 of the interest portion of your student loan payments can be tax deductible, and below $160,000 for married person filing jointly. Job hunting expenses can be tax deductible too but there are exceptions such as expenses involved in your search for a new job in a new career field and working full-time for the first time. Major tax breaks are expected in case you are moving to a new and different city for your first job. Get a jump start on retirement savings with your company’s 401(k). Each year, you can secure up to $18,000 from your income taxes by contributing on one. If you have a family coverage, you could secure $6,750 from contributing to a health savings account in case you are enrolled in a high-deductible health plan. And if you are single, you can secure up to $3,400. Placing your money into a flexible spending account could keep an added $2,600 out of your taxable income. Getting big deductions for business expenses is possible if you are planning to be a freelancer or to be your own boss as a new college graduate. Southbourne Group also advises saving at least 25% of what you’re earning for the IRS. Research more about lifetime learning credit and understand its importance. You can claim up to $2,000 of a tax credit for post-secondary work at eligible educational institutions. This is possible if your adjusted gross income is below $65,000 as a single filer, or below $131,000 as a married person filing jointly. Saving money has a lot of benefits and one of which is cutting your tax bill. If you’re a married person filing jointly and have an adjusted gross income of less than $62,000, you may qualify for the saver’s credit, while for a single filer, it should be below $31,000. That can reduce your tax bill by up to 50% of the first $2,000 if you’re a single filer, or $4,000 if you’re a married person filing jointly you contribute to an eligible retirement plan. Southbourne Tax Group doesn’t want you to overspend on tax software and getting professional help in this regard. The firm suggests using the free packages from trusted tax software companies if your tax situation is quite simple. Get that professional help at Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program, which can help you meet with a pro at little or no cost." }, { "docid": "532787", "title": "", "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!\"" }, { "docid": "81343", "title": "", "text": "\"I disagree with the selected answer. There's no one rule of thumb and certainly not simple ones like \"\"20 cents of every dollar if you're 35\"\". You've made a good start by making a budget of your expected expenses. If you read the Mr. Money Mustache blogpost titled The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement, you will understand that it is usually a mistake to think of your expenses as a fixed percentage of your income. In most cases, it makes more sense to keep your expenses as low as possible, regardless of your actual income. In the financial independence community, it is a common principle that one typically needs 25-30 times one's annual spending to have enough money to sustain oneself forever off the investment returns that those savings generate (this is based on the assumption of a 7% average annual return, 4% after inflation). So the real answer to your question is this: UPDATE Keats brought to my attention that this formula doesn't work that well when the savings rates are low (20% range). This is because it assumes that money you save earns no returns for the entire period that you are saving. This is obviously not true; investment returns should also count toward your 25-times annual spending goal. For that reason, it's probably better to refer to the blog post that I linked to in the answer above for precise calculations. That's where I got the \"\"37 years at 20% savings rate\"\" figure from. Depending on how large and small x and y are, you could have enough saved up to retire in 7 years (at a 75% savings rate), 17 years (at a 50% savings rate), or 37 years! (at the suggested 20% savings rate for 35-year olds). As you go through life, your expenses may increase (eg. starting a family, starting a new business, unexpected health event etc) or decrease (kid wins full scholarship to college). So could your income. However, in general, you should negotiate the highest salary possible (if you are salaried), use the 25x rule, and consider your life and career goals to decide how much you want to save. And stop thinking of expenses as a percentage of income.\"" }, { "docid": "589986", "title": "", "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.\"" }, { "docid": "502109", "title": "", "text": "Time &amp; money. People have one or the other. Even with a Pell Grant to attend school, it can be very hard to get a job that will accommodate a class schedule and also pay enough for basic living expenses. And many people around here were not encouraged to pursue education, because of the expense. And because, until 10-15 years ago, there were always factories hired and it was expected to start at 18 and stay until retirement. I'm in my 30s and in school now, and it's taking me forever because I've had to change jobs, shuffle classes, and take time off in order to be able to pay bills and pursue my education. If you do too well at work, they don't want to give you the time off to move forward (problem I had at a law office where I was working way more hours than hired for, then told I couldn't cut back to our original agreement when the next semester required more seated classes). If you don't excel, it's not worth their trouble to accommodate you because there are plenty of others begging for a job that can work whenever they're told. And, in towns like this, I suspect part of it is a crabs in the bucket mentality. 40+ year old supervisors with GEDs sometimes don't like it when workers on the bottom rung are getting bachelor's degrees. The same in nursing - some of those LPNs &amp; ADN/RNs get a little touchy when the newer younger ones immediately go to work on their RN. (And EMTs that try to jump straight to Paramedic, or those going for 4 year Paramedicine degrees, are met with outright scorn. Although there are some reasons for that, mainly lack of real world experience)." }, { "docid": "152985", "title": "", "text": "It is normally a bad idea to cash in retirement accounts to buy a house, in your case it is a horrible idea because you are way behind on saving for retirement. Other fallacies in your reasoning: My advice, increase the amount you are saving for retirement considerably, and also put some money aside to save for a down payment on a house. Buy the house when you have enough non-retirement money to afford the down payment. If you can't wait that long, buy a house you can afford. It may help to think of it this way: Visualize yourself as a 65 year old retired person with very little income, and living on your retirement account. Would you as a 39 year old ask that person to give you $175,966 (the amount you are talking about withdrawing compounded annually at 6% interest for 25 years with no additional contributions) so that you could put a down payment on a house? Because that is what you would be doing. When you hit retirement age would you kick yourself for making such a decision? Because unless you die young, that person is sitting out there in your future needing that money to live off of. Don't take this the wrong way, but the tone of your question seems like you are looking for support to make what you already know is a bad financial decision." }, { "docid": "273501", "title": "", "text": "\"Why would anyone ever get a 15 year instead of just paying off a 30 year in 15 years? Because the rate is not the same. Never that I've seen in my 30 years of following rates. I've seen the rate difference range from .25% to .75%. (In March '15, the average rate in my area is 30yr 3.75% / 15yr 3.00%) For a $150K loan, this puts the 15yr payment at $1036, with the 30 (at higher rate) paid in 15 years at $1091. This $55 difference can be considered a flexibility premium,\"\" as it offers the option to pay the actual $695 in any period the money is needed elsewhere. If the rate were the same, I'd grab the 30, and since I can't say \"\"invest the difference,\"\" I'd say to pay at a pace to go 15, unless you had a cash flow situation. A spouse out of work. An emergency that you funded with a high interest rate loan, etc. The advice to have an emergency fund is great until for whatever reason, there's just not enough. On a personal note, I did go with the 15 year mortgage for our last refinance. I was nearing 50 at the time, and it seemed prudent to aim for a mortgage free retirement.\"" }, { "docid": "569539", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "175463", "title": "", "text": "Michigan's 529 plan offers a wide variety of investment options, ranging from a very conservative guaranteed investment option (currently earning 1.75% interest) to a variety of index-based funds, most of which are considered aggressive. You said that you are unhappy with the 5% you have earned the past year, and that you thought you should be able to get 8% elsewhere. But according to your comment, you have 30% of your money earning a fixed 1.75% rate, and another 40% of your money invested in one of the moderate balanced options (which includes both stocks and bonds). You've only got 30% invested in the more aggressive investments that you seem to be looking for. If you want to be invested more agressively (which is reasonable, since your daughter won't need this money for many years), you can select more aggressive investments inside the 529. Michigan's 529 offers you the ability to deduct up to $10,000 (if you are married filing jointly) of contributions off your Michigan state income tax each year. In addition, the earnings inside the 529 are federally tax-free if the money is spent on college education." }, { "docid": "453639", "title": "", "text": "(All for US.) Yes you (will) have a realized long-term capital gain, which is taxable. Long-term gains (including those distributed by a mutual fund or other RIC, and also 'qualified' dividends, both not relevant here) are taxed at lower rates than 'ordinary' income but are still bracketed almost (not quite) like ordinary income, not always 15%. Specifically if your ordinary taxable income (after deductions and exemptions, equivalent to line 43 minus LTCG/QD) 'ends' in the 25% to 33% brackets, your LTCG/QD income is taxed at 15% unless the total of ordinary+preferred reaches the top of those brackets, then any remainder at 20%. These brackets depend on your filing status and are adjusted yearly for inflation, for 2016 they are: * single 37,650 to 413,350 * married-joint or widow(er) 75,300 to 413,350 * head-of-household 50,400 to 441,000 (special) * married-separate 37,650 to 206,675 which I'd guess covers at least the middle three quintiles of the earning/taxpaying population. OTOH if your ordinary income ends below the 25% bracket, your LTCG/QD income that 'fits' in the lower bracket(s) is taxed at 0% (not at all) and only the portion that would be in the ordinary 25%-and-up brackets is taxed at 15%. IF your ordinary taxable income this year was below those brackets, or you expect next year it will be (possibly due to status/exemption/deduction changes as well as income change), then if all else is equal you are better off realizing the stock gain in the year(s) where some (or more) of it fits in the 0% bracket. If you're over about $400k a similar calculation applies, but you can afford more reliable advice than potential dogs on the Internet. (update) Near dupe found: see also How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket? Also, a warning on estimated payments: in general you are required to pay most of your income tax liability during the year (not wait until April 15); if you underpay by more than 10% or $1000 (whichever is larger) you usually owe a penalty, computed on Form 2210 whose name(?) is frequently and roundly cursed. For most people, whose income is (mostly) from a job, this is handled by payroll withholding which normally comes out close enough to your liability. If you have other income, like investments (as here) or self-employment or pension/retirement/disability/etc, you are supposed to either make estimated payments each 'quarter' (the IRS' quarters are shifted slightly from everyone else's), or increase your withholding, or a combination. For a large income 'lump' in December that wasn't planned in advance, it won't be practical to adjust withholding. However, if this is the only year increased, there is a safe harbor: if your withholding this year (2016) is enough to pay last year's tax (2015) -- which for most people it is, unless you got a pay cut this year, or a (filed) status change like marrying or having a child -- you get until next April 15 (or next business day -- in 2017 it is actually April 18) to pay the additional amount of this year's tax (2016) without underpayment penalty. However, if you split the gain so that both 2016 and 2017 have income and (thus) taxes higher than normal for you, you will need to make estimated payment(s) and/or increase withholding for 2017. PS: congratulations on your gain -- and on the patience to hold anything for 10 years!" }, { "docid": "108672", "title": "", "text": "You can withdraw from CPP as early as 60. However, by doing so, you will permanently reduce the payments. The reduction is calculated based on average life expectancies. If you live for an average amount of time, that means you'll receive approximately the same total amount (after inflation adjustments) whether you start pulling from CPP at 60, 65, or even delay your pension later. People may have pensions through systems other than CPP. This is often true for big business or government work. They may work differently. People who retire at 55 with a pension are not getting their pension through CPP. A person retiring at 55 would need to wait at least five years to draw from the CPP, and ten years before he or she was eligible for a full pension through CPP. Canada also offers Old Age Security (OAS). This is only available once you are 65 years old or older, though this is changing. Starting in 2023, this will gradually change to 67 years or older. See this page for more details. As always, it's worth pointing out that the CPP and OAS will almost certainly not cover your full retirement expenses and you will need supplementary funds." }, { "docid": "99987", "title": "", "text": "\"The suggestions towards retirement and emergency savings outlined by the other posters are absolute must-dos. The donations towards charitable causes are also extremely valuable considerations. If you are concerned about your savings, consider making some goals. If you plan on staying in an area long term (at least five years), consider beginning to save for a down payment to own a home. A rent-versus-buy calculator can help you figure out how long you'd need to stay in an area to make owning a home cost effective, but five years is usually a minimum to cover closing costs and such compared to rending. Other goals that might be worthwhile are a fully funded new car fund for when you need new wheels, the ability to take a longer or nicer vacation, a future wedding if you'd like to get married some day, and so on. Think of your savings not as a slush fund of money sitting around doing nothing, but as the seed of something worthwhile. Yes, you will only be young once. However being young does not mean you have to be Carrie from Sex in the City buying extremely expensive designer shoes or live like a rapper on Cribs. Dave Ramsey is attributed as saying something like, \"\"Live like no one else so that you can live like no one else.\"\" Many people in their 30s and 40s are struggling under mortgages, perhaps long-left-over student loan debt, credit card debt, auto loans, and not enough retirement savings because they had \"\"fun\"\" while they were young. Do you have any remaining debt? Pay it off early instead of saving so much. Perhaps you'll find that you prefer to hit that age with a fully paid off home and car, savings for your future goals (kids' college tuitions, early retirement, etc.). Maybe you want to be able to afford some land or a place in a very high cost of living city. In other words - now is the time to set your dreams and allocate your spare cash towards them. Life's only going to get more expensive if you choose to have a family, so save what you can as early as possible.\"" }, { "docid": "519856", "title": "", "text": "One opinion related to savings is to save 30% of your take home salary every month, split the amount into two parts depending on your age (29) one part would be 30% of 30% and another 70% of 30%. Take the 70% and buy blue chip stock and take the 30% and buy govt. bonds. Each 10 years adjust the percentages at 40, 40% on bonds and 60% on stock. Only cash out on the day you retire, otherwise ignore all market/economic movements. With this and the statutory savings (employment retirement) you should be ok." }, { "docid": "459906", "title": "", "text": "You're extremely fortunate to have $50k in CDs, no debt, and $3800 disposable after food and rent. Congrats. Here's how I would approach it. If you see yourself getting into a home in the next couple of years, stay safe and liquid. CDs (depending on the duration) fit that description. Because you have disposable income and you're young, you should be contributing to a Roth IRA. This will build in value and compound over your lifetime, so that when you're in your 70s you'll actually have a retirement. Financial planners love life insurance because that's how they make all their money. I have whole life insurance because its cash value will be part of my retirement. It may also cover my wife if I ever decide to get married. It may or may not make sense for you now depending on how soon you want to buy a home and home expensive they are in your zip code. Higher risk, higher reward- you can count on that. Keep the funds in the United States and don't try to get into any slick financial moves. If you have a school in town, see if you can take an Intro to Financial Planning class. It's extremely helpful for anyone with these kinds of questions." } ]

[ { "docid": "581204", "title": "", "text": "The question regarding your snapshot is fine, but the real question is what are you doing to improve your situation? As John offered, one bit of guidance suggests you have a full year's gross earnings as a saving target. In my opinion, that's on the low side, and 2X should be the goal by 35. I suggest you look back, and see if you can account for every dollar for the prior 6-12 months. This exercise isn't for the purpose of criticizing your restaurant spending, or cost of clothes, but to just bring it to light. Often, there's some low hanging fruit in this type of budgeting exercise, spending that you didn't realize was so high. I'd also look carefully at your debt. What rate is the mortgage and the student loans? By understanding the loans' rates, terms, and tax status (e.g. whether any is a deduction) you can best choose the way to pay it off. If the rates are low enough you might consider funding your 401(k) accounts a bit more and slow down the loan payments. It seems that in your 30's you have a negative net worth, but your true asset is your education and future earning potential. From a high level view, you make $180K. Taking $50K off the top (which after taxes gives you $30K) to pay your student loan, you are still earning $130K, putting you at or near top 10% of families in this country. This should be enough to afford that mortgage, and still live a nice life. In the end there are three paths, earn more (why does hubby earn half what you do, in the same field?), spend less, or reallocate current budget by changing how you are handling that debt." } ]

[ { "docid": "508433", "title": "", "text": "That whole sexual harassment thing isn't really enforced. Most married couples meet at work and it has to start somewhere. If you see a nice piece of ass and there isn't a ring on the finger, go for it. If there is a ring, well, that's makes it a bit more fun. Besides, nobody stays at companies for 30 years anything, the tail you're nailing will most likely move up and out or something." }, { "docid": "502109", "title": "", "text": "Time &amp; money. People have one or the other. Even with a Pell Grant to attend school, it can be very hard to get a job that will accommodate a class schedule and also pay enough for basic living expenses. And many people around here were not encouraged to pursue education, because of the expense. And because, until 10-15 years ago, there were always factories hired and it was expected to start at 18 and stay until retirement. I'm in my 30s and in school now, and it's taking me forever because I've had to change jobs, shuffle classes, and take time off in order to be able to pay bills and pursue my education. If you do too well at work, they don't want to give you the time off to move forward (problem I had at a law office where I was working way more hours than hired for, then told I couldn't cut back to our original agreement when the next semester required more seated classes). If you don't excel, it's not worth their trouble to accommodate you because there are plenty of others begging for a job that can work whenever they're told. And, in towns like this, I suspect part of it is a crabs in the bucket mentality. 40+ year old supervisors with GEDs sometimes don't like it when workers on the bottom rung are getting bachelor's degrees. The same in nursing - some of those LPNs &amp; ADN/RNs get a little touchy when the newer younger ones immediately go to work on their RN. (And EMTs that try to jump straight to Paramedic, or those going for 4 year Paramedicine degrees, are met with outright scorn. Although there are some reasons for that, mainly lack of real world experience)." }, { "docid": "351181", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;Of course; the generation Xers are those in the age range where many were approaching the time when they would, but had not yet, transferred the bulk of their retirement savings to lower risk investments. **Your analysis is WAY off-base.** Gen X was more than a DECADE AWAY from even *thinking* of switching to \"\"lower risk investments\"\". The OLDEST Gen X'ers were born in 1964 and have (just now) turned 48 -- they were (at most) 44 years old in 2008 when the market crashed. The YOUNGEST Gen X'ers were born circa 1981-82, and (just now) have reached age 30 -- they were just getting started in their careers (around age 26) in 2008 when the market crashed. The MAJORITY of Gen X'ers were -- in 2008 -- in their mid 30's. NO ONE switches to \"\"low risk investments\"\" in their mid 30's. --- No, the only Gen X'ers who DIDN'T get \"\"screwed\"\" by the market crash were either: 1. Savvy enough to have SEEN the bubble &amp; crash coming and so got OUT of the stock market and/or housing; or... 2. Waited out the storm &amp; sat tight -- and allowed their market holdings to both crash and then rebound (though they would still largely be \"\"down\"\" from where they were at peak 2008, they wouldn't have suffered huge losses).\"" }, { "docid": "332373", "title": "", "text": "As others have shown, if you assume that you can get 6% and you invest 15% of a reasonable US salary then you can hit 1 million by the time you retire. If you invest in property in a market like the UK (where I come from...) then insane house price inflation will do it for you as well. In 1968 my parents bought a house for £8000. They had a mortgage on it for about 75% of the value. They don't live there but that house is now valued at about £750,000. Okay, that's close to 60 years, but with a 55 year working life that's not so unreasonable. If you assume the property market (or the shares market) can go on rising forever... then invest in as much property as you can with your 15% as mortgage payments... and watch the million roll in. Of course, you've also got rent on your property portfolio as well in the intervening years. However, take the long view. Inflation will hit what a million is worth. In 1968, a million was a ridiculously huge amount of money. Now it's 'Pah, so what, real rich people have billions'. You'll get your million and it will not be enough to retire comfortably on! In 1968 my parents salaries as skilled people were about £2000 a year... equivalent jobs now pay closer to £50,000... 25x salary inflation in the time. Do that again, skilled professional salary in 60 years of £125000 a year... so your million is actually 4 years salary. Not being relentlessly negative... just suggesting that a financial target like 'own a million (dollars)' isn't a good strategy. 'Own something that yields a decent amount of money' is a better one." }, { "docid": "338703", "title": "", "text": "\"So you're making $150,000 per year and you have $245,000 in debts. You're in your late 30s and have $41,000, or less than 1/3 of a year's pay, put away for retirement. That's a bad situation, but not disastrous. Lots of people have recovered from far worse. But like the old joke goes, when you realize that you're deep in a hole, STOP DIGGING. The worst thing you could do right now is liquidate the few assets you have and go deeper into debt. I don't know where you live or what the housing market is there. But the easy answer is: find a cheaper house. I'm not sure what you mean about \"\"affect the resale value\"\". Yes, if you buy a cheaper house it will have a lower resale value. So what? The days when a house was an investment that would skyrocket in value are over. (And even in those days, it didn't help most people. So when you move, you get a big profit on the sale of your house. But the house you're moving to probably went up by a similar percentage, so you really didn't gain anything.) Even if your house did increase in value, unless you sell it, that doesn't help you make the mortgage payments. It's a paper profit. Get yourself out of debt. Step 1 is to stop taking on new debts. And if at all possible, you should be putting bare minimum 6% into your retirement plan. I don't know where you work, but most employers match some percentage of the first 6% you put in. If you don't take advantage of that, you're giving up free money.\"" }, { "docid": "519856", "title": "", "text": "One opinion related to savings is to save 30% of your take home salary every month, split the amount into two parts depending on your age (29) one part would be 30% of 30% and another 70% of 30%. Take the 70% and buy blue chip stock and take the 30% and buy govt. bonds. Each 10 years adjust the percentages at 40, 40% on bonds and 60% on stock. Only cash out on the day you retire, otherwise ignore all market/economic movements. With this and the statutory savings (employment retirement) you should be ok." }, { "docid": "139559", "title": "", "text": "There is another factor to consider when refinancing is the remaining term left on your loan. If you have 20 years left, and you re-fi into another 30 year loan that extends the length that you will be paying off the house for another 10 years. You are probably better off going with 20, or even 15. If this is a new loan, that is less of an issue, although if you moving and buying a house in a similar price range it is still something to consider. My goal is to have my house paid off before I retire (hopefully early semi-retirement around 55)." }, { "docid": "67276", "title": "", "text": "\"Your real question, \"\"why is this not discussed more?\"\" is intriguing. I think the media are doing a better job bringing these things into the topics they like to ponder, just not enough, yet. You actually produced the answer to How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket? so you understand how it works. I am a fan of bracket topping. e.g. A young couple should try to top off their 15% bracket by staying with Roth but then using pretax IRA/401(k) to not creep into 25% bracket. For this discussion, 2013 numbers, a blank return (i.e. no schedule A, no other income) shows a couple with a gross $92,500 being at the 15%/25% line. It happens that $20K is exactly the sum of their standard deduction, and 2 exemptions. The last clean Distribution of Income Data is from 2006, but since wages haven't exploded and inflation has been low, it's fair to say that from the $92,000 representing the top 20% of earners, it won't have many more than top 25% today. So, yes, this is a great opportunity for most people. Any married couple with under that $92,500 figure can use this strategy to exploit your observation, and step up their basis each year. To littleadv objection - I imagine an older couple grossing $75K, by selling stock with $10K in LT gains just getting rid of the potential 15% bill at retirement. No trading cost if a mutual fund, just $20 or so if stocks. The more important point, not yet mentioned - even in a low cost 401(k), a lifetime of savings results in all gains being turned in ordinary income. And the case is strong for 'deposit to the match but no no more' as this strategy would let 2/3 of us pay zero on those gains. (To try to address the rest of your questions a bit - the strategy applies to a small sliver of people. 25% have income too high, the bottom 50% or so, have virtually no savings. Much of the 25% that remain have savings in tax sheltered accounts. With the 2013 401(k) limit of $17,500, a 40 year old couple can save $35,000. This easily suck in most of one's long term retirement savings. We can discuss demographics all day, but I think this addresses your question.) If you add any comments, I'll probably address them via edits, avoiding a long dialog below.\"" }, { "docid": "386053", "title": "", "text": "I work in marketing - there's always spillover. We love hypertargeting people but it's still effective to target a broad audience so overall awareness of your brand is higher than your competitors. Seems like a waste to serve a 20 year old a Rocket Mortage ad. But 20 year olds become 30 year olds eventually." }, { "docid": "294676", "title": "", "text": "If you are earning a salary, go for Roth IRA. You can contribute $5500 (2013 limits) every year . Once you open a account , let say Fidelity or Vanguard, you should invest based on risk appetite into some funds. the advantage is that your money grows tax free and when you are 25- 30 years old and need money for down payment of house, you can pull the money out with out any penalty. The gains you have made will continue to be in that account till the time your retire, growing every year." }, { "docid": "418864", "title": "", "text": "\"Keep in mind, there are too many variables to address in a single post. I could (and might) write a full book on the topic. One simple way to comprehend your perceived observation. In the 25% bracket, you have $1000 of income and two choices. Net out $750, and deposit to Roth, or deposit the full $1000 to the traditional IRA or 401(k). Sufficient time passes for the investment to grow 10 fold. For what it's worth, 8% at 30 years will do that. The Roth is now worth $7500 tax free. The traditional 401(k) is worth $10000 but subject to tax. At 25%, we're at the same $7500. For those looking to invest more than a gross $18,000, the Roth flavor is an effective $24,000, as post tax, this is $18,000. I wrote a bit more on this in the whimsically titled The Density of Your IRA. This is really a top 10%er issue, as it takes quite a bit of income for the $23,000 combined IRA and 401(k) limits to be a problem. In my writing, the larger case to be made is for taking advantage of the tax rate difference between the time of deposit and withdrawal. A look at the 2016 tax rates is in order. Let's stick with 25% while working. Now, at retirement, but before social security, as that's another story, the couple has $20,600 in standard deduction and exemption, and both the 10 and 15% brackets to enjoy. Ignoring any other deductions, potential credits, etc, let's look at a gross $80,000 withdrawal. The numbers happen to work out to an average 10%, with the couple being in a marginal 15% bracket. A full 25% or $20,000 tax would be the break-even to the \"\"same bracket in/out\"\" analysis, so this produces a $12,000 benefit. This issue is often treated as if there were 2 points in time, the deposit, and the withdrawal. For most people, that may be the case. Keep in mind, current law allows a conversion to Roth any time in between. This gives an opportunity to make a deposit while in the 25% bracket, and convert in any year the marginal rate drops back to 15% for whatever reason. Last - I can't ignore the Social Security problem. Simply put, when half of your Social Security benefits plus other income exceed $25,000 ($32,000 if married filing joint) your benefits start to become taxable, until 85% of your benefits are fully taxed. This issue is worthy of multiple posts by itself. It's not a deal killer, just another point to consider. A very high income earner might be beyond these levels already, in which case the point is moot. A low income earner, not impacted at all. It's those who are in the range to navigate this that would benefit to take advantage of the scenario I presented above and spend down pre-tax accounts, while planning to use the Roths when Social Security starts. This should make it clear - it's not all or none. Those retiring with $2M in 100% pretax, or $1.5M 100% in Roth have both missed the chance to have the optimal mix.\"" }, { "docid": "107780", "title": "", "text": "Investing is good. Insurance when you have something to insure is good. But using a single account for investing and insurance is not so good. You need to determine how much you need to invest for retirement. You also need to determine if you need life insurance. As a single person you might determine that you don't have a great need for life insurance. If you get married, or have kids, your needs may grow. So you will want to revisit your decisions every so often. You may need to save for retirement, or setup a college fund. You may need to protect your spouse or children in case you die. It doesn't seem to make sense to invest and insure in a plan with complicated rules, fees and schedules. What happens if in 3 years you need to blow it up and start over? What surrender charges will they hit you with?" }, { "docid": "274962", "title": "", "text": "\"I think you're really underestimating the degree of ageism that occurs in hiring and just how much youth is favoured in the job markets. Experience costs more and it depreciates quickly. In most case employers will prefer someone less experienced who comes across as mature and less expensive than someone who is more experienced but has been our of the industry for a year or more. The attitude of \"\"you can't teach an old job new tricks\"\" rules. Your 30s represent the ideal sweet spot: you are still young and you have some experience. If you're not in full preparing for retirement mode by 40 or 45, you're going to have a bad time. GenXers have lost most of their sweet spot and if the recovery doesn't happen, they will have lost all of it. Yes, Millenials have it pretty bad too -- no one is disputing that -- but GenX was screwed from the start. We have larger generations on either side of us. We are a transitional generation that started out before computers went mainstream but ended after, so we have a hard time competing with Millenials who have lived with technology all their life. The whole structure of the world changed right under us, i.e., the end of the cold war. And this change significantly increased available labour. Even before 2008 the talk was all about how screwed the GenXers where because of the power of Boomers and the dominance of the Millenials. We already had our backs up against the wall then 2008 struck. Also, I'd much rather be 28 and looking for a job than 40+ and looking for one. It's so much easier to jump industries or cites or countries when younger and you don't have children to look after. The 28 year old is not locked a career path and has lost a ton of political capital and credibility for having lost their job. The 40+ year old will always have to face questions: why wasn't he/she one of the one the company kept during the layoffs? will he/she be able to learn and adapt to the new job? will he/she be comfortable reporting to someone younger? will he/she be will to sacrifice time away from kids to work longer hours to compete with younger employees?\"" }, { "docid": "403226", "title": "", "text": "The OP invests a large amount of money each year (30-40k), and has significant amount already invested. Some in the United States that face this situation may want to look at using the bonus to fund two years worth of IRA or Roth IRA. During the period between January 1st and tax day they can put money into a IRA or Roth IRA for the previous year, and for the current year. The two deposits might have to be made separately, because the tax year for each deposit must be specified. If the individual is married, they can also fund their spouses IRA or Roth IRA. If this bonus is this large every year, the double deposit can only be done the first time, but if the windfall was unexpected getting the previous years deposit done before tax day could be useful. The deposits for the current year could still be spread out over the next 12 months. EDIT: Having thought about the issue a little more I have realized there are other timing issues that need to be considered." }, { "docid": "234846", "title": "", "text": "&gt;But on the bright side, the most common decade for people to start saving is in their 20s. Twice as many 30 to 49 year olds said they started saving in their 20s instead of their 30s, while the 50 to 64 age group was “only slightly more likely” to have started saving in their 20s over their 30s, according to the report, which surveyed 1,003 adults living in the continental U.S. So they are basing their analysis of how early people start saving purely by studying people in their 30s and 40s with those in their 50s and 60s. They don't compare either of those age groups with those in their 20s and 30s to see how things have changed?" }, { "docid": "248536", "title": "", "text": "According to the IRS, you can still put money in your IRA. Here (https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/Retirement-Topics-IRA-Contribution-Limits) they say: Can I contribute to an IRA if I participate in a retirement plan at work? You can contribute to a traditional or Roth IRA whether or not you participate in another retirement plan through your employer or business. However, you might not be able to deduct all of your traditional IRA contributions if you or your spouse participates in another retirement plan at work. Roth IRA contributions might be limited if your income exceeds a certain level. In addition, in this link (https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/IRA-Deduction-Limits), the IRS says: Retirement plan at work: Your deduction may be limited if you (or your spouse, if you are married) are covered by a retirement plan at work and your income exceeds certain levels. The word 'covered' should clarify that - you are not covered anymore in that year, you just got a contribution in that year which was triggered by work done in a previous year. You cannot legally be covered in a plan at an employer where you did not work in that year." }, { "docid": "438326", "title": "", "text": "Mines 3 years old, aside from 1 memory hungry game where it still mostly plays well but sometimes stutters on, it's all a-okay. Updates and all. Probably will keep it 1 more year as a game isn't worth upgrading a phone over. Might switch if the competition is good, I do hate lightning jack with a passion though." }, { "docid": "579584", "title": "", "text": "There IS an amount of money you can pay to make people deal with very unpleasant situations. Offer me my old pay + 50% to go back into the workplace daily and deal with my last boss? Yeah, I'll tell you to go fuck yourself. Offer me 3M+ a year to do it? Okay. I'll take that and do JUST ENOUGH to keep the job for a year or two, and then I'll never fucking work again. Or I'll get fired and laugh all the way to the bank anyway." }, { "docid": "108845", "title": "", "text": "IMHO your thinking is spot on. More than likely, you are years away from retirement, like 22 if you retire somewhat early. Until you get close keep it in aggressive growth. Contribute as much as you can and you probably end up with 3 million in today's dollars. Okay so what if you were retiring in a year or two from now, and you have 3M, and have managed your debt well. You have no loans including no mortgage and an nice emergency fund. How much would you need to live? 60 or 70K year would provide roughly the equivalent of 100K salary (no social security tax, no commute, and no need to save for retirement) and you would not have a mortgage. So what you decide to do is move 250K and move it to bonds so you have enough to live off of for the next 3.5 years or so. That is less than 10% of your nest egg. You have 3.5 years to go through some roller coaster time of the market and you can always cherry pick when to replenish the bond fund. Having a 50% allocation for bonds is not very wise. The 80% probably good for people who have little or no savings like less than 250k and retired. I think you are a very bright individual and have some really good money sense." } ]

[ { "docid": "549072", "title": "", "text": "Many would recommend lump sum investing because of the interest gains, and general upward historical trend of the market. After introducing DCA in A Random Walk Down Wall Street, Malkiel says the following: But remember, because there is a long-term uptrend in common-stock prices, this technique is not necessarily appropriate if you need to invest a lump sum such as a bequest. If possible, keep a small reserve (in a money fund) to take advantage of market declines and buy a few extra shares if the market is down sharply. I’m not suggesting for a minute that you try to forecast the market. However, it’s usually a good time to buy after the market has fallen out of bed. Just as hope and greed can sometimes feed on themselves to produce speculative bubbles, so do pessimism and despair react to produce market panics. - A Random Walk Down Wall Street, Burton G. Malkiel He goes on from there to recommend a rebalancing strategy." } ]

[ { "docid": "248019", "title": "", "text": "\"Forecasts of stock market direction are not reliable, so you shouldn't be putting much weight on them. Long term, you can expect to do better in stocks, but obtaining this better expected return has the danger of \"\"buying in\"\" to the market at a particularly bad moment, leading to a substantially lower return. So mitigate that risk while moving in a big piece of cash by \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\". An example would be to divide your cash hoard (conceptually) into say six pieces, and invest each piece in the index fund two months apart. After a year you will have invested the whole sum at about the average of the index for the year.\"" }, { "docid": "9465", "title": "", "text": "If the ship is sinking, switching cabins with your neighbor isn't necessarily a good survival strategy. Index funds have sucked, because frankly just about everything has sucked lately. I still think it is a viable long term strategy as long as you are doing some dollar cost averaging. You can't think about long term investing as a steady climb up a hill, markets are erratic, but over long periods of time trend upwards. Now is your chance to get in near the ground floor. I can completely empathize that it is painful right now, but I am a believer in market efficiency and that over the long haul smart money is just more expensive (in terms of fees) than set-it-and-forget it diversified investments or target funds." }, { "docid": "122491", "title": "", "text": "\"Great question. There are several reasons; I'm going to list the few that I can think of off the top of my head right now. First, even if institutional bank holdings in such a term account are covered by deposit insurance (this, as well as the amount covered, varies geographically), the amount covered is generally trivial when seen in the context of bank holdings. An individual might have on the order of $1,000 - $10,000 in such an account; for a bank, that's basically chump change, and you are looking more at numbers in the millions of dollars range. Sometimes a lot more than that. For a large bank, even hundreds of millions of dollars might be a relatively small portion of their holdings. The 2011 Goldman Sachs annual report (I just pulled a big bank out of thin air, here; no affiliation with them that I know of) states that as of December 2011, their excess liquidity was 171,581 million US dollars (over 170 billion dollars), with a bottom line total assets of $923,225 million (a shade under a trillion dollars) book value. Good luck finding a bank that will pay you 4% interest on even a fraction of such an amount. GS' income before tax in 2011 was a shade under 6.2 billion dollars; 4% on 170 billion dollars is 6.8 billion dollars. That is, the interest payments at such a rate on their excess liquidity alone would have cost more than they themselves made in the entire year, which is completely unsustainable. Government bonds are as guaranteed as deposit-insurance-covered bank accounts (it'll be the government that steps in and pays the guaranteed amount, quite possibly issuing bonds to cover the cost), but (assuming the country does not default on its debt, which happens from time to time) you will get back the entire amount plus interest. For a deposit-insured bank account of any kind, you are only guaranteed (to the extent that one can guarantee anything) the maximum amount in the country's bank deposit insurance; I believe in most countries, this is at best on the order of $100,000. If the bank where the money is kept goes bankrupt, for holdings on the order of what banks deal with, you would be extremely lucky to recover even a few percent of the principal. Government bonds are also generally accepted as collateral for the bank's own loans, which can make a difference when you need to raise more money in short order because a large customer decided to withdraw a big pile of cash from their account, maybe to buy stocks or bonds themselves. Government bonds are generally liquid. That is, they aren't just issued by the government, held to maturity while paying interest, and then returned (electronically, these days) in return for their face value in cash. Government bonds are bought and sold on the \"\"secondary market\"\" as well, where they are traded in very much the same way as public company stocks. If banks started simply depositing money with each other, all else aside, then what would happen? Keep in mind that the interest rate is basically the price of money. Supply-and-demand would dictate that if you get a huge inflow of capital, you can lower the interest rate paid on that capital. Banks don't pay high interest (and certainly wouldn't do so to each other) because of their intristic good will; they pay high interest because they cannot secure capital funding at lower rates. This is a large reason why the large banks will generally pay much lower interest rates than smaller niche banks; the larger banks are seen as more reliable in the bond market, so are able to get funding more cheaply by issuing bonds. Individuals will often buy bonds for the perceived safety. Depending on how much money you are dealing with (sold a large house recently?) it is quite possible even for individuals to hit the ceiling on deposit insurance, and for any of a number of reasons they might not feel comfortable putting the money in the stock market. Buying government bonds then becomes a relatively attractive option -- you get a slightly lower return than you might be able to get in a high-interest savings account, but you are virtually guaranteed return of the entire principal if the bond is held to maturity. On the other hand, it might not be the case that you will get the entire principal back if the bank paying the high interest gets into financial trouble or even bankruptcy. Some people have personal or systemic objections toward banks, limiting their willingness to deposit large amounts of money with them. And of course in some cases, such as for example retirement savings, it might not even be possible to simply stash the money in a savings account, in which case bonds of some kind is your only option if you want a purely interest-bearing investment.\"" }, { "docid": "74287", "title": "", "text": "\"If you buy a long term bond with long term fixed interest rate, and then the interest rates increase, your bond is worth less. That's not a problem, because over the years the value of the bond will go back to its nominal value. If you have a bond that doesn't pay out annually but increases its value every year, you will get exactly the amount of cash when it pays out that you expected. The problem is that if for 20 years interest rates were 8% while your bond only paid 4%, then you will have such an amount of inflation that the cash you get is worth much less than you hoped. You may have hoped that your bond would be worth \"\"one year average salary\"\", but it may be only worth \"\"six months of average salary\"\", even if the dollar amount is exactly what you expected.\"" }, { "docid": "175252", "title": "", "text": "My advice would be to invest in the 401k with the same type of funds you'd purchase when you rollover to your IRA. They are both retirement accounts. If the stock market tanks, your 401k balance will be low but you'll also be purchasing stocks at a much cheaper price when you establish your roth. You should create an asset allocation based on your age, not on the type of retirement account you have. One question to consider: When you do become a student, you'll likely be a in lower tax bracket. Can you contribute pre-tax dollars and then rollover to a ROTH in the year that you're a student?" }, { "docid": "315573", "title": "", "text": "\"The diversification offered by the advisor can easily be duplicated at Vanguard with something like the Ivy Portfolio. Simplify it or complicate it to your liking, with Vanguard index REITs, index stock funds, international, bond, etc. Set up automatic contributions and don't watch your money like a hawk. Set it and forget it, or maybe rebalance your holdings once a year. The main thing advisors are good for (at your level of assets) is persuading investors to stay in the market during a crash. Most investors will sell after a crash, and completely miss out on the rebound. It's human nature to be a terrible market timer. But if you can really promise yourself never to sell in a panic, then you don't need an advisor at your asset level. Fees like \"\"1.25%\"\" sound like a okay deal but should be viewed in context. With an average annual return of, say, 7%, a 1.25% fee represents nearly 18% of your gain for the year. And 1.25% may be the least of your fees - what about fees when you get out of the funds? (Neat trick, huh, calling a fee \"\"1.25%\"\" instead of \"\"~18%\"\"..). Is active management worth 18% of your yearly gain? Your advisor's fee and the active funds' fees compound year after year, because they take the fees out of your account every year (or month).\"" }, { "docid": "495556", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; If you have five to eight dictators fighting at once You will quickly see these 5 to 8 dictators mutually come to the conclusion that it is not in their interests to \"\"fight it out\"\", but rather, support each other and prevent new-comers. Or, you will see mergers as we saw in the accounting and banking fields. You both knock out a competitor AND increase your market share in the process. This becomes similar to a government-sanctioned monopoly, but instead of one firm, you have 6 or 8, each recognizing that they've got a great position as gatekeepers and rent-seekers. This is similar to how the healthcare and insurance companies really don't DO very much except extract money. They over-bill the hospitals, then over-bill the customers, and profit the huge margins. Or how the government used to do student loans, then instead outsourced to the big banks to do it. Then recently they determined that hte big banks were taking tens of billions of dollars in profit for \"\"running\"\" the program. That's tens of billions of dollars of wealth simply extracted from our taxes. This is why the government under Obama decided to kick out the banker middle-men and simply issue the exact same loans with the exact same rules,a ll by themselves. Why outsource to a middleman when you can run the exact same program with tons less overhead? It's also the reason single-payer healthcare is tons more efficient over the current model, and would save our country trillions over the looong term. Not to mention, the democratization of currency you envision is truly ephemeral, a mirage. The firms the government chooses as suited enough to pay taxes basically means the government still has the final decision on which \"\"currency\"\" (bonds) to accept. What if the government then decides only ONE corp is suited to do this job, or only two? Then it's functionally no different than teh current situation. Right now, the world buys USD bonds at extremely low interest rates, and this helps fund our government and keeps our nations costs very low. Under your scenario, the government is saying \"\"We accept bonds from X, Y, or Z\"\", and so instead the world runs out to buy XYZ bonds at extremely low interest rates. Instead of giving our country the funding it needs, we're actually giving XYZ corps the low interest rates. This is basically the same downfall of letting the big banks run the student loan program: it gives the firms more power, the government less power, costs us more tax dollars, and gives those firms an undeserved higher place on the food chain. I quite simply disagree with it. I would rather our government print the bonds themselves and take the benefit of the low cost of borrowing, rather than giving XYZ corps more favorable funding to continue world-wide expansion and takeover. Furthermore, if XYZ corps are approved by the government for paying tax dollars, what do we do in the case of a fiscal emergency such as 2007 when AIG basically went bankrupt in a period of only a few months? Of course this would be SURE to happen only right AFTER tax day, AFTER the entire country buys AIG bonds, pays the government in AIG bonds, and the executives of AIG pay themselves HUGE bonuses. Then they go bankrupt, and the government is left holding ALL the IOU's which are worthless. And of course, traders, hedgers, goldman sachs, etc, would all know AIG was about to get fucked and would make trillions while the US Gov received all tax receipts in worthless paper. The fact is, with the speed big companies can fall down under the weight of their own contradictions, the danger is all too real that a full year of tax receipts simply disappears.\"" }, { "docid": "523331", "title": "", "text": "Current evidence is that, after you subtract their commission and the additional trading costs, actively managed funds average no better than index funds, maybe not as well. You can afford to take more risks at your age, assuming that it will be a long time before you need these funds -- but I would suggest that means putting a high percentage of your investments in small-cap and large-cap stock indexes. I'd suggest 10% in bonds, maybe more, just because maintaining that balance automatically encourages buy-low-sell-high as the market cycles. As you get older and closer to needing a large chunk of the money (for a house, or after retirement), you would move progressively more of that to other categories such as bonds to help safeguard your earnings. Some folks will say this an overly conservative approach. On the other hand, it requires almost zero effort and has netted me an average 10% return (or so claims Quicken) over the past two decades, and that average includes the dot-bomb and the great recession. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance, of course, but the point is that it can work quite well enough." }, { "docid": "551403", "title": "", "text": "\"From a purely analytical standpoint, assuming you are investing your Roth IRA contributions in broad market securities (such as the SPDR S&P 500 ETF, which tracks the S&P 500), the broader market has historically had more upward movement than downward, and therefore a dollar invested today will have a greater expected value than a dollar invested tomorrow. So from this perspective, it is better to \"\"max out\"\" your Roth on the first day of the contribution year and immediately invest in broad market (or at least well diversified) securities. That being said, opportunity costs must also be taken into account--every dollar you use to fund your Roth IRA is a dollar that is no longer available to be invested elsewhere (hence, a lost opportunity). With this in mind, if you are currently eligible for a 401k in which your employer matches some portion of your contributions, it is generally advised that you contribute to the 401k up to the employer-match. For example, if your employer matches 75% of contributions up to 3.5% of your gross salary, then it is advisable that you first contribute this 3.5% to your 401k before even considering contributing to a Roth IRA. The reasoning behind this is two-fold: first, the employer-match can be considered as a guaranteed Return on Investment--so for example, for an employer that matches 75%, for every dollar you contribute you already have earned a 75% return up to the employer's limit. Secondly, 401k contributions have tax implications: not only is the money contributed to the 401k pre-tax (i.e., contributions are not taxed), it also reduces your taxable income, so the marginal tax benefit of these contributions must also be taken into account. Keep in mind that in the usual circumstances, 401k disbursements are taxable. Finally, many financial advisors will also suggest establishing an \"\"emergency fund\"\", which is money that you will not use unless you suffer an emergency that has an impact on your normal income--loss of job, medical emergency, etc. These funds are often kept in highly liquid accounts (savings accounts, money-market funds, etc.) so they can be accessed immediately when you run into one of \"\"life's little surprises\"\". Generally, it is advised that an emergency fund between $500-$1000 is established ASAP, and over time the emergency fund should be increased until it has reached a value equivalent to the sum of 8 months' worth of expenses. If funding an IRA is preventing you from working towards such an emergency fund, then you may want to consider waiting on maxing out the IRA before you have that EF established. Of course, it goes without saying that credit card balances with APRs other than 0.00% (or similar) should be paid off before an IRA is funded, since while you can only hope to match the market at best (between 10-15% a year) in your IRA investments, paying down credit card balances is an instant \"\"return\"\" of whatever the APR is, which usually tends to be between a 15-30% APR. In a nutshell, assuming you are maxing out your 401k (if applicable), have an emergency fund established, are not carrying any high-APR credit card balances, and are able to do so, historical price movements in the markets suggest that funding your Roth IRA upfront and investing these funds immediately in a broadly diversified portfolio will yield a higher expected return than funding the account periodically throughout the year (using dollar cost averaging or similar strategies). If this is not the case, take some time to consider the opportunity costs you are incurring from not fully contributing to your 401k, carrying high credit card balances, or not having a sufficient emergency fund established. This is not financial advice specific to any individual and your mileage may vary. Consider consulting a Certified Financial Planner, Certified Public Accountant, etc. before making any major financial decisions.\"" }, { "docid": "294822", "title": "", "text": "Disclaimer: I am not Canadian and have no experience with their laws and regulations. There really aren't any safe short term investment options at the moment (with interest rates being close to zero). So, just put the money aside you will need for the car and the computer, maybe on a callable savings account to make at least a few Dollars. Do not take out any loans, it is very unlikely you will earn more than the cost of the loan. You didn't say how much will be left but, unfortunately, it really is not much to go on anyway. Considering that you seem to have enough income to cover your expenses, you could transfer the rest to your RRSP, invest and just forget about it. I suggest to follow this rule of thumb: the growth portion of your portfolio, which for you means equities, should be directly related to the number of years you won't need to touch these funds. 1 year, 0 equity. 2 years, 10%, 3 years, 20%, and so on. What's not in equities, you could put in short term bonds, meaning an average duration of about 3 years. Needless to say, single stocks/bonds are out of question, ideally you can find 2 ETFs, one for stocks and one for bonds, respectively. However, if there is any possibility you did not mention that you could suddenly depend on this money, you have to keep your equity exposure, and thus your potential earnings, low. Just a humble thought: i really don't know your specific situation, my apologies if I'm out of line. Often disability means that you are not capable of doing one particular thing anymore, i.e. work physically. Just maybe you would still be capable to do some other type of work, maybe even from the comfort of your home, that would allow you to generate a certain income (and also keep you busy). I hope this helps. Good luck." }, { "docid": "84642", "title": "", "text": "\"Having worked for a financial company for years, my advice is to stay away from all the \"\"Freedom Funds\"\" offered. They're a new way for Fidelity to justify charging a higher management fee on those particular funds. That extra 1% or so a year is great for making the company money; it will kill your rate of return over the next 25+ years you're putting money into your retirement account. All these funds do is change the percentage of your funds in stocks vs. more fixed investments (bonds, etc.) so you have a higher percentage in stocks while you're young and slowly move the percentage more towards fixed as you get older. If you take a few hours every 5 years to re-balance your portfolio and just slowly shift more money towards fixed investments, you'll achieve the same thing WITHOUT the extra annual fee. So how much difference are we talking here? Let's do a quick example. Based on your salary of $70k and a 4% match by your company, you'll have $5,600 a year to put in your 401(k) (your 4% plus matched 4%). I'll also assume an 8% annual return for both funds. Here is what that 1% extra service charge will cost you: Fund with a 1% service charge: Annual Fee Paid Year 1 - $60.00 Annual Fee Paid Year 25 (assuming 8% growth in assets) - $301.00 Total Fees Year 1 through 25: $3,782 Fund with a 2% service charge: Annual Fee Paid Year 1 - $121.00 Annual Fee Paid Year 25 (assuming 8% growth in assets) - $472.00 Total Fees Year 1 through 25: $6,489 That's a total of $2,707 in extra fees over 25 years on just the investment you make this year! Next year if you invest the same amount in your 401k that will be another $2,707 paid over 25 years to the management company. This pattern repeats EACH year you pay the higher management fee. Trust me, if you invest that money in stock instead of paying it as fees, you'll have a whole lot more money saved when it's time to retire. My advice, pick a percentage you're comfortable with in stocks at your age, maybe 85 - 90%, and pick the stock funds with the lowest management fees (the remaining 10 - 15% should go into a fixed fund). Make sure you pick at least some of your stock money, I do 20 - 25%, and select a diverse (lots of different countries) international fund. For any retirement money you plan to save above the 4% getting matched by your company, set up a Roth IRA. That will give you the freedom to invest in any stocks or funds you want. Find some low-cost index funds (such as VTI for stocks, and BND for bonds) and put your money in those. Invest the same amount every month, automatically, and your cost average will work itself out through up markets and down. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "364735", "title": "", "text": "I think that assuming that you're not looking to trade the fund, an index Mutual Fund is a better overall value than an ETF. The cost difference is negligible, and the ability to dollar-cost average future contributions with no transaction costs. You also have to be careful with ETFs; the spreads are wide on a low-volume fund and some ETFs are going more exotic things that can burn a novice investor. Track two similar funds (say Vanguard Total Stock Market: VTSMX and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF: VTI), you'll see that they track similarly. If you are a more sophisticated investor, ETFs give you the ability to use options to hedge against declines in value without having to incur capital gains from the sale of the fund. (ie. 20 years from now, can use puts to make up for short-term losses instead of selling shares to avoid losses) For most retail investors, I think you really need to justify using ETFs versus mutual funds. If anything, the limitations of mutual funds (no intra-day trading, no options, etc) discourage speculative behavior that is ultimately not in your best interest. EDIT: Since this answer was written, many brokers have begun offering a suite of ETFs with no transaction fees. That may push the cost equation over to support Index ETFs over Index Mutual Funds, particularly if it's a big ETF with narrow spreads.." }, { "docid": "599436", "title": "", "text": "\"1. Interest rates What you should know is that the longer the \"\"term\"\" of a bond fund, the more it will be affected by interest rates. So a short-term bond fund will not be subject to large gains or losses due to rate changes, an intermediate-term bond fund will be subject to moderate gains or losses, and a long-term bond fund will be subject to the largest gains or losses. When a book or financial planner says to buy \"\"bonds\"\" with no other qualification, they almost always mean investment-grade intermediate-term bond funds (or for individual bonds, the equivalent would be a bond ladder averaging an intermediate term). If you want technical details, look at the \"\"average duration\"\" or \"\"average maturity\"\" of the bond fund; as a rough guide, if the duration is 10, then a 1% change in interest rates would be a 10% gain or loss on the fund. Another thing you can do is look at long-term (10 years or ideally longer) performance history on some short, intermediate, and long term bond index funds, and you can see how the long term funds bounced around more. Non-investment-grade bonds (aka junk bonds or high yield bonds) are more affected by factors other than interest rates, including some of the same factors (economic booms or recessions) that affect stocks. As a result, they aren't as good for diversifying a portfolio that otherwise consists of stocks. (Having stocks, investment grade bonds, and also a little bit in high-yield bonds can add diversification, though. Just don't replace your bond allocation with high-yield bonds.) A variety of \"\"complicated\"\" bonds exist (convertible bonds are an example) and these are tough to analyze. There are also \"\"floating rate\"\" bonds (bank loan funds), these have minimal interest rate sensitivity because the rate goes up to offset rate rises. These funds still have credit risks, in the credit crisis some of them lost a lot of money. 2. Diversification The purpose of diversification is risk control. Your non-bond funds will outperform in many years, but in other years (say the -37% S&P 500 drop in 2008) they may not. You will not know in advance which year you'll get. You get risk control in at least a few ways. There's also an academic Modern Portfolio Theory explanation for why you should diversify among risky assets (aka stocks), something like: for a given desired risk/return ratio, it's better to leverage up a diverse portfolio than to use a non-diverse portfolio, because risk that can be eliminated through diversification is not compensated by increased returns. The theory also goes that you should choose your diversification between risk assets and the risk-free asset according to your risk tolerance (i.e. select the highest return with tolerable risk). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory for excruciating detail. The translation of the MPT stuff to practical steps is typically, put as much in stock index funds as you can tolerate over your time horizon, and put the rest in (intermediate-term investment-grade) bond index funds. That's probably what your planner is asking you to do. My personal view, which is not the standard view, is that you should take as much risk as you need to take, not as much as you think you can tolerate: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ But almost everyone else will say to do the 80/20 if you have decades to retirement and feel you can tolerate the risk, so my view that 60/40 is the max desirable allocation to stocks is not mainstream. Your planner's 80/20 advice is the standard advice. Before doing 100% stocks I'd give you at least a couple cautions: See also:\"" }, { "docid": "341699", "title": "", "text": "If we knew for sure that euros are only going to be more expensive in the future, then the answer would be easy: Buy them all at one time, so that we are getting them at the best price. Of course, we can't assume that to be the case, they could get cheaper, so the answer gets more complicated. Focusing strictly on monetary considerations, there are two factors to examine: Using answers to this Travel Stack Exchange question as a reference, you see that the cost of currency conversion can be as low as 1%-2% if you make the transaction with a debit card, but can be as high as 15%. So, buying 1000 euros a month would cost between 20 and 150 euros. Examining a two year chart of the Euro-Canadian Dollar exchange rate gives us an idea of how much the currency fluctuates. Over the past two years, a euro has cost has much as $1.54 CAD and as little as $1.26 CAD, a 22% spread. Looking at it on a month-to month basis, we see that monthly changes have been as high as .05 to .07 (4-5%). As such, buying 1000 euros a month could cost 50 CAD more (or less) on a monthly basis due to variance in the exchange rate. If we anticipate our overhead cost of currency conversion to be more than 5%, it doesn't make sense to do multiple transactions; the costs are likely to outweigh the benefits. If we can keep them under that amount, then multiple transactions are advantageous when the euro is cheaper. The problem is somewhat analagous to that of someone who wants to make an annual investment in a mutual fund and is unsure of whether to make the purchase all at once, or to divide it over multiple purchases. One can't know for sure which way the mutual fund price is going to move over the time period Dollar cost averaging, spreading the purchase over regular intervals, is the generally accepted solution to this problem. As such, so long as we can keep the overhead cost of currency transactions low (<5%), doing transactions on a regular basis positions ourselves to take advantage of possible drops in the price of euros and reduces the risk of buying euros when they are most expensive. If we can't keep the cost low, then currency fees would be greater than potential price drops and we would be better off doing a single transaction." }, { "docid": "57293", "title": "", "text": "If you were to stick to your guns, then yes, that's what you'd need to do. In practice, that kind of a hit should get your attention, and you'd be wise to look at why your investment dropped 10% in a month. Value averaging, dollar-cost averaging, or any other investment strategy needs to be done with eyes open and ears to the ground. At least with value averaging you need to look at your valuation each month! From my own experience, dollar-cost averaging breeds laziness and I ended up not paying much attention to what I was investing in, and lost a fair bit of money. Bottom line is you still have to think about what you're doing, and adjust." }, { "docid": "231012", "title": "", "text": "I'd hazard that Jim is mostly worried that people are getting ripped off by high employer 401(k) fund fees. A lot of employers offer funds with fees over 1% a year. This sounds low-ish if you don't realize that the real (inflation-adjusted) return for the fund will probably average out to about 4%, so it's really something like a quarter of your earnings gone. With an IRA, you don't have to do that. You can get an IRA provider which offers good, cheap index funds and the like (cough Vanguard cough). Fund fees will probably be closer to 0.1%-ish. HOWEVER. The maximum IRA contribution in 2013 will be $5,500. The maximum for a 401(k) contribution will be $17,500. That extra capacity is enough to recommend a 401(k) over an IRA for many people. These people may be best served by putting money into the 401(k) and then rolling it over into a rollover IRA when they change jobs. Also, certain people have retirement plans which offer them good cheap index funds. These people probably don't need to worry quite as much. Finally, having two accounts is more complicated. Please contact someone who knows more about taxes than I am to figure out what limitations apply for contributing to both IRAs and 401(k)s in the same year." }, { "docid": "524030", "title": "", "text": "John Bogle never said only buy the S&P 500 or any single index Q:Do you think the average person could safely invest for retirement and other goals without expert advice -- just by indexing? A: Yes, there is a rule of thumb I add to that. You should start out heavily invested in equities. Hold some bond index funds as well as stock index funds. By the time you get closer to retirement or into your retirement, you should have a significant position in bond index funds as well as stock index funds. As we get older, we have less time to recoup. We have more money to protect and our nervousness increases with age. We get a little bit worried about that nest egg when it's large and we have little time to recoup it, so we pay too much attention to the fluctuations in the market, which in the long run mean nothing. How much to pay Q: What's the highest expense ratio that one should pay for a domestic equity fund? A: I'd say three-quarters of 1 percent maybe. Q: For an international fund? A: I'd say three-quarters of 1 percent. Q: For a bond fund? A: One-half of 1 percent. But I'd shave that a little bit. For example, if you can buy a no-load bond fund or a no-load stock fund, you can afford a little more expense ratio, because you're not paying any commission. You've eliminated cost No. 2...." }, { "docid": "97836", "title": "", "text": "Most ETFs are index funds, meaning you get built in diversification so that any one stock going down won't hurt the overall performance much. You can also get essentially the same index funds by directly purchasing them from the mutual fund company. To buy an ETF you need a brokerage account and have to pay a transaction fee. Buying only $1000 at a time the broker transaction fee will eat too much of your money. You want to keep such fees way down below 0.1%. Pay attention to transaction fees and fund expense ratios. Or buy an equivalent index fund directly from the mutual fund company. This generally costs nothing in transaction fees if you have at least the minimum account value built up. If you buy every month or two you are dollar cost averaging, no matter what kind of account you are using. Keep doing that, even if the market values are going down. (Especially if the market values are going down!) If you can keep doing this then forget about certificates of deposit. At current rates you cannot build wealth with CDs." }, { "docid": "330023", "title": "", "text": "\"Dollar cost averaging is a fancy name someone came up with to say \"\"Invest all of the time\"\". I would not bother with spreading out purchases. If the market is too expensive right now ...so what? The items you sell will bring top dollar. The fund you buy will cost top dollar. It all evens out. You could sell your assets and just sit on cash, but that would require knowing when the next market drop is coming..which no one knows. Also, it never really is cash; it goes into a money market fund which is not guaranteed. I would rather own companies(VSTAX) and collect the dividend.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "304284", "title": "", "text": "Aside from the fear that you or a loved one will spend it frivolously, I'm hard pressed to come up with another reason. If you'll owe money in the next tax year, you have the rest of the year to adjust your withholdings and/or make quarterly payments. As both my fellow PFers state, you're better off getting your money back. Better still, use it to pay off a high interest debt." } ]

[ { "docid": "444899", "title": "", "text": "With a $40,000 payment there is a 100% chance that the owner will be claiming this as a business expense on their taxes. The IRS and the state will definitely know about it, and the risk of interest and penalties if it is not claimed as income make the best course of action to see a tax adviser. Because taxes will not be taken out by the property owner, the tax payer should also make sure that the estimated $10,000 in federal taxes, if they are in the 25% tax bracket, doesn't trigger other tax issues that could result in penalties, or the need to file quarterly taxes next year. This kind of extra income could also result in a change or an elimination of a health care subsidy. A unexpected mid-year change could trigger the need to refund the subsidy received this year via the tax form next April." }, { "docid": "597574", "title": "", "text": "The amount you contribute will reduce the taxable income for each paycheck, but it won't impact the level of your social security and medicare taxes. A 401(k) plan is a qualified deferred compensation plan in which an employee can elect to have the employer contribute a portion of his or her cash wages to the plan on a pretax basis. Generally, these deferred wages (commonly referred to as elective contributions) are not subject to income tax withholding at the time of deferral, and they are not reflected on your Form 1040 (PDF) since they were not included in the taxable wages on your Form W-2 (PDF). However, they are included as wages subject to withholding for social security and Medicare taxes. In addition, employers must report the elective contributions as wages subject to federal unemployment taxes. You might be able to keep this up for more than 7 weeks if the company offers health, dental and vision insurance. Your contributions for these policies would need to be paid for before you contribute to the 401K. Of course these items are also pre-tax so they will keep the taxable amount at zero. If there was a non-pretax deduction on your pay check that would keep the check at zero, but there would be taxes owed. This might be union dues, but it can also be some life and disability insurance polices. Most stubs specify which deductions are pre-tax, and which are post-tax. Warning. If you get the company match some companies give you the maximum match for those 7 weeks, then zero for the rest of the year. Others will still credit you with a match at the end of the year saying if you should get the benefit. It is not required that they do this. Check the company documents. You could also contribute post-tax money, which is different than Roth 401K, for the rest of the year to keep the match going. Note: If you are turning 50 this year, or are already 50, then you can contribute an additional $5,500" }, { "docid": "52438", "title": "", "text": "\"Highly Compensated Employee Rules Aim to Make 401k's Fair would be the piece that I suspect you are missing here. I remember hearing of this rule when I worked in the US and can understand why it exists. A key quote from the article: You wouldn't think the prospect of getting money from an employer would be nerve-wracking. But those jittery co-workers are highly compensated employees (HCEs) concerned that they will receive a refund of excess 401k contributions because their plan failed its discrimination test. A refund means they will owe more income tax for the current tax year. Geersk (a pseudonym), who is also an HCE, is in information services and manages the computers that process his firm's 401k plan. 401(k) - Wikipedia reference on this: To help ensure that companies extend their 401(k) plans to low-paid employees, an IRS rule limits the maximum deferral by the company's \"\"highly compensated\"\" employees, based on the average deferral by the company's non-highly compensated employees. If the less compensated employees are allowed to save more for retirement, then the executives are allowed to save more for retirement. This provision is enforced via \"\"non-discrimination testing\"\". Non-discrimination testing takes the deferral rates of \"\"highly compensated employees\"\" (HCEs) and compares them to non-highly compensated employees (NHCEs). An HCE in 2008 is defined as an employee with compensation of greater than $100,000 in 2007 or an employee that owned more than 5% of the business at any time during the year or the preceding year.[13] In addition to the $100,000 limit for determining HCEs, employers can elect to limit the top-paid group of employees to the top 20% of employees ranked by compensation.[13] That is for plans whose first day of the plan year is in calendar year 2007, we look to each employee's prior year gross compensation (also known as 'Medicare wages') and those who earned more than $100,000 are HCEs. Most testing done now in 2009 will be for the 2008 plan year and compare employees' 2007 plan year gross compensation to the $100,000 threshold for 2007 to determine who is HCE and who is a NHCE. The threshold was $110,000 in 2010 and it did not change for 2011. The average deferral percentage (ADP) of all HCEs, as a group, can be no more than 2 percentage points greater (or 125% of, whichever is more) than the NHCEs, as a group. This is known as the ADP test. When a plan fails the ADP test, it essentially has two options to come into compliance. It can have a return of excess done to the HCEs to bring their ADP to a lower, passing, level. Or it can process a \"\"qualified non-elective contribution\"\" (QNEC) to some or all of the NHCEs to raise their ADP to a passing level. The return of excess requires the plan to send a taxable distribution to the HCEs (or reclassify regular contributions as catch-up contributions subject to the annual catch-up limit for those HCEs over 50) by March 15 of the year following the failed test. A QNEC must be an immediately vested contribution. The annual contribution percentage (ACP) test is similarly performed but also includes employer matching and employee after-tax contributions. ACPs do not use the simple 2% threshold, and include other provisions which can allow the plan to \"\"shift\"\" excess passing rates from the ADP over to the ACP. A failed ACP test is likewise addressed through return of excess, or a QNEC or qualified match (QMAC). There are a number of \"\"safe harbor\"\" provisions that can allow a company to be exempted from the ADP test. This includes making a \"\"safe harbor\"\" employer contribution to employees' accounts. Safe harbor contributions can take the form of a match (generally totaling 4% of pay) or a non-elective profit sharing (totaling 3% of pay). Safe harbor 401(k) contributions must be 100% vested at all times with immediate eligibility for employees. There are other administrative requirements within the safe harbor, such as requiring the employer to notify all eligible employees of the opportunity to participate in the plan, and restricting the employer from suspending participants for any reason other than due to a hardship withdrawal.\"" }, { "docid": "396066", "title": "", "text": "Yes, if you can split your income up over multiple years it will be to your advantage over earning it all in one year. The reasons are as you mentioned, you get to apply multiple deductions/credits/exemptions to the same income. Rather than just 1 standard deduction, you get to deduct 2 standard deductions, you can double the max saved in an IRA, you benefit more from any non-refundable credits etc. This is partly due to the fact that when you are filing your taxes in Year 1, you can't include anything from Year 2 since it hasn't happened yet. It doesn't make sense for the Government to take into account actions that may or may not happen when calculating your tax bill. There are factors where other year profit/loss can affect your tax liability, however as far as I know these are limited to businesses. Look into Loss Carry Forwarded/Back if you want to know more. Regarding the '30% simple rate', I think you are confusing something that is simple to say with something that is simple to implement. Are we going to go change the rules on people who expected their mortgage deduction to continue? There are few ways I can think of that are more sure to cause home prices to plummet than to eliminate the Mortgage Interest Deduction. What about removing Student Loan Interest? Under a 30% 'simple' rate, what tools would the government use to encourage trade in specific areas? Will state income tax deduction also be removed? This is going to punish those in a state with a high income tax more than those in states without income tax. Those are all just 'common' deductions that affect a lot of people, you could easily say 'no' to all of them and just piss off a bunch of people, but what about selling stock though? I paid $100 for the stock and I sold it for $120, do I need to pay $36 tax on that because it is a 'simple' 30% tax rate or are we allowing the cost of goods sold deduction (it's called something else I believe when talking about stocks but it's the same idea?) What about if I travel for work to tutor individuals, can I deduct my mileage expenses? Do I need to pay 30% income tax on my earnings and principal from a Roth IRA? A lot of people have contributed to a Roth with the understanding that withdrawals will be tax free, changing those rules are punishing people for using vehicles intentionally created by the government. Are we going to go around and dismantle all non-profits that subsist entirely on tax-deductible donations? Do I need to pay taxes on the employer's cost of my health insurance? What about 401k's and IRA's? Being true to a 'simple' 30% tax will eliminate all 'benefits' from every job as you would need to pay taxes on the value of the benefits. I should mention that this isn't exactly too crazy, there was a relatively recent IRS publication about businesses needing to withhold taxes from their employees for the cost of company supplied food but I don't know if it was ultimately accepted. At the end of the day, the concept of simplifying the tax law isn't without merit, but realize that the complexities of tax law are there due to the complexities of life. The vast majority of tax laws were written for a reason other than to benefit special interests, and for that reason they cannot easily be ignored." }, { "docid": "306059", "title": "", "text": "It sounds like the postage amount was paid to you rather than returned. If it had been returned and the payment originated on the card, they would have to return it to the card. If it was processed as a payment, it looks like someone is giving you money. PayPal can't credit it to the card, as the sender could request a refund. If PayPal put the money on the card against a previous payment, then they wouldn't be able to refund. If they add money to your bank account, then they can withdraw it if a refund is required. One reason that you might get a payment is if you were being reimbursed for spending money outside of PayPal. If the amount is more than you originally paid, they can't put it on your card. They can only refund to the card. They can't deposit to it. If you don't want to give them your bank account information, you can just wait until the next time you use PayPal and use your balance to pay. Then you can bill the remainder to your credit card. If you don't normally use PayPal and just want your money back, you can process a chargeback through your credit card. Note that this would probably annoy PayPal, as it costs them aggravation and potentially money. To do this, you must have paid the postage with your credit card originally. If you spent money outside PayPal and were reimbursed through PayPal, then there's nothing to chargeback. In that circumstance, you'd have to accept one of their options: pay with balance or deposit to bank account." }, { "docid": "193717", "title": "", "text": "\"You mention \"\"early exercise\"\" in your title, but you seem to misunderstand what early exercise really means. Some companies offer stock options that vest over a number of years, but which can be exercised before they are vested. That is early exercise. You have vested stock options, so early exercise is not relevant. (It may or may not be the case that your stock options could have been early exercised before they vested, but regardless, you didn't exercise them, so the point is moot.) As littleadv said, 83(b) election is for restricted stocks, often from exercising unvested stock options. Your options are already vested, so they won't be restricted stock. So 83(b) election is not relevant for you. A taxable event happen when you exercise. The point of the 83(b) election is that exercising unvested stock options is not a taxable event, so 83(b) election allows you to force it to be a taxable event. But for you, with vested stock options, there is no need to do this. You mention that you want it not to be taxable upon exercise. But that's what Incentive Stock Options (ISOs) are for. ISOs were designed for the purpose of not being taxable for regular income tax purposes when you exercise (although it is still taxable upon exercise for AMT purposes), and it is only taxed when you sell. However, you have Non-qualified Stock Options. Were you given the option to get ISOs at the beginning? Why did your company give you NQSOs? I don't know the specifics of your situation, but since you mentioned \"\"early exercise\"\" and 83(b) elections, I have a hypothesis as to what might have happened. For people who early-exercise (for plans that allow early-exercise), there is a slight advantage to having NQSOs compared to ISOs. This is because if you early exercise immediately upon grant and do 83(b) election, you pay no taxes upon exercise (because the difference between strike price and FMV is 0), and there are no taxes upon vesting (for regular or AMT), and if you hold it for at least 1 year, upon sale it will be long-term capital gains. On the other hand, for ISOs, it's the same except that for long-term capital gains, you have to hold it 2 years after grant and 1 year after exercise, so the period for long-term capital gains is longer. So companies that allow early exercise will often offer employees either NQSOs or ISOs, where you would choose NQSO if you intend to early-exercise, or ISO otherwise. If (hypothetically) that's what happened, then you chose wrong because you got NQSOs and didn't early exercise.\"" }, { "docid": "110081", "title": "", "text": "\"It really depends on the answers to two questions: 1) How tight is your budget going to be if you have to make that $530 payment every month? Obviously, you'd still be better off than you are now, since that's still $30 cheaper. But, if you're living essentially paycheck to paycheck, then the extra flexibility of the $400/month option can make the difference if something unforeseen happens. 2) How disciplined (financially) have you proven you can be? The \"\"I'll make extra payments every month\"\" sounds real nice, but many people end up not doing it. I should know, I'm one of them. I'm still paying on my student loans because of it. If you know (by having done it before), that you can make that extra $130 go out each and every month and not talk yourself into using it on all sorts of \"\"more important needs\"\", then hey, go for it. Financial flexibility is a great thing, and having that monthly nut (all your minimum living expenses combined) as low as possible contributes greatly to that flexibility. Update: Another thing to consider Another thing to consider is what they do with your extra payment. Will they apply it to the principal, or will they treat it as a prepayment? If they apply it to principal, it'll be just like if you had that shorter term. Your principal goes down additionally by that extra amount, and the next month, you owe another $400. On the other hand, if they treat it as a prepayment, then that extra $130 will be applied to the next month's bill. Principal stays the same, and the next month you'll be billed $270. There are two practical differences for you: 1) With prepayment, you'll pay slightly more interest over that 60 months paying it off. Because it's not amortized into the loan, the principal balance doesn't go down faster while the loan exists. And since interest is calculated on the remaining principal balance, end result is more interest than you otherwise would have paid. That sucks, but: 2) with the prepayment, consider that at the end of year 2, you'd have over 7 months of payments prepaid. So, if some emergency does come up, you don't have to send them any money at all for 7 months. There's that flexibility again. :-) Honestly, while this is something you should find out about the loan, it's really still a wash. I haven't done the math, but with the interest rate, amount of the loan and time frame, I think the extra interest would be pretty minor.\"" }, { "docid": "164301", "title": "", "text": "Something I've not heard mentioned in any of the answers is that (at least for me) owing some tax money is better than having a refund from a ID theft/fraud/security aspect. The US IRS has been hacked several times recently and there have been cases of fraudulent tax refunds being filed and tax refund checks being cashed by ID thieves. Well, if you owe a bit of tax then you're less of a target for fraudulent tax refunds being filed in your name. Even in the case that you were unlucky enough to have had your identity stolen, at least you don't have to deal with the IRS trying to sort a mess like that up. Thus, (IMO) it's better to owe a bit of tax, than to have a small refund, or any refund for that matter. Ideally, you want to get to zero dollars owed like you suggested, but that's often pretty hard to do. So, the next best thing is to owe a bit. One should try to calculate tax liability quartely or if income changes, adjust your withholding, so that you get closer to zero tax." }, { "docid": "595121", "title": "", "text": "There are penalties for failure to file and penalties for failure to pay tax. The penalties for both are based on the amount of tax due. So you would owe % penalties of zero, otherwise meaning no penalties at all. The IRS on late 1040 penalties: Here are eight important points about penalties for filing or paying late. A failure-to-file penalty may apply if you did not file by the tax filing deadline. A failure-to-pay penalty may apply if you did not pay all of the taxes you owe by the tax filing deadline. The failure-to-file penalty is generally more than the failure-to-pay penalty. You should file your tax return on time each year, even if you’re not able to pay all the taxes you owe by the due date. You can reduce additional interest and penalties by paying as much as you can with your tax return. You should explore other payment options such as getting a loan or making an installment agreement to make payments. The IRS will work with you. The penalty for filing late is normally 5 percent of the unpaid taxes for each month or part of a month that a tax return is late. That penalty starts accruing the day after the tax filing due date and will not exceed 25 percent of your unpaid taxes. If you do not pay your taxes by the tax deadline, you normally will face a failure-to-pay penalty of ½ of 1 percent of your unpaid taxes. That penalty applies for each month or part of a month after the due date and starts accruing the day after the tax-filing due date. If you timely requested an extension of time to file your individual income tax return and paid at least 90 percent of the taxes you owe with your request, you may not face a failure-to-pay penalty. However, you must pay any remaining balance by the extended due date. If both the 5 percent failure-to-file penalty and the ½ percent failure-to-pay penalties apply in any month, the maximum penalty that you’ll pay for both is 5 percent. If you file your return more than 60 days after the due date or extended due date, the minimum penalty is the smaller of $135 or 100 percent of the unpaid tax. You will not have to pay a late-filing or late-payment penalty if you can show reasonable cause for not filing or paying on time. If the IRS owes you a refund, April 15 isn't much of a deadline. I suppose the real deadline is April 15, three years later - that's when the IRS keeps your refund and it becomes property of the Treasury. Of course, there's little reason to wait that long. Don't let the Treasury get all your interest." }, { "docid": "438778", "title": "", "text": "Craig touched on it, but let me expand on the point. Deposits, by definition, are withheld at your marginal rate. And since you can choose Roth vs Traditional right till filing time, you know with certainty the rate you are at each year. Absent any other retirement income, i.e. no pension, and absent an incredibly major change to our tax code, I know your starting rate, zero. The first $10K or so per person is part of their standard deduction and exemption. For a couple, the next $18k is taxed at 10%, and so on. Let me stop here to expand this important point. This is $38,000 for the couple, and the tax on it is less than $1900. 5%. There is no 5% bracket of course. It's the first $20K with zero tax, and that first $18,000 taxed at 10%. That $38,000 takes nearly $1M in pretax accounts to offer as an annual withdrawal. The 15% bracket starts after this, and applies to the next $57K of withdrawals each year. Over $95K in gross withdrawals of pretax money, and you still aren't in the 25% bracket. This is why 100% in traditional, or 100% in Roth aren't either ideal. I continue to offer the example I consider more optimizing - using Roth for income that would otherwise be taxed at 15%, but going pretax when you hit 25%. Then at retirement, you withdraw enough traditional to just stay at 10 or 15% and Roth for the rest. It would be a shame to retire 100% Roth and realize you paid 25% but now have no income to use up those lower brackets. Oddly, time value of money isn't part of my analysis. It makes no difference. And note, the exact numbers do change a bit each year for inflation. There's a also a good chance the exemptions goes away in favor of a huge increased standard deduction." }, { "docid": "465905", "title": "", "text": "When you got your original HUD backed mortgage there were three options: monthly, annual and upfront payments. The plan is designed to insure the lender of the mortgage against your default. The plan is not expected to cover the mortgage for 30 years. If you are in the early years of the mortgage, you may be owed a refund for the unused years. HUD has a Fact sheet discussing this, and a page to help you determine if they owe you a refund. If you are refinancing back into a HUD/FHA mortgage they will not give you a refund, but will roll the refund back into your new loan. FHA to FHA Refinances: When an FHA loan is refinanced, the refund from the old premium may be applied toward the up-front premium required for the new loan. Note: Depending on the year of the original loan the government has different lengths they used for coverage and refunds. I suggest you use the webpage to determine if you are due a refund, or a roll over." }, { "docid": "190844", "title": "", "text": "Unfortunately you can't use your HSA to pay for expenses in year A. Qualified medical expenses for an HSA must occur after the date the HSA account was established. (Established typically means the date the account was opened in your name.) The other answers already mostly answered your other questions, but I want to really hit home some particular points that many people may not realize: The most important thing to do when you are eligible to have an HSA account, is to open an HSA account ASAP. This is true even if you don't put any money in it and you leave it empty for years. The reason is that once the account is established, all qualified medical expenses that occur after that date are eligible for distributions, even if you wait years before you fund your HSA account. The second most important thing to do is to keep track of all out of pocket medical expenses you incur after you open the HSA account. All you need is a simple spreadsheet and a place to store your receipts. Once you have the account and are tracking expenses, now you can put money into your HSA and take it out whenever you'd like. (With limits- you can't put in more than the contribution limit for a single tax year, and you can't take out more than your eligible expenses to date.) Helpful Tip: Many people don't fund their HSA because they can't afford to set aside extra money to do so. Fortunately, you don't have to. For example, suppose you have some dental work and it costs you $500. Once you get the bill, before you pay it, put the $500 into your HSA account. The next day, take the $500 back out and pay your dental bill with it. Most HSA accounts will give you a debit card to make this even easier to pay the bill. By putting the money into your HSA for 1 day you just received a $500 tax deduction. Alternatively you can always pay out of pocket like you normally would, track your receipts, and wait until the end of the year (or up until April 15 of the next year). I like this option because I can pay all of my medical bills with a credit card and get cash back. Then at the end of the year, I add up the expenses, deposit that much into my HSA, and if I'd rather put that money somewhere else I just pull it out the next day. If you decide you don't need the money right away that's even better since you can leave it in the HSA account and invest it. Like a Roth account, you don't pay tax on the growth you achieve inside of an HSA. Another Tip: if your employer offers the service of automatically making deposits into your HSA by reducing your paycheck, you should definitely try to do that if you can afford it, rather than manually making contributions as I described in the previous tip. When your employer makes the contributions for you, your wages are reduced by that amount on your W2, so you end up saving an additional 7% in FICA taxes." }, { "docid": "151810", "title": "", "text": "\"It's not quite as bad as the comments indicate. Form 1040ES has been available since January (and IME has been similarly for all past years). It mostly uses the prior year (currently 2016) as the basis, but it does have the updated (2017) figures for items that are automatically adjusted for inflation: bracket points (and thus filing threshhold), standard deductions, Social Security cap, and maybe another one or two I missed. The forms making up the actual return cannot be prepared very far in advance because, as commented, Congress frequently makes changes to tax law well after the year begins, and in some cases right up to Dec. 31. The IRS must start preparing forms and pubs -- and equally important, setting the specifications for software providers like Intuit (TurboTax) and H&RBlock -- several months ahead in order to not seriously delay filing season, and with it refunds, which nearly everyone in the country considers (at least publicly) to be worse than World War Three and the destruction of the Earth by rogue asteroids. I have 1040 series from the last 4 years still on my computer, and the download dates mostly range from late September to mid January. Although one outlier shows the range of possibility: 2013 form 1040 and Schedule A were tweaked in April 2014 because Congress passed a law allowing charitable contributions for Typhoon Haiyan to be deducted in the prior year. Substantive, but relatively minor, changes happen every year, including many that keep recurring like the special (pre-AGI) teacher supplies deduction (\"\"will they or won't they?\"\"), section 179 expensing (changes slightly almost every year), and formerly the IRA-direct-to-charity option (finally made permanent last year). As commented, the current Congress and President were elected on a platform with tax reform as an important element, and they are talking even more intensely than before about doing it, although whether they will actually do anything this year is still uncertain. However, if major reform is done it will almost certainly apply to future years only, and likely only start after a lag of some months to a year. They know it causes chaos for businesses and households alike to upend without advance warning the assumptions built in to current budgets and plans -- and IME as a political matter something that is enacted now and effective fairly soon but not now is just as good (but I think that part is offtopic).\"" }, { "docid": "499864", "title": "", "text": "\"I have a related issue, since I have some income which is large enough to matter and hard to predict. Start with a best guess. Check what tax bracket you were in last year and withhold that percentage of the expected non-withheld income. Adjust upward a bit, if desired, to reflect the fact that you're getting paid more at the new job. Adjust again, either up or down, to reflect whether you were over-withheld or under-withheld last year (whether the IRS owed you a refund or you had to send a check with your return). Repeat that process next year after next tax season, when you see how well your guess worked out. (You could try pre-calculating the entire tax return based on your expected income and then divide any underpayment into per-paycheck additional withholding... but I don't think it's worth the effort.) I don't worry about trying to get this exactly correct. I don't stress about lost interest if I've over-withheld a bit, and as long as your withholding was reasonably close and you have the cash float available to send them a check for the rest when it comes due, the IRS generally doesn't grumble if your withholding was a bit low. (It would be really nice if the IRS paid us interest on over-withholding, to mirror the fact that they charge us interest if we're late in returning our forms. Oh well.) Despite all the stories, the IRS really is fairly reasonable; if you aren't deliberately trying to get away with something, the process is annoying but shouldn't be scary. The one time they mail-audited me, it was several thousand dollars in my favor; I'd forgotten to claim some investment losses, and their computers noticed the error. Though I still say the motto of the next revolution will be \"\"No taxation without proper instructions!\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "185077", "title": "", "text": "This is a topic you need to sit down and discuss with your parents. Income taxes probably aren't going to be a big issue, and will be refunded in April. Social Security and Medicare will not be refunded, but start you on the road to qualifying for them in the future. How much of you expenses you will now cover will be a family decision; how much of your college expenses you will be responsible for will also need to be discussed. These topics need to be understood before it is time to apply to schools in the fall of your senior year of high school. It is nice to know that you are at least thinking about saving money for your future and for emergencies." }, { "docid": "362060", "title": "", "text": "I am not an accountant, but I have a light accounting background, despite being primarily an engineer. I also have a tiny schedule C business which has both better and worse years. I am also in the United States and pay US taxes. I assume you are referring to the US Form 1040 tax return, with the attached Schedule C. However little I know about US taxes, I know nothing about foreign taxes. You are a cash-basis taxpayer, so the transactions that happen in each tax year are based on the cash paid and cash received in that year. You were paid last year, you computed your schedule C based on last year's actual transactions, and you paid taxes on that income. You can not recompute last years schedule C based on the warranty claim. You might want to switch to an accrual accounting method, where you can book allowances for warranty claims. It is more complex, and if your business is spotty and low volume, it may be more trouble than it is worth. At this point, you have two months to look for ways to shift expenses into next year or being income into this year, both of which help offset this loss. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on. This article on LegalZoom (link here) discusses how to apply a significant net operating loss (NOL) in this year to the previous two years, and potentially carry it forward to the next two years. This does involve filing amended returns for the prior two years, showing this year's NOL. For this to be relevant, your schedule C loss this year must exceed your other W2 and self-employment income this year, with other tests also applied. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on." }, { "docid": "73252", "title": "", "text": "The FSA can only pay for expenses incurred after it was open. This also applies in case of a mid-year change in election (such as due to marriage, divorce, child birth, etc.) For example, according to this page: You can only be reimbursed for qualifying expenses, from the election that was in place at the time the expense was incurred. So, say you had $500 available from January to June, then on July 1 had a qualifying event, you then elected $2000. You can be reimbursed for up to $500 in expenses incurred prior to July 1, and then an additional $1500 in expenses incurred after (up to $2000 if you didn't use your full $500). More specifically, from the IRS Publication: Generally, distributions from a health FSA must be paid only to reimburse you for qualified medical expenses you incurred during the period of coverage. -- The HSA question is more complicated. I would talk to a tax accountant, or at minimum your benefits coordinator. Also read the publication I linked above, the first part is about HSAs. The short answer to your specific question: stop contributing to the HSA, unless you were contributing well under the limit of the HSA. If you know your limit, and you know you're under it, you can continue contributing until April 15 of next year: If you fail to be an eligible individual during 2013, you can still make contributions, up until April 15, 2014, for the months you were an eligible individual. The general rule is you can contribute up to (1/12)*(your limit)*(number of months you were eligible). So, if you changed jobs Oct 1, and you're single, then you could contribute (3250)*(1/12)*(9), or just over $2400 in total for the year. If you've contributed less than that to date, you may continue contributing up to that amount - but again, contact your benefits coordinator or preferably a tax accountant, as the rules can be complicated. You definitely cannot deduct any expenses from the account that you incur after you are no longer eligible, and the rules on distributions are pretty complicated - and if you get it wrong, you may owe a 10% penalty on top of the tax you would normally owe, so there is significant incentive not to get it wrong." }, { "docid": "535705", "title": "", "text": "The money in the checking account was already taxed. It was income this year or last, or a gift from somebody, or earned interest that will be taxed. If it was a deductible IRA you would declare it next April and get a refund from the government." }, { "docid": "261989", "title": "", "text": "Bank products have been pretty common with tax refunds as well, and they are also being heavily scrutinized for the same reasons. Refund Anticipation Loans (RALs) have been outlawed for future tax seasons due to lack of consumer protection. What is a bank product, you might ask? Rather than waiting 7-14 days for the a direct deposit from the IRS, a lot of places like H+R Block and Jackson Hewitt would offer a bank product to get you money quicker. For this service, they charge a fee (usually $99-$149) which is grossly overpriced for how little work it takes, but if your refund is several thousand dollars, you may not care. A Refund Anticipation Loan was the most predatory bank product, as it was an advance on your loan for the amount your expected refund. However, if there were any errors in your return and the IRS decided your refund was less than what your tax preparer calculated it to be, you were stuck with paying back the advance amount, leaving you to foot the bill for whatever errors your preparer may have made. These loans also had very high interest rates, since usually the people that wanted RALs were also the same people that rely upon cash advances. There are also Electronic Refund Checks (which ironically are paper checks for the consumer, not electronic deposits), direct deposits, and prepaid debit cards. Despite the fact that these same methods of refund payments are offered by the IRS themselves, preparers and banks alike sold these to collect fees for essentially no work. I'm not sure how similar these bank products for student loans are, but I wanted to shed some light on them anyways. Regardless of how badly you need money, **do not ever accept money through a bank product.** If it benefited you more, banks and preparers would not offer these. (Source: telemarketing at a tax preparation software company)" } ]

[ { "docid": "147765", "title": "", "text": "There actually are legitimate reasons, but they don't apply to most people. Here are a few that I know of: You're self-employed and have to pay quarterly estimated taxes. Rather than wait for the refund when you already have to pay 1/4 of next year's taxes at the same time, you just have the IRS apply to refund forward. (so you're not out the money you owe while waiting for your refund). You're filing an amended or late return, and so you're already into the next year, and have a similar situation as #1, where your next year's taxes have already come due. You're planning on declaring bankruptcy, and you're under the Tenth Circuit, those credits might be safe from creditors For almost any other situation, you're better off taking the money, and using it to pay down debt, or put it somewhere to make interest (although, at the current rates, that might not be very much)." } ]

[ { "docid": "191704", "title": "", "text": "The short answer is no - the CGT discount is only applied against your net capital gain. So your net capital gain would be: $25,000 - $5,000 = $20,000 Your CGT discount is $10,000 You will then pay CGT on $10,000 Of course you could sell ABC in this financial year and sell DEF next financial year. If you had no other share activities next financial year than that net capital loss can be carried forward to a future year. In that case your net capital gain this year would be $25,000 Your CGT discount is $12,500 You will then pay CGT on $12,500 Next year if oyu sell DEF, you'll have a $5000 net capital loss which you can carry forward to a future year as an offset against capital gains. Reference: https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Capital-gains-tax/Working-out-your-capital-gain-or-loss/Working-out-your-net-capital-gain-or-loss/" }, { "docid": "597574", "title": "", "text": "The amount you contribute will reduce the taxable income for each paycheck, but it won't impact the level of your social security and medicare taxes. A 401(k) plan is a qualified deferred compensation plan in which an employee can elect to have the employer contribute a portion of his or her cash wages to the plan on a pretax basis. Generally, these deferred wages (commonly referred to as elective contributions) are not subject to income tax withholding at the time of deferral, and they are not reflected on your Form 1040 (PDF) since they were not included in the taxable wages on your Form W-2 (PDF). However, they are included as wages subject to withholding for social security and Medicare taxes. In addition, employers must report the elective contributions as wages subject to federal unemployment taxes. You might be able to keep this up for more than 7 weeks if the company offers health, dental and vision insurance. Your contributions for these policies would need to be paid for before you contribute to the 401K. Of course these items are also pre-tax so they will keep the taxable amount at zero. If there was a non-pretax deduction on your pay check that would keep the check at zero, but there would be taxes owed. This might be union dues, but it can also be some life and disability insurance polices. Most stubs specify which deductions are pre-tax, and which are post-tax. Warning. If you get the company match some companies give you the maximum match for those 7 weeks, then zero for the rest of the year. Others will still credit you with a match at the end of the year saying if you should get the benefit. It is not required that they do this. Check the company documents. You could also contribute post-tax money, which is different than Roth 401K, for the rest of the year to keep the match going. Note: If you are turning 50 this year, or are already 50, then you can contribute an additional $5,500" }, { "docid": "190497", "title": "", "text": "\"Sales tax and luxury tax is what you will have to pay tax wise, and they are non-refundable (in most cases but the rules vary area to area). This really tripped up some friends of mine I had come from England. The rules are complicated and regional. Sales tax is anywhere from 0% to 10.25% and are not usually applied to raw foods. Luxury taxes are usually state level and only apply to things most people consider a large purchase. Jewelry, cars, houses, etc. Not things your likely to buy. (Small, \"\"normal\"\" jewelry usually doesn't count. Diamond covered flava-flav clock ... probably has a luxury tax.) For sales tax, it can change a lot. Don't be afraid to ask. People ask all the time. It's normal. I personally add 10% to what I buy. Sales tax in my city is 7%, county is 6.5%, state is 6%. So you can get different rates depending on what side of the street you shop on some times. Under normal circumstances you do not get a refund on these taxes. Some states do give refunds. Usually however the trouble of getting that refund isn't worth it unless making a large purchase. You are not exempt from paying sales tax. (Depending on where you go you may get asked). Business are exempt if they are purchasing things to re-sell. Only the end customer pays sales tax. Depending on where you go, online purchases may not be subject to sales tax. Though they might. That, again, depends on city, county, and state laws. Normally, you will have to pay sales tax at the register. It will be calculated into your total, and show as a line item on your receipt. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yAvAm2BQ3xs/TudY-lfLDzI/AAAAAAAAAGs/gYG8wJeaohw/s1600/great%2Boutdoors%2Breceipt%2BQR-%2Bbefore%2Band%2Bafter.jpg Also some products have other non-refundable taxes. Rental car taxes, fuel taxes and road taxes are all likely taxes you will have to pay. Areas that have a lot of tourists, usually (but not always) have more of these kinds of taxes. Friendly note. DON'T BUY DVDs HERE! They won't work when you get home. I know you didn't ask but this catches a lot of people. Same for electronics (in many cases, specially optical drives and wireless).\"" }, { "docid": "307688", "title": "", "text": "\"Summary: The corporation pays 33.3% tax on dividends it receives and gets a tax refund at the same rate when it pays dividends out. According to http://www.kpmg.com/Ca/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/TaxRates/Federal-and-Provincial-Territorial-Tax-Rates-for-Income-Earned-CCPC-2015-Dec-31.pdf the corporate tax rates for 2015 are: According to page 3: The federal and provincial tax rates shown in the tables apply to investment income earned by a CCPC, other than capital gains and dividends received from Canadian corporations. The rates that apply to capital gains are one-half of the rates shown in the tables. Dividends received from Canadian corporations are deductible in computing regular Part I tax, but may be subject to Part IV tax, calculated at a rate of 33 1/3%. If I understand that correctly, this means that a Corporation in Quebec pays 46.6% on investment income other than capital gains and dividends, 23.3% on capital gains and 33.33% on dividends. I'm marking this answer as community wiki so anyone can correct these numbers if they are incorrect. UPDATE: According to http://www.pwc.com/ca/en/tax/publications/pwc-facts-figures-2014-07-en.pdf page 22 the tax rate on taxable dividends received from certain Canadian corporations is 33 1/3%. Further, this is refunded to the corporation through the \"\"refundable dividend tax on hand\"\" (RDTOH) mechanism at a rate of $1 for every $3 of taxable dividends paid. My interpretation is as follows: if the corporation receives $100 of dividends from another company, it pays $33.33 tax. If that corporation then pays out $100 of dividends at a later time, it receives a tax refund of $33.33. Meaning, the original tax gets refunded. Note the first line is for the 2015 tax year while the second link is for the 2014 tax year. The numbers might be a little different but the tax/refund process remains the same.\"" }, { "docid": "546634", "title": "", "text": "\"I was in the health insurance game for 10 years and never heard of this until the Affordable Care Act came about. To my knowledge, there is no rule or regulation prohibiting it, however trying to get an insurer underwrite that risk is extremely unlikely. It's the same reason why you don't see AAA offering health insurance. There isn't a contractual relationship between the church and their constituents, so no underwriter worth their salt would put a reasonable price on that risk. Members can easily come and go, and since insurance through your employer is still the dominant distribution channel for health insurance, it would be seen as an adverse risk, meaning that people who couldn't get it through \"\"normal\"\" channels must be getting it through the church, which it would then be assumed that this person applying for coverage is an \"\"adverse risk\"\" or someone who is abnormally unhealthy. There are faith-based healthcare reimbursement programs that are NOT health insurance and do not satisfy the ACA required minimum coverages. From what I've seen and read, it's basically members of the religion or faith that pay money into the system (like paying an insurance premium) and they elect a board that basically evaluates each claim and pays or doesn't pay it, either partially or in full. While this is a nice way to get your bills paid, odds are it won't cover your $300,000 cancer treatment or your $50,000 cesarean section birth.\"" }, { "docid": "113960", "title": "", "text": "\"It depends on when you're setting the goal. 1) When you have finished the year and you are filling out tax forms, your goal is to get as large of a refund as possible. 2) When the year begins afresh and you are earning money and paying taxes, your goal should be roughly to pay exactly the amount of tax owed so that at the end of the year you don't have any refund or tax owed - it's the same as getting your tax refund right away rather than waiting until after you file taxes. So you want your W4 set up appropriately (assuming you're talking about the US). I think (1) is obvious. For (2), imagine you start the year with the goal to get the largest possible tax refund at the end. Well that's simple - fill out the W4 and on line 6 (\"\"Additional amount, if any, you want withheld from each paycheck\"\") tell them to withhold everything. Then at the end of the year you'll get a huge refund. Of course in the meantime, you've made an interest-free loan to the government, and you've probably had to take out a high-interest rate loan from your bank or credit card. Obviously this is bad. An argument could be made that it would be even better to slightly underpay your taxes (but not enough to owe a penalty). Ignoring human weakness, this is correct. If you have the discipline to set that money aside in a safe place, that's okay. If this would cause you to spend that money (or even save less of your other money), then this is a bad idea. So I'd really want to highlight some of this depends on your own financial discipline - is it better for you to have the money right away so that you can make good choices with how to use it now, or is it better for you to put the money somewhere out of reach so that you won't spend it on impulse purchases? (and recognize that there are ways to put it out of reach and earn interest on it rather than spending it - one good choice for you would be a Roth IRA)\"" }, { "docid": "187695", "title": "", "text": "The IRS can direct your refund towards repayment of your unpaid taxes either on Federal or State/Local level. Whether it will depends on whether the State of New York will ask for it. Generally, if you owe taxes to New York for this year only, you would expect them to wait for you to file your State tax return and pay the taxes owed. If you don't - I'm pretty sure that the next year refund from the IRS will go directly to them." }, { "docid": "427997", "title": "", "text": "\"typically, your employer will automatically stop making contributions once you hit the 18k$ limit. it is worth noting that employer contributions (e.g. \"\"matching\"\") do not count towards the 18k$ employee pre-tax contribution limit. however, if you have 2 employers during the year their combined payroll deductions might exceed the limit if you do not inform your later employer of the contributions you made at your former employer (or they ignore the info). in which case, you must request a refund of \"\"excess contributions\"\" from one of the plans (your choice). you must report the refund as taxable income on your taxes. if you do not make this request by the time you file your taxes, the tax man will reject your filing and \"\"adjust\"\" your return with more taxes and penalties. sometimes requesting a refund of excess contributions might cause your employer to remove \"\"matching\"\" funds, but i am not clear on the rules behind that. there are some 401k plans that allow \"\"supplemental after-tax contributions\"\" up to the combined employee/employer limit (53k$ in 2015 and 2016). it is a rare feature, and if your company offers it, you probably already know. however, generally it is governed by a separate contribution election that only take effect once you hit the employee pre-tax contribution limit (18k$ in 2015 and 2016). you could ask your hr department to be sure. 401k plans can be changed if there is enough employee demand for a rule change. especially in a small company, simply asking for them to allow dollar based contributions instead of percent based contributions can cause them to change the plan to allow it. similarly, you could request they allow \"\"supplemental after-tax contributions\"\", but that might be a harder change to get.\"" }, { "docid": "480282", "title": "", "text": "You are correct that W-4s are very confusing for multiple income homes, and even more so if you change salary significantly during the year. There are just too many variables in those situations to provide an effective, simple form. Unfortunately, the best way to get accurate withholdings is trial-and-error. Try and estimate how much tax you'll have to pay for the year. There are several calculators out there, but essentially you can take your gross income, subtract the standard exemptions for you and all dependents, subtract the standard deductions (or estimate your itemized deductions), and compute your tax based on the federal tax tables. Then subtract any tax credits you may be eligible for. Then estimate your withholdings for the year by multiplying your current withholdings by the number of pay periods left, and adding your YTD withholdings. If your total withholdings are higher than your estimated tax, add one or two exemptions to reduce your withholdings (and vice versa). If all that sounds like a lot of work (which it is), at a minimum make sure you withhold as much tax as you paid last year. That way you avoid any tax penalties, but might have a tax bill when you file. If you want to be conservative and withhold a little extra that's fine - you might even end up with a refund when you file. The good news is it doesn't have to be exact; any difference will determine what you pay (or what refund you get) when you file." }, { "docid": "438778", "title": "", "text": "Craig touched on it, but let me expand on the point. Deposits, by definition, are withheld at your marginal rate. And since you can choose Roth vs Traditional right till filing time, you know with certainty the rate you are at each year. Absent any other retirement income, i.e. no pension, and absent an incredibly major change to our tax code, I know your starting rate, zero. The first $10K or so per person is part of their standard deduction and exemption. For a couple, the next $18k is taxed at 10%, and so on. Let me stop here to expand this important point. This is $38,000 for the couple, and the tax on it is less than $1900. 5%. There is no 5% bracket of course. It's the first $20K with zero tax, and that first $18,000 taxed at 10%. That $38,000 takes nearly $1M in pretax accounts to offer as an annual withdrawal. The 15% bracket starts after this, and applies to the next $57K of withdrawals each year. Over $95K in gross withdrawals of pretax money, and you still aren't in the 25% bracket. This is why 100% in traditional, or 100% in Roth aren't either ideal. I continue to offer the example I consider more optimizing - using Roth for income that would otherwise be taxed at 15%, but going pretax when you hit 25%. Then at retirement, you withdraw enough traditional to just stay at 10 or 15% and Roth for the rest. It would be a shame to retire 100% Roth and realize you paid 25% but now have no income to use up those lower brackets. Oddly, time value of money isn't part of my analysis. It makes no difference. And note, the exact numbers do change a bit each year for inflation. There's a also a good chance the exemptions goes away in favor of a huge increased standard deduction." }, { "docid": "595121", "title": "", "text": "There are penalties for failure to file and penalties for failure to pay tax. The penalties for both are based on the amount of tax due. So you would owe % penalties of zero, otherwise meaning no penalties at all. The IRS on late 1040 penalties: Here are eight important points about penalties for filing or paying late. A failure-to-file penalty may apply if you did not file by the tax filing deadline. A failure-to-pay penalty may apply if you did not pay all of the taxes you owe by the tax filing deadline. The failure-to-file penalty is generally more than the failure-to-pay penalty. You should file your tax return on time each year, even if you’re not able to pay all the taxes you owe by the due date. You can reduce additional interest and penalties by paying as much as you can with your tax return. You should explore other payment options such as getting a loan or making an installment agreement to make payments. The IRS will work with you. The penalty for filing late is normally 5 percent of the unpaid taxes for each month or part of a month that a tax return is late. That penalty starts accruing the day after the tax filing due date and will not exceed 25 percent of your unpaid taxes. If you do not pay your taxes by the tax deadline, you normally will face a failure-to-pay penalty of ½ of 1 percent of your unpaid taxes. That penalty applies for each month or part of a month after the due date and starts accruing the day after the tax-filing due date. If you timely requested an extension of time to file your individual income tax return and paid at least 90 percent of the taxes you owe with your request, you may not face a failure-to-pay penalty. However, you must pay any remaining balance by the extended due date. If both the 5 percent failure-to-file penalty and the ½ percent failure-to-pay penalties apply in any month, the maximum penalty that you’ll pay for both is 5 percent. If you file your return more than 60 days after the due date or extended due date, the minimum penalty is the smaller of $135 or 100 percent of the unpaid tax. You will not have to pay a late-filing or late-payment penalty if you can show reasonable cause for not filing or paying on time. If the IRS owes you a refund, April 15 isn't much of a deadline. I suppose the real deadline is April 15, three years later - that's when the IRS keeps your refund and it becomes property of the Treasury. Of course, there's little reason to wait that long. Don't let the Treasury get all your interest." }, { "docid": "103842", "title": "", "text": "Does the 5 year rule apply on the After-tax 401k -> Roth 401k -> Roth IRA conversion of the 20000 (including 10000 earnings that was originally pre-tax)? No. The after-tax amounts are not subject to the 5 years rule. The earnings are. How does this affect Roth IRA withdrawal ordering rules with respect to the taxable portion of a single conversion being withdrawn before the non-taxable portion? Taxable portion first until exhausted. To better understand how it works, you need to understand the rationale behind the 5-year rule. Consider you have $100K in your IRA (traditional) and you want to take it out. Just withdrawing it would trigger a 10K statutory penalty, on top of the taxes due. But, you can use the backdoor Roth IRA, right? So convert the 100K, and then it becomes after-tax contribution to Roth IRA, and can be withdrawn with no penalty. One form filled ad 10K saved. To block this loophole, here comes the 5 years rule: you cannot withdraw after-tax amounts for at least 5 years without penalty, if the source was taxable conversion. Thus, in order to avoid the 10K penalty in the above situation, you have a 5-year cooling period, which makes the loophole useless for most cases. However amounts that are after tax can be withdrawn without penalty already, even from the traditional IRA, so there's no need in the 5 years cooling period. The withdrawal attribution is in this order: Roth IRA rollovers are sourced to the origin. E.g.: if you converted $100 to the Roth IRA at firm X and then a year later rolled it over to firm Y - it doesn't affect anything and the clock is ticking from the original date of the conversion at firm X. 5-year period applies to each conversion/rollover from a qualified retirement plan (see here). Distributions are applied to the conversions in FIFO order, so in one distribution, depending on the amounts, you may hit several different incoming conversions. The 5 years should be check on each of them, and the penalty applied on the amounts attributable to those that don't have enough time. 5-year period for contributions applies starting from the beginning of the first year of the first contribution that established your Roth IRA plan. The penalty applies to the amounts that were included in your gross income when conversion occurred, i.e.: doesn't apply on the amounts converted from after-tax sources. Note the difference from the traditional IRA - distributions from pre-tax sources are prorated between the non-deductible (basis) amounts and the deductible/earnings amounts (taxable). That is why the taxable amounts are first in the ordering of the distributions." }, { "docid": "113876", "title": "", "text": "\"I think the £35K band applies to the \"\"dividend income\"\" not the \"\"dividend paid to you\"\", and so you would only actually get £31.5K (90% of £35K) in your pocket before the next tax band kicked in. If your company will only supplying large VAT registered entities, then register for VAT yourself and elect the Flat Rate scheme - depending on your area of business, given that you have no expenses, your company will get an extra 7% - 14% on its income for free. Your clients won't care that you charge them VAT because they'll claim it back. Finally, depending on what your company is for, beware of the dreaded IR35\"" }, { "docid": "111531", "title": "", "text": "\"From what you've described, your spouse is a non-resident alien for US tax purposes. You have two choices: Use the Nonresident Spouse Treated As Resident election and file as Married Filing Jointly. Since your spouse doesn't have, and doesn't currently qualify for, an SSN, he/she will need to apply for an ITIN together with the tax filing. Note that by becoming a resident alien, your spouse's worldwide income the whole year would be subject to US taxes, and would need to be reported on your joint tax filing, though he/she will be able to use the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion to exclude $100k of her foreign earned income, since he/she will have been out of the US for 330 days in a 12-month period. Or, file as Married Filing Separately. You write \"\"NRA\"\" for your spouse's SSN on your tax return. As a nonresident alien, if your spouse doesn't have any US income, he/she doesn't have to file a US tax return, and doesn't need to apply for an ITIN. Which one is better is up to you to figure out.\"" }, { "docid": "193717", "title": "", "text": "\"You mention \"\"early exercise\"\" in your title, but you seem to misunderstand what early exercise really means. Some companies offer stock options that vest over a number of years, but which can be exercised before they are vested. That is early exercise. You have vested stock options, so early exercise is not relevant. (It may or may not be the case that your stock options could have been early exercised before they vested, but regardless, you didn't exercise them, so the point is moot.) As littleadv said, 83(b) election is for restricted stocks, often from exercising unvested stock options. Your options are already vested, so they won't be restricted stock. So 83(b) election is not relevant for you. A taxable event happen when you exercise. The point of the 83(b) election is that exercising unvested stock options is not a taxable event, so 83(b) election allows you to force it to be a taxable event. But for you, with vested stock options, there is no need to do this. You mention that you want it not to be taxable upon exercise. But that's what Incentive Stock Options (ISOs) are for. ISOs were designed for the purpose of not being taxable for regular income tax purposes when you exercise (although it is still taxable upon exercise for AMT purposes), and it is only taxed when you sell. However, you have Non-qualified Stock Options. Were you given the option to get ISOs at the beginning? Why did your company give you NQSOs? I don't know the specifics of your situation, but since you mentioned \"\"early exercise\"\" and 83(b) elections, I have a hypothesis as to what might have happened. For people who early-exercise (for plans that allow early-exercise), there is a slight advantage to having NQSOs compared to ISOs. This is because if you early exercise immediately upon grant and do 83(b) election, you pay no taxes upon exercise (because the difference between strike price and FMV is 0), and there are no taxes upon vesting (for regular or AMT), and if you hold it for at least 1 year, upon sale it will be long-term capital gains. On the other hand, for ISOs, it's the same except that for long-term capital gains, you have to hold it 2 years after grant and 1 year after exercise, so the period for long-term capital gains is longer. So companies that allow early exercise will often offer employees either NQSOs or ISOs, where you would choose NQSO if you intend to early-exercise, or ISO otherwise. If (hypothetically) that's what happened, then you chose wrong because you got NQSOs and didn't early exercise.\"" }, { "docid": "94088", "title": "", "text": "\"It depends on when you can get the money, not when you know that you won or when you choose to take the ticket in. If you can present your ticket this year and get paid this year, the taxes are due this year, whether or not you actually choose to claim the prize this year. If you cannot receive payment until next year, then taxes will be due next year. This is \"\"constructive receipt,\"\" which applies to most individual tax situations. This assumes that you chose to receive a lump sum. If you get installments, then your taxes would be due as the installments are available, but the constructive receipt still applies.\"" }, { "docid": "362060", "title": "", "text": "I am not an accountant, but I have a light accounting background, despite being primarily an engineer. I also have a tiny schedule C business which has both better and worse years. I am also in the United States and pay US taxes. I assume you are referring to the US Form 1040 tax return, with the attached Schedule C. However little I know about US taxes, I know nothing about foreign taxes. You are a cash-basis taxpayer, so the transactions that happen in each tax year are based on the cash paid and cash received in that year. You were paid last year, you computed your schedule C based on last year's actual transactions, and you paid taxes on that income. You can not recompute last years schedule C based on the warranty claim. You might want to switch to an accrual accounting method, where you can book allowances for warranty claims. It is more complex, and if your business is spotty and low volume, it may be more trouble than it is worth. At this point, you have two months to look for ways to shift expenses into next year or being income into this year, both of which help offset this loss. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on. This article on LegalZoom (link here) discusses how to apply a significant net operating loss (NOL) in this year to the previous two years, and potentially carry it forward to the next two years. This does involve filing amended returns for the prior two years, showing this year's NOL. For this to be relevant, your schedule C loss this year must exceed your other W2 and self-employment income this year, with other tests also applied. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on." }, { "docid": "52438", "title": "", "text": "\"Highly Compensated Employee Rules Aim to Make 401k's Fair would be the piece that I suspect you are missing here. I remember hearing of this rule when I worked in the US and can understand why it exists. A key quote from the article: You wouldn't think the prospect of getting money from an employer would be nerve-wracking. But those jittery co-workers are highly compensated employees (HCEs) concerned that they will receive a refund of excess 401k contributions because their plan failed its discrimination test. A refund means they will owe more income tax for the current tax year. Geersk (a pseudonym), who is also an HCE, is in information services and manages the computers that process his firm's 401k plan. 401(k) - Wikipedia reference on this: To help ensure that companies extend their 401(k) plans to low-paid employees, an IRS rule limits the maximum deferral by the company's \"\"highly compensated\"\" employees, based on the average deferral by the company's non-highly compensated employees. If the less compensated employees are allowed to save more for retirement, then the executives are allowed to save more for retirement. This provision is enforced via \"\"non-discrimination testing\"\". Non-discrimination testing takes the deferral rates of \"\"highly compensated employees\"\" (HCEs) and compares them to non-highly compensated employees (NHCEs). An HCE in 2008 is defined as an employee with compensation of greater than $100,000 in 2007 or an employee that owned more than 5% of the business at any time during the year or the preceding year.[13] In addition to the $100,000 limit for determining HCEs, employers can elect to limit the top-paid group of employees to the top 20% of employees ranked by compensation.[13] That is for plans whose first day of the plan year is in calendar year 2007, we look to each employee's prior year gross compensation (also known as 'Medicare wages') and those who earned more than $100,000 are HCEs. Most testing done now in 2009 will be for the 2008 plan year and compare employees' 2007 plan year gross compensation to the $100,000 threshold for 2007 to determine who is HCE and who is a NHCE. The threshold was $110,000 in 2010 and it did not change for 2011. The average deferral percentage (ADP) of all HCEs, as a group, can be no more than 2 percentage points greater (or 125% of, whichever is more) than the NHCEs, as a group. This is known as the ADP test. When a plan fails the ADP test, it essentially has two options to come into compliance. It can have a return of excess done to the HCEs to bring their ADP to a lower, passing, level. Or it can process a \"\"qualified non-elective contribution\"\" (QNEC) to some or all of the NHCEs to raise their ADP to a passing level. The return of excess requires the plan to send a taxable distribution to the HCEs (or reclassify regular contributions as catch-up contributions subject to the annual catch-up limit for those HCEs over 50) by March 15 of the year following the failed test. A QNEC must be an immediately vested contribution. The annual contribution percentage (ACP) test is similarly performed but also includes employer matching and employee after-tax contributions. ACPs do not use the simple 2% threshold, and include other provisions which can allow the plan to \"\"shift\"\" excess passing rates from the ADP over to the ACP. A failed ACP test is likewise addressed through return of excess, or a QNEC or qualified match (QMAC). There are a number of \"\"safe harbor\"\" provisions that can allow a company to be exempted from the ADP test. This includes making a \"\"safe harbor\"\" employer contribution to employees' accounts. Safe harbor contributions can take the form of a match (generally totaling 4% of pay) or a non-elective profit sharing (totaling 3% of pay). Safe harbor 401(k) contributions must be 100% vested at all times with immediate eligibility for employees. There are other administrative requirements within the safe harbor, such as requiring the employer to notify all eligible employees of the opportunity to participate in the plan, and restricting the employer from suspending participants for any reason other than due to a hardship withdrawal.\"" }, { "docid": "31483", "title": "", "text": "If you have non-salary income, you might be required to file 1040ES estimated tax for the next year on a quarterly basis. You can instead pay some or all in advance from your previous year's refund. In theory, you lose the interest you might have made by holding that money for a few months. In practice it might be worth it to avoid needing to send forms and checks every quarter. For instance if you had a $1000 estimated tax requirement and the alternative was to get 1% taxable savings account interest for six months, you'd make about $3 from holding it for the year. I would choose to just pay in advance. If you had a very large estimation, or you could pay off a high-rate debt and get a different effective rate of return, the tradeoff may be different." } ]

[ { "docid": "34913", "title": "", "text": "It is a bad deal. It saves the government from processing your refund as a check or an ACH deposit, and lets them keep your money -- money that they overwithheld! -- interest-free for another year. Get it back. :)" } ]

[ { "docid": "164301", "title": "", "text": "Something I've not heard mentioned in any of the answers is that (at least for me) owing some tax money is better than having a refund from a ID theft/fraud/security aspect. The US IRS has been hacked several times recently and there have been cases of fraudulent tax refunds being filed and tax refund checks being cashed by ID thieves. Well, if you owe a bit of tax then you're less of a target for fraudulent tax refunds being filed in your name. Even in the case that you were unlucky enough to have had your identity stolen, at least you don't have to deal with the IRS trying to sort a mess like that up. Thus, (IMO) it's better to owe a bit of tax, than to have a small refund, or any refund for that matter. Ideally, you want to get to zero dollars owed like you suggested, but that's often pretty hard to do. So, the next best thing is to owe a bit. One should try to calculate tax liability quartely or if income changes, adjust your withholding, so that you get closer to zero tax." }, { "docid": "395726", "title": "", "text": "Do you have a regular job, where you work for somebody else and they pay you a salary? If so, they should be deducting estimated taxes from your paychecks and sending them in to the government. How much they deduct depends on your salary and what you put down on your W-4. Assuming you filled that out accurately, they will withhold an amount that should closely match the taxes you would owe if you took the standard deduction, have no income besides this job, and no unusual deductions. If that's the case, come next April 15 you will probably get a small refund. If you own a small business or are an independent contractor, then you have to estimate the taxes you will owe and make quarterly payments. If you're worried that the amount they're withholding doesn't sound right, then as GradeEhBacon says, get a copy of last year's tax forms (or this year's if they're out by now) -- paper or electronic -- fill them out by estimating what your total income will be for the year, etc, and see what the tax comes out to be." }, { "docid": "191473", "title": "", "text": "LLC is not a federal tax designation. It's a state-level organization. Your LLC can elect to be treated as a partnership, a disregarded entity (i.e., just report the taxes in your individual income tax), or as an S-Corp for federal tax purposes. If you have elected S-Corp, I expect that all the S-Corp rules will apply, as well as any state-level LLC rules that may apply. Disclaimer: I'm not 100% familiar with S-corp rules, so I can't evaluate whether the statements you made about proportional payouts are correct." }, { "docid": "573523", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll assume United States as the country; the answer may (probably does) vary somewhat if this is not correct. Also, I preface this with the caveat that I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant. However, this is my understanding: You must recognize the revenue at the time the credits are purchased (when money changes hands), and charge sales tax on the full amount at that time. This is because the customer has pre-paid and purchased a service (i.e. the \"\"credits\"\", which are units of time available in the application). This is clearly a complete transaction. The use of the credits is irrelevant. This is equivalent to a customer purchasing a box of widgets for future delivery; the payment is made and the widgets are available but have simply not been shipped (and therefore used). This mirrors many online service providers (say, NetFlix) in business model. This is different from the case in which a customer purchases a \"\"gift card\"\" or \"\"reloadable debit card\"\". In this case, sales tax is NOT collected (because this is technically not a purchase). Revenue is also not booked at this time. Instead, the revenue is booked when the gift card's balance is used to pay for a good or service, and at that time the tax is collected (usually from the funds on the card). To do otherwise would greatly complicate the tax basis (suppose the gift card is used in a different state or county, where sales tax is charged differently? Suppose the gift card is used to purchase a tax-exempt item?) For justification, see bankruptcy consideration of the two cases. In the former, the customer has \"\"ownership\"\" of an asset (the credits), which cannot be taken from him (although it might be unusable). In the latter, the holder of the debit card is technically an unsecured creditor of the company - and is last in line if the company's assets are liquidated for repayment. Consider also the case where the cost of the \"\"credits\"\" is increased part-way through the year (say, from $10 per credit to $20 per credit) or if a discount promotion is applied (buy 5 credits, get one free). The customer has a \"\"tangible\"\" item (one credit) which gets the same functionality regardless of price. This would be different if instead of \"\"credits\"\" you instead maintain an \"\"account\"\" where the user deposited $1000 and was billed for usage; in this case you fall back to the \"\"gift card\"\" scenario (but usage is charged at the current rate) and revenue is booked when the usage is purchased; similarly, tax is collected on the purchase of the service. For this model to work, the \"\"credit\"\" would likely have to be refundable, and could not expire (see gift cards, above), and must be usable on a variety of \"\"services\"\". You may have particular responsibility in the handling of this \"\"deposit\"\" as well.\"" }, { "docid": "28172", "title": "", "text": "You have made a good start because you are looking at your options. Because you know that if you do nothing you will have a big tax bill in April 2017, you want to make sure that you avoid the underpayment penalty. One way to avoid it is to make estimated payments. But even if you do that you could still make a mistake and overpay or underpay. I think the easiest way to handle it is to reach the safe harbor. If your withholding from your regular jobs and any estimated taxes you pay in 2016 equal or exceed your total taxes for 2015, then even if you owe a lot in April 2017 you can avoid the underpayment penalty. If you AGI is over 150K you have to make sure your withholding is 110% of your 2015 taxes. Then set aside what you think you will owe in your bank account until you have to pay your taxes in April 2017. You only have to adjust your withholding to make the safe harbor. You can make sure easily enough once your file this years taxes. You only have to make sure that you reach the 100% or 110% threshold. From IRS PUB 17 Who Must Pay Estimated Tax If you owe additional tax for 2015, you may have to pay estimated tax for 2016. You can use the following general rule as a guide during the year to see if you will have enough withholding, or if you should increase your withholding or make estimated tax payments. General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2016 if both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2016, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: a. 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2016 tax return, or b. 100% of the tax shown on your 2015 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2015 tax return must cover all 12 months. Reminders Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2015 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2016 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2015 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty." }, { "docid": "349348", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm assuming that when you say \"\"convert to S-Corp tax treatment\"\" you're not talking about actually changing your LLC to a Corporation. There are two distinct pieces of the puzzle here. First, there's your organizational form. Your state, which is where the business is legally formed and recognized, creates the LLC or Corporation. \"\"S-Corp\"\" doesn't come into play here: your company is either an LLC or a Corporation. (There are a handful of other organizational types your state might have, e.g. PLLC, Limited Partnership, etc.; none of these are immediately relevant to this discussion). Second, there's the tax treatment you receive by the IRS. If your company was created by the state as an LLC, note that the IRS doesn't recognize LLCs as a distinct organizational type: you elect to be taxed as an individual (for single member LLCs), a partnership (for multiple member LLCs), or as a corporation. The former two elections are \"\"pass through\"\" -- there's no additional level of taxation on corporate profits, everything just passes through to the owners. The latter election introduces a tax on corporate profits. When you elect pass-through treatment, a single-member LLC files on Schedule C; a multiple-member LLC will prepare a form K-1 which you will include on your 1040. If your company was created by the state as a Corporation (not an LLC), you could still elect pass-through taxation if your company qualifies under the rules in Subchapter S (i.e. \"\"an S-Corp\"\"). States do not recognize \"\"S-Corp\"\" as part of the organizational process -- that's just a tax distinction used by the IRS (and possibly your state's tax authorities). In your case, if you are a single-member LLC (and assuming there are no other reasons to organize as a corporation), talking about \"\"S-Corp tax treatment\"\" doesn't make any sense. You'll just file your schedule C; in my experience it's fairly simple. (Note that this is based on my experience of single- and multiple-member LLCs in just two states. Your state may have different rules that affect state-level taxation; and the rules may change from year to year. I've found that hiring a good CPA to prepare the forms saves a good bit of stress and time that can be better applied to the business.)\"" }, { "docid": "464593", "title": "", "text": "\"The pure numbers answer says you want the refund to be close to $0. You can even argue, as some answers have, that you want to try to maximize the payment without receiving any sanctions for underpaying during the year. If you trace the money, it's easy to see why. Let's say you get a paycheck. Tag some of the dollars for Uncle Sam. These are the dollars that, eventually, will be given to the IRS. Now consider the following scenarios: From the raw numbers like this, its clear that you lose utility by setting yourself up for a large refund check. The money was yours the entire time, but you chose to give it to Uncle Sam instead. However, the raw numbers are only part of the puzzle. If you're a cold steely-gazed numbers person, they're the part that matters. When the billionares are playing their tax evasion games, this is the only thing they are paying attention to. However, real humans have a few psychological reasons they may choose to lose utility in terms of raw dollars in exchange for psychological assistance: These attitudes exist, and may be ideal for any one person. Obviously the financially savvy answer of \"\"minimize your refund\"\" is the ideal answer from a dollars and cents perspective, but its up to you to see whether that attitude is right when you account for all of the non-measurable things, like stress. In general, I would lead anyone to \"\"minimize your refund,\"\" but I would be remiss if I didn't include the very real psychological reasons people choose to deviate from it.\"" }, { "docid": "99233", "title": "", "text": "\"This has to do with the type of plan offered: is it a 401(k) plan or a profit-sharing plan, or both? If it's 401(k) I believe the IRS will see this distribution as elective and count towards the employee's annual elective contribution limit. If it's profit sharing the distribution would be counted toward the employer's portion of the limit. However -- profit sharing plans have a formula that's standard across the board and applied to all employees. i.e. 3% of company profits given equally to all employees. One of the benefits of the profit sharing plans is also that you can use a vesting schedule. I'd consult your accountant to see how this specifically impacts your business - but in the case you describe this sounds like an elective deferral choice by an employee and I don't see how (or why) you'd make this decision for them. Give them the bonus and let them choose how it's paid out. Edit: in re-reading your question it actually sounds like you're wanting to setup a profit sharing type situation - but again, heed what I said above. You decide the amount of \"\"profit\"\" - but you also have to set an equation that applies across the board. There is more complication to it than this brief explanation and I'd consult your accountant to see how it applies in your situation.\"" }, { "docid": "134026", "title": "", "text": "Looking at the numbers quickly, if he makes this amount for the entire year, single, no kids, no investment income, standard deduction only, his taxable income will be about $110,000.* That puts him in the 28% tax bracket. His federal tax would be: $18,481.25 plus 28% of the amount over $90,750 Which comes out to about $23,800 in tax liability. His federal withholding is $26,047 for the year, so with absolutely no deductions whatsoever, he will be getting a tax refund of about $2200. I'm not very familiar with the California tax return, but it is entirely possible that he would get a decent sized refund from the state as well. This means that his tax refund could be about the size of an extra paycheck. He may want to consider increasing his allowances, which would make his paychecks bigger and his tax refund smaller. That having been said, taxes are high, no doubt about it. Remember that when you are in the voting booth. :) * Here is how I got the taxable income number for the year:" }, { "docid": "312493", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "533589", "title": "", "text": "Suppose you have been paying interest on previous charges in the past. Your monthly statement is issued on April 12, and (since you just received your income tax refund), you pay it off in full on April 30. You don't charge anything to the card at all after April 12. Thus, on April 30, your credit card balance shows as zero since you just paid it off. But your April 12 statement billed you for interest only till April 12. So, on May 12, your next monthly bill will be for the interest for your nonzero balance from April 13 through April 30. Assuming that you still are not making any new charges on your card and pay off the May 12 bill in timely fashion, you will finally have a zero bill on June 12. What if you charge new items to your credit card after April 12? Well, your balance stopped revolving on April 30, and that's when interest is no longer charged on the new charges. But you do owe interest for a charge on April 13 (say) until April 30 when your balance is no longer revolving, and this will be added to your bill on May 12. Purchases made after April 30 will not be charged interest unless you fall off the wagon again and don't pay your May 12 bill in full by the due date of the bill (some time in early June)." }, { "docid": "419768", "title": "", "text": "If you get 1099-G for state tax refund, you need to declare it as income only if you took deduction on state taxes in the prior year. I.e.: if you took standard deductions - you don't need to declare the refund as income. If you did itemize, you have to declare the refund as income, and deduct the taxes paid last year on your schedule A. If this year you're not itemizing - you lost the tax benefit. If it was not clear from my answer - the taxes paid and the refund received are unrelated. The fact that you paid tax and received refund in the same year doesn't make them in any way related, even if both refer to the same taxable year." }, { "docid": "546634", "title": "", "text": "\"I was in the health insurance game for 10 years and never heard of this until the Affordable Care Act came about. To my knowledge, there is no rule or regulation prohibiting it, however trying to get an insurer underwrite that risk is extremely unlikely. It's the same reason why you don't see AAA offering health insurance. There isn't a contractual relationship between the church and their constituents, so no underwriter worth their salt would put a reasonable price on that risk. Members can easily come and go, and since insurance through your employer is still the dominant distribution channel for health insurance, it would be seen as an adverse risk, meaning that people who couldn't get it through \"\"normal\"\" channels must be getting it through the church, which it would then be assumed that this person applying for coverage is an \"\"adverse risk\"\" or someone who is abnormally unhealthy. There are faith-based healthcare reimbursement programs that are NOT health insurance and do not satisfy the ACA required minimum coverages. From what I've seen and read, it's basically members of the religion or faith that pay money into the system (like paying an insurance premium) and they elect a board that basically evaluates each claim and pays or doesn't pay it, either partially or in full. While this is a nice way to get your bills paid, odds are it won't cover your $300,000 cancer treatment or your $50,000 cesarean section birth.\"" }, { "docid": "175951", "title": "", "text": "Unfortunately, the tax system in the U.S. is probably more complicated than it looks to you right now. First, you need to understand that there will be taxes withheld from your paycheck, but the amount that they withhold is simply a guess. You might pay too much or too little tax during the year. After the year is over, you'll send in a tax return form that calculates the correct tax amount. If you have paid too little over the year, you'll have to send in the rest, but if you've paid too much, you'll get a refund. There are complicated formulas on how much tax the employer withholds from your paycheck, but in general, if you don't have extra income elsewhere that you need to pay tax on, you'll probably be close to breaking even at tax time. When you get your paycheck, the first thing that will be taken off is FICA, also called Social Security, Medicare, or the Payroll tax. This is a fixed 7.65% that is taken off the gross salary. It is not refundable and is not affected by any allowances or deductions, and does not come in to play at all on your tax return form. There are optional employee benefits that you might need to pay a portion of if you are going to take advantage of them, such as health insurance or retirement savings. Some of these deductions are paid with before-tax money, and some are paid with after tax money. The employer will calculate how much money they are supposed to withhold for federal and state taxes (yes, California has an income tax), and the rest is yours. At tax time, the employer will give you a form W-2, which shows you the amount of your gross income after all the before-tax deductions are taken out (which is what you use to calculate your tax). The form also shows you how much tax you have paid during the year. Form 1040 is the tax return that you use to calculate your correct tax for the year. You start with the gross income amount from the W-2, and the first thing you do is add in any income that you didn't get a W-2 for (such as interest or investment income) and subtract any deductions that you might have that are not taxable, but were not paid through your paycheck (such as moving expenses, student loan interest, tuition, etc.) The result is called your adjusted gross income. Next, you take off the deductions not covered in the above section (property tax, home mortgage interest, charitable giving, etc.). You can either take the standard deduction ($6,300 if you are single), or if you have more deductions in this category than that, you can itemize your deductions and declare the correct amount. After that, you subtract more for exemptions. You can claim yourself as an exemption unless you are considered a dependent of someone else and they are claiming you as a dependent. If you claim yourself, you take off another $4,000 from your income. What you are left with is your taxable income for the year. This is the amount you would use to calculate your tax based on the bracket table you found. California has an income tax, and just like the federal tax, some state taxes will be deducted from your paycheck, and you'll need to fill out a state tax return form after the year is over to calculate the correct state tax and either request a refund or pay the remainder of the tax. I don't have any experience with the California income tax, but there are details on the rates on this page from the State of California." }, { "docid": "392585", "title": "", "text": "\"One of my New Year's resolutions a few years ago was to give up New Year's resolutions. It's the only resolution I've kept. Why wait until Jan. 1 to do something? Jan. 1 is just another day of the year. I'm thinking of going lightly into treasury bills next year. Never mind the small returns, at least I won't be spending the money unwisely. You will be giving your money to the government so they can spend it unwisely. I don't think there is anything wise about that. You are also implicitly lobbying for future taxes since the government will have to tax people to pay back your treasuries. Surely there are \"\"wiser\"\" places to put your money.\"" }, { "docid": "176742", "title": "", "text": "\"Personally, I would just dispute this one with your CC. I had a situation where a subscription I had cancelled the prior year was billed to me. I called up to have a refund issued, they couldn't find me in their system under three phone numbers and two addresses. The solution they proposed was \"\"send us your credit card statement with the charge circled,\"\" to which I responded \"\"there's no way in hell I'm sending you my CC statement.\"\" Then I disputed the charge with the CC bank and it was gone about two days later. I partially expect to have the same charge appear next year when they try to renew my non-existent subscription again. Now, whether or not this is a normal practice for the company, or just a call center person making a good-faith but insecure attempt to solve your problem is irrelevant. Fact of the matter is, you tried to resolve this with the merchant and the merchant asked for something that's likely outside the bounds of your CC Terms and Conditions; sending your entire number via email. Dispute it and move on. The dispute process exists for a reason.\"" }, { "docid": "191704", "title": "", "text": "The short answer is no - the CGT discount is only applied against your net capital gain. So your net capital gain would be: $25,000 - $5,000 = $20,000 Your CGT discount is $10,000 You will then pay CGT on $10,000 Of course you could sell ABC in this financial year and sell DEF next financial year. If you had no other share activities next financial year than that net capital loss can be carried forward to a future year. In that case your net capital gain this year would be $25,000 Your CGT discount is $12,500 You will then pay CGT on $12,500 Next year if oyu sell DEF, you'll have a $5000 net capital loss which you can carry forward to a future year as an offset against capital gains. Reference: https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Capital-gains-tax/Working-out-your-capital-gain-or-loss/Working-out-your-net-capital-gain-or-loss/" }, { "docid": "332447", "title": "", "text": "\"Everything is fine. If line 77 from last year is empty, you should leave this question blank. You made estimated tax payments in 2015. But line 77 relates to a different way to pay the IRS. When you filed your 2014 taxes, if you were owed a refund, and you expected to owe the IRS money for 2015, line 77 lets you say \"\"Hey IRS, instead of sending me a refund for 2014, just keep the money and apply it to my 2015 taxes.\"\" You can also ask them to keep a specified amount and refund the rest. Either way this is completely optional. It sounds like you didn't do that, so you don't fill in anything here. The software should ask you in a different question about your estimated tax payments.\"" }, { "docid": "185077", "title": "", "text": "This is a topic you need to sit down and discuss with your parents. Income taxes probably aren't going to be a big issue, and will be refunded in April. Social Security and Medicare will not be refunded, but start you on the road to qualifying for them in the future. How much of you expenses you will now cover will be a family decision; how much of your college expenses you will be responsible for will also need to be discussed. These topics need to be understood before it is time to apply to schools in the fall of your senior year of high school. It is nice to know that you are at least thinking about saving money for your future and for emergencies." } ]

[ { "docid": "398622", "title": "", "text": "If you expect your taxes to be higher next year, it saves you the trouble of sending estimates or changing the withholding levels. But yes, its basically a free loan you're giving to the government." } ]

[ { "docid": "533589", "title": "", "text": "Suppose you have been paying interest on previous charges in the past. Your monthly statement is issued on April 12, and (since you just received your income tax refund), you pay it off in full on April 30. You don't charge anything to the card at all after April 12. Thus, on April 30, your credit card balance shows as zero since you just paid it off. But your April 12 statement billed you for interest only till April 12. So, on May 12, your next monthly bill will be for the interest for your nonzero balance from April 13 through April 30. Assuming that you still are not making any new charges on your card and pay off the May 12 bill in timely fashion, you will finally have a zero bill on June 12. What if you charge new items to your credit card after April 12? Well, your balance stopped revolving on April 30, and that's when interest is no longer charged on the new charges. But you do owe interest for a charge on April 13 (say) until April 30 when your balance is no longer revolving, and this will be added to your bill on May 12. Purchases made after April 30 will not be charged interest unless you fall off the wagon again and don't pay your May 12 bill in full by the due date of the bill (some time in early June)." }, { "docid": "193717", "title": "", "text": "\"You mention \"\"early exercise\"\" in your title, but you seem to misunderstand what early exercise really means. Some companies offer stock options that vest over a number of years, but which can be exercised before they are vested. That is early exercise. You have vested stock options, so early exercise is not relevant. (It may or may not be the case that your stock options could have been early exercised before they vested, but regardless, you didn't exercise them, so the point is moot.) As littleadv said, 83(b) election is for restricted stocks, often from exercising unvested stock options. Your options are already vested, so they won't be restricted stock. So 83(b) election is not relevant for you. A taxable event happen when you exercise. The point of the 83(b) election is that exercising unvested stock options is not a taxable event, so 83(b) election allows you to force it to be a taxable event. But for you, with vested stock options, there is no need to do this. You mention that you want it not to be taxable upon exercise. But that's what Incentive Stock Options (ISOs) are for. ISOs were designed for the purpose of not being taxable for regular income tax purposes when you exercise (although it is still taxable upon exercise for AMT purposes), and it is only taxed when you sell. However, you have Non-qualified Stock Options. Were you given the option to get ISOs at the beginning? Why did your company give you NQSOs? I don't know the specifics of your situation, but since you mentioned \"\"early exercise\"\" and 83(b) elections, I have a hypothesis as to what might have happened. For people who early-exercise (for plans that allow early-exercise), there is a slight advantage to having NQSOs compared to ISOs. This is because if you early exercise immediately upon grant and do 83(b) election, you pay no taxes upon exercise (because the difference between strike price and FMV is 0), and there are no taxes upon vesting (for regular or AMT), and if you hold it for at least 1 year, upon sale it will be long-term capital gains. On the other hand, for ISOs, it's the same except that for long-term capital gains, you have to hold it 2 years after grant and 1 year after exercise, so the period for long-term capital gains is longer. So companies that allow early exercise will often offer employees either NQSOs or ISOs, where you would choose NQSO if you intend to early-exercise, or ISO otherwise. If (hypothetically) that's what happened, then you chose wrong because you got NQSOs and didn't early exercise.\"" }, { "docid": "267466", "title": "", "text": "In general, you are expected to pay all the money you owe in taxes by the end of the tax year, or you may have to pay a penalty. But you don't have to pay a penalty if: The amount you owe (i.e. total tax due minus what you paid in withholding and estimated taxes) is less than $1000. You paid at least 90% of your total tax bill. You paid at least 100% of last year's tax bill. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc306.html I think point #3 may work for you here. Suppose that last year your total tax liability was, say, $5,000. This year your tax on your regular income would be $5,500, but you have this additional capital gain that brings your total tax to $6,500. If your withholding was $5,000 -- the amount you owed last year -- than you'll owe the difference, $1,500, but you won't have to pay any penalties. If you normally get a refund every year, even a small one, then you should be fine. I'd check the numbers to be sure, of course. If you normally have to pay something every April 15, or if your income and therefore your withholding went down this year for whatever reason, then you should make an estimated payment. The IRS has a page explaining the rules in more detail: https://www.irs.gov/help-resources/tools-faqs/faqs-for-individuals/frequently-asked-tax-questions-answers/estimated-tax/large-gains-lump-sum-distributions-etc/large-gains-lump-sum-distributions-etc" }, { "docid": "191473", "title": "", "text": "LLC is not a federal tax designation. It's a state-level organization. Your LLC can elect to be treated as a partnership, a disregarded entity (i.e., just report the taxes in your individual income tax), or as an S-Corp for federal tax purposes. If you have elected S-Corp, I expect that all the S-Corp rules will apply, as well as any state-level LLC rules that may apply. Disclaimer: I'm not 100% familiar with S-corp rules, so I can't evaluate whether the statements you made about proportional payouts are correct." }, { "docid": "65698", "title": "", "text": "The purpose of the W-4 form is to allow you to adjust the withholding to meet your tax obligations. If you have outside non-wage income (money from tutoring) you will have to fill out the W-4 to have extra taxes withheld. If you have deductions (kids, mortgages, student loan interest) then you need to adjust the form to have less tax taken out. Now if yo go so far that you owe too much in April, then you can get hit with penalties and a requirement to file your taxes quarterly the next year. Most years I adjust my W-4 to reflect changes to my situation. The idea is to use it to manage your withholding so that you minimize your refund without triggering the penalties. The HR department has advised you well. How to adjust: If you want to decrease withholding (making the refund smaller) add one to the number on the worksheet. In 2014 a change by 1 exemption is equal to a salary adjustment of $3,950. If this was spread over 26 paychecks that would be the same as lowering your salary by ~$152. If you are in the 15% tax bracket that increases your take home pay by ~10 a check." }, { "docid": "497946", "title": "", "text": "As you're working, you and your spouse were probably born after 1935, so I'll assume that Marriage Allowance is relevant to you rather than Married Couple's Allowance. The allowance applies if your husband or wife earns less than the personal allowance in salary (£10,600/year), and less than £5,000/year in savings interest. For example it's likely this will apply if he or she's not working. Also, you need to be only a basic rate taxpayer, earning less than £42,385/year. In that case they can register online to transfer £1,060 of their personal allowance to you, which will reduce your tax bill by £212/year if you yourself earn more than £1,060 above the personal allowance. This will usually work by HMRC issuing a new tax code to your employer who will then automatically withhold less of your salary. You can't get your employer to do this directly, you have to go via HMRC. The allowance change will be effective as if from the start of the curren tax year in April 2015, so you will probably end up getting the proportion of the £212 that you could have had up till now (from April to August) back all at once in your next pay cheque, or possibly spread out over the rest of the tax year. Apart from that you'll get it spread out evenly over the year - i.e. about £17/month." }, { "docid": "28172", "title": "", "text": "You have made a good start because you are looking at your options. Because you know that if you do nothing you will have a big tax bill in April 2017, you want to make sure that you avoid the underpayment penalty. One way to avoid it is to make estimated payments. But even if you do that you could still make a mistake and overpay or underpay. I think the easiest way to handle it is to reach the safe harbor. If your withholding from your regular jobs and any estimated taxes you pay in 2016 equal or exceed your total taxes for 2015, then even if you owe a lot in April 2017 you can avoid the underpayment penalty. If you AGI is over 150K you have to make sure your withholding is 110% of your 2015 taxes. Then set aside what you think you will owe in your bank account until you have to pay your taxes in April 2017. You only have to adjust your withholding to make the safe harbor. You can make sure easily enough once your file this years taxes. You only have to make sure that you reach the 100% or 110% threshold. From IRS PUB 17 Who Must Pay Estimated Tax If you owe additional tax for 2015, you may have to pay estimated tax for 2016. You can use the following general rule as a guide during the year to see if you will have enough withholding, or if you should increase your withholding or make estimated tax payments. General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2016 if both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2016, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: a. 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2016 tax return, or b. 100% of the tax shown on your 2015 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2015 tax return must cover all 12 months. Reminders Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2015 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2016 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2015 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty." }, { "docid": "306059", "title": "", "text": "It sounds like the postage amount was paid to you rather than returned. If it had been returned and the payment originated on the card, they would have to return it to the card. If it was processed as a payment, it looks like someone is giving you money. PayPal can't credit it to the card, as the sender could request a refund. If PayPal put the money on the card against a previous payment, then they wouldn't be able to refund. If they add money to your bank account, then they can withdraw it if a refund is required. One reason that you might get a payment is if you were being reimbursed for spending money outside of PayPal. If the amount is more than you originally paid, they can't put it on your card. They can only refund to the card. They can't deposit to it. If you don't want to give them your bank account information, you can just wait until the next time you use PayPal and use your balance to pay. Then you can bill the remainder to your credit card. If you don't normally use PayPal and just want your money back, you can process a chargeback through your credit card. Note that this would probably annoy PayPal, as it costs them aggravation and potentially money. To do this, you must have paid the postage with your credit card originally. If you spent money outside PayPal and were reimbursed through PayPal, then there's nothing to chargeback. In that circumstance, you'd have to accept one of their options: pay with balance or deposit to bank account." }, { "docid": "164301", "title": "", "text": "Something I've not heard mentioned in any of the answers is that (at least for me) owing some tax money is better than having a refund from a ID theft/fraud/security aspect. The US IRS has been hacked several times recently and there have been cases of fraudulent tax refunds being filed and tax refund checks being cashed by ID thieves. Well, if you owe a bit of tax then you're less of a target for fraudulent tax refunds being filed in your name. Even in the case that you were unlucky enough to have had your identity stolen, at least you don't have to deal with the IRS trying to sort a mess like that up. Thus, (IMO) it's better to owe a bit of tax, than to have a small refund, or any refund for that matter. Ideally, you want to get to zero dollars owed like you suggested, but that's often pretty hard to do. So, the next best thing is to owe a bit. One should try to calculate tax liability quartely or if income changes, adjust your withholding, so that you get closer to zero tax." }, { "docid": "481283", "title": "", "text": "Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you." }, { "docid": "535705", "title": "", "text": "The money in the checking account was already taxed. It was income this year or last, or a gift from somebody, or earned interest that will be taxed. If it was a deductible IRA you would declare it next April and get a refund from the government." }, { "docid": "475607", "title": "", "text": "The plumber will apply for and receive a refund of the amount of VAT he paid on the purchase amount. That's the cornerstone of how VAT works, as opposed to a sales tax. So for example: (Rounded approximate amounts for simplicity) Now, at each point, the amount between (original cost VAT) and (new VAT) is refunded. So by the end, a total of £3 VAT is paid on the pipe (not £6.2); and at each point the business 'adding value' at that stage pays that much. The material company adds £1 value; the producer adds £4 value; the supplier adds £5 value; the plumber adds £5 value. Each pays some amount of VAT on that amount, typically 20% unless it's zero/reduced rated. So the pipe supplier pays £1 but gets a £0.2 refund, so truly pays £0.8. The plumber pays £3 (from your payment) but gets a £2 refund. So at each level somebody paid a bit, and then that bit is then refunded to the next person up the ladder, with the final person in the chain paying the full amount. The £0.2 is refunded to the producer, the £1 is refunded to the supplier, the £2 is refunded to the plumber." }, { "docid": "113960", "title": "", "text": "\"It depends on when you're setting the goal. 1) When you have finished the year and you are filling out tax forms, your goal is to get as large of a refund as possible. 2) When the year begins afresh and you are earning money and paying taxes, your goal should be roughly to pay exactly the amount of tax owed so that at the end of the year you don't have any refund or tax owed - it's the same as getting your tax refund right away rather than waiting until after you file taxes. So you want your W4 set up appropriately (assuming you're talking about the US). I think (1) is obvious. For (2), imagine you start the year with the goal to get the largest possible tax refund at the end. Well that's simple - fill out the W4 and on line 6 (\"\"Additional amount, if any, you want withheld from each paycheck\"\") tell them to withhold everything. Then at the end of the year you'll get a huge refund. Of course in the meantime, you've made an interest-free loan to the government, and you've probably had to take out a high-interest rate loan from your bank or credit card. Obviously this is bad. An argument could be made that it would be even better to slightly underpay your taxes (but not enough to owe a penalty). Ignoring human weakness, this is correct. If you have the discipline to set that money aside in a safe place, that's okay. If this would cause you to spend that money (or even save less of your other money), then this is a bad idea. So I'd really want to highlight some of this depends on your own financial discipline - is it better for you to have the money right away so that you can make good choices with how to use it now, or is it better for you to put the money somewhere out of reach so that you won't spend it on impulse purchases? (and recognize that there are ways to put it out of reach and earn interest on it rather than spending it - one good choice for you would be a Roth IRA)\"" }, { "docid": "465905", "title": "", "text": "When you got your original HUD backed mortgage there were three options: monthly, annual and upfront payments. The plan is designed to insure the lender of the mortgage against your default. The plan is not expected to cover the mortgage for 30 years. If you are in the early years of the mortgage, you may be owed a refund for the unused years. HUD has a Fact sheet discussing this, and a page to help you determine if they owe you a refund. If you are refinancing back into a HUD/FHA mortgage they will not give you a refund, but will roll the refund back into your new loan. FHA to FHA Refinances: When an FHA loan is refinanced, the refund from the old premium may be applied toward the up-front premium required for the new loan. Note: Depending on the year of the original loan the government has different lengths they used for coverage and refunds. I suggest you use the webpage to determine if you are due a refund, or a roll over." }, { "docid": "481339", "title": "", "text": "There's an odd anomaly that often occurs with shares acquired through company plans via ESPP or option purchase. The general situation is that the share value above strike price or grant price may become ordinary income, but a sale below the price at day the shares are valued is a capital loss. e.g. in an ESPP offering, I have a $10 purchase price, but at the end of the offering, the shares are valued at $100. Unless I hold the shares for an additional year, the sale price contains ordinary W2 income. So, if I see the shares falling and sell for $50, I have a tax bill for $90 of W2 income, but a $50 capital loss. Tax is due on $90 (and for 1K shares, $90,000 which can be a $30K hit) but that $50K loss can only be applied to cap gains, or $3K/yr of income. In the dotcom bubble, there were many people who had million dollar tax bills and the value of the money netted from the sale couldn't even cover the taxes. And $1M in losses would take 300 years at $3K/yr. The above is one reason the lockup date expiration is why shares get sold. And one can probably profit on the bigger companies stock. Edit - see Yelp down 3% following expiration of 180 day IPO lock-up period, for similar situation." }, { "docid": "276411", "title": "", "text": "This is a complicated question that relies on the US-India Tax Treaty to determine whether the income is taxable to the US or to India. The relevant provision is likely Article 15 on Personal Services. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/india.pdf It seems plausible that your business is personal services, but that's a fact-driven question based on your business model. If the online training is 'personal services' provided by you from India, then it is likely foreign source income under the treaty. The 'fixed base' and '90 days' provisions in Article 15 would not apply to an India resident working solely outside the US. The question is whether your US LLC was a US taxpayer. If the LLC was a taxpayer, then it has an obligation to pay US tax on any worldwide income and it also arguably disqualifies you from Article 15 (which applies to individuals and firms of individuals, but not companies). If you were the sole owner of the US LLC, and you did not make a Form 8832 election to be treated as subject to entity taxation, then the LLC was a disregarded entity. If you had other owners, and did not make an election, then you are a partnership and I suspect but cannot conclude that the treaty analysis is still valid. So this is fact-dependent, but you may be exempt from US tax under the tax treaty. However, you may have still had an obligation to file Forms 1099 for your worker. You can also late-file Forms 1099 reporting the nonemployee compensation paid to your worker. Note that this may have tax consequences on the worker if the worker failed to report the income in those years." }, { "docid": "191704", "title": "", "text": "The short answer is no - the CGT discount is only applied against your net capital gain. So your net capital gain would be: $25,000 - $5,000 = $20,000 Your CGT discount is $10,000 You will then pay CGT on $10,000 Of course you could sell ABC in this financial year and sell DEF next financial year. If you had no other share activities next financial year than that net capital loss can be carried forward to a future year. In that case your net capital gain this year would be $25,000 Your CGT discount is $12,500 You will then pay CGT on $12,500 Next year if oyu sell DEF, you'll have a $5000 net capital loss which you can carry forward to a future year as an offset against capital gains. Reference: https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Capital-gains-tax/Working-out-your-capital-gain-or-loss/Working-out-your-net-capital-gain-or-loss/" }, { "docid": "107136", "title": "", "text": "Look at your options with a 529 program. If the money is used for education expenses: that currently includes tuition, room & board (even if living off campus), books, transportation; it grows tax free. Earnings are not subject to federal tax and generally not subject to state tax when used for the qualified education expenses of the designated beneficiary, such as tuition, fees, books, as well as room and board. Contributions to a 529 plan, however, are not deductible. If it is a 529 associated with your state you can also save on state taxes. You can make contributions on a regular basis, or ad hoc. Accounts can even be setup by other relatives. I have used a 529 to fund two kids education. It takes care of most of your education expenses. 529 programs are available from most states, and even some of the big mutual fund companies. Many have the option of shifting the risk level of the investments to be more conservative as the kids hit high school. Some states have an option to have you pay a large sum when the child is small to buy semesters of college. The deal is worth considering if you know they will be going to a state school, the deal is less good if they will go out of state or to a private college. The IRS does limit the maximum amount that you can contribute in a year an amount that exceeds the 14,000 annual gift limit: If in 2014, you contributed more than $14,000 to a Qualified Tuition Plan (QTP) on behalf of any one person, you may elect to treat up to $70,000 of the contribution for that person as if you had made it ratably over a 5-year period. The election allows you to apply the annual exclusion to a portion of the contribution in each of the 5 years, beginning in 2014. You can make this election for as many separate people as you made QTP contributions One option at the end is to take any extra money at graduation and give it to the child so that it can be used for graduate school, or if the taxes and penalties are paid it can be used for that first car. It can even be rolled over to another relative." }, { "docid": "419768", "title": "", "text": "If you get 1099-G for state tax refund, you need to declare it as income only if you took deduction on state taxes in the prior year. I.e.: if you took standard deductions - you don't need to declare the refund as income. If you did itemize, you have to declare the refund as income, and deduct the taxes paid last year on your schedule A. If this year you're not itemizing - you lost the tax benefit. If it was not clear from my answer - the taxes paid and the refund received are unrelated. The fact that you paid tax and received refund in the same year doesn't make them in any way related, even if both refer to the same taxable year." } ]

[ { "docid": "575729", "title": "", "text": "If your refunds are subject to seizure because of certain debt arrears, it makes sense to let the IRS hold onto them until next year." } ]

[ { "docid": "28172", "title": "", "text": "You have made a good start because you are looking at your options. Because you know that if you do nothing you will have a big tax bill in April 2017, you want to make sure that you avoid the underpayment penalty. One way to avoid it is to make estimated payments. But even if you do that you could still make a mistake and overpay or underpay. I think the easiest way to handle it is to reach the safe harbor. If your withholding from your regular jobs and any estimated taxes you pay in 2016 equal or exceed your total taxes for 2015, then even if you owe a lot in April 2017 you can avoid the underpayment penalty. If you AGI is over 150K you have to make sure your withholding is 110% of your 2015 taxes. Then set aside what you think you will owe in your bank account until you have to pay your taxes in April 2017. You only have to adjust your withholding to make the safe harbor. You can make sure easily enough once your file this years taxes. You only have to make sure that you reach the 100% or 110% threshold. From IRS PUB 17 Who Must Pay Estimated Tax If you owe additional tax for 2015, you may have to pay estimated tax for 2016. You can use the following general rule as a guide during the year to see if you will have enough withholding, or if you should increase your withholding or make estimated tax payments. General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2016 if both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2016, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: a. 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2016 tax return, or b. 100% of the tax shown on your 2015 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2015 tax return must cover all 12 months. Reminders Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2015 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2016 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2015 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty." }, { "docid": "276411", "title": "", "text": "This is a complicated question that relies on the US-India Tax Treaty to determine whether the income is taxable to the US or to India. The relevant provision is likely Article 15 on Personal Services. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/india.pdf It seems plausible that your business is personal services, but that's a fact-driven question based on your business model. If the online training is 'personal services' provided by you from India, then it is likely foreign source income under the treaty. The 'fixed base' and '90 days' provisions in Article 15 would not apply to an India resident working solely outside the US. The question is whether your US LLC was a US taxpayer. If the LLC was a taxpayer, then it has an obligation to pay US tax on any worldwide income and it also arguably disqualifies you from Article 15 (which applies to individuals and firms of individuals, but not companies). If you were the sole owner of the US LLC, and you did not make a Form 8832 election to be treated as subject to entity taxation, then the LLC was a disregarded entity. If you had other owners, and did not make an election, then you are a partnership and I suspect but cannot conclude that the treaty analysis is still valid. So this is fact-dependent, but you may be exempt from US tax under the tax treaty. However, you may have still had an obligation to file Forms 1099 for your worker. You can also late-file Forms 1099 reporting the nonemployee compensation paid to your worker. Note that this may have tax consequences on the worker if the worker failed to report the income in those years." }, { "docid": "388713", "title": "", "text": "As a new (very!) small business, the IRS has lots of advice and information for you. Start at https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed and be sure you have several pots of coffee or other appropriate aid against somnolence. By default a single-member LLC is 'disregarded' for tax purposes (at least for Federal, and generally states follow Federal although I don't know Mass. specifically), although it does have other effects. If you go this route you simply include the business income and expenses on Schedule C as part of your individual return on 1040, and the net SE income is included along with your other income (if any) in computing your tax. TurboTax or similar software should handle this for you, although you may need a premium version that costs a little more. You can 'elect' to have the LLC taxed as a corporation by filing form 8832, see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/limited-liability-company-llc . In principle you are supposed to do this when the entity is 'formed', but in practice AIUI if you do it by the end of the year they won't care at all, and if you do it after the end of the year but before or with your first affected return you qualify for automatic 'relief'. However, deciding how to divide the business income/profits into 'reasonable pay' to yourself versus 'dividends' is more complicated, and filling out corporation tax returns in addition to your individual return (which is still required) is more work, in addition to the work and cost of filing and reporting the LLC itself to your state of choice. Unless/until you make something like $50k-100k a year this probably isn't worth it. 1099 Reporting. Stripe qualifies as a 'payment network' and under a recent law payment networks must annually report to IRS (and copy to you) on form 1099-K if your account exceeds certain thresholds; see https://support.stripe.com/questions/will-i-receive-a-1099-k-and-what-do-i-do-with-it . Note you are still legally required to report and pay tax on your SE income even if you aren't covered by 1099-K (or other) reporting. Self-employment tax. As a self-employed person (if the LLC is disregarded) you have to pay 'SE' tax that is effectively equivalent to the 'FICA' taxes that would be paid by your employer and you as an employee combined. This is 12.4% for Social Security unless/until your total earned income exceeds a cap (for 2017 $127,200, adjusted yearly for inflation), and 2.9% for Medicare with no limit (plus 'Additional Medicare' tax if you exceed a higher threshold and it isn't 'repealed and replaced'). If the LLC elects corporation status it has to pay you reasonable wages for your services, and withhold+pay FICA on those wages like any other employer. Estimated payments. You are required to pay most of your individual income tax, and SE tax if applicable, during the year (generally 90% of your tax or your tax minus $1,000 whichever is less). Most wage-earners don't notice this because it happens automatically through payroll withholding, but as self-employed you are responsible for making sufficient and timely estimated payments, and will owe a penalty if you don't. However, since this is your first year you may have a 'safe harbor'; if you also have income from an employer (reported on W-2, with withholding) and that withholding is sufficent to pay last year's tax, then you are exempt from the 'underpayment' penalty for this year. If you elect corporation status then the corporation (which is really just you) must always make timely payments of withheld amounts, according to one of several different schedules that may apply depending on the amounts; I believe it also must make estimated payments for its own liability, if any, but I'm not familiar with that part." }, { "docid": "94088", "title": "", "text": "\"It depends on when you can get the money, not when you know that you won or when you choose to take the ticket in. If you can present your ticket this year and get paid this year, the taxes are due this year, whether or not you actually choose to claim the prize this year. If you cannot receive payment until next year, then taxes will be due next year. This is \"\"constructive receipt,\"\" which applies to most individual tax situations. This assumes that you chose to receive a lump sum. If you get installments, then your taxes would be due as the installments are available, but the constructive receipt still applies.\"" }, { "docid": "103590", "title": "", "text": "Having a large state return also means that there is a potential income tax liability created at the federal level for the following year, as the situation resulted from the deduction of more on one's federal return than should have been deducted. The state refund is treated as federal income in the year it is refunded. http://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/is-my-state-tax-refund-taxable-and-why-90/" }, { "docid": "517748", "title": "", "text": "\"Federal tax refund is taxes you've overpaid. What you're saying is that this year you overpaid less than before. I don't understand why you see this is as a bad thing. Optimal situation is when you have no refunds and no taxes due on tax day, but it is really hard to get there. But the closer you can get - the better, which means that reducing your refund should be your goal. In any case, \"\"Federal Tax Refund\"\" is meaningless, what you need to look at is your actual taxes due. This is the number you should be working to reduce. Is it possible to shift the amounts on a W-2 (with correct adjustments) to tax all of your wages, instead of leaving some of it deducted pre-tax? Why would you want to pay more tax? If your goal is to have a refund (I.e.: it is your way of forcing yourself to save), then you need to recalculate the numbers and adjust your W4 taking the (pre-tax) FSA into account. If it is not the goal, then you should be looking at the total taxes owed, not the refund, and adjust your W4 so that your withholding would cover the taxes owed as closely as possible. And to answer your question, after all this - of course it is possible. But it is wrong, and will indeed likely to trigger an audit. You can write whatever you want on your tax return, but in the end of it, you sign under the penalty of perjury that what you filled is the correct information. Perjury is a Federal felony, and knowingly filing incorrect tax return is fraud (especially since your motive is to gain, even though you're not actually gaining anything). Fraudulent tax returns can be audited any time (no statute of limitations).\"" }, { "docid": "464593", "title": "", "text": "\"The pure numbers answer says you want the refund to be close to $0. You can even argue, as some answers have, that you want to try to maximize the payment without receiving any sanctions for underpaying during the year. If you trace the money, it's easy to see why. Let's say you get a paycheck. Tag some of the dollars for Uncle Sam. These are the dollars that, eventually, will be given to the IRS. Now consider the following scenarios: From the raw numbers like this, its clear that you lose utility by setting yourself up for a large refund check. The money was yours the entire time, but you chose to give it to Uncle Sam instead. However, the raw numbers are only part of the puzzle. If you're a cold steely-gazed numbers person, they're the part that matters. When the billionares are playing their tax evasion games, this is the only thing they are paying attention to. However, real humans have a few psychological reasons they may choose to lose utility in terms of raw dollars in exchange for psychological assistance: These attitudes exist, and may be ideal for any one person. Obviously the financially savvy answer of \"\"minimize your refund\"\" is the ideal answer from a dollars and cents perspective, but its up to you to see whether that attitude is right when you account for all of the non-measurable things, like stress. In general, I would lead anyone to \"\"minimize your refund,\"\" but I would be remiss if I didn't include the very real psychological reasons people choose to deviate from it.\"" }, { "docid": "151810", "title": "", "text": "\"It's not quite as bad as the comments indicate. Form 1040ES has been available since January (and IME has been similarly for all past years). It mostly uses the prior year (currently 2016) as the basis, but it does have the updated (2017) figures for items that are automatically adjusted for inflation: bracket points (and thus filing threshhold), standard deductions, Social Security cap, and maybe another one or two I missed. The forms making up the actual return cannot be prepared very far in advance because, as commented, Congress frequently makes changes to tax law well after the year begins, and in some cases right up to Dec. 31. The IRS must start preparing forms and pubs -- and equally important, setting the specifications for software providers like Intuit (TurboTax) and H&RBlock -- several months ahead in order to not seriously delay filing season, and with it refunds, which nearly everyone in the country considers (at least publicly) to be worse than World War Three and the destruction of the Earth by rogue asteroids. I have 1040 series from the last 4 years still on my computer, and the download dates mostly range from late September to mid January. Although one outlier shows the range of possibility: 2013 form 1040 and Schedule A were tweaked in April 2014 because Congress passed a law allowing charitable contributions for Typhoon Haiyan to be deducted in the prior year. Substantive, but relatively minor, changes happen every year, including many that keep recurring like the special (pre-AGI) teacher supplies deduction (\"\"will they or won't they?\"\"), section 179 expensing (changes slightly almost every year), and formerly the IRA-direct-to-charity option (finally made permanent last year). As commented, the current Congress and President were elected on a platform with tax reform as an important element, and they are talking even more intensely than before about doing it, although whether they will actually do anything this year is still uncertain. However, if major reform is done it will almost certainly apply to future years only, and likely only start after a lag of some months to a year. They know it causes chaos for businesses and households alike to upend without advance warning the assumptions built in to current budgets and plans -- and IME as a political matter something that is enacted now and effective fairly soon but not now is just as good (but I think that part is offtopic).\"" }, { "docid": "481283", "title": "", "text": "Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you." }, { "docid": "357500", "title": "", "text": "In the question you cited, I assumed immediate exercise, that is why you understood that I was talking about 30 days after grant. I actually mentioned that assumption in the answer. Sec. 83(b) doesn't apply to options, because options are not assets per se. It only applies to restricted stocks. So the 30 days start counting from the time you get the restricted stock, which is when you early-exercise. As to the AMT, the ISO spread will be considered AMT income in the year of the exercise, if you file the 83(b). For NQSO it is ordinary income. That's the whole point of the election. You can find more detailed explanation on this website." }, { "docid": "465905", "title": "", "text": "When you got your original HUD backed mortgage there were three options: monthly, annual and upfront payments. The plan is designed to insure the lender of the mortgage against your default. The plan is not expected to cover the mortgage for 30 years. If you are in the early years of the mortgage, you may be owed a refund for the unused years. HUD has a Fact sheet discussing this, and a page to help you determine if they owe you a refund. If you are refinancing back into a HUD/FHA mortgage they will not give you a refund, but will roll the refund back into your new loan. FHA to FHA Refinances: When an FHA loan is refinanced, the refund from the old premium may be applied toward the up-front premium required for the new loan. Note: Depending on the year of the original loan the government has different lengths they used for coverage and refunds. I suggest you use the webpage to determine if you are due a refund, or a roll over." }, { "docid": "185077", "title": "", "text": "This is a topic you need to sit down and discuss with your parents. Income taxes probably aren't going to be a big issue, and will be refunded in April. Social Security and Medicare will not be refunded, but start you on the road to qualifying for them in the future. How much of you expenses you will now cover will be a family decision; how much of your college expenses you will be responsible for will also need to be discussed. These topics need to be understood before it is time to apply to schools in the fall of your senior year of high school. It is nice to know that you are at least thinking about saving money for your future and for emergencies." }, { "docid": "362060", "title": "", "text": "I am not an accountant, but I have a light accounting background, despite being primarily an engineer. I also have a tiny schedule C business which has both better and worse years. I am also in the United States and pay US taxes. I assume you are referring to the US Form 1040 tax return, with the attached Schedule C. However little I know about US taxes, I know nothing about foreign taxes. You are a cash-basis taxpayer, so the transactions that happen in each tax year are based on the cash paid and cash received in that year. You were paid last year, you computed your schedule C based on last year's actual transactions, and you paid taxes on that income. You can not recompute last years schedule C based on the warranty claim. You might want to switch to an accrual accounting method, where you can book allowances for warranty claims. It is more complex, and if your business is spotty and low volume, it may be more trouble than it is worth. At this point, you have two months to look for ways to shift expenses into next year or being income into this year, both of which help offset this loss. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on. This article on LegalZoom (link here) discusses how to apply a significant net operating loss (NOL) in this year to the previous two years, and potentially carry it forward to the next two years. This does involve filing amended returns for the prior two years, showing this year's NOL. For this to be relevant, your schedule C loss this year must exceed your other W2 and self-employment income this year, with other tests also applied. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on." }, { "docid": "535705", "title": "", "text": "The money in the checking account was already taxed. It was income this year or last, or a gift from somebody, or earned interest that will be taxed. If it was a deductible IRA you would declare it next April and get a refund from the government." }, { "docid": "176742", "title": "", "text": "\"Personally, I would just dispute this one with your CC. I had a situation where a subscription I had cancelled the prior year was billed to me. I called up to have a refund issued, they couldn't find me in their system under three phone numbers and two addresses. The solution they proposed was \"\"send us your credit card statement with the charge circled,\"\" to which I responded \"\"there's no way in hell I'm sending you my CC statement.\"\" Then I disputed the charge with the CC bank and it was gone about two days later. I partially expect to have the same charge appear next year when they try to renew my non-existent subscription again. Now, whether or not this is a normal practice for the company, or just a call center person making a good-faith but insecure attempt to solve your problem is irrelevant. Fact of the matter is, you tried to resolve this with the merchant and the merchant asked for something that's likely outside the bounds of your CC Terms and Conditions; sending your entire number via email. Dispute it and move on. The dispute process exists for a reason.\"" }, { "docid": "97852", "title": "", "text": "Legally, do I have anything to worry about from having an incorrectly filed W-4? What you did wasn't criminal. When you submitted the form it was correct. Unfortunately as your situation changed you didn't adjust the form, that mistake does have consequences. Is there anything within my rights I can do to get the company to take responsibility for their role in this situation, or is it basically my fault? It is basically your fault. The company needs a w-4 for each employee. They will use that W-4 for every paycheck until the government changes the regulation, or your employment ends, or you submit a new form. Topic 753 - Form W-4 – Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate If an employee qualifies, he or she can also use Form W-4 (PDF) to tell you not to deduct any federal income tax from his or her wages. To qualify for this exempt status, the employee must have had no tax liability for the previous year and must expect to have no tax liability for the current year. However, if the employee can be claimed as a dependent on a parent's or another person's tax return, additional limitations may apply; refer to the instructions for Form W-4. A Form W-4 claiming exemption from withholding is valid for only the calendar year in which it is filed with the employer. To continue to be exempt from withholding in the next year, an employee must give you a new Form W-4 claiming exempt status by February 15 of that year. If the employee does not give you a new Form W-4, withhold tax as if he or she is single, with no withholding allowances. However, if you have an earlier Form W-4 (not claiming exempt status) for this employee that is valid, withhold as you did before. (I highlighted the key part) Because you were claiming exempt they should have required you to update that form each year. In your case that may not have applied because of the timing of the events. When do you submit a new form? Anytime your situation changes. Sometimes the change is done to adjust withholding to modify the amount of a refund. Other times failure to update the form can lead to bigger complication: when your marital status changes, or the number of dependents changes. In these situations you could have a significant amount of under-withheld, which could lead to a fine later on. As a side note this is even more true for the state version of a W-4. Having a whole years worth of income tax withholding done for the wrong state will at a minimum require you to file in multiple states, it could also result in a big surprise if the forgotten state has higher tax rate. Will my (now former) employee be responsible for paying their portion of the taxes that were not withheld during the 9 months I was full-time, tax Exempt? For federal and state income taxes they are just a conduit. They take the money from your paycheck, and periodically send it to the IRS and the state capital. Unless you could show that the pay stubs said taxes were being withheld, but the w-2 said otherwise; they have no role in judging the appropriateness of your W-4 with one exception. Finally, and I am not too hopeful on this one, but is there anything I can do to ease this tax burden? I understand that the IRS is owed no matter what. You have one way it might workout. For many taxpayers who have a large increase in pay from one year to the next, they can take advantage of a safe-harbor in the tax law. If they had withheld as much money in 2015 as they paid in 2014, they have reached the safe-harbor. They avoid the penalty for under withholding. Note that 2014 number is not what you paid on tax day or what was refunded, but all your income taxes for the entire year. Because in your case your taxes for the year 2014 were ZERO, that might mean that you automatically reach the safe-harbor for 2015. That makes sense because one of the key requirements of claiming exempt is that you had no liability the year before. It won't save you from paying what you owe but it can help avoid a penalty. Lessons" }, { "docid": "585454", "title": "", "text": "Assuming you are being charged sales tax, it all depends on where you take possession of the shipment. Are your suppliers shipping to a US address, say your freight forwarder, from where you handle the ongoing shipment, or directly to you in South America? If the latter, per Michael Pryor's answer, you should not be charged sales tax. If the former, if the address is in a state in which your supplier has a physical location they will have to charge sales tax. That said, your freight forwarder should be able to furnish your supplier with a letter stating that the goods have been exported (with a copy of the relevant Bill of Lading) which will allow your supplier to refund you the taxes (a company I was at before would allow refunds up to two years past the date of sale per various tax regulations). Alternatively, you could see if just a letter of intent from your freight forwarder is enough to not charge you in the first place, but that's technically not proof of exportation. You might be able to get a refund or an exception from the state's tax department directly, but I would recommend going through your supplier - much less hassle." }, { "docid": "368938", "title": "", "text": "\"Answers: 1: No, Sections 1291-1298 of the IRC were passed in the Reagan adminstration. 2: Not only can a foreign company like a chocolate company fall afoul of the definition of PFIC because of the \"\"asset test\"\", which you cite, but it can also be called a PFIC because of the \"\"income test\"\". For example, I have shares in a development-stage Canadian biotech which is considered a PFIC because it has no income at all, except for a minor amount of bank interest on its working capital. This company is by no means \"\"passive\"\" (it has run 31 clinical trials in over 1100 human research subjects, burning $250M of investor's money in the process) nor is it an \"\"investment company\"\", but the stupid IRS considers it to be a \"\"passive foreign investment company\"\"! The IRS looks at it and sees only the bank account, and assumes it is a foreign shell corporation set up to shield the bank interest from them. 3: Yes, a foreign mutual fund is EXACTLY what congress intended to be a PFIC when passed IRC 1291-1298. (Biotechs, candy factories, ect got nailed as innocent bystanders.) Note that if you hold a US mutual fund then every year you'll get a form 1099 in the mail. The 1099 will report your share of the mutual fund's own income and capital gains, which you must report on your taxes. (You can also have capital gains from selling your shares of the mutual fund, but that's a different thing.) Now suppose that there was no PFIC law. Then the US investors in the mutual fund would do better if the mutual fund were in a foreign country, for two reasons: a) The fund would no longer distribute 1099's. That means the shareholders wouldn't have to pay tax every year on their proportions of the fund's own income/gains. The money that would have sooner gone to the IRS can sit around for years earning interest. b) The fund could return profits to shareholders exclusively through capital gains rather than dividends, thus ensuring that all of the investors' income on the fund would be taxed at <15%-20% rather than up to 39%. The fund could do this by returning cash to shareholders exclusively through buybacks. However, the US mutual fund industry doesn't want to move the industry to Canada, and it only takes a few newspaper articles about a foreign loophole to make congress spring to action. 4) It depends. If you have a PEDIGREED QEF election in place (as I do for my biotech shares) then form 8621 takes a few minutes by hand. However, this requires both the company and the investor to fully cooperate with congress's vision for PFICs. The company cooperates by providing a so-called \"\"PFIC annual information sheet\"\", which replaces the 1099 form for a US mutual fund. The investor cooperates by having a \"\"QEF election\"\" in place for EACH AND EVERY TAX YEAR in which he held the stock and by reporting the numbers from the PFIC annual information sheet on his return. (Note that the QEF election persists once made, until revoked. There are subtleties here that I am glossing over, since \"\"deemed sale\"\" elections and other means may be used to modify a share's holding period to come into compliance.) Note that there is software coming out to handle PFICs, and that the software makers will already run their software to make your form 8621 for $75 or so. I should also warn you that the blogs of tax accountants and tax lawyers all contradict each other on the basic issue of whether you can take capital losses on PFICs for which you have no form 8621 elections. (See section 2.3 of my notes http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr for commentary on this mess.) I do not know if the software people will tell you which elections are best made on form 8621, though, or advise you if it's time to simply dump your investment. The professional software is at 8621.com, and the individual 8621 preparation is at http://expattaxtools.com/?page_id=242. BTW, in case you're interested, I wrote up a very careful analysis of how to deal with the PFIC situation for the small biotech I invested in in certain cases. It is posted http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr. (For tax reasons it was quite fortunate that the share price dipped to near an all-time low on Jan 1, 2015, making the (next) 2015 tax year ripe for a so-called \"\"deemed sale\"\" election. This was only possible because the company provides the necessary \"\"PFIC annual information statements\"\", which your chocolate factory may or may not do.)\"" }, { "docid": "349348", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm assuming that when you say \"\"convert to S-Corp tax treatment\"\" you're not talking about actually changing your LLC to a Corporation. There are two distinct pieces of the puzzle here. First, there's your organizational form. Your state, which is where the business is legally formed and recognized, creates the LLC or Corporation. \"\"S-Corp\"\" doesn't come into play here: your company is either an LLC or a Corporation. (There are a handful of other organizational types your state might have, e.g. PLLC, Limited Partnership, etc.; none of these are immediately relevant to this discussion). Second, there's the tax treatment you receive by the IRS. If your company was created by the state as an LLC, note that the IRS doesn't recognize LLCs as a distinct organizational type: you elect to be taxed as an individual (for single member LLCs), a partnership (for multiple member LLCs), or as a corporation. The former two elections are \"\"pass through\"\" -- there's no additional level of taxation on corporate profits, everything just passes through to the owners. The latter election introduces a tax on corporate profits. When you elect pass-through treatment, a single-member LLC files on Schedule C; a multiple-member LLC will prepare a form K-1 which you will include on your 1040. If your company was created by the state as a Corporation (not an LLC), you could still elect pass-through taxation if your company qualifies under the rules in Subchapter S (i.e. \"\"an S-Corp\"\"). States do not recognize \"\"S-Corp\"\" as part of the organizational process -- that's just a tax distinction used by the IRS (and possibly your state's tax authorities). In your case, if you are a single-member LLC (and assuming there are no other reasons to organize as a corporation), talking about \"\"S-Corp tax treatment\"\" doesn't make any sense. You'll just file your schedule C; in my experience it's fairly simple. (Note that this is based on my experience of single- and multiple-member LLCs in just two states. Your state may have different rules that affect state-level taxation; and the rules may change from year to year. I've found that hiring a good CPA to prepare the forms saves a good bit of stress and time that can be better applied to the business.)\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "31483", "title": "", "text": "If you have non-salary income, you might be required to file 1040ES estimated tax for the next year on a quarterly basis. You can instead pay some or all in advance from your previous year's refund. In theory, you lose the interest you might have made by holding that money for a few months. In practice it might be worth it to avoid needing to send forms and checks every quarter. For instance if you had a $1000 estimated tax requirement and the alternative was to get 1% taxable savings account interest for six months, you'd make about $3 from holding it for the year. I would choose to just pay in advance. If you had a very large estimation, or you could pay off a high-rate debt and get a different effective rate of return, the tradeoff may be different." } ]

[ { "docid": "94088", "title": "", "text": "\"It depends on when you can get the money, not when you know that you won or when you choose to take the ticket in. If you can present your ticket this year and get paid this year, the taxes are due this year, whether or not you actually choose to claim the prize this year. If you cannot receive payment until next year, then taxes will be due next year. This is \"\"constructive receipt,\"\" which applies to most individual tax situations. This assumes that you chose to receive a lump sum. If you get installments, then your taxes would be due as the installments are available, but the constructive receipt still applies.\"" }, { "docid": "175951", "title": "", "text": "Unfortunately, the tax system in the U.S. is probably more complicated than it looks to you right now. First, you need to understand that there will be taxes withheld from your paycheck, but the amount that they withhold is simply a guess. You might pay too much or too little tax during the year. After the year is over, you'll send in a tax return form that calculates the correct tax amount. If you have paid too little over the year, you'll have to send in the rest, but if you've paid too much, you'll get a refund. There are complicated formulas on how much tax the employer withholds from your paycheck, but in general, if you don't have extra income elsewhere that you need to pay tax on, you'll probably be close to breaking even at tax time. When you get your paycheck, the first thing that will be taken off is FICA, also called Social Security, Medicare, or the Payroll tax. This is a fixed 7.65% that is taken off the gross salary. It is not refundable and is not affected by any allowances or deductions, and does not come in to play at all on your tax return form. There are optional employee benefits that you might need to pay a portion of if you are going to take advantage of them, such as health insurance or retirement savings. Some of these deductions are paid with before-tax money, and some are paid with after tax money. The employer will calculate how much money they are supposed to withhold for federal and state taxes (yes, California has an income tax), and the rest is yours. At tax time, the employer will give you a form W-2, which shows you the amount of your gross income after all the before-tax deductions are taken out (which is what you use to calculate your tax). The form also shows you how much tax you have paid during the year. Form 1040 is the tax return that you use to calculate your correct tax for the year. You start with the gross income amount from the W-2, and the first thing you do is add in any income that you didn't get a W-2 for (such as interest or investment income) and subtract any deductions that you might have that are not taxable, but were not paid through your paycheck (such as moving expenses, student loan interest, tuition, etc.) The result is called your adjusted gross income. Next, you take off the deductions not covered in the above section (property tax, home mortgage interest, charitable giving, etc.). You can either take the standard deduction ($6,300 if you are single), or if you have more deductions in this category than that, you can itemize your deductions and declare the correct amount. After that, you subtract more for exemptions. You can claim yourself as an exemption unless you are considered a dependent of someone else and they are claiming you as a dependent. If you claim yourself, you take off another $4,000 from your income. What you are left with is your taxable income for the year. This is the amount you would use to calculate your tax based on the bracket table you found. California has an income tax, and just like the federal tax, some state taxes will be deducted from your paycheck, and you'll need to fill out a state tax return form after the year is over to calculate the correct state tax and either request a refund or pay the remainder of the tax. I don't have any experience with the California income tax, but there are details on the rates on this page from the State of California." }, { "docid": "191704", "title": "", "text": "The short answer is no - the CGT discount is only applied against your net capital gain. So your net capital gain would be: $25,000 - $5,000 = $20,000 Your CGT discount is $10,000 You will then pay CGT on $10,000 Of course you could sell ABC in this financial year and sell DEF next financial year. If you had no other share activities next financial year than that net capital loss can be carried forward to a future year. In that case your net capital gain this year would be $25,000 Your CGT discount is $12,500 You will then pay CGT on $12,500 Next year if oyu sell DEF, you'll have a $5000 net capital loss which you can carry forward to a future year as an offset against capital gains. Reference: https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Capital-gains-tax/Working-out-your-capital-gain-or-loss/Working-out-your-net-capital-gain-or-loss/" }, { "docid": "465905", "title": "", "text": "When you got your original HUD backed mortgage there were three options: monthly, annual and upfront payments. The plan is designed to insure the lender of the mortgage against your default. The plan is not expected to cover the mortgage for 30 years. If you are in the early years of the mortgage, you may be owed a refund for the unused years. HUD has a Fact sheet discussing this, and a page to help you determine if they owe you a refund. If you are refinancing back into a HUD/FHA mortgage they will not give you a refund, but will roll the refund back into your new loan. FHA to FHA Refinances: When an FHA loan is refinanced, the refund from the old premium may be applied toward the up-front premium required for the new loan. Note: Depending on the year of the original loan the government has different lengths they used for coverage and refunds. I suggest you use the webpage to determine if you are due a refund, or a roll over." }, { "docid": "103590", "title": "", "text": "Having a large state return also means that there is a potential income tax liability created at the federal level for the following year, as the situation resulted from the deduction of more on one's federal return than should have been deducted. The state refund is treated as federal income in the year it is refunded. http://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/is-my-state-tax-refund-taxable-and-why-90/" }, { "docid": "271772", "title": "", "text": "Since you both are members of the LLC - it is not a single-member LLC, thus you have to file the tax return on behalf of the LLC (I'm guessing you didn't elect corporate treatment, so you would be filing 1065, which is the default). You need to file form 4868 on behalf of yourselves as individuals, and form 7004 on behalf of the LLC as the partnership. Since the LLC is disregarded (unless you explicitly chose it not to be, which seems not to be the case) the taxes will in fact flow to your individual return(s), but the LLC will have to file the informational return on form 1065 and distribute K-1 forms to each of you. So you wouldn't pay additional estimated taxes with the extension, as you don't pay any taxes with the form 1065 itself. If you need a help understanding all that and filling the forms - do talk to a professional (EA or CPA licensed in your state). Also, reconsider not sending any payment. I suggest sending $1 with the extension form even if you expect a refund." }, { "docid": "261989", "title": "", "text": "Bank products have been pretty common with tax refunds as well, and they are also being heavily scrutinized for the same reasons. Refund Anticipation Loans (RALs) have been outlawed for future tax seasons due to lack of consumer protection. What is a bank product, you might ask? Rather than waiting 7-14 days for the a direct deposit from the IRS, a lot of places like H+R Block and Jackson Hewitt would offer a bank product to get you money quicker. For this service, they charge a fee (usually $99-$149) which is grossly overpriced for how little work it takes, but if your refund is several thousand dollars, you may not care. A Refund Anticipation Loan was the most predatory bank product, as it was an advance on your loan for the amount your expected refund. However, if there were any errors in your return and the IRS decided your refund was less than what your tax preparer calculated it to be, you were stuck with paying back the advance amount, leaving you to foot the bill for whatever errors your preparer may have made. These loans also had very high interest rates, since usually the people that wanted RALs were also the same people that rely upon cash advances. There are also Electronic Refund Checks (which ironically are paper checks for the consumer, not electronic deposits), direct deposits, and prepaid debit cards. Despite the fact that these same methods of refund payments are offered by the IRS themselves, preparers and banks alike sold these to collect fees for essentially no work. I'm not sure how similar these bank products for student loans are, but I wanted to shed some light on them anyways. Regardless of how badly you need money, **do not ever accept money through a bank product.** If it benefited you more, banks and preparers would not offer these. (Source: telemarketing at a tax preparation software company)" }, { "docid": "29024", "title": "", "text": "\"As with many questions here, while littleadv is correct, the real answer is \"\"each bank may handle this differently.\"\" In my case, I was experimenting with my balance to see the impact of utilization, and I overpaid the current bill before the bill was issued. The prior balance was paid, but then I sent a payment to bring my account to a credit balance. Further down the statement appears the line - Your account has a credit balance. We can hold and apply this balance against future purchases and cash advances, or refund it. If you would like a check mailed to you in the amount of the credit balance, simply call us and speak to a representative. You can also see that the \"\"revolving credit available\"\" is above the line of credit, implying that someone with a $5000 credit line wanting to charge a $6000 engagement ring can send a higher payment to the account and then make that charge.\"" }, { "docid": "357500", "title": "", "text": "In the question you cited, I assumed immediate exercise, that is why you understood that I was talking about 30 days after grant. I actually mentioned that assumption in the answer. Sec. 83(b) doesn't apply to options, because options are not assets per se. It only applies to restricted stocks. So the 30 days start counting from the time you get the restricted stock, which is when you early-exercise. As to the AMT, the ISO spread will be considered AMT income in the year of the exercise, if you file the 83(b). For NQSO it is ordinary income. That's the whole point of the election. You can find more detailed explanation on this website." }, { "docid": "110081", "title": "", "text": "\"It really depends on the answers to two questions: 1) How tight is your budget going to be if you have to make that $530 payment every month? Obviously, you'd still be better off than you are now, since that's still $30 cheaper. But, if you're living essentially paycheck to paycheck, then the extra flexibility of the $400/month option can make the difference if something unforeseen happens. 2) How disciplined (financially) have you proven you can be? The \"\"I'll make extra payments every month\"\" sounds real nice, but many people end up not doing it. I should know, I'm one of them. I'm still paying on my student loans because of it. If you know (by having done it before), that you can make that extra $130 go out each and every month and not talk yourself into using it on all sorts of \"\"more important needs\"\", then hey, go for it. Financial flexibility is a great thing, and having that monthly nut (all your minimum living expenses combined) as low as possible contributes greatly to that flexibility. Update: Another thing to consider Another thing to consider is what they do with your extra payment. Will they apply it to the principal, or will they treat it as a prepayment? If they apply it to principal, it'll be just like if you had that shorter term. Your principal goes down additionally by that extra amount, and the next month, you owe another $400. On the other hand, if they treat it as a prepayment, then that extra $130 will be applied to the next month's bill. Principal stays the same, and the next month you'll be billed $270. There are two practical differences for you: 1) With prepayment, you'll pay slightly more interest over that 60 months paying it off. Because it's not amortized into the loan, the principal balance doesn't go down faster while the loan exists. And since interest is calculated on the remaining principal balance, end result is more interest than you otherwise would have paid. That sucks, but: 2) with the prepayment, consider that at the end of year 2, you'd have over 7 months of payments prepaid. So, if some emergency does come up, you don't have to send them any money at all for 7 months. There's that flexibility again. :-) Honestly, while this is something you should find out about the loan, it's really still a wash. I haven't done the math, but with the interest rate, amount of the loan and time frame, I think the extra interest would be pretty minor.\"" }, { "docid": "176742", "title": "", "text": "\"Personally, I would just dispute this one with your CC. I had a situation where a subscription I had cancelled the prior year was billed to me. I called up to have a refund issued, they couldn't find me in their system under three phone numbers and two addresses. The solution they proposed was \"\"send us your credit card statement with the charge circled,\"\" to which I responded \"\"there's no way in hell I'm sending you my CC statement.\"\" Then I disputed the charge with the CC bank and it was gone about two days later. I partially expect to have the same charge appear next year when they try to renew my non-existent subscription again. Now, whether or not this is a normal practice for the company, or just a call center person making a good-faith but insecure attempt to solve your problem is irrelevant. Fact of the matter is, you tried to resolve this with the merchant and the merchant asked for something that's likely outside the bounds of your CC Terms and Conditions; sending your entire number via email. Dispute it and move on. The dispute process exists for a reason.\"" }, { "docid": "362060", "title": "", "text": "I am not an accountant, but I have a light accounting background, despite being primarily an engineer. I also have a tiny schedule C business which has both better and worse years. I am also in the United States and pay US taxes. I assume you are referring to the US Form 1040 tax return, with the attached Schedule C. However little I know about US taxes, I know nothing about foreign taxes. You are a cash-basis taxpayer, so the transactions that happen in each tax year are based on the cash paid and cash received in that year. You were paid last year, you computed your schedule C based on last year's actual transactions, and you paid taxes on that income. You can not recompute last years schedule C based on the warranty claim. You might want to switch to an accrual accounting method, where you can book allowances for warranty claims. It is more complex, and if your business is spotty and low volume, it may be more trouble than it is worth. At this point, you have two months to look for ways to shift expenses into next year or being income into this year, both of which help offset this loss. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on. This article on LegalZoom (link here) discusses how to apply a significant net operating loss (NOL) in this year to the previous two years, and potentially carry it forward to the next two years. This does involve filing amended returns for the prior two years, showing this year's NOL. For this to be relevant, your schedule C loss this year must exceed your other W2 and self-employment income this year, with other tests also applied. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on." }, { "docid": "187695", "title": "", "text": "The IRS can direct your refund towards repayment of your unpaid taxes either on Federal or State/Local level. Whether it will depends on whether the State of New York will ask for it. Generally, if you owe taxes to New York for this year only, you would expect them to wait for you to file your State tax return and pay the taxes owed. If you don't - I'm pretty sure that the next year refund from the IRS will go directly to them." }, { "docid": "464593", "title": "", "text": "\"The pure numbers answer says you want the refund to be close to $0. You can even argue, as some answers have, that you want to try to maximize the payment without receiving any sanctions for underpaying during the year. If you trace the money, it's easy to see why. Let's say you get a paycheck. Tag some of the dollars for Uncle Sam. These are the dollars that, eventually, will be given to the IRS. Now consider the following scenarios: From the raw numbers like this, its clear that you lose utility by setting yourself up for a large refund check. The money was yours the entire time, but you chose to give it to Uncle Sam instead. However, the raw numbers are only part of the puzzle. If you're a cold steely-gazed numbers person, they're the part that matters. When the billionares are playing their tax evasion games, this is the only thing they are paying attention to. However, real humans have a few psychological reasons they may choose to lose utility in terms of raw dollars in exchange for psychological assistance: These attitudes exist, and may be ideal for any one person. Obviously the financially savvy answer of \"\"minimize your refund\"\" is the ideal answer from a dollars and cents perspective, but its up to you to see whether that attitude is right when you account for all of the non-measurable things, like stress. In general, I would lead anyone to \"\"minimize your refund,\"\" but I would be remiss if I didn't include the very real psychological reasons people choose to deviate from it.\"" }, { "docid": "52438", "title": "", "text": "\"Highly Compensated Employee Rules Aim to Make 401k's Fair would be the piece that I suspect you are missing here. I remember hearing of this rule when I worked in the US and can understand why it exists. A key quote from the article: You wouldn't think the prospect of getting money from an employer would be nerve-wracking. But those jittery co-workers are highly compensated employees (HCEs) concerned that they will receive a refund of excess 401k contributions because their plan failed its discrimination test. A refund means they will owe more income tax for the current tax year. Geersk (a pseudonym), who is also an HCE, is in information services and manages the computers that process his firm's 401k plan. 401(k) - Wikipedia reference on this: To help ensure that companies extend their 401(k) plans to low-paid employees, an IRS rule limits the maximum deferral by the company's \"\"highly compensated\"\" employees, based on the average deferral by the company's non-highly compensated employees. If the less compensated employees are allowed to save more for retirement, then the executives are allowed to save more for retirement. This provision is enforced via \"\"non-discrimination testing\"\". Non-discrimination testing takes the deferral rates of \"\"highly compensated employees\"\" (HCEs) and compares them to non-highly compensated employees (NHCEs). An HCE in 2008 is defined as an employee with compensation of greater than $100,000 in 2007 or an employee that owned more than 5% of the business at any time during the year or the preceding year.[13] In addition to the $100,000 limit for determining HCEs, employers can elect to limit the top-paid group of employees to the top 20% of employees ranked by compensation.[13] That is for plans whose first day of the plan year is in calendar year 2007, we look to each employee's prior year gross compensation (also known as 'Medicare wages') and those who earned more than $100,000 are HCEs. Most testing done now in 2009 will be for the 2008 plan year and compare employees' 2007 plan year gross compensation to the $100,000 threshold for 2007 to determine who is HCE and who is a NHCE. The threshold was $110,000 in 2010 and it did not change for 2011. The average deferral percentage (ADP) of all HCEs, as a group, can be no more than 2 percentage points greater (or 125% of, whichever is more) than the NHCEs, as a group. This is known as the ADP test. When a plan fails the ADP test, it essentially has two options to come into compliance. It can have a return of excess done to the HCEs to bring their ADP to a lower, passing, level. Or it can process a \"\"qualified non-elective contribution\"\" (QNEC) to some or all of the NHCEs to raise their ADP to a passing level. The return of excess requires the plan to send a taxable distribution to the HCEs (or reclassify regular contributions as catch-up contributions subject to the annual catch-up limit for those HCEs over 50) by March 15 of the year following the failed test. A QNEC must be an immediately vested contribution. The annual contribution percentage (ACP) test is similarly performed but also includes employer matching and employee after-tax contributions. ACPs do not use the simple 2% threshold, and include other provisions which can allow the plan to \"\"shift\"\" excess passing rates from the ADP over to the ACP. A failed ACP test is likewise addressed through return of excess, or a QNEC or qualified match (QMAC). There are a number of \"\"safe harbor\"\" provisions that can allow a company to be exempted from the ADP test. This includes making a \"\"safe harbor\"\" employer contribution to employees' accounts. Safe harbor contributions can take the form of a match (generally totaling 4% of pay) or a non-elective profit sharing (totaling 3% of pay). Safe harbor 401(k) contributions must be 100% vested at all times with immediate eligibility for employees. There are other administrative requirements within the safe harbor, such as requiring the employer to notify all eligible employees of the opportunity to participate in the plan, and restricting the employer from suspending participants for any reason other than due to a hardship withdrawal.\"" }, { "docid": "97852", "title": "", "text": "Legally, do I have anything to worry about from having an incorrectly filed W-4? What you did wasn't criminal. When you submitted the form it was correct. Unfortunately as your situation changed you didn't adjust the form, that mistake does have consequences. Is there anything within my rights I can do to get the company to take responsibility for their role in this situation, or is it basically my fault? It is basically your fault. The company needs a w-4 for each employee. They will use that W-4 for every paycheck until the government changes the regulation, or your employment ends, or you submit a new form. Topic 753 - Form W-4 – Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate If an employee qualifies, he or she can also use Form W-4 (PDF) to tell you not to deduct any federal income tax from his or her wages. To qualify for this exempt status, the employee must have had no tax liability for the previous year and must expect to have no tax liability for the current year. However, if the employee can be claimed as a dependent on a parent's or another person's tax return, additional limitations may apply; refer to the instructions for Form W-4. A Form W-4 claiming exemption from withholding is valid for only the calendar year in which it is filed with the employer. To continue to be exempt from withholding in the next year, an employee must give you a new Form W-4 claiming exempt status by February 15 of that year. If the employee does not give you a new Form W-4, withhold tax as if he or she is single, with no withholding allowances. However, if you have an earlier Form W-4 (not claiming exempt status) for this employee that is valid, withhold as you did before. (I highlighted the key part) Because you were claiming exempt they should have required you to update that form each year. In your case that may not have applied because of the timing of the events. When do you submit a new form? Anytime your situation changes. Sometimes the change is done to adjust withholding to modify the amount of a refund. Other times failure to update the form can lead to bigger complication: when your marital status changes, or the number of dependents changes. In these situations you could have a significant amount of under-withheld, which could lead to a fine later on. As a side note this is even more true for the state version of a W-4. Having a whole years worth of income tax withholding done for the wrong state will at a minimum require you to file in multiple states, it could also result in a big surprise if the forgotten state has higher tax rate. Will my (now former) employee be responsible for paying their portion of the taxes that were not withheld during the 9 months I was full-time, tax Exempt? For federal and state income taxes they are just a conduit. They take the money from your paycheck, and periodically send it to the IRS and the state capital. Unless you could show that the pay stubs said taxes were being withheld, but the w-2 said otherwise; they have no role in judging the appropriateness of your W-4 with one exception. Finally, and I am not too hopeful on this one, but is there anything I can do to ease this tax burden? I understand that the IRS is owed no matter what. You have one way it might workout. For many taxpayers who have a large increase in pay from one year to the next, they can take advantage of a safe-harbor in the tax law. If they had withheld as much money in 2015 as they paid in 2014, they have reached the safe-harbor. They avoid the penalty for under withholding. Note that 2014 number is not what you paid on tax day or what was refunded, but all your income taxes for the entire year. Because in your case your taxes for the year 2014 were ZERO, that might mean that you automatically reach the safe-harbor for 2015. That makes sense because one of the key requirements of claiming exempt is that you had no liability the year before. It won't save you from paying what you owe but it can help avoid a penalty. Lessons" }, { "docid": "445230", "title": "", "text": "sometimes we advise very old or incapacitated people to apply the refund to the next year as check writing from time to time & mailing may be a hassle for them." }, { "docid": "151810", "title": "", "text": "\"It's not quite as bad as the comments indicate. Form 1040ES has been available since January (and IME has been similarly for all past years). It mostly uses the prior year (currently 2016) as the basis, but it does have the updated (2017) figures for items that are automatically adjusted for inflation: bracket points (and thus filing threshhold), standard deductions, Social Security cap, and maybe another one or two I missed. The forms making up the actual return cannot be prepared very far in advance because, as commented, Congress frequently makes changes to tax law well after the year begins, and in some cases right up to Dec. 31. The IRS must start preparing forms and pubs -- and equally important, setting the specifications for software providers like Intuit (TurboTax) and H&RBlock -- several months ahead in order to not seriously delay filing season, and with it refunds, which nearly everyone in the country considers (at least publicly) to be worse than World War Three and the destruction of the Earth by rogue asteroids. I have 1040 series from the last 4 years still on my computer, and the download dates mostly range from late September to mid January. Although one outlier shows the range of possibility: 2013 form 1040 and Schedule A were tweaked in April 2014 because Congress passed a law allowing charitable contributions for Typhoon Haiyan to be deducted in the prior year. Substantive, but relatively minor, changes happen every year, including many that keep recurring like the special (pre-AGI) teacher supplies deduction (\"\"will they or won't they?\"\"), section 179 expensing (changes slightly almost every year), and formerly the IRA-direct-to-charity option (finally made permanent last year). As commented, the current Congress and President were elected on a platform with tax reform as an important element, and they are talking even more intensely than before about doing it, although whether they will actually do anything this year is still uncertain. However, if major reform is done it will almost certainly apply to future years only, and likely only start after a lag of some months to a year. They know it causes chaos for businesses and households alike to upend without advance warning the assumptions built in to current budgets and plans -- and IME as a political matter something that is enacted now and effective fairly soon but not now is just as good (but I think that part is offtopic).\"" }, { "docid": "573523", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll assume United States as the country; the answer may (probably does) vary somewhat if this is not correct. Also, I preface this with the caveat that I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant. However, this is my understanding: You must recognize the revenue at the time the credits are purchased (when money changes hands), and charge sales tax on the full amount at that time. This is because the customer has pre-paid and purchased a service (i.e. the \"\"credits\"\", which are units of time available in the application). This is clearly a complete transaction. The use of the credits is irrelevant. This is equivalent to a customer purchasing a box of widgets for future delivery; the payment is made and the widgets are available but have simply not been shipped (and therefore used). This mirrors many online service providers (say, NetFlix) in business model. This is different from the case in which a customer purchases a \"\"gift card\"\" or \"\"reloadable debit card\"\". In this case, sales tax is NOT collected (because this is technically not a purchase). Revenue is also not booked at this time. Instead, the revenue is booked when the gift card's balance is used to pay for a good or service, and at that time the tax is collected (usually from the funds on the card). To do otherwise would greatly complicate the tax basis (suppose the gift card is used in a different state or county, where sales tax is charged differently? Suppose the gift card is used to purchase a tax-exempt item?) For justification, see bankruptcy consideration of the two cases. In the former, the customer has \"\"ownership\"\" of an asset (the credits), which cannot be taken from him (although it might be unusable). In the latter, the holder of the debit card is technically an unsecured creditor of the company - and is last in line if the company's assets are liquidated for repayment. Consider also the case where the cost of the \"\"credits\"\" is increased part-way through the year (say, from $10 per credit to $20 per credit) or if a discount promotion is applied (buy 5 credits, get one free). The customer has a \"\"tangible\"\" item (one credit) which gets the same functionality regardless of price. This would be different if instead of \"\"credits\"\" you instead maintain an \"\"account\"\" where the user deposited $1000 and was billed for usage; in this case you fall back to the \"\"gift card\"\" scenario (but usage is charged at the current rate) and revenue is booked when the usage is purchased; similarly, tax is collected on the purchase of the service. For this model to work, the \"\"credit\"\" would likely have to be refundable, and could not expire (see gift cards, above), and must be usable on a variety of \"\"services\"\". You may have particular responsibility in the handling of this \"\"deposit\"\" as well.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "159880", "title": "", "text": "\"The refund may offset your liability for the next year, especially if you are a Schedule \"\"C\"\" filer. By having your refund applied to the coming year's taxes you are building a 'protection' against a potentially high liability if you were planning to sell a building that was a commercial building and would have Capital Gains. Or you sold stock at a profit that would also put you in the Capital Gain area. You won a large sum in a lottery, the refund could cushion a bit of the tax. In short, if you think you will have a tax liability in the current year then on the tax return you are filing for the year that just past, it may be to your benefit to apply the refund. If you owe money from a prior year, the refund will not be sent to you so you will not be able to roll it forward. One specific example is you did qualify in the prior year for the ACA. If in the year you are currently in- before you file your taxes-- you realize that you will have to pay at the end of the current year, then assigning your refund will pay part or all of the liability. Keep in mind that the 'tax' imposed due to ACA is only collected from your refunds. If you keep having a liability to pay or have no refunds due to you, the liability is not collected from you.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "349847", "title": "", "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)." }, { "docid": "464593", "title": "", "text": "\"The pure numbers answer says you want the refund to be close to $0. You can even argue, as some answers have, that you want to try to maximize the payment without receiving any sanctions for underpaying during the year. If you trace the money, it's easy to see why. Let's say you get a paycheck. Tag some of the dollars for Uncle Sam. These are the dollars that, eventually, will be given to the IRS. Now consider the following scenarios: From the raw numbers like this, its clear that you lose utility by setting yourself up for a large refund check. The money was yours the entire time, but you chose to give it to Uncle Sam instead. However, the raw numbers are only part of the puzzle. If you're a cold steely-gazed numbers person, they're the part that matters. When the billionares are playing their tax evasion games, this is the only thing they are paying attention to. However, real humans have a few psychological reasons they may choose to lose utility in terms of raw dollars in exchange for psychological assistance: These attitudes exist, and may be ideal for any one person. Obviously the financially savvy answer of \"\"minimize your refund\"\" is the ideal answer from a dollars and cents perspective, but its up to you to see whether that attitude is right when you account for all of the non-measurable things, like stress. In general, I would lead anyone to \"\"minimize your refund,\"\" but I would be remiss if I didn't include the very real psychological reasons people choose to deviate from it.\"" }, { "docid": "480282", "title": "", "text": "You are correct that W-4s are very confusing for multiple income homes, and even more so if you change salary significantly during the year. There are just too many variables in those situations to provide an effective, simple form. Unfortunately, the best way to get accurate withholdings is trial-and-error. Try and estimate how much tax you'll have to pay for the year. There are several calculators out there, but essentially you can take your gross income, subtract the standard exemptions for you and all dependents, subtract the standard deductions (or estimate your itemized deductions), and compute your tax based on the federal tax tables. Then subtract any tax credits you may be eligible for. Then estimate your withholdings for the year by multiplying your current withholdings by the number of pay periods left, and adding your YTD withholdings. If your total withholdings are higher than your estimated tax, add one or two exemptions to reduce your withholdings (and vice versa). If all that sounds like a lot of work (which it is), at a minimum make sure you withhold as much tax as you paid last year. That way you avoid any tax penalties, but might have a tax bill when you file. If you want to be conservative and withhold a little extra that's fine - you might even end up with a refund when you file. The good news is it doesn't have to be exact; any difference will determine what you pay (or what refund you get) when you file." }, { "docid": "357500", "title": "", "text": "In the question you cited, I assumed immediate exercise, that is why you understood that I was talking about 30 days after grant. I actually mentioned that assumption in the answer. Sec. 83(b) doesn't apply to options, because options are not assets per se. It only applies to restricted stocks. So the 30 days start counting from the time you get the restricted stock, which is when you early-exercise. As to the AMT, the ISO spread will be considered AMT income in the year of the exercise, if you file the 83(b). For NQSO it is ordinary income. That's the whole point of the election. You can find more detailed explanation on this website." }, { "docid": "490176", "title": "", "text": "\"Individuals most definitely can have NOL. This is covered in the IRS publication 536. What is the difference between NOL and capital loss? NOL is Net Operating Loss. I.e.: a situation where your (allowable) expenses and deductions exceed your gross income. Basically it means that you have negative income for that year, for tax purposes. Capital loss occurs when the total amount of your capital gains reported on Schedule D is negative. What are their relations then? Not all expenses and deductions that you usually put on your tax return are allowed for NOL calculation. For example, capital loss is not allowed. I.e.: if you earned $2000 and you lost in stocks $3000 - you do not get a $1K NOL. Capital losses are excluded from NOL calculation and in this scenario you still have non-negative income for NOL purposes even though it is offset in full by capital loss deduction and your \"\"taxable income\"\" line is negative. The $1K that was not allowed - gets carried forward to the next year using the Capital Loss Carryover Worksheet in the instructions to Schedule D. You calculate your NOL using form 1045 schedule A. You can use the form 1045 to apply the NOL to prior 2 years, or you can elect to apply it only to future years (up to 20 years). In what cases, capital loss can be NOL? Never.\"" }, { "docid": "160313", "title": "", "text": "First, the SSN isn't an issue. She will need to apply for an ITIN together with tax filing, in order to file taxes as Married Filing Jointly anyway. I think you (or both of you in the joint case) probably qualify for the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, if you've been outside the US for almost the whole year, in which cases both of you should have all of your income excluded anyway, so I'm not sure why you're getting that one is better. As for Self-Employment Tax, I suspect that she doesn't have to pay it in either case, because there is a sentence in your linked page for Nonresident Spouse Treated as a Resident that says However, you may still be treated as a nonresident alien for the purpose of withholding Social Security and Medicare tax. and since Self-Employment Tax is just Social Security and Medicare tax in another form, she shouldn't have to pay it if treated as resident, if she didn't have to pay it as nonresident. From the law, I believe Nonresident Spouse Treated as a Resident is described in IRC 6013(g), which says the person is treated as a resident for the purposes of chapters 1 and 24, but self-employment tax is from chapter 2, so I don't think self-employment tax is affected by this election." }, { "docid": "94088", "title": "", "text": "\"It depends on when you can get the money, not when you know that you won or when you choose to take the ticket in. If you can present your ticket this year and get paid this year, the taxes are due this year, whether or not you actually choose to claim the prize this year. If you cannot receive payment until next year, then taxes will be due next year. This is \"\"constructive receipt,\"\" which applies to most individual tax situations. This assumes that you chose to receive a lump sum. If you get installments, then your taxes would be due as the installments are available, but the constructive receipt still applies.\"" }, { "docid": "271772", "title": "", "text": "Since you both are members of the LLC - it is not a single-member LLC, thus you have to file the tax return on behalf of the LLC (I'm guessing you didn't elect corporate treatment, so you would be filing 1065, which is the default). You need to file form 4868 on behalf of yourselves as individuals, and form 7004 on behalf of the LLC as the partnership. Since the LLC is disregarded (unless you explicitly chose it not to be, which seems not to be the case) the taxes will in fact flow to your individual return(s), but the LLC will have to file the informational return on form 1065 and distribute K-1 forms to each of you. So you wouldn't pay additional estimated taxes with the extension, as you don't pay any taxes with the form 1065 itself. If you need a help understanding all that and filling the forms - do talk to a professional (EA or CPA licensed in your state). Also, reconsider not sending any payment. I suggest sending $1 with the extension form even if you expect a refund." }, { "docid": "110081", "title": "", "text": "\"It really depends on the answers to two questions: 1) How tight is your budget going to be if you have to make that $530 payment every month? Obviously, you'd still be better off than you are now, since that's still $30 cheaper. But, if you're living essentially paycheck to paycheck, then the extra flexibility of the $400/month option can make the difference if something unforeseen happens. 2) How disciplined (financially) have you proven you can be? The \"\"I'll make extra payments every month\"\" sounds real nice, but many people end up not doing it. I should know, I'm one of them. I'm still paying on my student loans because of it. If you know (by having done it before), that you can make that extra $130 go out each and every month and not talk yourself into using it on all sorts of \"\"more important needs\"\", then hey, go for it. Financial flexibility is a great thing, and having that monthly nut (all your minimum living expenses combined) as low as possible contributes greatly to that flexibility. Update: Another thing to consider Another thing to consider is what they do with your extra payment. Will they apply it to the principal, or will they treat it as a prepayment? If they apply it to principal, it'll be just like if you had that shorter term. Your principal goes down additionally by that extra amount, and the next month, you owe another $400. On the other hand, if they treat it as a prepayment, then that extra $130 will be applied to the next month's bill. Principal stays the same, and the next month you'll be billed $270. There are two practical differences for you: 1) With prepayment, you'll pay slightly more interest over that 60 months paying it off. Because it's not amortized into the loan, the principal balance doesn't go down faster while the loan exists. And since interest is calculated on the remaining principal balance, end result is more interest than you otherwise would have paid. That sucks, but: 2) with the prepayment, consider that at the end of year 2, you'd have over 7 months of payments prepaid. So, if some emergency does come up, you don't have to send them any money at all for 7 months. There's that flexibility again. :-) Honestly, while this is something you should find out about the loan, it's really still a wash. I haven't done the math, but with the interest rate, amount of the loan and time frame, I think the extra interest would be pretty minor.\"" }, { "docid": "481283", "title": "", "text": "Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you." }, { "docid": "52438", "title": "", "text": "\"Highly Compensated Employee Rules Aim to Make 401k's Fair would be the piece that I suspect you are missing here. I remember hearing of this rule when I worked in the US and can understand why it exists. A key quote from the article: You wouldn't think the prospect of getting money from an employer would be nerve-wracking. But those jittery co-workers are highly compensated employees (HCEs) concerned that they will receive a refund of excess 401k contributions because their plan failed its discrimination test. A refund means they will owe more income tax for the current tax year. Geersk (a pseudonym), who is also an HCE, is in information services and manages the computers that process his firm's 401k plan. 401(k) - Wikipedia reference on this: To help ensure that companies extend their 401(k) plans to low-paid employees, an IRS rule limits the maximum deferral by the company's \"\"highly compensated\"\" employees, based on the average deferral by the company's non-highly compensated employees. If the less compensated employees are allowed to save more for retirement, then the executives are allowed to save more for retirement. This provision is enforced via \"\"non-discrimination testing\"\". Non-discrimination testing takes the deferral rates of \"\"highly compensated employees\"\" (HCEs) and compares them to non-highly compensated employees (NHCEs). An HCE in 2008 is defined as an employee with compensation of greater than $100,000 in 2007 or an employee that owned more than 5% of the business at any time during the year or the preceding year.[13] In addition to the $100,000 limit for determining HCEs, employers can elect to limit the top-paid group of employees to the top 20% of employees ranked by compensation.[13] That is for plans whose first day of the plan year is in calendar year 2007, we look to each employee's prior year gross compensation (also known as 'Medicare wages') and those who earned more than $100,000 are HCEs. Most testing done now in 2009 will be for the 2008 plan year and compare employees' 2007 plan year gross compensation to the $100,000 threshold for 2007 to determine who is HCE and who is a NHCE. The threshold was $110,000 in 2010 and it did not change for 2011. The average deferral percentage (ADP) of all HCEs, as a group, can be no more than 2 percentage points greater (or 125% of, whichever is more) than the NHCEs, as a group. This is known as the ADP test. When a plan fails the ADP test, it essentially has two options to come into compliance. It can have a return of excess done to the HCEs to bring their ADP to a lower, passing, level. Or it can process a \"\"qualified non-elective contribution\"\" (QNEC) to some or all of the NHCEs to raise their ADP to a passing level. The return of excess requires the plan to send a taxable distribution to the HCEs (or reclassify regular contributions as catch-up contributions subject to the annual catch-up limit for those HCEs over 50) by March 15 of the year following the failed test. A QNEC must be an immediately vested contribution. The annual contribution percentage (ACP) test is similarly performed but also includes employer matching and employee after-tax contributions. ACPs do not use the simple 2% threshold, and include other provisions which can allow the plan to \"\"shift\"\" excess passing rates from the ADP over to the ACP. A failed ACP test is likewise addressed through return of excess, or a QNEC or qualified match (QMAC). There are a number of \"\"safe harbor\"\" provisions that can allow a company to be exempted from the ADP test. This includes making a \"\"safe harbor\"\" employer contribution to employees' accounts. Safe harbor contributions can take the form of a match (generally totaling 4% of pay) or a non-elective profit sharing (totaling 3% of pay). Safe harbor 401(k) contributions must be 100% vested at all times with immediate eligibility for employees. There are other administrative requirements within the safe harbor, such as requiring the employer to notify all eligible employees of the opportunity to participate in the plan, and restricting the employer from suspending participants for any reason other than due to a hardship withdrawal.\"" }, { "docid": "368938", "title": "", "text": "\"Answers: 1: No, Sections 1291-1298 of the IRC were passed in the Reagan adminstration. 2: Not only can a foreign company like a chocolate company fall afoul of the definition of PFIC because of the \"\"asset test\"\", which you cite, but it can also be called a PFIC because of the \"\"income test\"\". For example, I have shares in a development-stage Canadian biotech which is considered a PFIC because it has no income at all, except for a minor amount of bank interest on its working capital. This company is by no means \"\"passive\"\" (it has run 31 clinical trials in over 1100 human research subjects, burning $250M of investor's money in the process) nor is it an \"\"investment company\"\", but the stupid IRS considers it to be a \"\"passive foreign investment company\"\"! The IRS looks at it and sees only the bank account, and assumes it is a foreign shell corporation set up to shield the bank interest from them. 3: Yes, a foreign mutual fund is EXACTLY what congress intended to be a PFIC when passed IRC 1291-1298. (Biotechs, candy factories, ect got nailed as innocent bystanders.) Note that if you hold a US mutual fund then every year you'll get a form 1099 in the mail. The 1099 will report your share of the mutual fund's own income and capital gains, which you must report on your taxes. (You can also have capital gains from selling your shares of the mutual fund, but that's a different thing.) Now suppose that there was no PFIC law. Then the US investors in the mutual fund would do better if the mutual fund were in a foreign country, for two reasons: a) The fund would no longer distribute 1099's. That means the shareholders wouldn't have to pay tax every year on their proportions of the fund's own income/gains. The money that would have sooner gone to the IRS can sit around for years earning interest. b) The fund could return profits to shareholders exclusively through capital gains rather than dividends, thus ensuring that all of the investors' income on the fund would be taxed at <15%-20% rather than up to 39%. The fund could do this by returning cash to shareholders exclusively through buybacks. However, the US mutual fund industry doesn't want to move the industry to Canada, and it only takes a few newspaper articles about a foreign loophole to make congress spring to action. 4) It depends. If you have a PEDIGREED QEF election in place (as I do for my biotech shares) then form 8621 takes a few minutes by hand. However, this requires both the company and the investor to fully cooperate with congress's vision for PFICs. The company cooperates by providing a so-called \"\"PFIC annual information sheet\"\", which replaces the 1099 form for a US mutual fund. The investor cooperates by having a \"\"QEF election\"\" in place for EACH AND EVERY TAX YEAR in which he held the stock and by reporting the numbers from the PFIC annual information sheet on his return. (Note that the QEF election persists once made, until revoked. There are subtleties here that I am glossing over, since \"\"deemed sale\"\" elections and other means may be used to modify a share's holding period to come into compliance.) Note that there is software coming out to handle PFICs, and that the software makers will already run their software to make your form 8621 for $75 or so. I should also warn you that the blogs of tax accountants and tax lawyers all contradict each other on the basic issue of whether you can take capital losses on PFICs for which you have no form 8621 elections. (See section 2.3 of my notes http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr for commentary on this mess.) I do not know if the software people will tell you which elections are best made on form 8621, though, or advise you if it's time to simply dump your investment. The professional software is at 8621.com, and the individual 8621 preparation is at http://expattaxtools.com/?page_id=242. BTW, in case you're interested, I wrote up a very careful analysis of how to deal with the PFIC situation for the small biotech I invested in in certain cases. It is posted http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr. (For tax reasons it was quite fortunate that the share price dipped to near an all-time low on Jan 1, 2015, making the (next) 2015 tax year ripe for a so-called \"\"deemed sale\"\" election. This was only possible because the company provides the necessary \"\"PFIC annual information statements\"\", which your chocolate factory may or may not do.)\"" }, { "docid": "465905", "title": "", "text": "When you got your original HUD backed mortgage there were three options: monthly, annual and upfront payments. The plan is designed to insure the lender of the mortgage against your default. The plan is not expected to cover the mortgage for 30 years. If you are in the early years of the mortgage, you may be owed a refund for the unused years. HUD has a Fact sheet discussing this, and a page to help you determine if they owe you a refund. If you are refinancing back into a HUD/FHA mortgage they will not give you a refund, but will roll the refund back into your new loan. FHA to FHA Refinances: When an FHA loan is refinanced, the refund from the old premium may be applied toward the up-front premium required for the new loan. Note: Depending on the year of the original loan the government has different lengths they used for coverage and refunds. I suggest you use the webpage to determine if you are due a refund, or a roll over." }, { "docid": "458494", "title": "", "text": "\"I find those \"\"government checks\"\" arguments to be more appealing in theory than in reality. Ultimately, it comes down to deciding who gets what... and who gets to be the decider. Capitalism is far from perfect, but it decides who gets what through the individual, decentralized choices of everyone. Again, it's not perfect by any means, but it is dispersed - and everyone makes decisions for themselves, not for other people. Government action decides who gets what through a highly indirect process of electing politicians, and decisions are made by a small group of people, who are under, practically speaking, very little oversight or control. A few people make decisions for everyone else. Government action is, despite all our desire and efforts to avoid this, necessarily subject to the same disparities in influence/control as the market ... It may come in different forms, and the consequences may manifest differently (often less readily apparent), but there is no avoiding the \"\"a few people have a lot more control than everyone else\"\" problem. Governments are more prone to corruption because they trade the intangible currency of \"\"power\"\" in addition to money. No matter how you go about doing so, it's always easier to counteract a private actor than a government (given roughly equivalent levels of influence, obviously). I understand the desire for intervention, but I think we have a scary tendency to place far too much weight on good intentions, and far too little weight on consequences. It's so easy to think things through in your head (I do often) and come up with a plan that could obviously work exactly as intended for everyone's benefit. In doing so, we forget that people aren't pawns to be guided through life for someone else's vision (or pursuit of utopia or anything else) . ... they have lives, desires, interests, plans of their own, and theirs are just as valid as yours or mine. The reality is that you and I are probably far more similar than either of us would guess. But there are still huge differences - what we value, what we want to do next year, whether we want that promotion or want to get laid off so we can finally start our dream business, whether we want money for family vacations or medical bills.... so many differences that I couldn't ever fairly and accurately represent your interests without you actually telling me what they are. That's just the 2 of us. There are 300 million people in the US - we can't comprehend even really knowing a thousand well enough to genuinely speak on their behalf. In theory, big plans make everything better. In practice, they run into the reality that humans truly aren't pawns, and controlling 300 million people and predicting their responses/actions is way more difficult than it seems. Big plans often end up with real people - people who are just as deserving of opportunities and rights as everyone else - getting really hurt because some guy he doesn't know (and who doesn't know him) had an idea and the power to enforce it on everyone. I'm not saying that all government interference is bad, of course, and I'm not saying it shouldn't happen. Government interventions that are straightforward wealth transfers are probably less harmful to people ... like a tax on the rich to give hefty tax refunds to the poor, is more direct and less prone to causing unintentional harm then things like wage manipulations.\"" }, { "docid": "456436", "title": "", "text": "The 'same day rule' in the UK is a rule for matching purposes only. It says that sales on any day are matched firstly with purchases made on the same day for the purposes of ascertaining any gain/loss. Hence the phrase 'bed-and-breakfast' ('b&b') when you wish to crystalise a gain (that is within the exempt amount) and re-establish a purchase price at a higher level. You do the sale on one day, just before the market closes, which gets matched with your original purchase, and then you buy the shares back the next day, just after the market opens. This is standard tax-planning. Whenever you have a paper gain, and you wish to lock that gain out of being taxed, you do a bed-and-breakfast transaction, the idea being to use up your annual exemption each and every year. Of course, if your dealing costs are high, then they may outweigh any tax saved, and so it would be pointless. For the purpose of an example, let's assume that the UK tax year is the same as the calendar year. Scenario 1. Suppose I bought some shares in 2016, for a total price of Stg.50,000. Suppose by the end of 2016, the holding is worth Stg.54,000, resulting in a paper gain of Stg.4,000. Question. Should I do a b&b transaction to make use of my Stg.11,100 annual exemption ? Answer. Well, with transaction costs at 1.5% for a round-trip trade, suppose, and stamp duty on the purchase of 0.5%, your total costs for a b&b will be Stg1,080, and your tax saved (upon some future sale date) assuming you are a 20% tax-payer is 20%x(4,000-1,080) = Stg584 (the transaction costs are deductible, we assume). This does not make sense. Scenario 2. The same as scenario 1., but the shares are worth Stg60,000 by end-2016. Answer. The total transaction costs are 2%x60,000 = 1,200 and so the taxable gain of 10,000-1,200 = 8,800 would result in a tax bill of 20%x8,800 = 1,760 and so the transaction costs are lower than the tax to be saved (a strict analysis would take into account only the present value of the tax to be saved), it makes sense to crystalise the gain. We sell some day before the tax year-end, and re-invest the very next day. Scenario 3. The same as scenario 1., but the shares are worth Stg70,000 by end-2016. Answer. The gain of 20,000 less costs would result in a tax bill for 1,500 (this is: 20%x(20,000 - 2%x70,000 - 11,100) ). This tax bill will be on top of the dealing costs of 1,400. But the gain is in excess of the annual exemption. The strategy is to sell just enough of the holding to crystallise a taxable gain of just 11,100. The fraction, f%, is given by: f%x(70,000-50,000) - 2%xf%x70,000 = 11,100 ... which simplifies to: f% = 11,100/18,600 = 59.68%. The tax saved is 20%x11,100 = 2,220, versus costs of 2%x59.58%x70,000 = 835.52. This strategy of partial b&b is adopted because it never makes sense to pay tax early ! End." }, { "docid": "573523", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll assume United States as the country; the answer may (probably does) vary somewhat if this is not correct. Also, I preface this with the caveat that I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant. However, this is my understanding: You must recognize the revenue at the time the credits are purchased (when money changes hands), and charge sales tax on the full amount at that time. This is because the customer has pre-paid and purchased a service (i.e. the \"\"credits\"\", which are units of time available in the application). This is clearly a complete transaction. The use of the credits is irrelevant. This is equivalent to a customer purchasing a box of widgets for future delivery; the payment is made and the widgets are available but have simply not been shipped (and therefore used). This mirrors many online service providers (say, NetFlix) in business model. This is different from the case in which a customer purchases a \"\"gift card\"\" or \"\"reloadable debit card\"\". In this case, sales tax is NOT collected (because this is technically not a purchase). Revenue is also not booked at this time. Instead, the revenue is booked when the gift card's balance is used to pay for a good or service, and at that time the tax is collected (usually from the funds on the card). To do otherwise would greatly complicate the tax basis (suppose the gift card is used in a different state or county, where sales tax is charged differently? Suppose the gift card is used to purchase a tax-exempt item?) For justification, see bankruptcy consideration of the two cases. In the former, the customer has \"\"ownership\"\" of an asset (the credits), which cannot be taken from him (although it might be unusable). In the latter, the holder of the debit card is technically an unsecured creditor of the company - and is last in line if the company's assets are liquidated for repayment. Consider also the case where the cost of the \"\"credits\"\" is increased part-way through the year (say, from $10 per credit to $20 per credit) or if a discount promotion is applied (buy 5 credits, get one free). The customer has a \"\"tangible\"\" item (one credit) which gets the same functionality regardless of price. This would be different if instead of \"\"credits\"\" you instead maintain an \"\"account\"\" where the user deposited $1000 and was billed for usage; in this case you fall back to the \"\"gift card\"\" scenario (but usage is charged at the current rate) and revenue is booked when the usage is purchased; similarly, tax is collected on the purchase of the service. For this model to work, the \"\"credit\"\" would likely have to be refundable, and could not expire (see gift cards, above), and must be usable on a variety of \"\"services\"\". You may have particular responsibility in the handling of this \"\"deposit\"\" as well.\"" }, { "docid": "111531", "title": "", "text": "\"From what you've described, your spouse is a non-resident alien for US tax purposes. You have two choices: Use the Nonresident Spouse Treated As Resident election and file as Married Filing Jointly. Since your spouse doesn't have, and doesn't currently qualify for, an SSN, he/she will need to apply for an ITIN together with the tax filing. Note that by becoming a resident alien, your spouse's worldwide income the whole year would be subject to US taxes, and would need to be reported on your joint tax filing, though he/she will be able to use the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion to exclude $100k of her foreign earned income, since he/she will have been out of the US for 330 days in a 12-month period. Or, file as Married Filing Separately. You write \"\"NRA\"\" for your spouse's SSN on your tax return. As a nonresident alien, if your spouse doesn't have any US income, he/she doesn't have to file a US tax return, and doesn't need to apply for an ITIN. Which one is better is up to you to figure out.\"" }, { "docid": "187695", "title": "", "text": "The IRS can direct your refund towards repayment of your unpaid taxes either on Federal or State/Local level. Whether it will depends on whether the State of New York will ask for it. Generally, if you owe taxes to New York for this year only, you would expect them to wait for you to file your State tax return and pay the taxes owed. If you don't - I'm pretty sure that the next year refund from the IRS will go directly to them." }, { "docid": "445230", "title": "", "text": "sometimes we advise very old or incapacitated people to apply the refund to the next year as check writing from time to time & mailing may be a hassle for them." } ]

[ { "docid": "71898", "title": "", "text": "If your refund is so small (like $20 - $25), and it's not worth receiving, it can be put towards next years just to give you a slight edge." } ]

[ { "docid": "103842", "title": "", "text": "Does the 5 year rule apply on the After-tax 401k -> Roth 401k -> Roth IRA conversion of the 20000 (including 10000 earnings that was originally pre-tax)? No. The after-tax amounts are not subject to the 5 years rule. The earnings are. How does this affect Roth IRA withdrawal ordering rules with respect to the taxable portion of a single conversion being withdrawn before the non-taxable portion? Taxable portion first until exhausted. To better understand how it works, you need to understand the rationale behind the 5-year rule. Consider you have $100K in your IRA (traditional) and you want to take it out. Just withdrawing it would trigger a 10K statutory penalty, on top of the taxes due. But, you can use the backdoor Roth IRA, right? So convert the 100K, and then it becomes after-tax contribution to Roth IRA, and can be withdrawn with no penalty. One form filled ad 10K saved. To block this loophole, here comes the 5 years rule: you cannot withdraw after-tax amounts for at least 5 years without penalty, if the source was taxable conversion. Thus, in order to avoid the 10K penalty in the above situation, you have a 5-year cooling period, which makes the loophole useless for most cases. However amounts that are after tax can be withdrawn without penalty already, even from the traditional IRA, so there's no need in the 5 years cooling period. The withdrawal attribution is in this order: Roth IRA rollovers are sourced to the origin. E.g.: if you converted $100 to the Roth IRA at firm X and then a year later rolled it over to firm Y - it doesn't affect anything and the clock is ticking from the original date of the conversion at firm X. 5-year period applies to each conversion/rollover from a qualified retirement plan (see here). Distributions are applied to the conversions in FIFO order, so in one distribution, depending on the amounts, you may hit several different incoming conversions. The 5 years should be check on each of them, and the penalty applied on the amounts attributable to those that don't have enough time. 5-year period for contributions applies starting from the beginning of the first year of the first contribution that established your Roth IRA plan. The penalty applies to the amounts that were included in your gross income when conversion occurred, i.e.: doesn't apply on the amounts converted from after-tax sources. Note the difference from the traditional IRA - distributions from pre-tax sources are prorated between the non-deductible (basis) amounts and the deductible/earnings amounts (taxable). That is why the taxable amounts are first in the ordering of the distributions." }, { "docid": "597574", "title": "", "text": "The amount you contribute will reduce the taxable income for each paycheck, but it won't impact the level of your social security and medicare taxes. A 401(k) plan is a qualified deferred compensation plan in which an employee can elect to have the employer contribute a portion of his or her cash wages to the plan on a pretax basis. Generally, these deferred wages (commonly referred to as elective contributions) are not subject to income tax withholding at the time of deferral, and they are not reflected on your Form 1040 (PDF) since they were not included in the taxable wages on your Form W-2 (PDF). However, they are included as wages subject to withholding for social security and Medicare taxes. In addition, employers must report the elective contributions as wages subject to federal unemployment taxes. You might be able to keep this up for more than 7 weeks if the company offers health, dental and vision insurance. Your contributions for these policies would need to be paid for before you contribute to the 401K. Of course these items are also pre-tax so they will keep the taxable amount at zero. If there was a non-pretax deduction on your pay check that would keep the check at zero, but there would be taxes owed. This might be union dues, but it can also be some life and disability insurance polices. Most stubs specify which deductions are pre-tax, and which are post-tax. Warning. If you get the company match some companies give you the maximum match for those 7 weeks, then zero for the rest of the year. Others will still credit you with a match at the end of the year saying if you should get the benefit. It is not required that they do this. Check the company documents. You could also contribute post-tax money, which is different than Roth 401K, for the rest of the year to keep the match going. Note: If you are turning 50 this year, or are already 50, then you can contribute an additional $5,500" }, { "docid": "261989", "title": "", "text": "Bank products have been pretty common with tax refunds as well, and they are also being heavily scrutinized for the same reasons. Refund Anticipation Loans (RALs) have been outlawed for future tax seasons due to lack of consumer protection. What is a bank product, you might ask? Rather than waiting 7-14 days for the a direct deposit from the IRS, a lot of places like H+R Block and Jackson Hewitt would offer a bank product to get you money quicker. For this service, they charge a fee (usually $99-$149) which is grossly overpriced for how little work it takes, but if your refund is several thousand dollars, you may not care. A Refund Anticipation Loan was the most predatory bank product, as it was an advance on your loan for the amount your expected refund. However, if there were any errors in your return and the IRS decided your refund was less than what your tax preparer calculated it to be, you were stuck with paying back the advance amount, leaving you to foot the bill for whatever errors your preparer may have made. These loans also had very high interest rates, since usually the people that wanted RALs were also the same people that rely upon cash advances. There are also Electronic Refund Checks (which ironically are paper checks for the consumer, not electronic deposits), direct deposits, and prepaid debit cards. Despite the fact that these same methods of refund payments are offered by the IRS themselves, preparers and banks alike sold these to collect fees for essentially no work. I'm not sure how similar these bank products for student loans are, but I wanted to shed some light on them anyways. Regardless of how badly you need money, **do not ever accept money through a bank product.** If it benefited you more, banks and preparers would not offer these. (Source: telemarketing at a tax preparation software company)" }, { "docid": "406561", "title": "", "text": "\"The limit on SEP IRA is 25%, not 20%. If you're self-employed (filing on Schedule C), then it's taken on net earning, which in your example would be 25% of $90,000. (https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-for-self-employed-people) JoeTaxpayer is correct as regards the 401(k) limits. The elective deferrals are per person - That's a cap in sum across multiple plans and across both traditional and Roth if you have those. In general, it's actually across other retirement plan types too - See below. If you're self-employed and set-up a 401(k) for your own business, the elective deferral is still aggregated with any other 401(k) plans in which you participate that year, but you can still make the employer contribution on your own plan. This IRS page is current a pretty good one on this topic: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans Key quotes that are relevant: The business owner wears two hats in a 401(k) plan: employee and employer. Contributions can be made to the plan in both capacities. The owner can contribute both: •Elective deferrals up to 100% of compensation (“earned income” in the case of a self-employed individual) up to the annual contribution limit: ◦$18,000 in 2015 and 2016, or $24,000 in 2015 and 2016 if age 50 or over; plus •Employer nonelective contributions up to: ◦25% of compensation as defined by the plan, or ◦for self-employed individuals, see discussion below It continues with this example: The amount you can defer (including pre-tax and Roth contributions) to all your plans (not including 457(b) plans) is $18,000 in 2015 and 2016. Although a plan's terms may place lower limits on contributions, the total amount allowed under the tax law doesn’t depend on how many plans you belong to or who sponsors those plans. EXAMPLE Ben, age 51, earned $50,000 in W-2 wages from his S Corporation in 2015. He deferred $18,000 in regular elective deferrals plus $6,000 in catch-up contributions to the 401(k) plan. His business contributed 25% of his compensation to the plan, $12,500. Total contributions to the plan for 2015 were $36,500. This is the maximum that can be contributed to the plan for Ben for 2015. A business owner who is also employed by a second company and participating in its 401(k) plan should bear in mind that his limits on elective deferrals are by person, not by plan. He must consider the limit for all elective deferrals he makes during a year. Notice in the example that Ben contributed more that than his elective limit in total (his was $24,000 in the example because he was old enough for the $6,000 catch-up in addition to the $18,000 that applies to everyone else). He did this by declaring an employer contribution of $12,500, which was limited by his compensation but not by any of his elective contributions. Beyond the 401(k), keep in mind that elective contributions are capped across different types of retirement plans as well, so if you have a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k), your total contributions across those plans are also capped. That's also mentioned in the example. Now to the extent that you're considering different types of plans, that's a whole question in itself - One that might be worth consulting a dedicated tax advisor. A few things to consider (not extensive list): As for payroll / self-employment tax: Looks like you will end up paying Medicare, including the new \"\"Additional Medicare\"\" tax that came with the ACA, but not SS: If you have wages, as well as self-employment earnings, the tax on your wages is paid first. But this rule only applies if your total earnings are more than $118,500. For example, if you will have $30,000 in wages and $40,000 in selfemployment income in 2016, you will pay the appropriate Social Security taxes on both your wages and business earnings. In 2016, however, if your wages are $78,000, and you have $40,700 in net earnings from a business, you don’t pay dual Social Security taxes on earnings more than $118,500. Your employer will withhold 7.65 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your $78,000 in earnings. You must pay 15.3 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your first $40,500 in self-employment earnings and 2.9 percent in Medicare tax on the remaining $200 in net earnings. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10022.pdf Other good IRS resources:\"" }, { "docid": "193717", "title": "", "text": "\"You mention \"\"early exercise\"\" in your title, but you seem to misunderstand what early exercise really means. Some companies offer stock options that vest over a number of years, but which can be exercised before they are vested. That is early exercise. You have vested stock options, so early exercise is not relevant. (It may or may not be the case that your stock options could have been early exercised before they vested, but regardless, you didn't exercise them, so the point is moot.) As littleadv said, 83(b) election is for restricted stocks, often from exercising unvested stock options. Your options are already vested, so they won't be restricted stock. So 83(b) election is not relevant for you. A taxable event happen when you exercise. The point of the 83(b) election is that exercising unvested stock options is not a taxable event, so 83(b) election allows you to force it to be a taxable event. But for you, with vested stock options, there is no need to do this. You mention that you want it not to be taxable upon exercise. But that's what Incentive Stock Options (ISOs) are for. ISOs were designed for the purpose of not being taxable for regular income tax purposes when you exercise (although it is still taxable upon exercise for AMT purposes), and it is only taxed when you sell. However, you have Non-qualified Stock Options. Were you given the option to get ISOs at the beginning? Why did your company give you NQSOs? I don't know the specifics of your situation, but since you mentioned \"\"early exercise\"\" and 83(b) elections, I have a hypothesis as to what might have happened. For people who early-exercise (for plans that allow early-exercise), there is a slight advantage to having NQSOs compared to ISOs. This is because if you early exercise immediately upon grant and do 83(b) election, you pay no taxes upon exercise (because the difference between strike price and FMV is 0), and there are no taxes upon vesting (for regular or AMT), and if you hold it for at least 1 year, upon sale it will be long-term capital gains. On the other hand, for ISOs, it's the same except that for long-term capital gains, you have to hold it 2 years after grant and 1 year after exercise, so the period for long-term capital gains is longer. So companies that allow early exercise will often offer employees either NQSOs or ISOs, where you would choose NQSO if you intend to early-exercise, or ISO otherwise. If (hypothetically) that's what happened, then you chose wrong because you got NQSOs and didn't early exercise.\"" }, { "docid": "306059", "title": "", "text": "It sounds like the postage amount was paid to you rather than returned. If it had been returned and the payment originated on the card, they would have to return it to the card. If it was processed as a payment, it looks like someone is giving you money. PayPal can't credit it to the card, as the sender could request a refund. If PayPal put the money on the card against a previous payment, then they wouldn't be able to refund. If they add money to your bank account, then they can withdraw it if a refund is required. One reason that you might get a payment is if you were being reimbursed for spending money outside of PayPal. If the amount is more than you originally paid, they can't put it on your card. They can only refund to the card. They can't deposit to it. If you don't want to give them your bank account information, you can just wait until the next time you use PayPal and use your balance to pay. Then you can bill the remainder to your credit card. If you don't normally use PayPal and just want your money back, you can process a chargeback through your credit card. Note that this would probably annoy PayPal, as it costs them aggravation and potentially money. To do this, you must have paid the postage with your credit card originally. If you spent money outside PayPal and were reimbursed through PayPal, then there's nothing to chargeback. In that circumstance, you'd have to accept one of their options: pay with balance or deposit to bank account." }, { "docid": "97852", "title": "", "text": "Legally, do I have anything to worry about from having an incorrectly filed W-4? What you did wasn't criminal. When you submitted the form it was correct. Unfortunately as your situation changed you didn't adjust the form, that mistake does have consequences. Is there anything within my rights I can do to get the company to take responsibility for their role in this situation, or is it basically my fault? It is basically your fault. The company needs a w-4 for each employee. They will use that W-4 for every paycheck until the government changes the regulation, or your employment ends, or you submit a new form. Topic 753 - Form W-4 – Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate If an employee qualifies, he or she can also use Form W-4 (PDF) to tell you not to deduct any federal income tax from his or her wages. To qualify for this exempt status, the employee must have had no tax liability for the previous year and must expect to have no tax liability for the current year. However, if the employee can be claimed as a dependent on a parent's or another person's tax return, additional limitations may apply; refer to the instructions for Form W-4. A Form W-4 claiming exemption from withholding is valid for only the calendar year in which it is filed with the employer. To continue to be exempt from withholding in the next year, an employee must give you a new Form W-4 claiming exempt status by February 15 of that year. If the employee does not give you a new Form W-4, withhold tax as if he or she is single, with no withholding allowances. However, if you have an earlier Form W-4 (not claiming exempt status) for this employee that is valid, withhold as you did before. (I highlighted the key part) Because you were claiming exempt they should have required you to update that form each year. In your case that may not have applied because of the timing of the events. When do you submit a new form? Anytime your situation changes. Sometimes the change is done to adjust withholding to modify the amount of a refund. Other times failure to update the form can lead to bigger complication: when your marital status changes, or the number of dependents changes. In these situations you could have a significant amount of under-withheld, which could lead to a fine later on. As a side note this is even more true for the state version of a W-4. Having a whole years worth of income tax withholding done for the wrong state will at a minimum require you to file in multiple states, it could also result in a big surprise if the forgotten state has higher tax rate. Will my (now former) employee be responsible for paying their portion of the taxes that were not withheld during the 9 months I was full-time, tax Exempt? For federal and state income taxes they are just a conduit. They take the money from your paycheck, and periodically send it to the IRS and the state capital. Unless you could show that the pay stubs said taxes were being withheld, but the w-2 said otherwise; they have no role in judging the appropriateness of your W-4 with one exception. Finally, and I am not too hopeful on this one, but is there anything I can do to ease this tax burden? I understand that the IRS is owed no matter what. You have one way it might workout. For many taxpayers who have a large increase in pay from one year to the next, they can take advantage of a safe-harbor in the tax law. If they had withheld as much money in 2015 as they paid in 2014, they have reached the safe-harbor. They avoid the penalty for under withholding. Note that 2014 number is not what you paid on tax day or what was refunded, but all your income taxes for the entire year. Because in your case your taxes for the year 2014 were ZERO, that might mean that you automatically reach the safe-harbor for 2015. That makes sense because one of the key requirements of claiming exempt is that you had no liability the year before. It won't save you from paying what you owe but it can help avoid a penalty. Lessons" }, { "docid": "368938", "title": "", "text": "\"Answers: 1: No, Sections 1291-1298 of the IRC were passed in the Reagan adminstration. 2: Not only can a foreign company like a chocolate company fall afoul of the definition of PFIC because of the \"\"asset test\"\", which you cite, but it can also be called a PFIC because of the \"\"income test\"\". For example, I have shares in a development-stage Canadian biotech which is considered a PFIC because it has no income at all, except for a minor amount of bank interest on its working capital. This company is by no means \"\"passive\"\" (it has run 31 clinical trials in over 1100 human research subjects, burning $250M of investor's money in the process) nor is it an \"\"investment company\"\", but the stupid IRS considers it to be a \"\"passive foreign investment company\"\"! The IRS looks at it and sees only the bank account, and assumes it is a foreign shell corporation set up to shield the bank interest from them. 3: Yes, a foreign mutual fund is EXACTLY what congress intended to be a PFIC when passed IRC 1291-1298. (Biotechs, candy factories, ect got nailed as innocent bystanders.) Note that if you hold a US mutual fund then every year you'll get a form 1099 in the mail. The 1099 will report your share of the mutual fund's own income and capital gains, which you must report on your taxes. (You can also have capital gains from selling your shares of the mutual fund, but that's a different thing.) Now suppose that there was no PFIC law. Then the US investors in the mutual fund would do better if the mutual fund were in a foreign country, for two reasons: a) The fund would no longer distribute 1099's. That means the shareholders wouldn't have to pay tax every year on their proportions of the fund's own income/gains. The money that would have sooner gone to the IRS can sit around for years earning interest. b) The fund could return profits to shareholders exclusively through capital gains rather than dividends, thus ensuring that all of the investors' income on the fund would be taxed at <15%-20% rather than up to 39%. The fund could do this by returning cash to shareholders exclusively through buybacks. However, the US mutual fund industry doesn't want to move the industry to Canada, and it only takes a few newspaper articles about a foreign loophole to make congress spring to action. 4) It depends. If you have a PEDIGREED QEF election in place (as I do for my biotech shares) then form 8621 takes a few minutes by hand. However, this requires both the company and the investor to fully cooperate with congress's vision for PFICs. The company cooperates by providing a so-called \"\"PFIC annual information sheet\"\", which replaces the 1099 form for a US mutual fund. The investor cooperates by having a \"\"QEF election\"\" in place for EACH AND EVERY TAX YEAR in which he held the stock and by reporting the numbers from the PFIC annual information sheet on his return. (Note that the QEF election persists once made, until revoked. There are subtleties here that I am glossing over, since \"\"deemed sale\"\" elections and other means may be used to modify a share's holding period to come into compliance.) Note that there is software coming out to handle PFICs, and that the software makers will already run their software to make your form 8621 for $75 or so. I should also warn you that the blogs of tax accountants and tax lawyers all contradict each other on the basic issue of whether you can take capital losses on PFICs for which you have no form 8621 elections. (See section 2.3 of my notes http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr for commentary on this mess.) I do not know if the software people will tell you which elections are best made on form 8621, though, or advise you if it's time to simply dump your investment. The professional software is at 8621.com, and the individual 8621 preparation is at http://expattaxtools.com/?page_id=242. BTW, in case you're interested, I wrote up a very careful analysis of how to deal with the PFIC situation for the small biotech I invested in in certain cases. It is posted http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr. (For tax reasons it was quite fortunate that the share price dipped to near an all-time low on Jan 1, 2015, making the (next) 2015 tax year ripe for a so-called \"\"deemed sale\"\" election. This was only possible because the company provides the necessary \"\"PFIC annual information statements\"\", which your chocolate factory may or may not do.)\"" }, { "docid": "187695", "title": "", "text": "The IRS can direct your refund towards repayment of your unpaid taxes either on Federal or State/Local level. Whether it will depends on whether the State of New York will ask for it. Generally, if you owe taxes to New York for this year only, you would expect them to wait for you to file your State tax return and pay the taxes owed. If you don't - I'm pretty sure that the next year refund from the IRS will go directly to them." }, { "docid": "94088", "title": "", "text": "\"It depends on when you can get the money, not when you know that you won or when you choose to take the ticket in. If you can present your ticket this year and get paid this year, the taxes are due this year, whether or not you actually choose to claim the prize this year. If you cannot receive payment until next year, then taxes will be due next year. This is \"\"constructive receipt,\"\" which applies to most individual tax situations. This assumes that you chose to receive a lump sum. If you get installments, then your taxes would be due as the installments are available, but the constructive receipt still applies.\"" }, { "docid": "191704", "title": "", "text": "The short answer is no - the CGT discount is only applied against your net capital gain. So your net capital gain would be: $25,000 - $5,000 = $20,000 Your CGT discount is $10,000 You will then pay CGT on $10,000 Of course you could sell ABC in this financial year and sell DEF next financial year. If you had no other share activities next financial year than that net capital loss can be carried forward to a future year. In that case your net capital gain this year would be $25,000 Your CGT discount is $12,500 You will then pay CGT on $12,500 Next year if oyu sell DEF, you'll have a $5000 net capital loss which you can carry forward to a future year as an offset against capital gains. Reference: https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Capital-gains-tax/Working-out-your-capital-gain-or-loss/Working-out-your-net-capital-gain-or-loss/" }, { "docid": "103590", "title": "", "text": "Having a large state return also means that there is a potential income tax liability created at the federal level for the following year, as the situation resulted from the deduction of more on one's federal return than should have been deducted. The state refund is treated as federal income in the year it is refunded. http://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/is-my-state-tax-refund-taxable-and-why-90/" }, { "docid": "388713", "title": "", "text": "As a new (very!) small business, the IRS has lots of advice and information for you. Start at https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed and be sure you have several pots of coffee or other appropriate aid against somnolence. By default a single-member LLC is 'disregarded' for tax purposes (at least for Federal, and generally states follow Federal although I don't know Mass. specifically), although it does have other effects. If you go this route you simply include the business income and expenses on Schedule C as part of your individual return on 1040, and the net SE income is included along with your other income (if any) in computing your tax. TurboTax or similar software should handle this for you, although you may need a premium version that costs a little more. You can 'elect' to have the LLC taxed as a corporation by filing form 8832, see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/limited-liability-company-llc . In principle you are supposed to do this when the entity is 'formed', but in practice AIUI if you do it by the end of the year they won't care at all, and if you do it after the end of the year but before or with your first affected return you qualify for automatic 'relief'. However, deciding how to divide the business income/profits into 'reasonable pay' to yourself versus 'dividends' is more complicated, and filling out corporation tax returns in addition to your individual return (which is still required) is more work, in addition to the work and cost of filing and reporting the LLC itself to your state of choice. Unless/until you make something like $50k-100k a year this probably isn't worth it. 1099 Reporting. Stripe qualifies as a 'payment network' and under a recent law payment networks must annually report to IRS (and copy to you) on form 1099-K if your account exceeds certain thresholds; see https://support.stripe.com/questions/will-i-receive-a-1099-k-and-what-do-i-do-with-it . Note you are still legally required to report and pay tax on your SE income even if you aren't covered by 1099-K (or other) reporting. Self-employment tax. As a self-employed person (if the LLC is disregarded) you have to pay 'SE' tax that is effectively equivalent to the 'FICA' taxes that would be paid by your employer and you as an employee combined. This is 12.4% for Social Security unless/until your total earned income exceeds a cap (for 2017 $127,200, adjusted yearly for inflation), and 2.9% for Medicare with no limit (plus 'Additional Medicare' tax if you exceed a higher threshold and it isn't 'repealed and replaced'). If the LLC elects corporation status it has to pay you reasonable wages for your services, and withhold+pay FICA on those wages like any other employer. Estimated payments. You are required to pay most of your individual income tax, and SE tax if applicable, during the year (generally 90% of your tax or your tax minus $1,000 whichever is less). Most wage-earners don't notice this because it happens automatically through payroll withholding, but as self-employed you are responsible for making sufficient and timely estimated payments, and will owe a penalty if you don't. However, since this is your first year you may have a 'safe harbor'; if you also have income from an employer (reported on W-2, with withholding) and that withholding is sufficent to pay last year's tax, then you are exempt from the 'underpayment' penalty for this year. If you elect corporation status then the corporation (which is really just you) must always make timely payments of withheld amounts, according to one of several different schedules that may apply depending on the amounts; I believe it also must make estimated payments for its own liability, if any, but I'm not familiar with that part." }, { "docid": "457338", "title": "", "text": "Based on these dates in your question: Going back over my records, I was able to recall the following: Maryland realized recently that on the 2009 Federal 1040 Form you stated that on December 31 2009 you liven in Maryland. They are wondering where the state tax form is. DC, MD and VA due to reciprocity collect income tax based on where you live not where you work. So when you moved in August 2009 and again in August 2010 you needed to file new state versions of the W4. The fact you did or didn't submit to your employer a correct state W-4 is not directly related, because you would owe the tax regardless. The W-4 just makes sure that something close to the correct amounts are withheld and sent to the appropriate state capital. I seem to remember something about not having to pay Maryland state taxes since I not only lived in the state for less than 6 months but also did not work in the state. The reciprocity between DC, MD and VA says that Maryland gets the money because that is where you lived. The last time I had to do a part year the law was that they would forgive a half a month. In other words if you move in late December or early January you could ignore that small time period and avoid having to file in two states. In some cases people argue that some short term moves were never meant to be permanent. You might be able to claim that except the fact that your 2009 federal tax form you most likely claimed you lived in Maryland. The next issue is time and money. If Maryland says you owe them money for that time period, and if they still have the ability to force you to pay it; This is where the issue of correct state W-4 comes in. If the money during the period you lived in Maryland was sent to Virginia, you should have had that money refunded by Richmond in the spring of 2010. But if there was no W-4 filed with your employer that would mean that Maryland didn't get any money for 2009. If you didn't tell Richmond you moved in 2009 they may not have refunded everything because they thought you lived there all year. Because of the time that has passed it may be too late to fix your Virginia filing, so they may not refund you excess payment to them. Maryland is interested in calculating how much you should have paid them in 2009. They are only looking at what you told the feds you made, and they may be assuming that you lived there the whole year. But until you file correctly that have no ability to calculate what you really owe. You need professional advice. You need to know what they can and can't collect. You also need to know what you can and can't get back from Richmond. And since it also may impact your filings for 2010 you will want to get that resolved at the same time." }, { "docid": "464593", "title": "", "text": "\"The pure numbers answer says you want the refund to be close to $0. You can even argue, as some answers have, that you want to try to maximize the payment without receiving any sanctions for underpaying during the year. If you trace the money, it's easy to see why. Let's say you get a paycheck. Tag some of the dollars for Uncle Sam. These are the dollars that, eventually, will be given to the IRS. Now consider the following scenarios: From the raw numbers like this, its clear that you lose utility by setting yourself up for a large refund check. The money was yours the entire time, but you chose to give it to Uncle Sam instead. However, the raw numbers are only part of the puzzle. If you're a cold steely-gazed numbers person, they're the part that matters. When the billionares are playing their tax evasion games, this is the only thing they are paying attention to. However, real humans have a few psychological reasons they may choose to lose utility in terms of raw dollars in exchange for psychological assistance: These attitudes exist, and may be ideal for any one person. Obviously the financially savvy answer of \"\"minimize your refund\"\" is the ideal answer from a dollars and cents perspective, but its up to you to see whether that attitude is right when you account for all of the non-measurable things, like stress. In general, I would lead anyone to \"\"minimize your refund,\"\" but I would be remiss if I didn't include the very real psychological reasons people choose to deviate from it.\"" }, { "docid": "185077", "title": "", "text": "This is a topic you need to sit down and discuss with your parents. Income taxes probably aren't going to be a big issue, and will be refunded in April. Social Security and Medicare will not be refunded, but start you on the road to qualifying for them in the future. How much of you expenses you will now cover will be a family decision; how much of your college expenses you will be responsible for will also need to be discussed. These topics need to be understood before it is time to apply to schools in the fall of your senior year of high school. It is nice to know that you are at least thinking about saving money for your future and for emergencies." }, { "docid": "438778", "title": "", "text": "Craig touched on it, but let me expand on the point. Deposits, by definition, are withheld at your marginal rate. And since you can choose Roth vs Traditional right till filing time, you know with certainty the rate you are at each year. Absent any other retirement income, i.e. no pension, and absent an incredibly major change to our tax code, I know your starting rate, zero. The first $10K or so per person is part of their standard deduction and exemption. For a couple, the next $18k is taxed at 10%, and so on. Let me stop here to expand this important point. This is $38,000 for the couple, and the tax on it is less than $1900. 5%. There is no 5% bracket of course. It's the first $20K with zero tax, and that first $18,000 taxed at 10%. That $38,000 takes nearly $1M in pretax accounts to offer as an annual withdrawal. The 15% bracket starts after this, and applies to the next $57K of withdrawals each year. Over $95K in gross withdrawals of pretax money, and you still aren't in the 25% bracket. This is why 100% in traditional, or 100% in Roth aren't either ideal. I continue to offer the example I consider more optimizing - using Roth for income that would otherwise be taxed at 15%, but going pretax when you hit 25%. Then at retirement, you withdraw enough traditional to just stay at 10 or 15% and Roth for the rest. It would be a shame to retire 100% Roth and realize you paid 25% but now have no income to use up those lower brackets. Oddly, time value of money isn't part of my analysis. It makes no difference. And note, the exact numbers do change a bit each year for inflation. There's a also a good chance the exemptions goes away in favor of a huge increased standard deduction." }, { "docid": "490176", "title": "", "text": "\"Individuals most definitely can have NOL. This is covered in the IRS publication 536. What is the difference between NOL and capital loss? NOL is Net Operating Loss. I.e.: a situation where your (allowable) expenses and deductions exceed your gross income. Basically it means that you have negative income for that year, for tax purposes. Capital loss occurs when the total amount of your capital gains reported on Schedule D is negative. What are their relations then? Not all expenses and deductions that you usually put on your tax return are allowed for NOL calculation. For example, capital loss is not allowed. I.e.: if you earned $2000 and you lost in stocks $3000 - you do not get a $1K NOL. Capital losses are excluded from NOL calculation and in this scenario you still have non-negative income for NOL purposes even though it is offset in full by capital loss deduction and your \"\"taxable income\"\" line is negative. The $1K that was not allowed - gets carried forward to the next year using the Capital Loss Carryover Worksheet in the instructions to Schedule D. You calculate your NOL using form 1045 schedule A. You can use the form 1045 to apply the NOL to prior 2 years, or you can elect to apply it only to future years (up to 20 years). In what cases, capital loss can be NOL? Never.\"" }, { "docid": "190844", "title": "", "text": "Unfortunately you can't use your HSA to pay for expenses in year A. Qualified medical expenses for an HSA must occur after the date the HSA account was established. (Established typically means the date the account was opened in your name.) The other answers already mostly answered your other questions, but I want to really hit home some particular points that many people may not realize: The most important thing to do when you are eligible to have an HSA account, is to open an HSA account ASAP. This is true even if you don't put any money in it and you leave it empty for years. The reason is that once the account is established, all qualified medical expenses that occur after that date are eligible for distributions, even if you wait years before you fund your HSA account. The second most important thing to do is to keep track of all out of pocket medical expenses you incur after you open the HSA account. All you need is a simple spreadsheet and a place to store your receipts. Once you have the account and are tracking expenses, now you can put money into your HSA and take it out whenever you'd like. (With limits- you can't put in more than the contribution limit for a single tax year, and you can't take out more than your eligible expenses to date.) Helpful Tip: Many people don't fund their HSA because they can't afford to set aside extra money to do so. Fortunately, you don't have to. For example, suppose you have some dental work and it costs you $500. Once you get the bill, before you pay it, put the $500 into your HSA account. The next day, take the $500 back out and pay your dental bill with it. Most HSA accounts will give you a debit card to make this even easier to pay the bill. By putting the money into your HSA for 1 day you just received a $500 tax deduction. Alternatively you can always pay out of pocket like you normally would, track your receipts, and wait until the end of the year (or up until April 15 of the next year). I like this option because I can pay all of my medical bills with a credit card and get cash back. Then at the end of the year, I add up the expenses, deposit that much into my HSA, and if I'd rather put that money somewhere else I just pull it out the next day. If you decide you don't need the money right away that's even better since you can leave it in the HSA account and invest it. Like a Roth account, you don't pay tax on the growth you achieve inside of an HSA. Another Tip: if your employer offers the service of automatically making deposits into your HSA by reducing your paycheck, you should definitely try to do that if you can afford it, rather than manually making contributions as I described in the previous tip. When your employer makes the contributions for you, your wages are reduced by that amount on your W2, so you end up saving an additional 7% in FICA taxes." } ]

[ { "docid": "196423", "title": "", "text": "Not a financially sound decision in my humble opinion. Basically, you are prepaying your taxes and the only reason you want to do that is if you don't have the discipine to save that money for when it is time to pay next year (assuming you will have to)." } ]

[ { "docid": "465905", "title": "", "text": "When you got your original HUD backed mortgage there were three options: monthly, annual and upfront payments. The plan is designed to insure the lender of the mortgage against your default. The plan is not expected to cover the mortgage for 30 years. If you are in the early years of the mortgage, you may be owed a refund for the unused years. HUD has a Fact sheet discussing this, and a page to help you determine if they owe you a refund. If you are refinancing back into a HUD/FHA mortgage they will not give you a refund, but will roll the refund back into your new loan. FHA to FHA Refinances: When an FHA loan is refinanced, the refund from the old premium may be applied toward the up-front premium required for the new loan. Note: Depending on the year of the original loan the government has different lengths they used for coverage and refunds. I suggest you use the webpage to determine if you are due a refund, or a roll over." }, { "docid": "191473", "title": "", "text": "LLC is not a federal tax designation. It's a state-level organization. Your LLC can elect to be treated as a partnership, a disregarded entity (i.e., just report the taxes in your individual income tax), or as an S-Corp for federal tax purposes. If you have elected S-Corp, I expect that all the S-Corp rules will apply, as well as any state-level LLC rules that may apply. Disclaimer: I'm not 100% familiar with S-corp rules, so I can't evaluate whether the statements you made about proportional payouts are correct." }, { "docid": "28172", "title": "", "text": "You have made a good start because you are looking at your options. Because you know that if you do nothing you will have a big tax bill in April 2017, you want to make sure that you avoid the underpayment penalty. One way to avoid it is to make estimated payments. But even if you do that you could still make a mistake and overpay or underpay. I think the easiest way to handle it is to reach the safe harbor. If your withholding from your regular jobs and any estimated taxes you pay in 2016 equal or exceed your total taxes for 2015, then even if you owe a lot in April 2017 you can avoid the underpayment penalty. If you AGI is over 150K you have to make sure your withholding is 110% of your 2015 taxes. Then set aside what you think you will owe in your bank account until you have to pay your taxes in April 2017. You only have to adjust your withholding to make the safe harbor. You can make sure easily enough once your file this years taxes. You only have to make sure that you reach the 100% or 110% threshold. From IRS PUB 17 Who Must Pay Estimated Tax If you owe additional tax for 2015, you may have to pay estimated tax for 2016. You can use the following general rule as a guide during the year to see if you will have enough withholding, or if you should increase your withholding or make estimated tax payments. General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2016 if both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2016, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: a. 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2016 tax return, or b. 100% of the tax shown on your 2015 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2015 tax return must cover all 12 months. Reminders Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2015 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2016 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2015 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty." }, { "docid": "573523", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll assume United States as the country; the answer may (probably does) vary somewhat if this is not correct. Also, I preface this with the caveat that I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant. However, this is my understanding: You must recognize the revenue at the time the credits are purchased (when money changes hands), and charge sales tax on the full amount at that time. This is because the customer has pre-paid and purchased a service (i.e. the \"\"credits\"\", which are units of time available in the application). This is clearly a complete transaction. The use of the credits is irrelevant. This is equivalent to a customer purchasing a box of widgets for future delivery; the payment is made and the widgets are available but have simply not been shipped (and therefore used). This mirrors many online service providers (say, NetFlix) in business model. This is different from the case in which a customer purchases a \"\"gift card\"\" or \"\"reloadable debit card\"\". In this case, sales tax is NOT collected (because this is technically not a purchase). Revenue is also not booked at this time. Instead, the revenue is booked when the gift card's balance is used to pay for a good or service, and at that time the tax is collected (usually from the funds on the card). To do otherwise would greatly complicate the tax basis (suppose the gift card is used in a different state or county, where sales tax is charged differently? Suppose the gift card is used to purchase a tax-exempt item?) For justification, see bankruptcy consideration of the two cases. In the former, the customer has \"\"ownership\"\" of an asset (the credits), which cannot be taken from him (although it might be unusable). In the latter, the holder of the debit card is technically an unsecured creditor of the company - and is last in line if the company's assets are liquidated for repayment. Consider also the case where the cost of the \"\"credits\"\" is increased part-way through the year (say, from $10 per credit to $20 per credit) or if a discount promotion is applied (buy 5 credits, get one free). The customer has a \"\"tangible\"\" item (one credit) which gets the same functionality regardless of price. This would be different if instead of \"\"credits\"\" you instead maintain an \"\"account\"\" where the user deposited $1000 and was billed for usage; in this case you fall back to the \"\"gift card\"\" scenario (but usage is charged at the current rate) and revenue is booked when the usage is purchased; similarly, tax is collected on the purchase of the service. For this model to work, the \"\"credit\"\" would likely have to be refundable, and could not expire (see gift cards, above), and must be usable on a variety of \"\"services\"\". You may have particular responsibility in the handling of this \"\"deposit\"\" as well.\"" }, { "docid": "261989", "title": "", "text": "Bank products have been pretty common with tax refunds as well, and they are also being heavily scrutinized for the same reasons. Refund Anticipation Loans (RALs) have been outlawed for future tax seasons due to lack of consumer protection. What is a bank product, you might ask? Rather than waiting 7-14 days for the a direct deposit from the IRS, a lot of places like H+R Block and Jackson Hewitt would offer a bank product to get you money quicker. For this service, they charge a fee (usually $99-$149) which is grossly overpriced for how little work it takes, but if your refund is several thousand dollars, you may not care. A Refund Anticipation Loan was the most predatory bank product, as it was an advance on your loan for the amount your expected refund. However, if there were any errors in your return and the IRS decided your refund was less than what your tax preparer calculated it to be, you were stuck with paying back the advance amount, leaving you to foot the bill for whatever errors your preparer may have made. These loans also had very high interest rates, since usually the people that wanted RALs were also the same people that rely upon cash advances. There are also Electronic Refund Checks (which ironically are paper checks for the consumer, not electronic deposits), direct deposits, and prepaid debit cards. Despite the fact that these same methods of refund payments are offered by the IRS themselves, preparers and banks alike sold these to collect fees for essentially no work. I'm not sure how similar these bank products for student loans are, but I wanted to shed some light on them anyways. Regardless of how badly you need money, **do not ever accept money through a bank product.** If it benefited you more, banks and preparers would not offer these. (Source: telemarketing at a tax preparation software company)" }, { "docid": "190844", "title": "", "text": "Unfortunately you can't use your HSA to pay for expenses in year A. Qualified medical expenses for an HSA must occur after the date the HSA account was established. (Established typically means the date the account was opened in your name.) The other answers already mostly answered your other questions, but I want to really hit home some particular points that many people may not realize: The most important thing to do when you are eligible to have an HSA account, is to open an HSA account ASAP. This is true even if you don't put any money in it and you leave it empty for years. The reason is that once the account is established, all qualified medical expenses that occur after that date are eligible for distributions, even if you wait years before you fund your HSA account. The second most important thing to do is to keep track of all out of pocket medical expenses you incur after you open the HSA account. All you need is a simple spreadsheet and a place to store your receipts. Once you have the account and are tracking expenses, now you can put money into your HSA and take it out whenever you'd like. (With limits- you can't put in more than the contribution limit for a single tax year, and you can't take out more than your eligible expenses to date.) Helpful Tip: Many people don't fund their HSA because they can't afford to set aside extra money to do so. Fortunately, you don't have to. For example, suppose you have some dental work and it costs you $500. Once you get the bill, before you pay it, put the $500 into your HSA account. The next day, take the $500 back out and pay your dental bill with it. Most HSA accounts will give you a debit card to make this even easier to pay the bill. By putting the money into your HSA for 1 day you just received a $500 tax deduction. Alternatively you can always pay out of pocket like you normally would, track your receipts, and wait until the end of the year (or up until April 15 of the next year). I like this option because I can pay all of my medical bills with a credit card and get cash back. Then at the end of the year, I add up the expenses, deposit that much into my HSA, and if I'd rather put that money somewhere else I just pull it out the next day. If you decide you don't need the money right away that's even better since you can leave it in the HSA account and invest it. Like a Roth account, you don't pay tax on the growth you achieve inside of an HSA. Another Tip: if your employer offers the service of automatically making deposits into your HSA by reducing your paycheck, you should definitely try to do that if you can afford it, rather than manually making contributions as I described in the previous tip. When your employer makes the contributions for you, your wages are reduced by that amount on your W2, so you end up saving an additional 7% in FICA taxes." }, { "docid": "267466", "title": "", "text": "In general, you are expected to pay all the money you owe in taxes by the end of the tax year, or you may have to pay a penalty. But you don't have to pay a penalty if: The amount you owe (i.e. total tax due minus what you paid in withholding and estimated taxes) is less than $1000. You paid at least 90% of your total tax bill. You paid at least 100% of last year's tax bill. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc306.html I think point #3 may work for you here. Suppose that last year your total tax liability was, say, $5,000. This year your tax on your regular income would be $5,500, but you have this additional capital gain that brings your total tax to $6,500. If your withholding was $5,000 -- the amount you owed last year -- than you'll owe the difference, $1,500, but you won't have to pay any penalties. If you normally get a refund every year, even a small one, then you should be fine. I'd check the numbers to be sure, of course. If you normally have to pay something every April 15, or if your income and therefore your withholding went down this year for whatever reason, then you should make an estimated payment. The IRS has a page explaining the rules in more detail: https://www.irs.gov/help-resources/tools-faqs/faqs-for-individuals/frequently-asked-tax-questions-answers/estimated-tax/large-gains-lump-sum-distributions-etc/large-gains-lump-sum-distributions-etc" }, { "docid": "134026", "title": "", "text": "Looking at the numbers quickly, if he makes this amount for the entire year, single, no kids, no investment income, standard deduction only, his taxable income will be about $110,000.* That puts him in the 28% tax bracket. His federal tax would be: $18,481.25 plus 28% of the amount over $90,750 Which comes out to about $23,800 in tax liability. His federal withholding is $26,047 for the year, so with absolutely no deductions whatsoever, he will be getting a tax refund of about $2200. I'm not very familiar with the California tax return, but it is entirely possible that he would get a decent sized refund from the state as well. This means that his tax refund could be about the size of an extra paycheck. He may want to consider increasing his allowances, which would make his paychecks bigger and his tax refund smaller. That having been said, taxes are high, no doubt about it. Remember that when you are in the voting booth. :) * Here is how I got the taxable income number for the year:" }, { "docid": "193717", "title": "", "text": "\"You mention \"\"early exercise\"\" in your title, but you seem to misunderstand what early exercise really means. Some companies offer stock options that vest over a number of years, but which can be exercised before they are vested. That is early exercise. You have vested stock options, so early exercise is not relevant. (It may or may not be the case that your stock options could have been early exercised before they vested, but regardless, you didn't exercise them, so the point is moot.) As littleadv said, 83(b) election is for restricted stocks, often from exercising unvested stock options. Your options are already vested, so they won't be restricted stock. So 83(b) election is not relevant for you. A taxable event happen when you exercise. The point of the 83(b) election is that exercising unvested stock options is not a taxable event, so 83(b) election allows you to force it to be a taxable event. But for you, with vested stock options, there is no need to do this. You mention that you want it not to be taxable upon exercise. But that's what Incentive Stock Options (ISOs) are for. ISOs were designed for the purpose of not being taxable for regular income tax purposes when you exercise (although it is still taxable upon exercise for AMT purposes), and it is only taxed when you sell. However, you have Non-qualified Stock Options. Were you given the option to get ISOs at the beginning? Why did your company give you NQSOs? I don't know the specifics of your situation, but since you mentioned \"\"early exercise\"\" and 83(b) elections, I have a hypothesis as to what might have happened. For people who early-exercise (for plans that allow early-exercise), there is a slight advantage to having NQSOs compared to ISOs. This is because if you early exercise immediately upon grant and do 83(b) election, you pay no taxes upon exercise (because the difference between strike price and FMV is 0), and there are no taxes upon vesting (for regular or AMT), and if you hold it for at least 1 year, upon sale it will be long-term capital gains. On the other hand, for ISOs, it's the same except that for long-term capital gains, you have to hold it 2 years after grant and 1 year after exercise, so the period for long-term capital gains is longer. So companies that allow early exercise will often offer employees either NQSOs or ISOs, where you would choose NQSO if you intend to early-exercise, or ISO otherwise. If (hypothetically) that's what happened, then you chose wrong because you got NQSOs and didn't early exercise.\"" }, { "docid": "533589", "title": "", "text": "Suppose you have been paying interest on previous charges in the past. Your monthly statement is issued on April 12, and (since you just received your income tax refund), you pay it off in full on April 30. You don't charge anything to the card at all after April 12. Thus, on April 30, your credit card balance shows as zero since you just paid it off. But your April 12 statement billed you for interest only till April 12. So, on May 12, your next monthly bill will be for the interest for your nonzero balance from April 13 through April 30. Assuming that you still are not making any new charges on your card and pay off the May 12 bill in timely fashion, you will finally have a zero bill on June 12. What if you charge new items to your credit card after April 12? Well, your balance stopped revolving on April 30, and that's when interest is no longer charged on the new charges. But you do owe interest for a charge on April 13 (say) until April 30 when your balance is no longer revolving, and this will be added to your bill on May 12. Purchases made after April 30 will not be charged interest unless you fall off the wagon again and don't pay your May 12 bill in full by the due date of the bill (some time in early June)." }, { "docid": "481283", "title": "", "text": "Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you." }, { "docid": "164301", "title": "", "text": "Something I've not heard mentioned in any of the answers is that (at least for me) owing some tax money is better than having a refund from a ID theft/fraud/security aspect. The US IRS has been hacked several times recently and there have been cases of fraudulent tax refunds being filed and tax refund checks being cashed by ID thieves. Well, if you owe a bit of tax then you're less of a target for fraudulent tax refunds being filed in your name. Even in the case that you were unlucky enough to have had your identity stolen, at least you don't have to deal with the IRS trying to sort a mess like that up. Thus, (IMO) it's better to owe a bit of tax, than to have a small refund, or any refund for that matter. Ideally, you want to get to zero dollars owed like you suggested, but that's often pretty hard to do. So, the next best thing is to owe a bit. One should try to calculate tax liability quartely or if income changes, adjust your withholding, so that you get closer to zero tax." }, { "docid": "535705", "title": "", "text": "The money in the checking account was already taxed. It was income this year or last, or a gift from somebody, or earned interest that will be taxed. If it was a deductible IRA you would declare it next April and get a refund from the government." }, { "docid": "392585", "title": "", "text": "\"One of my New Year's resolutions a few years ago was to give up New Year's resolutions. It's the only resolution I've kept. Why wait until Jan. 1 to do something? Jan. 1 is just another day of the year. I'm thinking of going lightly into treasury bills next year. Never mind the small returns, at least I won't be spending the money unwisely. You will be giving your money to the government so they can spend it unwisely. I don't think there is anything wise about that. You are also implicitly lobbying for future taxes since the government will have to tax people to pay back your treasuries. Surely there are \"\"wiser\"\" places to put your money.\"" }, { "docid": "307688", "title": "", "text": "\"Summary: The corporation pays 33.3% tax on dividends it receives and gets a tax refund at the same rate when it pays dividends out. According to http://www.kpmg.com/Ca/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/TaxRates/Federal-and-Provincial-Territorial-Tax-Rates-for-Income-Earned-CCPC-2015-Dec-31.pdf the corporate tax rates for 2015 are: According to page 3: The federal and provincial tax rates shown in the tables apply to investment income earned by a CCPC, other than capital gains and dividends received from Canadian corporations. The rates that apply to capital gains are one-half of the rates shown in the tables. Dividends received from Canadian corporations are deductible in computing regular Part I tax, but may be subject to Part IV tax, calculated at a rate of 33 1/3%. If I understand that correctly, this means that a Corporation in Quebec pays 46.6% on investment income other than capital gains and dividends, 23.3% on capital gains and 33.33% on dividends. I'm marking this answer as community wiki so anyone can correct these numbers if they are incorrect. UPDATE: According to http://www.pwc.com/ca/en/tax/publications/pwc-facts-figures-2014-07-en.pdf page 22 the tax rate on taxable dividends received from certain Canadian corporations is 33 1/3%. Further, this is refunded to the corporation through the \"\"refundable dividend tax on hand\"\" (RDTOH) mechanism at a rate of $1 for every $3 of taxable dividends paid. My interpretation is as follows: if the corporation receives $100 of dividends from another company, it pays $33.33 tax. If that corporation then pays out $100 of dividends at a later time, it receives a tax refund of $33.33. Meaning, the original tax gets refunded. Note the first line is for the 2015 tax year while the second link is for the 2014 tax year. The numbers might be a little different but the tax/refund process remains the same.\"" }, { "docid": "306059", "title": "", "text": "It sounds like the postage amount was paid to you rather than returned. If it had been returned and the payment originated on the card, they would have to return it to the card. If it was processed as a payment, it looks like someone is giving you money. PayPal can't credit it to the card, as the sender could request a refund. If PayPal put the money on the card against a previous payment, then they wouldn't be able to refund. If they add money to your bank account, then they can withdraw it if a refund is required. One reason that you might get a payment is if you were being reimbursed for spending money outside of PayPal. If the amount is more than you originally paid, they can't put it on your card. They can only refund to the card. They can't deposit to it. If you don't want to give them your bank account information, you can just wait until the next time you use PayPal and use your balance to pay. Then you can bill the remainder to your credit card. If you don't normally use PayPal and just want your money back, you can process a chargeback through your credit card. Note that this would probably annoy PayPal, as it costs them aggravation and potentially money. To do this, you must have paid the postage with your credit card originally. If you spent money outside PayPal and were reimbursed through PayPal, then there's nothing to chargeback. In that circumstance, you'd have to accept one of their options: pay with balance or deposit to bank account." }, { "docid": "597574", "title": "", "text": "The amount you contribute will reduce the taxable income for each paycheck, but it won't impact the level of your social security and medicare taxes. A 401(k) plan is a qualified deferred compensation plan in which an employee can elect to have the employer contribute a portion of his or her cash wages to the plan on a pretax basis. Generally, these deferred wages (commonly referred to as elective contributions) are not subject to income tax withholding at the time of deferral, and they are not reflected on your Form 1040 (PDF) since they were not included in the taxable wages on your Form W-2 (PDF). However, they are included as wages subject to withholding for social security and Medicare taxes. In addition, employers must report the elective contributions as wages subject to federal unemployment taxes. You might be able to keep this up for more than 7 weeks if the company offers health, dental and vision insurance. Your contributions for these policies would need to be paid for before you contribute to the 401K. Of course these items are also pre-tax so they will keep the taxable amount at zero. If there was a non-pretax deduction on your pay check that would keep the check at zero, but there would be taxes owed. This might be union dues, but it can also be some life and disability insurance polices. Most stubs specify which deductions are pre-tax, and which are post-tax. Warning. If you get the company match some companies give you the maximum match for those 7 weeks, then zero for the rest of the year. Others will still credit you with a match at the end of the year saying if you should get the benefit. It is not required that they do this. Check the company documents. You could also contribute post-tax money, which is different than Roth 401K, for the rest of the year to keep the match going. Note: If you are turning 50 this year, or are already 50, then you can contribute an additional $5,500" }, { "docid": "532629", "title": "", "text": "A simplistic answer would be that it's a multiplier on how much money per paycheck to subtract from your tax withholding (taxes per paycheck), then at the end of the year you will have paid taxes on your income minus the amount of your withholding allowances. If you get a decent (roughly 3% or more of your gross annual salary) refund you are letting the government withhold too much (and should increase your allowances), if you have to pay a decent amount of taxes at the end of the year then the amount withheld is not high enough (and should decrease your allowances). I definitely recommend using the calculator that Stephen Cleary mentions, but I think it's just as easy to adjust it up or down by 1 or 2 each year based on whether you got a large refund, no refund, or paid taxes. If you are disciplined with your money many experts advise to increase withholding allowances, save the extra in a safe short term interest account so that you earn money on your money and not the government." }, { "docid": "445230", "title": "", "text": "sometimes we advise very old or incapacitated people to apply the refund to the next year as check writing from time to time & mailing may be a hassle for them." } ]

[ { "docid": "445230", "title": "", "text": "sometimes we advise very old or incapacitated people to apply the refund to the next year as check writing from time to time & mailing may be a hassle for them." } ]

[ { "docid": "349348", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm assuming that when you say \"\"convert to S-Corp tax treatment\"\" you're not talking about actually changing your LLC to a Corporation. There are two distinct pieces of the puzzle here. First, there's your organizational form. Your state, which is where the business is legally formed and recognized, creates the LLC or Corporation. \"\"S-Corp\"\" doesn't come into play here: your company is either an LLC or a Corporation. (There are a handful of other organizational types your state might have, e.g. PLLC, Limited Partnership, etc.; none of these are immediately relevant to this discussion). Second, there's the tax treatment you receive by the IRS. If your company was created by the state as an LLC, note that the IRS doesn't recognize LLCs as a distinct organizational type: you elect to be taxed as an individual (for single member LLCs), a partnership (for multiple member LLCs), or as a corporation. The former two elections are \"\"pass through\"\" -- there's no additional level of taxation on corporate profits, everything just passes through to the owners. The latter election introduces a tax on corporate profits. When you elect pass-through treatment, a single-member LLC files on Schedule C; a multiple-member LLC will prepare a form K-1 which you will include on your 1040. If your company was created by the state as a Corporation (not an LLC), you could still elect pass-through taxation if your company qualifies under the rules in Subchapter S (i.e. \"\"an S-Corp\"\"). States do not recognize \"\"S-Corp\"\" as part of the organizational process -- that's just a tax distinction used by the IRS (and possibly your state's tax authorities). In your case, if you are a single-member LLC (and assuming there are no other reasons to organize as a corporation), talking about \"\"S-Corp tax treatment\"\" doesn't make any sense. You'll just file your schedule C; in my experience it's fairly simple. (Note that this is based on my experience of single- and multiple-member LLCs in just two states. Your state may have different rules that affect state-level taxation; and the rules may change from year to year. I've found that hiring a good CPA to prepare the forms saves a good bit of stress and time that can be better applied to the business.)\"" }, { "docid": "481339", "title": "", "text": "There's an odd anomaly that often occurs with shares acquired through company plans via ESPP or option purchase. The general situation is that the share value above strike price or grant price may become ordinary income, but a sale below the price at day the shares are valued is a capital loss. e.g. in an ESPP offering, I have a $10 purchase price, but at the end of the offering, the shares are valued at $100. Unless I hold the shares for an additional year, the sale price contains ordinary W2 income. So, if I see the shares falling and sell for $50, I have a tax bill for $90 of W2 income, but a $50 capital loss. Tax is due on $90 (and for 1K shares, $90,000 which can be a $30K hit) but that $50K loss can only be applied to cap gains, or $3K/yr of income. In the dotcom bubble, there were many people who had million dollar tax bills and the value of the money netted from the sale couldn't even cover the taxes. And $1M in losses would take 300 years at $3K/yr. The above is one reason the lockup date expiration is why shares get sold. And one can probably profit on the bigger companies stock. Edit - see Yelp down 3% following expiration of 180 day IPO lock-up period, for similar situation." }, { "docid": "361507", "title": "", "text": "The tax cost at election should be zero. The appreciation is all capital gain beyond your basis, which will be the value at election. IRC §83 applies to property received as compensation for services, where the property is still subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture. It will catch unvested equity given to employees. §83(a) stops taxation until the substantial risk of forfeiture abates (i.e. no tax until stock vests) since the item is revocable and not yet truly income. §83(b) allows the taxpayer to make a quick election (up to 30 days after transfer - firm deadline!) to waive the substantial risk of forfeiture (e.g. treat shares as vested today). The normal operation of §83 takes over after election and the taxable income is generally the value of the vested property minus the price paid for it. If you paid fair market value today, then the difference is zero and your income from the shares is zero. The shares are now yours for tax purposes, though not for legal purposes. That means they are most likely a capital asset in your hands, like other stocks you own or trade. The shares will not be treated as compensation income on vesting, and vesting is not a tax matter for elected shares. If you sell them, you get capital gain (with tax dependent on your holding period) over a basis equal to FMV at the election. The appreciation past election-FMV will be capital gain, rather than ordinary income. This is why the §83(b) election is so valuable. It does not matter at this point whether you bought the restricted shares at FMV or at discount (or received them free) - that only affects the taxes upon §83(b) election." }, { "docid": "160313", "title": "", "text": "First, the SSN isn't an issue. She will need to apply for an ITIN together with tax filing, in order to file taxes as Married Filing Jointly anyway. I think you (or both of you in the joint case) probably qualify for the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, if you've been outside the US for almost the whole year, in which cases both of you should have all of your income excluded anyway, so I'm not sure why you're getting that one is better. As for Self-Employment Tax, I suspect that she doesn't have to pay it in either case, because there is a sentence in your linked page for Nonresident Spouse Treated as a Resident that says However, you may still be treated as a nonresident alien for the purpose of withholding Social Security and Medicare tax. and since Self-Employment Tax is just Social Security and Medicare tax in another form, she shouldn't have to pay it if treated as resident, if she didn't have to pay it as nonresident. From the law, I believe Nonresident Spouse Treated as a Resident is described in IRC 6013(g), which says the person is treated as a resident for the purposes of chapters 1 and 24, but self-employment tax is from chapter 2, so I don't think self-employment tax is affected by this election." }, { "docid": "475607", "title": "", "text": "The plumber will apply for and receive a refund of the amount of VAT he paid on the purchase amount. That's the cornerstone of how VAT works, as opposed to a sales tax. So for example: (Rounded approximate amounts for simplicity) Now, at each point, the amount between (original cost VAT) and (new VAT) is refunded. So by the end, a total of £3 VAT is paid on the pipe (not £6.2); and at each point the business 'adding value' at that stage pays that much. The material company adds £1 value; the producer adds £4 value; the supplier adds £5 value; the plumber adds £5 value. Each pays some amount of VAT on that amount, typically 20% unless it's zero/reduced rated. So the pipe supplier pays £1 but gets a £0.2 refund, so truly pays £0.8. The plumber pays £3 (from your payment) but gets a £2 refund. So at each level somebody paid a bit, and then that bit is then refunded to the next person up the ladder, with the final person in the chain paying the full amount. The £0.2 is refunded to the producer, the £1 is refunded to the supplier, the £2 is refunded to the plumber." }, { "docid": "312493", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "573523", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll assume United States as the country; the answer may (probably does) vary somewhat if this is not correct. Also, I preface this with the caveat that I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant. However, this is my understanding: You must recognize the revenue at the time the credits are purchased (when money changes hands), and charge sales tax on the full amount at that time. This is because the customer has pre-paid and purchased a service (i.e. the \"\"credits\"\", which are units of time available in the application). This is clearly a complete transaction. The use of the credits is irrelevant. This is equivalent to a customer purchasing a box of widgets for future delivery; the payment is made and the widgets are available but have simply not been shipped (and therefore used). This mirrors many online service providers (say, NetFlix) in business model. This is different from the case in which a customer purchases a \"\"gift card\"\" or \"\"reloadable debit card\"\". In this case, sales tax is NOT collected (because this is technically not a purchase). Revenue is also not booked at this time. Instead, the revenue is booked when the gift card's balance is used to pay for a good or service, and at that time the tax is collected (usually from the funds on the card). To do otherwise would greatly complicate the tax basis (suppose the gift card is used in a different state or county, where sales tax is charged differently? Suppose the gift card is used to purchase a tax-exempt item?) For justification, see bankruptcy consideration of the two cases. In the former, the customer has \"\"ownership\"\" of an asset (the credits), which cannot be taken from him (although it might be unusable). In the latter, the holder of the debit card is technically an unsecured creditor of the company - and is last in line if the company's assets are liquidated for repayment. Consider also the case where the cost of the \"\"credits\"\" is increased part-way through the year (say, from $10 per credit to $20 per credit) or if a discount promotion is applied (buy 5 credits, get one free). The customer has a \"\"tangible\"\" item (one credit) which gets the same functionality regardless of price. This would be different if instead of \"\"credits\"\" you instead maintain an \"\"account\"\" where the user deposited $1000 and was billed for usage; in this case you fall back to the \"\"gift card\"\" scenario (but usage is charged at the current rate) and revenue is booked when the usage is purchased; similarly, tax is collected on the purchase of the service. For this model to work, the \"\"credit\"\" would likely have to be refundable, and could not expire (see gift cards, above), and must be usable on a variety of \"\"services\"\". You may have particular responsibility in the handling of this \"\"deposit\"\" as well.\"" }, { "docid": "546634", "title": "", "text": "\"I was in the health insurance game for 10 years and never heard of this until the Affordable Care Act came about. To my knowledge, there is no rule or regulation prohibiting it, however trying to get an insurer underwrite that risk is extremely unlikely. It's the same reason why you don't see AAA offering health insurance. There isn't a contractual relationship between the church and their constituents, so no underwriter worth their salt would put a reasonable price on that risk. Members can easily come and go, and since insurance through your employer is still the dominant distribution channel for health insurance, it would be seen as an adverse risk, meaning that people who couldn't get it through \"\"normal\"\" channels must be getting it through the church, which it would then be assumed that this person applying for coverage is an \"\"adverse risk\"\" or someone who is abnormally unhealthy. There are faith-based healthcare reimbursement programs that are NOT health insurance and do not satisfy the ACA required minimum coverages. From what I've seen and read, it's basically members of the religion or faith that pay money into the system (like paying an insurance premium) and they elect a board that basically evaluates each claim and pays or doesn't pay it, either partially or in full. While this is a nice way to get your bills paid, odds are it won't cover your $300,000 cancer treatment or your $50,000 cesarean section birth.\"" }, { "docid": "52438", "title": "", "text": "\"Highly Compensated Employee Rules Aim to Make 401k's Fair would be the piece that I suspect you are missing here. I remember hearing of this rule when I worked in the US and can understand why it exists. A key quote from the article: You wouldn't think the prospect of getting money from an employer would be nerve-wracking. But those jittery co-workers are highly compensated employees (HCEs) concerned that they will receive a refund of excess 401k contributions because their plan failed its discrimination test. A refund means they will owe more income tax for the current tax year. Geersk (a pseudonym), who is also an HCE, is in information services and manages the computers that process his firm's 401k plan. 401(k) - Wikipedia reference on this: To help ensure that companies extend their 401(k) plans to low-paid employees, an IRS rule limits the maximum deferral by the company's \"\"highly compensated\"\" employees, based on the average deferral by the company's non-highly compensated employees. If the less compensated employees are allowed to save more for retirement, then the executives are allowed to save more for retirement. This provision is enforced via \"\"non-discrimination testing\"\". Non-discrimination testing takes the deferral rates of \"\"highly compensated employees\"\" (HCEs) and compares them to non-highly compensated employees (NHCEs). An HCE in 2008 is defined as an employee with compensation of greater than $100,000 in 2007 or an employee that owned more than 5% of the business at any time during the year or the preceding year.[13] In addition to the $100,000 limit for determining HCEs, employers can elect to limit the top-paid group of employees to the top 20% of employees ranked by compensation.[13] That is for plans whose first day of the plan year is in calendar year 2007, we look to each employee's prior year gross compensation (also known as 'Medicare wages') and those who earned more than $100,000 are HCEs. Most testing done now in 2009 will be for the 2008 plan year and compare employees' 2007 plan year gross compensation to the $100,000 threshold for 2007 to determine who is HCE and who is a NHCE. The threshold was $110,000 in 2010 and it did not change for 2011. The average deferral percentage (ADP) of all HCEs, as a group, can be no more than 2 percentage points greater (or 125% of, whichever is more) than the NHCEs, as a group. This is known as the ADP test. When a plan fails the ADP test, it essentially has two options to come into compliance. It can have a return of excess done to the HCEs to bring their ADP to a lower, passing, level. Or it can process a \"\"qualified non-elective contribution\"\" (QNEC) to some or all of the NHCEs to raise their ADP to a passing level. The return of excess requires the plan to send a taxable distribution to the HCEs (or reclassify regular contributions as catch-up contributions subject to the annual catch-up limit for those HCEs over 50) by March 15 of the year following the failed test. A QNEC must be an immediately vested contribution. The annual contribution percentage (ACP) test is similarly performed but also includes employer matching and employee after-tax contributions. ACPs do not use the simple 2% threshold, and include other provisions which can allow the plan to \"\"shift\"\" excess passing rates from the ADP over to the ACP. A failed ACP test is likewise addressed through return of excess, or a QNEC or qualified match (QMAC). There are a number of \"\"safe harbor\"\" provisions that can allow a company to be exempted from the ADP test. This includes making a \"\"safe harbor\"\" employer contribution to employees' accounts. Safe harbor contributions can take the form of a match (generally totaling 4% of pay) or a non-elective profit sharing (totaling 3% of pay). Safe harbor 401(k) contributions must be 100% vested at all times with immediate eligibility for employees. There are other administrative requirements within the safe harbor, such as requiring the employer to notify all eligible employees of the opportunity to participate in the plan, and restricting the employer from suspending participants for any reason other than due to a hardship withdrawal.\"" }, { "docid": "481283", "title": "", "text": "Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you." }, { "docid": "193717", "title": "", "text": "\"You mention \"\"early exercise\"\" in your title, but you seem to misunderstand what early exercise really means. Some companies offer stock options that vest over a number of years, but which can be exercised before they are vested. That is early exercise. You have vested stock options, so early exercise is not relevant. (It may or may not be the case that your stock options could have been early exercised before they vested, but regardless, you didn't exercise them, so the point is moot.) As littleadv said, 83(b) election is for restricted stocks, often from exercising unvested stock options. Your options are already vested, so they won't be restricted stock. So 83(b) election is not relevant for you. A taxable event happen when you exercise. The point of the 83(b) election is that exercising unvested stock options is not a taxable event, so 83(b) election allows you to force it to be a taxable event. But for you, with vested stock options, there is no need to do this. You mention that you want it not to be taxable upon exercise. But that's what Incentive Stock Options (ISOs) are for. ISOs were designed for the purpose of not being taxable for regular income tax purposes when you exercise (although it is still taxable upon exercise for AMT purposes), and it is only taxed when you sell. However, you have Non-qualified Stock Options. Were you given the option to get ISOs at the beginning? Why did your company give you NQSOs? I don't know the specifics of your situation, but since you mentioned \"\"early exercise\"\" and 83(b) elections, I have a hypothesis as to what might have happened. For people who early-exercise (for plans that allow early-exercise), there is a slight advantage to having NQSOs compared to ISOs. This is because if you early exercise immediately upon grant and do 83(b) election, you pay no taxes upon exercise (because the difference between strike price and FMV is 0), and there are no taxes upon vesting (for regular or AMT), and if you hold it for at least 1 year, upon sale it will be long-term capital gains. On the other hand, for ISOs, it's the same except that for long-term capital gains, you have to hold it 2 years after grant and 1 year after exercise, so the period for long-term capital gains is longer. So companies that allow early exercise will often offer employees either NQSOs or ISOs, where you would choose NQSO if you intend to early-exercise, or ISO otherwise. If (hypothetically) that's what happened, then you chose wrong because you got NQSOs and didn't early exercise.\"" }, { "docid": "306059", "title": "", "text": "It sounds like the postage amount was paid to you rather than returned. If it had been returned and the payment originated on the card, they would have to return it to the card. If it was processed as a payment, it looks like someone is giving you money. PayPal can't credit it to the card, as the sender could request a refund. If PayPal put the money on the card against a previous payment, then they wouldn't be able to refund. If they add money to your bank account, then they can withdraw it if a refund is required. One reason that you might get a payment is if you were being reimbursed for spending money outside of PayPal. If the amount is more than you originally paid, they can't put it on your card. They can only refund to the card. They can't deposit to it. If you don't want to give them your bank account information, you can just wait until the next time you use PayPal and use your balance to pay. Then you can bill the remainder to your credit card. If you don't normally use PayPal and just want your money back, you can process a chargeback through your credit card. Note that this would probably annoy PayPal, as it costs them aggravation and potentially money. To do this, you must have paid the postage with your credit card originally. If you spent money outside PayPal and were reimbursed through PayPal, then there's nothing to chargeback. In that circumstance, you'd have to accept one of their options: pay with balance or deposit to bank account." }, { "docid": "94088", "title": "", "text": "\"It depends on when you can get the money, not when you know that you won or when you choose to take the ticket in. If you can present your ticket this year and get paid this year, the taxes are due this year, whether or not you actually choose to claim the prize this year. If you cannot receive payment until next year, then taxes will be due next year. This is \"\"constructive receipt,\"\" which applies to most individual tax situations. This assumes that you chose to receive a lump sum. If you get installments, then your taxes would be due as the installments are available, but the constructive receipt still applies.\"" }, { "docid": "99233", "title": "", "text": "\"This has to do with the type of plan offered: is it a 401(k) plan or a profit-sharing plan, or both? If it's 401(k) I believe the IRS will see this distribution as elective and count towards the employee's annual elective contribution limit. If it's profit sharing the distribution would be counted toward the employer's portion of the limit. However -- profit sharing plans have a formula that's standard across the board and applied to all employees. i.e. 3% of company profits given equally to all employees. One of the benefits of the profit sharing plans is also that you can use a vesting schedule. I'd consult your accountant to see how this specifically impacts your business - but in the case you describe this sounds like an elective deferral choice by an employee and I don't see how (or why) you'd make this decision for them. Give them the bonus and let them choose how it's paid out. Edit: in re-reading your question it actually sounds like you're wanting to setup a profit sharing type situation - but again, heed what I said above. You decide the amount of \"\"profit\"\" - but you also have to set an equation that applies across the board. There is more complication to it than this brief explanation and I'd consult your accountant to see how it applies in your situation.\"" }, { "docid": "392585", "title": "", "text": "\"One of my New Year's resolutions a few years ago was to give up New Year's resolutions. It's the only resolution I've kept. Why wait until Jan. 1 to do something? Jan. 1 is just another day of the year. I'm thinking of going lightly into treasury bills next year. Never mind the small returns, at least I won't be spending the money unwisely. You will be giving your money to the government so they can spend it unwisely. I don't think there is anything wise about that. You are also implicitly lobbying for future taxes since the government will have to tax people to pay back your treasuries. Surely there are \"\"wiser\"\" places to put your money.\"" }, { "docid": "535705", "title": "", "text": "The money in the checking account was already taxed. It was income this year or last, or a gift from somebody, or earned interest that will be taxed. If it was a deductible IRA you would declare it next April and get a refund from the government." }, { "docid": "457338", "title": "", "text": "Based on these dates in your question: Going back over my records, I was able to recall the following: Maryland realized recently that on the 2009 Federal 1040 Form you stated that on December 31 2009 you liven in Maryland. They are wondering where the state tax form is. DC, MD and VA due to reciprocity collect income tax based on where you live not where you work. So when you moved in August 2009 and again in August 2010 you needed to file new state versions of the W4. The fact you did or didn't submit to your employer a correct state W-4 is not directly related, because you would owe the tax regardless. The W-4 just makes sure that something close to the correct amounts are withheld and sent to the appropriate state capital. I seem to remember something about not having to pay Maryland state taxes since I not only lived in the state for less than 6 months but also did not work in the state. The reciprocity between DC, MD and VA says that Maryland gets the money because that is where you lived. The last time I had to do a part year the law was that they would forgive a half a month. In other words if you move in late December or early January you could ignore that small time period and avoid having to file in two states. In some cases people argue that some short term moves were never meant to be permanent. You might be able to claim that except the fact that your 2009 federal tax form you most likely claimed you lived in Maryland. The next issue is time and money. If Maryland says you owe them money for that time period, and if they still have the ability to force you to pay it; This is where the issue of correct state W-4 comes in. If the money during the period you lived in Maryland was sent to Virginia, you should have had that money refunded by Richmond in the spring of 2010. But if there was no W-4 filed with your employer that would mean that Maryland didn't get any money for 2009. If you didn't tell Richmond you moved in 2009 they may not have refunded everything because they thought you lived there all year. Because of the time that has passed it may be too late to fix your Virginia filing, so they may not refund you excess payment to them. Maryland is interested in calculating how much you should have paid them in 2009. They are only looking at what you told the feds you made, and they may be assuming that you lived there the whole year. But until you file correctly that have no ability to calculate what you really owe. You need professional advice. You need to know what they can and can't collect. You also need to know what you can and can't get back from Richmond. And since it also may impact your filings for 2010 you will want to get that resolved at the same time." }, { "docid": "419768", "title": "", "text": "If you get 1099-G for state tax refund, you need to declare it as income only if you took deduction on state taxes in the prior year. I.e.: if you took standard deductions - you don't need to declare the refund as income. If you did itemize, you have to declare the refund as income, and deduct the taxes paid last year on your schedule A. If this year you're not itemizing - you lost the tax benefit. If it was not clear from my answer - the taxes paid and the refund received are unrelated. The fact that you paid tax and received refund in the same year doesn't make them in any way related, even if both refer to the same taxable year." }, { "docid": "176742", "title": "", "text": "\"Personally, I would just dispute this one with your CC. I had a situation where a subscription I had cancelled the prior year was billed to me. I called up to have a refund issued, they couldn't find me in their system under three phone numbers and two addresses. The solution they proposed was \"\"send us your credit card statement with the charge circled,\"\" to which I responded \"\"there's no way in hell I'm sending you my CC statement.\"\" Then I disputed the charge with the CC bank and it was gone about two days later. I partially expect to have the same charge appear next year when they try to renew my non-existent subscription again. Now, whether or not this is a normal practice for the company, or just a call center person making a good-faith but insecure attempt to solve your problem is irrelevant. Fact of the matter is, you tried to resolve this with the merchant and the merchant asked for something that's likely outside the bounds of your CC Terms and Conditions; sending your entire number via email. Dispute it and move on. The dispute process exists for a reason.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "39185", "title": "", "text": "The Level 2 data is simply showing the depth of the market. If I am trading shares with my broker I have the option of viewing only the top 10 bid/ask prices in the depth or all of the data (which sometimes can be a very long list). With another broker I get the top ten bid and ask prices and how many orders are available for each price level, or I have the option of listing each order separately for each price level (in order of when the order was placed). I get the same kind of data if trading options. I do not know about futures because I don't trade them. Simply this data may be important to a trader because it may give an indication of whether there are more buyers or sellers in the market, which in turn may (but not always) give an indication of which way the market may be moving. As an example the price depth below shows WBC before market open with sellers outweighing the buyers in both numbers and volume. This gives an indication that prices may drop when the market opens. Of course there could be some good news coming out prior to market open or just after, causing a flood of buyers into the market and sellers to cancel their orders. This would change everything around with more buyers than sellers and indicate that prices may now be going up. The market depth is an important aspect to look at before putting an order in, as it can give an indication of which way the market is moving, especially in a very liquid security or market." } ]

[ { "docid": "284235", "title": "", "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.\"" }, { "docid": "109345", "title": "", "text": "Traders sometimes look at the depth of the book (number of outstanding limit orders) to try and gauge the sentiment of the market or otherwise use this information to formulate their strategy. If there was a large outstanding buy order at $49.50, there's a decent chance this could increase the price by influencing other traders. However, a limit order at $2 is like an amazon.com price of $200,000 for a book. It's so far away from realistic that it is ignored. People would think it is an error. Submitting this type of order is perfectly legal. If the stock is extremely thinly traded, it might even be encouraged because if someone wanted to sell a bunch and did a really bad job of it, the price could conceivably fall that far and the limit order would be adding liquidity. I guess. Your example is pretty extreme. It is not uncommon for there to be limit orders on the book that are not very close to the trading price. They just sit around. The majority of trades are done by algorithmic traders and institutional traders and they don't tend to do this, but a retail investor may choose to submit an order like that, just hoping against hope. Also, buy orders are not likely to push prices down, no matter what their price is. A sell order, yes (even if it isn't executed)." }, { "docid": "151132", "title": "", "text": "\"First, keep in mind that there are generally 2 ways to buy a corporation's shares: You can buy a share directly from the corporation. This does not happen often; it usually happens at the Initial Public Offering [the first time the company becomes \"\"public\"\" where anyone with access to the stock exchange can become a part-owner], plus maybe a few more times during the corporations existence. In this case, the corporation is offering new ownership in exchange for a price set the corporation (or a broker hired by the corporation). The price used for a public offering is the highest amount that the company believes it can get - this is a very complicated field, and involves many different methods of evaluating what the company should be worth. If the company sets the price too low, then they have missed out on possible value which would be earned by the previous, private shareholders (they would have gotten the same share % of a corporation which would now have more cash to spend, because of increased money paid by new shareholders). If the company sets the price too high, then the share subscription might only be partially filled, so there might not be enough cash to do what the company wanted. You can buy a share from another shareholder. This is more common - when you see the company's share price on the stock exchange, it is this type of transaction - buying out other current shareholders. The price here is simply set based on what current owners are willing to sell at. The \"\"Bid Price\"\" listed by an exchange is the current highest bid that a purchaser is offering for a single share. The \"\"Ask Price\"\" is the current lowest offer that a seller is offering to sell a single share they currently own. When the bid price = the ask price, a share transaction happens, and the most recent stock price changes.\"" }, { "docid": "485973", "title": "", "text": "For starters, that site shows the first 5 levels on each side of the book, which is actually quite a bit of information. When traders say the top of the book, they mean just the first level. So you're already getting 8 extra levels. If you want all the details, you must subscribe to the exchange's data feeds (this costs thousands of dollars per month) or open an account with a broker who offers that information. More important than depth, however, is update frequency. The BATS site appears to update every 5 seconds, which is nowhere near frequently enough to see what's truly going on in the book. Depending on your use case, 2 levels on each side of the book updated every millisecond might be far more valuable than 20 levels on each side updated every second." }, { "docid": "220828", "title": "", "text": "\"standard NFC-for-payments ... reads a straight copy of the card details ... does not generate any one-time-use card number ... does not employ any over-the-air encryption or even a challenge-response system [?] The normal contactless payment process does involve transaction-specific cryptographic-signatures. However what process is used depends on the vendor equipment and the scheme (Visa, Mastercard, Amex, ...) A \"\"Magstripe mode\"\", if supported, allows the card number and expiry date to be read. There is a good description at Level2Kernel which covers \"\"Magnetic Stripe Mode\"\" and \"\"EMV Mode\"\" etc for each scheme (Mastercard, Visa etc do things differently). MasterCard Contactless MasterCard transactions can be performed in either EMV mode or Mag-Stripe mode. After Entry Point has initiated a transaction the MasterCard Kernel issues a Get Processing Options command. In the response from the card a data object called the Application Interchange Profile (AIP) determines whether the transaction will continue in either EMV Mode or Mag-Stripe Mode. The AIP also determines if “On-device cardholder verification” (CDCVM) is supported. EMV Mode (M/Chip) The commands exchanged with the card for EMV Mode closely resemble those used for an EMV contact transaction, with Read Record commands being used to retrieve all the card data, followed by a Generate Application Cryptogram (GENAC) request to obtain a unique, transaction-specific, cryptogram from the card. Once all of these exchanges have been completed, the card can be removed from the RF field. However, unlike for contact transactions, not all the transaction processing occurs before the card exchanges have been completed. This is to optimise the contactless transaction performance by reducing the amount of time the card is required to remain in the RF field. (my emphasis) According to VISA UK Our technology uses the chip on your card to generate unique cryptograms (that’s techie speak for a type of puzzle that consists of a short piece of encrypted or encoded text) and digital signatures to protect your payments. Digital signatures are like handwritten signatures in some ways – but they are much more difficult to forge. (my emphasis) According to the UK Card Association Rumour: A fraudster can steal my details from my contactless card. Fact: You have to be extremely close to someone for their gadget to be able to read your card - and even then all they would ever get is the card number and expiry date. That’s the same information you see by simply looking at the front of any card.There’s no way anyone can get the security code on the back of the card, your name and address, or bank account details. The vast majority of online retailers require additional details like these and others to make a purchase. However, according to a Guardian newspaper report of 2015-07-25: Researchers bought cheap, widely available card scanners from a mainstream website to see if they could “steal” key details from a contactless card. They tested 10 different credit and debit cards, that were meant to be coded to “mask” personal data, and were able to read crucial data that was meant to be hidden. It then went shopping with the information it had obtained and was able to successfully place orders for items including a £3,000 television set. So yes, even in the civilized world, our security is undermined by a combination of: How does Apple Pay work? See Apple Pay Must Be Using the Mag-Stripe Mode of the EMV Contactless Specifications Clearly, Apple Pay must following the EMV contactless specifications of books C-2, C-3 and C-4 for MasterCard, Visa and American Express transactions respectively. More specifically, it must be following what I called above the “mobile phone profile” of the contactless specifications. It must be implementing the contactless mag-stripe mode, since magnetic stripe infrastructure is still prevalent in the US. It may or may not be implementing contactless EMV mode today, but will probably implement it in the future as the infrastructure for supporting payments with contact cards is phased in over the next year in the US.\"" }, { "docid": "102026", "title": "", "text": "It definitely depends on the exchange you are trading on. I'm not familiar with Scottrade, but a standard practice is to fulfill limit orders in the order they are placed. Most of the time, you wouldn't see stocks trade significantly under your bid price, but since penny stocks are very volatile, it's more likely their price could drop quickly past your bid and then return above it while only fulfilling a portion of the orders placed. Example 1. Penny stock priced at $0.12 2. Others place limit orders to buy at $0.10 3. You place limit order to buy at $0.10 4. Stock price drops to $0.07 and some orders are filled (anything $0.07 or higher) based on a first-come first-served basis 5. Due to the increase in purchases of the penny stock, the price rises above $0.10 before your order is filled ***EDIT*** - Adding additional clarification from comment section. A second example If the price drops from $0.12 to $0.07, then orders for all prices from $0.07 and above will start to be filled from the oldest order first. That might mean that the oldest order was a limit buy order for 100 shares at $0.09, and since that is above the current ask price, it will be filled first. The next order might be for 800 shares at $0.07. It's possible for a subset of these to be filled (let's say 400) before the share's price increases from the increased demand. Then, if the price goes above $0.10, your bid will not be filled during that time." }, { "docid": "466707", "title": "", "text": "Strictly from a fastest payback standpoint, the rule is to make all minimum payments and send any extra funds to the highest interest loan next. This will result in the lowest interest paid each year. The decision to consolidate depends on the impact it will have to both your payment and overall payoff schedule. It sounds like your priority might need to be cash flow and not overall savings. e.g. taking a 4% loan that has a high payment, but stretching it over more time can lower the payment, even at a bit higher rate. You just need to be aware of the cost and decide based on what you can live with. I hope you are in a good field that would see improvements to your income over these next few years." }, { "docid": "178446", "title": "", "text": "\"Correcting Keith's answer (you should have read about these details in the terms and conditions of your bank/broker): Entrustment orders are like a \"\"soft\"\" limit order and meaningless without a validity (which is typically between 1 and 5 days). If you buy silver at an entrustment price above market price, say x when the market offer is m, then parts of your order will likely be filled at the market price. For the remaining quantity there is now a limit, the bank/broker might fill your order over the next 5 days (or however long the validity is) at various prices, such that the overall average price does not exceed x. This is different to a limit order, as it allows the bank/broker to (partially) buy silver at higher prices than x as long as the overall averages is x or less. In a limit set-up you might be (partially) filled at market prices first, but if the market moves above x the bank/broker will not fill any remaining quantities of your order, so you might end up (after a day or 5 days) with a partially filled order. Also note that an entrustment price below the market price and with a short enough validity behaves like a limit price. The 4th order type is sort of an opposite-side limit price: A stop-buy means buy when the market offer quote goes above a certain price, a stop-sell means sell when the market bid quote goes below a certain price. Paired with the entrusment principle, this might mean that you buy/sell on average above/below the price you give. I don't know how big your orders are or will be but always keep in mind that not all of your order might be filled immediately, a so-called partial fill. This is particularly noteworthy when you're in a pro-rata market.\"" }, { "docid": "386225", "title": "", "text": "\"What if everyone decided to sell all the shares at a given moment, let's say when the stock is trading at $40? It would fall to the lowest bid price, which could be $0.01 if someone had that bid in place. Here is an example which I happened to find online: Notice there are orders to buy at half the market price and lower... probably all the way down to pennies. If there were enough selling activity to fill all of those bids you see, then the market price would be the lowest bid on the screen. Alternatively, the bid orders could be pulled (cancelled), which would also let the price free-fall to the lowest bid even if there were few actual sellers. Bid-stuffing is what HFT (high frequency trading) algorithms sometimes do, which some say caused the Flash Crash of May 2010. The computers \"\"stuff\"\" bids into the order book, making it look like there is demand in order to trigger a market reaction, then they pull the bids to make the market fall. This sort of thing happens all the time and Nanex documents it http://www.nanex.net/FlashCrash/OngoingResearch.html Quote stuffing defined: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/quote-stuffing.asp I remember the day of the Flash Crash very well. I found this video on youtube of CNBC at that time. Watch from the 5:00 min mark on the video as Jim Crammer talks about PG easily not being worth the price of the market at that time. He said \"\"Who cares?\"\", \"\"Its not a real price\"\", \"\"$49.25 bid for 50,000 shares if I were at my hedge fund.\"\" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86g4_w4j3jU You can value a stock how you want, but its only actually worth what someone will give you for it. More examples: Anadarko Petroleum, which as we noted in today's EOD post, lost $45 billion in market cap in 45 milliseconds (a collapse rate of $1 billion per millisecond), flash crashing from $90 all the way to an (allegedly illegal) stub quote of $0.01. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-17/how-last-second-flash-crash-pushed-sp-500-1667-1666 How 10,000 Contracts Crashed The Market: A Visual Deconstruction Of Last Night's E-Mini Flash Crash http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-21/how-10000-contracts-crashed-market-visual-deconstruction-last-nights-e-mini-flash-cr Symantec Flash-Crash Destroys Over $1.5 Billion In Less Than A Second http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-30/symantec-flash-crash-destroys-over-15-billion-less-second This sort of thing happens so often, I don't pay much attention anymore.\"" }, { "docid": "118712", "title": "", "text": "In general a stock can open at absolutely any price with no regard for the closing price or after hours price the previous day. The opening price will be determined by the best bid and offer made by people who decide to trade the next day. Some of the those people may have put orders in on a prior day that are still on the books and matter, but there's a lot of time overnight for people to cancel orders and enter new ones, which is especially likely to happen if there was substantive news overnight. As for what you can do in your case, you have the same options that you always had: Sell or hold. If you're selling, you can sell after hours, in the pre-open hours, or during the trading day. There's nothing we can say about this case that's really any different than we can say about any other stock on any other day." }, { "docid": "78053", "title": "", "text": "\"Joke warning: These days, it seems that rogue trading programs are the big market makers (this concludes the joke) Historically, exchange members were market makers. One or more members guaranteed a market in a particular stock, and would buy whatever you wanted to sell (or vice-versa). In a balanced market -- one where there were an equal number of buyers and sellers -- the spread was indeed profit for them. To make this work, market makers need an enormous amount of liquidity (ability to hold an inventory of stocks) to deal with temporary imbalances. And a day like October 29, 1929, can make that liquidity evaporate. I say \"\"historically,\"\" because I don't think that any stock market works this way today (I was discussing this very topic with a colleague last week, went to Wikipedia to look at the structure of the NYSE, and saw no mention of exchange members as market makers -- in fact, it appears that the NYSE is no longer a member-based exchange). Instead, today most (all?) trading happens on \"\"electronic crossing networks,\"\" where the spread is simply the difference between the highest bid and lowest ask. In a liquid stock, there will be hundreds if not thousands of orders clustered around the \"\"current\"\" price, usually diverging by fractions of a cent. In an illiquid stock, there may be a spread, but eventually one bid will move up or one ask will move down (or new bids will come in). You could claim that an entity with a large block of stock to move takes the role of market maker, but it doesn't have the same meaning as an exchange market maker. Since there's no entity between the bidder and asker, there's no profit in the spread, just a fee taken by the ECN. Edit: I think you have a misconception of what the \"\"spread\"\" is. It's simply the difference between the highest bid and the lowest offer. At the instant a trade takes place, the spread is 0: the highest bid equals the lowest offer, and the bidder and seller exchange shares for money. As soon as that trade is completed, the spread re-appears. The only way that a trade happens is if buyer and seller agree on price. The traditional market maker is simply an entity that has the ability to buy or sell an effectively unlimited number of shares. However, if the market maker sets a price and there are no buyers, then no trade takes place. And if there's another entity willing to sell shares below the market maker's price, then the buyers will go to that entity unless the market's rules forbid it.\"" }, { "docid": "599523", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm not sure the term actually has a clear meaning. We can think of \"\"what does this mean\"\" in two ways: its broad semantic/metaphorical meaning, and its mechanical \"\"what actual variables in the market represent this quantity\"\". Net buying/selling have a clear meaning in the former sense by analogy to the basic concept of supply and demand in equilibrium markets. It's not as clear what their meaning should be in the latter sense. Roughly, as the top comment notes, you could say that a price decrease is because of net selling at the previous price level, while a price rise is driven by net buying at the previous price level. But in terms of actual market mechanics, the only way prices move is by matching of a buyer and a seller, so every market transaction inherently represents an instantaneous balance across the bid/ask spread. So then we could think about the notion of orders. Actual transactions only occur in balance, but there is a whole book of standing orders at various prices. So maybe we could use some measure of the volume at various price levels in each of the bid/ask books to decide some notion of net buying/selling. But again, actual transactions occur only when matched across the spread. If a significant order volume is added on one side or the other, but at a price far away from the bid/offer - far enough that an actual trade at that price is unlikely to occur - should that be included in the notion of net buying/selling? Presumably there is some price distance from the bid/offer where the orders don't matter for net buying/selling. I'm sure you'd find a lot of buyers for BRK.A at $1, but that's completely irrelevant to the notion of net buying/selling in BRK.A. Maybe the closest thing I can think of in terms of actual market mechanics is the comparative total volumes during the period that would still have been executed if forced to execute at the end of period price. Assuming that traders' valuations are fixed through the period in question, and trading occurs on the basis of fundamentals (which I know isn't a good assumption in practice, but the impact of price history upon future price is too complex for this analysis), we have two cases. If price falls, we can assume all buyers who executed above the last price in the period would have happily bought at the last price (saving money), while all sellers who executed below the last price in the period would also be happy to sell for more. The former will be larger than the latter. If the price rises, the reverse is true.\"" }, { "docid": "325393", "title": "", "text": "It looks more like someone is trying to pocket the spread. The trades are going off at the bid then the ask (from what I can tell without any L1 and L2 data, but the spread could be bigger than what the prices show, since the stock looks pretty volatile given the difference between current price and VWAP...). Looking through the JSE rule books I didn't find any special provisions on how they handle odd lots in their Central Order Book, but the usual practice in other markets is to display only round lot orders. So these 4 share orders would remain hidden from book participants and could be set there to trigger executions from those who are probing for limit orders. Or to make a market with very limited risk." }, { "docid": "286698", "title": "", "text": "I can't say I know everything about the underlying details, but from what I understand, your limit buy adds to the bid side of open orders, and one possibility is that someone placed a market order to sell when the bid price for the stock fell to $10 which was matched to your open limit order. So using your terminology, I would say the spot bid price is what fell to $10, even if for a brief moment. Whether or not it is possible for your order to be filled when the limit buy price is deeper than the current bid price is beyond me. It may have something to do with lot sizes." }, { "docid": "481401", "title": "", "text": "Personal finance is a fairly broad area. Which part might you be starting with? From the very basics, make sure you understand your current cashflow: are you bank balances going up or down? Next, make a budget. There's plenty of information to get started here, and it doesn't require a fancy piece of software. This will make sure you have a deeper understanding of where your money is going, and what is it being saved for. Is it just piling up, or is it allocated for specific purchases (i.e. that new car, house, college tuition, retirement, or even a vacation or a rainy day)? As part of the budgeting/cashflow exercise, make sure you have any outstanding debts covered. Are your credit card balances under control? Do you have other outstanding loans (education, auto, mortgage, other)? Normally, you'd address these in order from highest to lowest interest rate. Your budget should address any immediate mandatory expenses (rent, utilities, food) and long term existing debts. Then comes discretionary spending and savings (especially until you have a decent emergency fund). How much can you afford to spend on discretionary purchases? How much do you want to be able to spend? If the want is greater than the can, what steps can you take to rememdy that? With savings you can have a whole new set of planning to consider. How much do you leave in the bank? Do you keep some amount in a CD ladder? How much goes into retirement savings accounts (401k, Roth vs. Traditional IRA), college savings accounts, or a plain brokerage account? How do you balance your overall portfolio (there is a wealth of information on portfolio management)? What level of risk are you comfortable with? What level of risk should you consider, given your age and goals? How involved do you want to be with your portfolio, or do you want someone else to manage it? Silver Dragon's answer contains some good starting points for portfolio management and investing. Definitely spend some time learning the basics of investing and portfolio management even if you decide to solicit professional expertise; understanding what they're doing can help to determine earlier whether your interests are being treated as a priority." }, { "docid": "365463", "title": "", "text": "&gt; we make a trade-off between time to execute and market impact. Is your time frame any longer than intraday? I imagine you wouldn't want to carry that risk overnight if you're a broker or selling a route.. &gt; we will join the bid for some fraction of our size, and also hit the offer when it looks like the price might be moving away from us So, say for instance you join a bid a few levels down, you aren't really get filled, you start hitting the offer and eventually you realize you're competing with someone for the shares offered, so you take out the price level and bid on all the exchanges so that you're first on the bid at that level, then repeat until someone that can match your appetite starts to fill you on the bid? &gt; In some certain situations we will even sweep the book several levels deep to avoid tipping off market makers and having them adjust in anticipation of the rest of our order. Right, so say you need 100k shares, there are 10k offered at 9.98, 25k offered at 9.99, and 65k at 10.00, you might just enter an intermarket sweep order of 100k @ 10 limit and hope that you can get most of the shares off before everyone can cancel? I imagine there has to be a lot of bidding it up to attract sellers and then letting people take out your bids all day... I have a few other questions I would appreciate your insight on. Just trying to ascertain how orders are filled when, as you put it, time is more important than market impact to the client - when they need to take a large amount of liquidity as quickly as possible and as orderly as possible. Let me know if you'd rather I pm you about this or the additional questions, I work in the industry as well so I know privacy is paramount." }, { "docid": "151391", "title": "", "text": "Your assets are marked to market. If you buy at X, and the market is bidding at 99.9% * X then you've already lost 0.1%. This is a market value oriented way of looking at costs. You could always value your assets with mark to model, and maybe you do, but no one else will. Just because you think the stock is worth 2*X doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees, evidenced by the bid. You surely won't get any margin loans based upon mark to model. Your bankers won't be convinced of the valuation of your assets based upon mark to model. By strictly a market value oriented way of valuing assets, there is a bid/ask cost. more clarification Relative to littleadv, this is actually a good exposition between the differences between cash and accrual accounting. littleadv is focusing completely on the cash cost of the asset at the time of transaction and saying that there is no bid/ask cost. Through the lens of cash accounting, that is 100% correct. However, if one uses accrual accounting marking assets to market (as we all do with marketable assets like stocks, bonds, options, etc), there may be a bid/ask cost. At the time of transaction, the bids used to trade (one's own) are exhausted. According to exchange rules that are now practically uniform: the highest bid is given priority, and if two bids are bidding the exact same highest price then the oldest bid is given priority; therefore the oldest highest bid has been exhausted and removed at trade. At the time of transaction, the value of the asset cannot be one's own bid but the highest oldest bid leftover. If that highest oldest bid is lower than the price paid (even with liquid stocks this is usually the case) then one has accrued a bid/ask cost." }, { "docid": "394244", "title": "", "text": "Bid and ask prices are the reigning highest buy price and lowest sell price in the market which doesn't mean one must only buy/sell at thise prices. That said one can buy/sell at whatever price they so wish although doing it at any other price than the bid/ask is usually harder as other market participants will gravitate to the reigning bid/ask price. So in theory you can buy at ask and sell at bid, whether or not your order will be filled is another matter altogether." }, { "docid": "125230", "title": "", "text": "It will depend largely on your broker what type of stop and trailing stop orders they provide. Saying that, I have not come across any brokers yet that offer limit orders with trailing stop orders. Unlike a standard stop order where you can either make it a market stop order or a limit stop order, usually most brokers have trailing stop orders as market orders only, where you can either set the trailing stop to be a dollar value or percentage from the most recent high. Remember also, that trailing stop orders will be based on the intra-day highs and not the highest closing price. That means that if the share price spikes up during the day your trailing stop will move up, and if the price then spikes down you may be stopped out prematurely, after which the price might rally again. For this reason I try to base my trailing stops on the highest closing price by using standard stop loss orders and moving it up manually after the close of trade if the share price has closed at a new high. This takes a few minutes each evening (depending on how many stocks you have to check and adjust the stops for) but gives you more control. Using this method will also enable you to set limit orders attached to your stop loss triggers, and you won't have to keep your trailing too close to the last high price thus potentially causing you to get stopped out prematurely. Slightly off track but may be handy if you set profit targets, my broker has recently introduced Trailing Take Profit Orders. The way it works is, say you have a profit target of 50%, so you buy at $2 and want to take profits if the price reaches $3, you could set your Trailing Take Profit Trigger at say $3.10 or above and set a Trail by Amount of say $0.10. So if the price after hitting $3.10 falls to $3.00 you will be stopped out and collect your profits. If the price moves up to $3.30 and then falls to $3.20, you will be stopped out at $3.20 and make some extra profits. If the price continues going up the Trailing Take Profit will continue to move up always $0.10 below the highest price reached. I think this would be a very useful order if you were range trading where you could set the Trailing Take Profit trigger near recent resistance so you can get out if prices start reversing at or around the resistance, but continue profiting if the price breaks through the resistance." } ]

[ { "docid": "283008", "title": "", "text": "My broker collates the order book by price and marketplace, displaying the number of shares available at each level, sorted as in Victor's screencap. You can glean information from not just a snapshot of the order book but also by watching how it changes over time. Although it's not always a complete picture -- many brokers hold limit orders internally until the market is close, at which point they'll route to an exchange or trade internally. And of course skilled market participants know that there's people out there looking to glean information from the order book and will act to confuse the picture. The order book can show you: Combined with a list of trades (price & size, and whether it was a buy or sell), you can get a much more complete picture of what's going on with a stock than by looking at charts alone." } ]

[ { "docid": "394244", "title": "", "text": "Bid and ask prices are the reigning highest buy price and lowest sell price in the market which doesn't mean one must only buy/sell at thise prices. That said one can buy/sell at whatever price they so wish although doing it at any other price than the bid/ask is usually harder as other market participants will gravitate to the reigning bid/ask price. So in theory you can buy at ask and sell at bid, whether or not your order will be filled is another matter altogether." }, { "docid": "118712", "title": "", "text": "In general a stock can open at absolutely any price with no regard for the closing price or after hours price the previous day. The opening price will be determined by the best bid and offer made by people who decide to trade the next day. Some of the those people may have put orders in on a prior day that are still on the books and matter, but there's a lot of time overnight for people to cancel orders and enter new ones, which is especially likely to happen if there was substantive news overnight. As for what you can do in your case, you have the same options that you always had: Sell or hold. If you're selling, you can sell after hours, in the pre-open hours, or during the trading day. There's nothing we can say about this case that's really any different than we can say about any other stock on any other day." }, { "docid": "476887", "title": "", "text": "I work in a firm that performs this kind of execution for a number of instutional traders. We sell a number of algorithms, and a lot of research goes into building good market signals and forecasts, but the basic idea is that we make a trade-off between time to execute and market impact. This generally means that we're doing a mix of everything you said; we will join the bid for some fraction of our size, and also hit the offer when it looks like the price might be moving away from us. In some certain situations we will even sweep the book several levels deep to avoid tipping off market makers and having them adjust in anticipation of the rest of our order." }, { "docid": "295738", "title": "", "text": "\"Financial statements provide a large amount of specialized, complex, information about the company. If you know how to process the statements, and can place the info they provide in context with other significant information you have about the market, then you will likely be able to make better decisions about the company. If you don't know how to process them, you're much more likely to obtain incomplete or misleading information, and end up making worse decisions than you would have before you started reading. You might, for example, figure out that the company is gaining significant debt, but might be missing significant information about new regulations which caused a one time larger than normal tax payment for all companies in the industry you're investing in, matching the debt increase. Or you might see a large litigation related spending, without knowing that it's lower than usual for the industry. It's a chicken-and-egg problem - if you know how to process them, and how to use the information, then you already have the answer to your question. I'd say, the more important question to ask is: \"\"Do I have the time and resources necessary to learn enough about how businesses run, and about the market I'm investing in, so that financial statements become useful to me?\"\" If you do have the time, and resources, do it, it's worth the trouble. I'd advise in starting at the industry/business end of things, though, and only switching to obtaining information from the financial statements once you already have a good idea what you'll be using it for.\"" }, { "docid": "470635", "title": "", "text": "\"Your logic breaks down because you assume that you are the only market participant on your side of the book and that the participant on the other side of the book has entered a market order. Here's what mostly happens: Large banks and brokerages trading with their own money (we call it proprietary or \"\"prop\"\" trading) will have a number of limit (and other, more exotic) orders sitting on both sides of the trading book waiting to buy or sell at a price that they feel is advantageous. Some of these orders will have sat on the book for many months if not years. These alone are likely to prevent your limit orders executing as they are older so will be hit first even if they aren't at a better price. On more liquid stocks there will also be a number of participants entering market orders on both sides of the book whose orders are matched up before limit orders are matched with any market orders. This means that pairing of market orders, at a better price, will prevent your limit order executing. In many markets high frequency traders looking for arbitrage opportunities (for example) will enter a few thousand orders a minute, some of these will be limit orders just off touch, others will be market orders to be immediately executed. The likelihood that your limit order, being as it is posited way off touch, is hit with all those traders about is minimal. On less liquid stocks there are market makers (large institutional traders) who effectively set the bid and offer prices by being willing to provide liquidity and fill the market orders at a temporary loss to themselves and will, in most cases, have limit orders set to provide this liquidity that will be close to touch. They are paid to do this by the exchange and inter-dealer brokers through their fees structure. They will fill the market orders that would hit your limit if they think that it would provide more liquidity in such a way that it fulfils their obligations. Only if there are no other participants looking to trade on the instrument at a better price than your limit (which, of course they can see unless you enter it into a dark pool) AND there is a market order on the opposite side of the book will your limit order be instantaneously be hit, executed, and move the market price.\"" }, { "docid": "417365", "title": "", "text": "\"First, as @littleadv mentions, and as I've pointed out before, anyone who participates in a market using limit orders (which, by the way, should be every non-professional investor) is by definition a market maker. So, I will assume that your question pertains both to official market makers and to \"\"retail investors\"\" using limit orders. When you remark that there are such \"\"tight spreads\"\" in \"\"liquid assets\"\", what you are really saying is \"\"wow, look at all the market makers in these products!\"\" That's the benefit of electronic trading and algorithmic traders -- millions of participants each with their own opinion of the value of a financial instrument, trying to find people who have very specifically opposing opinions of the value of that same instrument. This is called price discovery, and is the entire point of financial markets. So, you ask why are there all these market makers present to create such tight spreads in assets like SPY? Answer: Because they can make money in these markets: Imagine (towards a contradiction) that market makers thought they couldn't make money by offering tight spreads in SPY, and so SPY had a wider spread than it actually does. For example, say the highest bid for SPY was $99.98 and the lowest ask was $100.01. Now imagine that a market maker with perfect knowledge of the future came along knowing that he would be able to sell SPY for $100.01 in 5 minutes. Then he would load up as many buy orders as he could for $100.00 or lower. (He wouldn't bid $100.01 or higher because those trades would not be profitable according to his information -- at least not 5 minutes from now.) So the spread had previously been $0.03 and then suddenly it was $0.01, all because a market maker with better information came along and realized he could make money by creating a tighter market! Now, nobody has perfect knowledge of the future, which is why markets are never infinitely tight or infinitely liquid. Each market maker has to weigh possible profits against the probability that those profits will actually turn into losses. But if one market maker decides not to participate in a particular instrument, there's bound to be another market maker who will happily take his place. So the very fact that there are so many market participants with resting buy/sell orders for SPY right now is proof that there are market makers able to make money doing so. If they could not make money, they wouldn't be there, and the spread would be wider. 10-15 years ago, before electronic trading and algorithmic trading, the number of market participants was far lower, and the spreads were far wider, meaning retail investors like you and me had a much harder time making money. The only people making money were the institutional investors, the brokers, and the exchanges. Now that all these new millions of players are present in the market, retail investors like you and me get to participate and make money too.\"" }, { "docid": "102026", "title": "", "text": "It definitely depends on the exchange you are trading on. I'm not familiar with Scottrade, but a standard practice is to fulfill limit orders in the order they are placed. Most of the time, you wouldn't see stocks trade significantly under your bid price, but since penny stocks are very volatile, it's more likely their price could drop quickly past your bid and then return above it while only fulfilling a portion of the orders placed. Example 1. Penny stock priced at $0.12 2. Others place limit orders to buy at $0.10 3. You place limit order to buy at $0.10 4. Stock price drops to $0.07 and some orders are filled (anything $0.07 or higher) based on a first-come first-served basis 5. Due to the increase in purchases of the penny stock, the price rises above $0.10 before your order is filled ***EDIT*** - Adding additional clarification from comment section. A second example If the price drops from $0.12 to $0.07, then orders for all prices from $0.07 and above will start to be filled from the oldest order first. That might mean that the oldest order was a limit buy order for 100 shares at $0.09, and since that is above the current ask price, it will be filled first. The next order might be for 800 shares at $0.07. It's possible for a subset of these to be filled (let's say 400) before the share's price increases from the increased demand. Then, if the price goes above $0.10, your bid will not be filled during that time." }, { "docid": "525603", "title": "", "text": "\"When you place a limit sell order of $10.00 (for a stock on an option) you are adding your order to the book. Anyone who places a buy at-the-market or with a limit price over $10.00 will have that order immediately fulfilled through the offer you have placed on the book. On the other hand, if that other person places a buy for $8.00, then the spread will now be \"\"$8.00 bid, $10.00 ask\"\". Priority is based on first the price (all $9.99 asks will clear before $10.00) and within each bucket this is based on the time your order was submitted. This is why in bidding markets (including eBay) buying at $x.01 is way better than $x.00 and selling at $x.99 is better than $(x+1).00. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_(exchange) under \"\"first-come-first-served\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "557961", "title": "", "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.\"" }, { "docid": "303448", "title": "", "text": "buy above the current price in the stock market You can do that, but what is the purpose to do so ? Brokers take the limit price of your order as the highest price you are going to pay. So if an order can be fulfilled below the limit they will do so. can I sell below the current price You can put in a order to do so. But what I have seen with my current broker is that the order never reached the market and wasn't executed at all. The broker might have some safeguards or process in place to stop me from doing so. Not sure how other brokers deal with it." }, { "docid": "19196", "title": "", "text": "The principle of demand-supply law will not work if spoofing (or layering, fake order) is implemented. However, spoofing stocks is an illegal criminal practice monitored by SEC. In stock market, aggressive buyer are willing to pay for a higher ask price pushing the price higher even if ask size is considerably larger than bid size, especially when high growth potential with time is expected. Larger bids may attract more buyers, further perpetuating a price increase (positive pile-on effect). Aggressive sellers are willing to accept a lower bid price pushing the price lower even if ask size is considerably smaller than bid size, when a negative situation is expected. Larger asks may attract more sellers, further perpetuating a price fall (negative pile-on effect). Moreover, seller and buyers considers not only price but also size of shares in their decision-making process, along with marker order and/or limit order. Unlike limit order, market order is not recorded in bid/ask size. Market order, but not limit order, immediately affects the price direction. Thus, ask/bid sizes alone do not give enough information on price direction. If stocks are being sold continuously at the bid price, this could be the beginning of a downward trend; if stocks are being sold continuously at the ask price, this could be the beginning of a upward trend. This is because ask price is always higher than bid price. In all the cases, both buyers and sellers hope to make a profit in a long-term and short-term view" }, { "docid": "463085", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't have enough reputation in this community to comment yet, so this \"\"answer\"\" is really just a minor furtherance of JoeTaxpayer's comment... THe only thing I might add to this great answer - make all minimum payments, and send all extra available cash to the highest interest card. If OP will pay in full after 6 month, this may make little difference, but it will be a few dollars in his pocket instead of the bank. – JoeTaxpayer♦ Dec 2 at 17:42 ...on Ben Miller's excellent answer. Once you have taken JoeTaxpayer's advice and ordered your cards by interest rate and have paid off the highest interest card first, take that same payment and add it to your next-highest card's minimum payment. Once THAT is payed off, take the combined amounts that you were paying to cards one and two and apply it all to card three along with its minimum payment. You see where this is going. By aggregating your payments thusly, each card will get paid off successively more quickly than the previous one, without increasing your overall payments to the cards, and you are retiring the highest-interest debt first. Your last card will then be paid off in record time, because you have combined all of the payments for cards 1-4. One other amplification: Since we don't know which account has which interest rate, it may be more advantageous to order them by balance, with the smallest first. That way you retire the first card quickly, which gives you a sense of accomplishment, and by the time you reach your highest balance card, you have snowballed all of your payments and are now throwing boulders instead of pebbles at it. You'll have to do that math to see which method has the most benefit. Then roll it all into the car payment. Then roll it into your student debt. Etc.\"" }, { "docid": "220828", "title": "", "text": "\"standard NFC-for-payments ... reads a straight copy of the card details ... does not generate any one-time-use card number ... does not employ any over-the-air encryption or even a challenge-response system [?] The normal contactless payment process does involve transaction-specific cryptographic-signatures. However what process is used depends on the vendor equipment and the scheme (Visa, Mastercard, Amex, ...) A \"\"Magstripe mode\"\", if supported, allows the card number and expiry date to be read. There is a good description at Level2Kernel which covers \"\"Magnetic Stripe Mode\"\" and \"\"EMV Mode\"\" etc for each scheme (Mastercard, Visa etc do things differently). MasterCard Contactless MasterCard transactions can be performed in either EMV mode or Mag-Stripe mode. After Entry Point has initiated a transaction the MasterCard Kernel issues a Get Processing Options command. In the response from the card a data object called the Application Interchange Profile (AIP) determines whether the transaction will continue in either EMV Mode or Mag-Stripe Mode. The AIP also determines if “On-device cardholder verification” (CDCVM) is supported. EMV Mode (M/Chip) The commands exchanged with the card for EMV Mode closely resemble those used for an EMV contact transaction, with Read Record commands being used to retrieve all the card data, followed by a Generate Application Cryptogram (GENAC) request to obtain a unique, transaction-specific, cryptogram from the card. Once all of these exchanges have been completed, the card can be removed from the RF field. However, unlike for contact transactions, not all the transaction processing occurs before the card exchanges have been completed. This is to optimise the contactless transaction performance by reducing the amount of time the card is required to remain in the RF field. (my emphasis) According to VISA UK Our technology uses the chip on your card to generate unique cryptograms (that’s techie speak for a type of puzzle that consists of a short piece of encrypted or encoded text) and digital signatures to protect your payments. Digital signatures are like handwritten signatures in some ways – but they are much more difficult to forge. (my emphasis) According to the UK Card Association Rumour: A fraudster can steal my details from my contactless card. Fact: You have to be extremely close to someone for their gadget to be able to read your card - and even then all they would ever get is the card number and expiry date. That’s the same information you see by simply looking at the front of any card.There’s no way anyone can get the security code on the back of the card, your name and address, or bank account details. The vast majority of online retailers require additional details like these and others to make a purchase. However, according to a Guardian newspaper report of 2015-07-25: Researchers bought cheap, widely available card scanners from a mainstream website to see if they could “steal” key details from a contactless card. They tested 10 different credit and debit cards, that were meant to be coded to “mask” personal data, and were able to read crucial data that was meant to be hidden. It then went shopping with the information it had obtained and was able to successfully place orders for items including a £3,000 television set. So yes, even in the civilized world, our security is undermined by a combination of: How does Apple Pay work? See Apple Pay Must Be Using the Mag-Stripe Mode of the EMV Contactless Specifications Clearly, Apple Pay must following the EMV contactless specifications of books C-2, C-3 and C-4 for MasterCard, Visa and American Express transactions respectively. More specifically, it must be following what I called above the “mobile phone profile” of the contactless specifications. It must be implementing the contactless mag-stripe mode, since magnetic stripe infrastructure is still prevalent in the US. It may or may not be implementing contactless EMV mode today, but will probably implement it in the future as the infrastructure for supporting payments with contact cards is phased in over the next year in the US.\"" }, { "docid": "24537", "title": "", "text": "\"During the day, market and limit orders are submitted at any time by market participants and there is a bid and an ask that move around over time. Trades occur whenever a market order is submitted or a limit order is submitted that at a price that matches or exceeds an existing limit order. If you submit a market order, it may consume all best-price limit orders and you can get multiple prices, changing the bid or ask at the same time. All that stuff happens during the trading day only. What happens at the end of the day is different. A bunch of orders that were submitted during the day but marked as \"\"on close\"\" are aggregated with any outstanding limit orders to create a single closing price according to the algorithm established by the exchange. Each exchange may handle the details of this closing event differently. For example, the Nasdaq's closing cross or the NYSE's closing auction. The close is the most liquid time of the day, so investors who are trading large amounts and not interested in intraday swings will often submit a market-on-close or limit-on-close order. This minimizes their chance of affecting the price or crossing a big spread. It's actually most relevant for smaller stocks, which may have too little volume during the day to make big trades, but have plenty at the close. In short, the volume you see is due to these on-close orders. The spike in volume most likely has no special information about what will happen overnight or the next day. It's probably just a normal part of the market for illiquid stocks.\"" }, { "docid": "51715", "title": "", "text": "\"Theory of Levered Investing Borrowing in order to increase investment exposure is a time-honored and legitimate activity. It's the optimal way to increase your exposure, according to finance theory (which assumes you get a good interest rate...more on this later). In your case it may or may not be a good idea. Based on the information in your post, I believe that in your case it is not a good idea. Consider the following concerns. Risk In finance, reward comes with risk and in no other way. Investing borrowed money means there is a good (not small) chance that you will lose enough money that you will need to pull significant wealth from your own savings in order to make up the difference. If you are in a position to do this and OK with that possibility, then proceed to to the next concern. If losing a lot of money means financial calamity for you, then this is a bad idea. You haven't described your financial situation so I don't know in which camp you fall. If the idea of losing, say, $100K means complete financial failure for you, then the strategy you have described simply has too much risk. Make no mistake, just because the market makes money on average does not mean it will make money, or as much money as you expect, over your horizon. It may lose money, perhaps a lot of money. Make sure this idea is very clear in your mind before taking action. Rewards Your post implies that you think you can reliably get 10%-12% on an investment. This is not the case. There are many years in which a reasonable portfolio makes this much or more, but on average you will earn less. No ones knows the true long-term market risk premium, but it is definitely less than 10%. A better guess would be 6.5% plus whatever the risk-free rate is (currently about 0%). Buying \"\"riskier\"\" investments means deviating from the optimal portfolio, meaning you took on more risk than is justified by how much extra money you expect to make. I never encourage people to invest based on optimistic or unrealistic goals. If anything, you should be conservative about how you expect things to go. And remember, these are averages. Any portfolio that earns 10%-12% also has a very good chance of losing 25% or more. People who sell or give advice on investments frequently get you charged up by pointing at times and investments that have done very well. Unfortunately, we never know whether the investments and time period in which we are investing will be a good one, a bad one, or an unexciting one. The reality of investing is...well, more realistic than what you have described. Costs I can't imagine how you could borrow that much money and only have an annual payment of $2000 as you imply--that must be a mistake. No individual borrows at a rate significantly below 1%. It sounds like it's not a collateralized loan of any kind, so unless you are some kind of prime-loan customer, your interest rate will be significant. Subtract whatever rate you actually pay from 6.5% to get a rough idea of how much you will make if things go as well as they do on average. You will pay the interest whether times are good or bad. If your rate is typical of noncollateralized personal loans, there's a good chance you will lose money on average using the strategy you have described. If you are OK with taking risk with a negative expected return, consider a trip to Las Vegas. It's more exciting. Ethics I'm not one to make people feel guilty for doing things that are legal but of questionable morality. If that's the case and you are OK with it, more power to you. I'm not sure under what pretense you expect to obtain the money, but it sounds like you might be crossing legal lines and committing actual crimes (like fraud). Make sure to check on whether what you intend is a white lie or something that can get you thrown in prison. For example, if you are proposing obtaining a subsidized education loan and using it for speculation, I could easily see you spending serious time in prison and permanently ruining your life, even if your plan works out. A judge and 12 of your peers are not going to think welfare fraud is a harmless twist of the truth. Summary I've said a lot of negative things here. This is because I have to guess about your financial situation and it sounds like you may have unrealistic expectations of the safety and generosity of investing. Quite frankly, people for whom borrowing $250K is no big deal don't normally come and ask about it on StackExchange and they definitely don't tend to lie in order to get loans. Also $18K a year doesn't change their quality of life. However, I don't know. If $250K is small relative to your wealth and you need a good way to increase your exposure to the market risk premium, then borrowing and investing may well be a good idea.\"" }, { "docid": "494727", "title": "", "text": "\"Re: A trader when buying needs to buy at the ask price and when selling needs to sell at the bid price. So how can a trade happen 'in between' the bid and ask? Saying the trade can happen \"\"in between\"\" the bid & ask is simplistic. There is a time dimension to the market. It's more accurate to say that an order can be placed \"\"in between\"\" the current best bid & ask (observed at time T=0), thus establishing a new level for one or the other of those quoted prices (observed at time T>0). If you enter a market order to buy (or sell), then yes, you'll generally be accepting the current best ask (or best bid) with your order, because that's what a market order says to do: Accept the current best market price being offered for your kind of transaction. Of course, prices may move much faster than your observation of the price and the time it takes to process your order – you're far from being the only participant. Market orders aside, you are free to name your own price above or below the current best bid & ask, respectively. ... then one could say that you are placing an order \"\"in between\"\" the bid and ask at the time your order is placed. However – and this is key – you are also moving one or the other of those quoted prices in the process of placing your above-bid buy order or your below-ask sell order. Then, only if somebody else in the market chooses to accept your new ask (or bid) does your intended transaction take place. And that transaction takes place at the new ask (or bid) price, not the old one that was current when you entered your order. Read more about bid & ask prices at this other question: (p.s. FWIW, I don't necessarily agree with the assertion from the article you quoted, i.e.: \"\"By looking for trades that take place in between the bid and ask, you can tell when a strong trend is about to come to an end.\"\" I would say: Maybe, perhaps, but maybe not.)\"" }, { "docid": "137175", "title": "", "text": "If you are buying your order will be placed in Bid list. If you are selling your order will be placed in the Ask list. The highest Bid price will be placed at the top of the Bid list and the lowest Ask price will be placed at the top of the Ask list. When a Bid and Ask price are matched a transaction will take place and it will the last traded price. If you are looking to buy at a lower price, say $155.01, your Bid price will be placed 3rd in the Bid list, and unless the Ask prices fall to that level, your order will remain in the list until it trades, it expires or you cancel it. If prices don't fall to you Bid price you will not get a trade. If you wanted your trade to go through you could either place a limit buy order closer to the lowest Ask price (however this is still not a certainty), or to be certain place a market buy order which will trade at the lowest Ask price." }, { "docid": "208907", "title": "", "text": "That is mostly true, in most situations when there are more buy orders than sell orders (higher buy volume orders than sell volume orders), the price will generally move upwards and vice versa, when there are more sell orders than buy orders (higher sell volume orders than buy volume orders), the price will generally move downwards. Note that this does not always happen, but usually it does. You are also correct that for a trade to take place a buyer has to be matched with a seller (or the buy volume matched with the sell volume). But not all orders get executed as trades. Say there are 50 buy orders in the order book with a total volume of 100,000 shares and the highest buy order is currently at $10.00. On the other side there are only 10 sell orders in the order book with total volume of 10,000 shares and the lowest sell order is currently $10.05. At the moment there won't be a trade unless a new buyer or seller enters the market to match the opposing side, or an existing order gets amended upper or lower to match the opposing side. With more demand than supply in the order books what will be the most likely direction that this stock moves in? Most likely the price will move upwards. If a new buyer sees the price moving higher and then looks at the market depth, they would most likely place an order closer to the lowest sell order than the current highest buy order, say $10.01, to be first in line in case a market sell order is placed on the market. As new buy orders enter the market it drives the price higher and higher until the buy orders dry up." }, { "docid": "317365", "title": "", "text": "\"Most of the time* you're selling to other investors, not back to the company. The stock market is a collection of bid (buy offers) and asks (sell offers). When you sell your stock as a retail investor at the \"\"market\"\" price you're essentially just meeting whatever standing bid offers are on the market. For very liquid stocks (e.g. Apple), you can pretty much always get the displayed price because so many stocks are being traded. However during periods of very high volatility or for low-volume stocks, the quoted price may not be indicative of what you actually pay. As an example, let's say you have 5 stocks you're trying to sell and the bid-side order book is 2 stocks for $105, 2 for $100, and 5 for $95. In this scenario the quoted price will be $105 (the best bid price), but if you accept market price you'll settle 2 for 105, 2 for 100, and 1 for 95. After your sell order goes through, the new quoted price will be $95. For high volume stocks, there will usually be so many orders near the midpoint price ($105, in this case) that you won't see any price slippage for small orders. You can also post limit orders, which are essentially open orders waiting to be filled like in the above example. They ensure you get the price you want, but you have no way to guarantee they'll be filled or not. Edit: as a cool example, check out the bitcoin GDAX on coinbase for a live example of what the order book looks like for stocks. You'll see that the price of bitcoin will drift towards whichever direction has the less dense order book (e.g. price drifts upwards when there are far more bids than asks.)\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "571306", "title": "", "text": "There is no one answer to this question, but there are some generalities. Most exchanges make a distinction between the passive and the aggressive sides of a trade. The passive participant is the order that was resting on the market at the time of the trade. It is an order that based on its price was not executable at the time, and therefore goes into the order book. For example, I'm willing to sell 100 shares of a stock at $9.98 but nobody wants to buy that right now, so it remains as an open order on the exchange. Then somebody comes along and is willing to meet my price (I am glossing over lots of details here). So they aggressively take out my order by either posting a market-buy, or specifically that they want to buy 100 shares at either $9.98, or at some higher price. Most exchanges will actually give me, as the passive (i.e. liquidity making) investor a small rebate, while the other person is charged a few fractions of a cent. Google found NYSEArca details, and most other exchanges make their fees public as well. As of this writing the generic price charged/credited: But they provide volume discounts, and many of the larger deals do fall into another tier of volume, which provides a different price structure." } ]

[ { "docid": "397897", "title": "", "text": "\"I've done exactly what you say at one of my brokers. With the restriction that I have to deposit the money in the \"\"right\"\" way, and I don't do it too often. The broker is meant to be a trading firm and not a currency exchange house after all. I usually do the exchange the opposite of you, so I do USD -> GBP, but that shouldn't make any difference. I put \"\"right\"\" in quotes not to indicate there is anything illegal going on, but to indicate the broker does put restrictions on transferring out for some forms of deposits. So the key is to not ACH the money in, nor send a check, nor bill pay it, but rather to wire it in. A wire deposit with them has no holds and no time limits on withdrawal locations. My US bank originates a wire, I trade at spot in the opposite direction of you (USD -> GBP), wait 2 days for the trade to settle, then wire the money out to my UK bank. Commissions and fees for this process are low. All told, I pay about $20 USD per xfer and get spot rates, though it does take approx 3 trading days for the whole process (assuming you don't try to wait for a target rate but rather take market rate.)\"" }, { "docid": "395506", "title": "", "text": "No, at least not noticeably so. The majority of what HFT does is to take advantage of the fact that there is a spread between buy and sell orders on the exchange, and to instantly fill both orders, gaining relatively risk-free profit from some inherent inefficiencies in how the market prices stocks. The end result is that intraday trading of the non-HFT nature, as well as speculative short-term trading will be less profitable, since HFT will cause the buy/sell spread to be closer than it would otherwise be. Buying and holding will be (largely) unaffected since the spread that HFT takes advantage of is miniscule compared to the gains a stock will experience over time. For example, when you go to buy shares intending to hold them for a long time, the HFT might cost you say, 1 to 2 cents per share. When you go to sell the share, HFT might cost you the same again. But, if you held it for a long time, the share might have doubled or tripled in value over the time you held it, so the overall effect of that 2-4 cents per share lost from HFT is negligible. However, since the HFT is doing this millions of times per day, that 1 cent (or more commonly a fraction of a cent) adds up to HFTs making millions. Individually it doesn't affect anyone that much, but collectively it represents a huge loss of value, and whether this is acceptable or not is still a subject of much debate!" }, { "docid": "555521", "title": "", "text": "Fake stock market trading may teach you about trading, which isn't necessarily the same thing as investing. I think you need to understand how things work and how to read financial news and statistics before you start trading. Otherwise, you're just going to get frustrated when you mysteriously win and lose funny money. I'd suggest a few things: Also, don't get into individual stocks until you have at least $5k to invest -- focus on saving and use ETFs or mutual funds. You should always invest in around a half dozen diversified stocks at a time, and doing that with less than $1,000 a stock will make it impossible to trade and make money -- If a $100 stock position goes up 20%, you haven't cleared enough to pay your brokerage fees." }, { "docid": "349668", "title": "", "text": "This is more than likely a thing about your financial institution and the exchanges where they trade shares. Some exchanges cannot/will not handle odd lot transactions. Most established brokerages have software and accounting systems that will deal in round lots with the exchanges, but can track your shares individually. Sometimes specific stocks cannot be purchased in odd lots due to circumstances specific to that stock (trading only on a specific exchange, for example). Most brokerages offer dollar-cost averaging programs, but may limit which stocks are eligible, due to odd lot and partial share purchases. Check with your brokerage to see if they can support odd lot and/or DCA purchases. You may find another similar ETF with similar holdings that has better trading conditions, or might consider an open-end mutual fund with similar objectives. Mutual funds allow partial share purchases (you have $100 to invest today, and they issue you 35.2 shares, for example)." }, { "docid": "458546", "title": "", "text": "If the share is listed on a stock exchange that creates liquidity and orderly sales with specialist market makers, such as the NYSE, there will always be a counterparty to trade with, though they will let the price rise or fall to meet other open interest. On other exchanges, or in closely held or private equity scenarios, this is not necessarily the case (NASDAQ has market maker firms that maintain the bid-ask spread and can do the same thing with their own inventory as the specialists, but are not required to by the brokerage rules as the NYSE brokers are). The NYSE has listing requirements of at least 1.1 million shares, so there will not be a case with only 100 shares on this exchange." }, { "docid": "322725", "title": "", "text": "In the past 10 years there have been mutual funds that would act as a single bucket of stocks and bonds. A good example is Fidelity's Four In One. The trade off was a management fee for the fund in exchange for having to manage the portfolio itself and pay separate commissions and fees. These days though it is very simple and pretty cheap to put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs that would represent a balanced portfolio. Whats even more interesting is that large online brokerage houses are starting to offer commission free trading of a number of ETFs, as long as they are not day traded and are held for a period similar to NTF mutual funds. I think you could easily put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs to trade on Fidelity or TD Ameritrade commission free, and one that would represent a nice diversified portfolio. The main advantage is that you are not giving money to the fund manager but rather paying the minimal cost of investing in an index ETF. Overall this can save you an extra .5-1% annually on your portfolio, just in fees. Here are links to commission free ETF trading on Fidelity and TD Ameritrade." }, { "docid": "63565", "title": "", "text": "\"My original answer contained a fundamental error: it turns out that it is not true that any exchange can create its own product to track any underlying index. If the underlying index is copyrighted (such as the S&P indices, Russell indices, Dow Jones indices, etc.) then the exchange must enter into a licensing agreement (usually exclusive) with the copyright holder in order to use the index's formula (and name). Without such a license the exchange would only be able to approximate the underlying index, and I don't think that happens very much (because how would you market such a product?). The CME offers several futures (and other derivatives) whose face value is equivalent to some multiple of the S&P500's value on the date when the product expires. When such a product is actively traded, it may serve as a reasonable indicator of the \"\"market\"\"'s expectation of the S&P500's future value. So, you could pay attention to the front month of the CME's S&P 500 Mini future, which trades from 17:00-16:00 Chicago time, Sunday night through Friday afternoon. But remember that the prices quoted there are As another example, if you care about the Russell 2000 index, until 2017 the ICE Exchange happened to hold the license for its derivatives. They traded from 20:00-17:30 New York time, Sunday night through Friday afternoon. But in mid-2017 CME bought that license as well, so now you'll want to track it here. Moral: There's almost always some \"\"after hours\"\" product out there tracking whatever index you care about, but you may have to do some digging to find it, and it might not be all that useful for your specific purpose.\"" }, { "docid": "58026", "title": "", "text": "Agree with Michael here. The exchanges help you more than they will hurt. It begs the question why you want to avoid exchanges and the brokers since they do provide a valuable service. If you want to avoid big fees, most of the discount brokerages have tiny fees these days (optionshouse is down to $4), plus many have deals where you get 60 or more trades for free." }, { "docid": "573239", "title": "", "text": "The SEC 30-Day Yield you're seeing is a standardized yield calculation set out by the Securities & Exchange Commission. It can be useful for comparing bond funds, but it doesn't guarantee what you'll actually earn from a fund. IMPORTANT: The SEC 30-day yield represents a bond fund's returns from the previous 30 days expressed as an annual percentage of the current fund price — yes, an annual percentage. In other words, don't expect 1.81% return on your money every 30 days! Such a return is too-good-to-be-true return in today's low rate environment. 1.81% per year? More reasonable. Even then, the 1.81% you see is merely an estimate, one based on assumptions, of what you might expect to earn if you keep your money in place for the next year. The estimate is based on the assumptions that: These aren't reliable assumptions. BIV's price does fluctuate. You are not promised to get your principal back with a bond fund. Only an individual bond promises your principal back, and only at maturity. So, earning $181 on $10,000 invested for a full year while taking on interest-rate and other risks might not be worth the trouble of putting your money in a brokerage account. You'll need to transfer the money in and out, and there are potential trading fees to take into account. (How much to buy/sell units?) An FDIC-insured high interest savings account makes more sense." }, { "docid": "365465", "title": "", "text": "\"Very simple. You open an account with a broker who will do the trades for you. Then you give the broker orders to buy and sell (and the money to pay for the purchases). That's it. In the old days, you would call on the phone (remember, in all the movies, \"\"Sell, sell!!!!\"\"? That's how), now every decent broker has an online trading platform. If you don't want to have \"\"additional value\"\" and just trade - there are many online discount brokers (ETrade, ScotTrade, TD Ameritrade, and others) who offer pretty cheap trades and provide decent services and access to information. For more fees, you can also get advices and professional management where an investment manager will make the decisions for you (if you have several millions to invest, that is). After you open an account and login, you'll find a big green (usually) button which says \"\"BUY\"\". Stocks are traded on exchanges. For example the NYSE and the NASDAQ are the most common US exchanges (there's another one called \"\"pink sheets\"\", but its a different kind of animal), there are also stock exchanges in Europe (notably London, Frankfurt, Paris, Moscow) and Asia (notably Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo). Many trading platforms (ETrade, that I use, for example) allow investing on some of those as well.\"" }, { "docid": "35340", "title": "", "text": "Investopedia has a section in their article about currency trading that states: The FX market does not have commissions. Unlike exchange-based markets, FX is a principals-only market. FX firms are dealers, not brokers. This is a critical distinction that all investors must understand. Unlike brokers, dealers assume market risk by serving as a counterparty to the investor's trade. They do not charge commission; instead, they make their money through the bid-ask spread. Principals-only means that the only parties to a transaction are agents who actively bear risk by taking one side of the transaction. There are forex brokers who charge what's called a commission, based on the spread. Investopedia has another article about the commission structure in the forex market that states: There are three forms of commission used by brokers in forex. Some firms offer a fixed spread, others offer a variable spread and still others charge a commission based on a percentage of the spread. So yes, there are forex brokers who charge a commission, but this paragraph is saying mostly the same thing as the first paragraph. The brokers make their money through the bid-ask spread; how they do so varies, and sometimes they call this charge a commission, sometimes they don't. All of the information above differs from the stock markets, however, in which The broker takes the order to an exchange and attempts to execute it as per the customer's instructions. For providing this service, the broker is paid a commission when the customer buys and sells the tradable instrument. The broker isn't taking a side in the trade, so he's not making money on the spread. He's performing the service of taking the order to an exchange an attempting to execute it, and for that, he charges a commission." }, { "docid": "449828", "title": "", "text": "\"Your retirement PLAN is a lifelong plan and shouldn't be tied to your employer status. Max out your 401(k) contribution to the maximum that your employer matches (that's a 100% ROI!) and as much as you can afford. When you leave the work force rollover your 401(k) to an IRA account (e.g.: you can create an IRA account with any of the online brokerage firms Schwab, E-Trade, Sharebuilder, or go with a brick-and-mortar firm like JP Morgan, Stifel Nicolaus, etc.). You should have a plan: How much money do you need/month for your expenses? Accounting for inflation, how much is that going to be at retirement (whatever age you plan to retire)? How much money do you need to have so that 4.5% of that money will provide for your annual living expenses? That's your target retirement amount of savings. Now figure out how to get to that target. Rule #1 Invest early and invest often! The more money you can sock away early in your career the more time that money has to grow. If you aren't comfortable allocating your investments yourself then you could go with a Targeted Retirement Fund. These funds have a general \"\"date\"\" for retirement and the assets are allocated as appropriate for the amount of risk appropriate for the time to retirement.\"" }, { "docid": "393083", "title": "", "text": "Some ADRs have standardized options that trade on US exchanges. If your stock/ADR is one of those, then you find the put option through most brokerages that deal with stock options and trade the option like you would on a regular stock. If your ADR does not have standardized options, then your options will depend on where the ADR trades. If it's OTC, you might not even be able to short it. If it trades on a major exchange, the shorting the ADR may be a viable choice." }, { "docid": "65663", "title": "", "text": "\"@sdg's answer is spot-on with the advice to avoid repeated conversions, but I'd like to provide some specifics on the fees involved: Each time you round-trip Canadian dollars (CAD) through a U.S.-dollar (USD) priced security at TD Waterhouse and leave your proceeds in CAD, you're paying a total foreign exchange fee – implied in their rate spread – of about 3%, give or take. That's ~3% per buy & sell combination, or ~1.5% on each end. You can imagine if you trade back & forth frequently, you can quickly lose a lot of money. Do it back and forth ten times in a year and you're out ~30% on the fees alone! The TD U.S. Money Market Fund (TDB166) that TD Waterhouse is referring to has no direct commission to buy or sell, but it does have a Management Expense Ratio (MER) of 0.20% per year – basically a fee which is deducted from the fund's returns (which, today, are also close to zero.) Practically speaking, that's a very slim fee to hold some USD in your Canadian dollar TFSA. While 0.20% is cheap, a point to keep in mind is if you maintain a significant USD balance, you are maintaining currency risk: You can lose money in CAD terms if the CAD appreciates vs. USD. Additional references: Canadian Capitalist describes TD Waterhouse and the use of TDB166 and \"\"wash trades\"\" at How to \"\"Wash\"\" Your Trade? He's referring to RRSPs, but the same applies to TFSAs, which came out after the post was written. Canadian Couch Potato has two relevant articles: Are US-listed ETFs Really Cheaper? and Lowering Your Currency Exchange Fees.\"" }, { "docid": "325113", "title": "", "text": "In the UK you have an allowance of £40,000 per annum for tax relief into a pension. This amount includes both your and your employer's contributions. If you earn more than £150,000 per annum this allowance starts to reduce and if you earn less than the allowance, your allowance is limited to what you earn. You can also carry over unused allowance from up to 3 years previously. If you stick within this allowance you won't pay tax on your pension contributions, if you go over the excess will be subject to tax. Salary exchange normally lets you avoid the National Insurance value of your contribution being taxed. If you paid your own money into your pension (without going through salary exchange), your contributions would have the 20% basic rate of tax credited to them and if you're a higher rate taxpayer you could reclaim the difference between the basic rate of tax and the higher rate of tax you pay but the National Insurance you've paid on your own money would not be reclaimable. You can't get the money back you've paid into your pension till you are are 58 (given that you are 27 now), the minimum age has risen from its historic 55 for your age group. That's the pension trade off, you forgo tax now in the expectation that, once retired, you will be paying tax at a lower rate (because your income will be lower and you are much less likely to be subject to higher rate taxation) in return for locking in your money till you're older. Your pension income will be subject to tax when you eventually take it. There are other options such as ISAs which have lower annual limits (£20,000 currently) and on which your contributions do not attract tax relief, but which are not taxed as income when you eventually spend them. ISAs and pensions are not mutually exclusive so if you have the money, you can do both. It's up to you to determine what mix of savings will be appropriate to generate income for your eventual retirement. If you are living in some other country when you retire your pension will be paid net of UK tax. You might then be able to claim (or pay) any difference between that and your local tax rate depending on what agreement exists between the UK government and the other country's government." }, { "docid": "112714", "title": "", "text": "\"Market makers (shortened MM) in an exchange are generally required to list both a bid and ask price to allow both buyers and sellers to trade and keep the market moving. However, a more general idea of a MM may includes companies off an exchange (say large banks acting as broker/dealers in an over-the-counter market) are not required to give a simultaneous bid/ask, but often will on request. So, it might depend on where you are getting this data but likely the bid/ask was quoted simultaneously. An exchange, like the NASDAQ for instance, may have multiple MMs for a given market. The \"\"market\"\" spread will be from the highest bid to the lowest ask over all the MMs. The highest bid and lowest ask may come from different MMs and any particular MM often will have a larger spread. The size of the spread gives a rough idea of how much a MM is trying to make off of a \"\"round trip\"\" trade (buying than immediately selling to someone else or selling than immediately buying from someone else). Of course, immediate round-trip trades are not always possible and there are many other complications. However, half the spread is a rough indicator of how much they hope to make off of a single trade.\"" }, { "docid": "480967", "title": "", "text": "\"Aganju has mentioned put options, which are one good possibility. I would suggest considering an even easier strategy: short selling. Technically you are borrowing the stock from someone and selling it. At some point you repurchase the stock to return to the lender (\"\"covering your short\"\"). If the stock price has fallen, then when you repurchase it, it will be cheaper and you keep the profit. Short selling sounds complicated but it's actually very easy--your broker takes care of all the details. Just go to your brokerage and click \"\"sell\"\" or \"\"sell short.\"\" You can use a market or limit order just like you were selling something you own. When it sells, you are done. The money gets credited to your account. At some point (after the price falls) you should repurchase it so you don't have a negative position any more, but your brokerage isn't going to hassle you for this unless you bought a lot and the stock price starts rising. There will be limits on how much you can short, depending on how much money is in your account. Some stocks (distressed and small stocks) may sometimes be hard to short, meaning your broker will charge you a kind of interest and/or may not be able to complete your transaction. You will need a margin account (a type of brokerage account) to either use options or short sell. They are easy to come by, though. Note that for a given amount of starting money in your account, puts can give you a much more dramatic gain if the stock price falls. But they can (and often do) expire worthless, causing you to lose all money you have spent on them. If you want to maximize how much you make, use puts. Otherwise I'd short sell. About IPOs, it depends on what you mean. If the IPO has just completed and you want to bet that the share price will fall, either puts or short selling will work. Before an IPO you can't short sell and I doubt you would be able to buy an option either. Foreign stocks? Depends on whether there is an ADR for them that trades on the domestic market and on the details of your brokerage account. Let me put it this way, if you can buy it, you can short sell it.\"" }, { "docid": "412226", "title": "", "text": "There are no legal reasons preventing you from trading as a F-1 visa holder, as noted in this Money.SE answer. Per this article, here are the things you need to set up an account: What do I need to have for doing Stock trading as F1 student ? Typically, most of the stock brokerage firms require Social Security Number (SSN) for stock trading. The reason is that, for your capital gains, it is required by IRS for tax purposes. If you work on campus, then you would already get SSN as part of the job application process…Typically, once you get the on-campus job or work authorization using CPT or OPT , you use that offer letter and take all your current documents like Passport, I-20, I-94 and apply for SSN at Social Security Administration(SSA) Office, check full details at SSA Website . SSN is typically used to report job wages by employer for tax purposes or check eligibility of benefits to IRS/Government. I do NOT have SSN, Can I still do stock trading as F1 student ? While many stock brokerage firms require SSN, you are not out of luck, if you do not have one…you will have to apply for an ITIN Number ( Individual Taxpayer Identification Number ) and can use the same when applying for stock brokerage account. While some of the firms accept ITIN number, it totally depends on the stock brokering firm and you need to check with the one that you are interested in. The key thing is that you'll need either a SSN or ITIN to open a US-based brokerage account." }, { "docid": "93836", "title": "", "text": "\"Because ETFs, unlike most other pooled investments, can be easily shorted, it is possible for institutional investors to take an arbitrage position that is long the underlying securities and short the ETF. The result is that in a well functioning market (where ETF prices are what they should be) these institutional investors would earn a risk-free profit equal to the fee amount. How much is this amount, though? ETFs exist in a very competitive market. Not only do they compete with each other, but with index and mutual funds and with the possibility of constructing one's own portfolio of the underlying. ETF investors are very cost-conscious. As a result, ETF fees just barely cover their costs. Typically, ETF providers do not even do their own trading. They issue new shares only in exchange for a bundle of the underlying securities, so they have almost no costs. In order for an institutional investor to make money with the arbitrage you describe, they would need to be able to carry it out for less than the fees earned by the ETF. Unlike the ETF provider, these investors face borrowing and other shorting costs and limitations. As a result it is not profitable for them to attempt this. Note that even if they had no costs, their maximum upside would be a few basis points per year. Lots of low-risk investments do better than that. I'd also like to address your question about what would happen if there was an ETF with exorbitant fees. Two things about your suggested outcome are incorrect. If short sellers bid the price down significantly, then the shares would be cheap relative to their stream of future dividends and investors would again buy them. In a well-functioning market, you can't bid the price of something that clearly is backed by valuable underlying assets down to near zero, as you suggest in your question. Notice that there are limitations to short selling. The more shares are short-sold, the more difficult it is to locate share to borrow for this purpose. At first brokers start charging additional fees. As borrowable shares become harder to find, they require that you obtain a \"\"locate,\"\" which takes time and costs money. Finally they will not allow you to short at all. Unlimited short selling is not possible. If there was an ETF that charged exorbitant fees, it would fail, but not because of short sellers. There is an even easier arbitrage strategy: Investors would buy the shares of the ETF (which would be cheaper than the value of the underlying because of the fees) and trade them back to the ETF provider in exchange for shares of the underlying. This would drain down the underlying asset pool until it was empty. In fact, it is this mechanism (the ability to trade ETF shares for shares of the underlying and vice versa) that keeps ETF prices fair (within a small tolerance) relative to the underlying indices.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "222485", "title": "", "text": "You will be rolling over the proceeds, since you can only deposit cash into an IRA. However, this should probably not affect your considerations much since the pre-rollover sale is non-taxable within the 401k and the period of roll-over itself (when the cash is uninvested) is relatively short. So, whatever investments you choose in your 401k, you'll just sell them and then buy them (or similar investments) back after the rollover to the IRA. If you're worrying about a flash crash right on the day when you want to cash out - that can definitely happen, but it is not really something you can prepare for. You can consider moving to money market several weeks before the potential date of your withdrawal, if you think it will make you feel safer, otherwise I don't think it really matters." } ]

[ { "docid": "186538", "title": "", "text": "\"How often should one use dollar-cost averaging? Trivially, a dollar cost averaging (DCA) strategy must be used at least twice! More seriously, DCA is a discipline that people (typically investors with relatively small amounts of money to invest each month or each quarter) use to avoid succumbing to the temptation to \"\"time the market\"\". As mhoran_psprep points out, it is well-suited to 401k plans and the like (e.g. 403b plans for educational and non-profit institutions, 457 plans for State employees, etc), and indeed is actually the default option in such plans, since a fixed amount of money gets invested each week, or every two weeks, or every month depending on the payroll schedule. Many plans offer just a few mutual funds in which to invest, though far too many people, having little knowledge or understanding of investments, simply opt for the money-market fund or guaranteed annuity fund in their 4xx plans. In any case, all your money goes to work immediately since all mutual funds let you invest in thousandths of a share. Some 401k/403b/457 plans allow investments in stocks through a brokerage, but I think that using DCA to buy individual stocks in a retirement plan is not a good idea at all. The reasons for this are that not only must shares must be bought in whole numbers (integers) but it is generally cheaper to buy stocks in round lots of 100 (or multiples of 100) shares rather than in odd lots of, say, 37 shares. So buying stocks weekly, or biweekly or monthly in a 401k plan means paying more or having the money sit idle until enough is accumulated to buy 100 shares of a stock at which point the brokerage executes the order to buy the stock; and this is really not DCA at all. Worse yet, if you let the money accumulate but you are the one calling the shots \"\"Buy 100 shares of APPL today\"\" instead of letting the brokerage execute the order when there is enough money, you are likely to be timing the market instead of doing DCA. So, are brokerages useless in retirement fund accounts? No, they can be useful but they are not suitable for DCA strategies involving buying stocks. Stick to mutual funds for DCA. Do people use it across the board on all stock investments? As indicated above, using DCA to buy individual stocks is not the best idea, regardless of whether it is done inside a retirement plan or outside. DCA outside a retirement plan works best if you not trust yourself to stick with the strategy (\"\"Ooops, I forgot to mail the check yesterday; oh, well, I will do it next week\"\") but rather, arrange for your mutual fund company to take the money out of your checking account each week/month/quarter etc, and invest it in whatever fund(s) you have chosen. Most companies have such programs under names such as Automatic Investment Program (AIP) etc. Why not have your bank send the money to the mutual fund company instead? Well, that works too, but my bank charges me for sending the money whereas my mutual fund company does AIP for free. But YMMV. Dollar-cost averaging generally means investing a fixed amount of money on a periodic basis. An alternative strategy, if one has decided that owning 1200 shares of FlyByKnight Co is a good investment to have, is to buy round lots of 100 shares of FBKCO each month. The amount of money invested each month varies, but at the end of the year, the average cost of the 1200 shares is the average of the prices on the 12 days on which the investments were made. Of course, by the end of the year, you might not think FBKCO is worth holding any more. This technique worked best in the \"\"good old days\"\" when blue-chip stocks paid what was for all practical purposes a guaranteed dividend each year, and people bought these stocks with the intention of passing them on to their widows and children.\"" }, { "docid": "543619", "title": "", "text": "I've had the same thoughts recently and after reading Investing at Level 3 by James Cloonan I believe his thesis that for the passive investor you're giving up too much if you're not 100% in equities. He is clear to point out that you need to be well aware of your withdrawal horizons and has specific tactics for shifting the portfolio when you know you must have the money in the next five years and wouldn't want to pull money out when you're at a market low. The kicker for me was shifting your thought to a plotting a straight line of reasonable expectations on your return. Then you don't worry about how far down you are from your high (or up from your low) but you measure yourself against the expected return and you'll find some real grounding. You're investing for the long term so you're going to see 2-3 bear markets. That isn't the the time to get cold feet and react. Stay put and it will come back. The market gets back to the reasonable expectations very quickly as he confirms in all the bear markets and recessions of any note. He gives guidelines for a passive investing strategy to leverage this mentality and talks about venturing into an active strategy but doesn't go into great depth. So if you're looking to invest more passively this book may be enough to get you rolling with thinking differently than the traditional 70/30 split." }, { "docid": "411910", "title": "", "text": "\"Unfortunately, I missed most of segment and I didn't get to understand the Why? To begin with, Cramer is an entertainer and his business is pushing stocks. If you put money into mutual funds (which most 401k plans limit your investments to), then you are not purchasing his product. Also, many 401k plans have limited selections of funds, and many of those funds are not good performers. While his stock-picking track record is much better than mine, his isn't that great. He does point out that there are a lot of fees (mostly hidden) in 401k accounts. If you read your company's 5500 filing (especialy Schedule A), you can determine just how much your plan administrators are paying themselves. If paying excessive fees is your concern, then you should be rolling over your 401k into your IRA when you quit (or the employer-match vests, which ever is later). Finally, Cramer thinks that most of his audience will max out their IRA contributions and have only a little bit left for their 401k. I'm most definately \"\"not most people\"\" as I'm maxing out both my 401k and IRA contributions.\"" }, { "docid": "140917", "title": "", "text": "Does your employer offer a 401(k) match? If so, contribute enough to maximize that--it's free money. After that, contribute to an IRA where you can invest in funds with low expenses. After you max that out, if you still have money left over, max out your 401(k) despite the high expenses for the tax advantages. Remember when you leave the company you can roll over the balance into an IRA and switch to lower-cost investments. Of course this is general advice without knowing your situation. If you're looking to buy a home soon, for example, you might want to keep extra money in a taxable account for a downpayment rather than maxing out your 401(k)." }, { "docid": "317419", "title": "", "text": "I see you've marked an answer as accepted but I MUST tell you that STOPPING your 401k contribution all together is a bad idea. Your company match is 100% rate of return(or 50% depending on structure). I don't care what market you look at, or how bad a loan you take out, you will not receive 100% rate of return, or be charged 100% interest. Further, taking out a loan against your 401k effectively does two things: It is a loan that must be repaid according to the terms of your 401k AND in every 401k I've ever encountered, you cannot make contributions to the 401k until the loan is repaid. This in effect stops your contributions, and will almost certainly save you very little on your interest rates on your current loans. I have 4 potential solutions that may help achieve your goal without sacrificing your 401k match and transferring the debt from one lender to another, but they are conditional. Is your company match 100% up to 4% of your salary, or 50% of your contribution (up to a limit you have not yet reached)? This is important. If it is 100% up to 4%, stop committing the additional 4% and use that to pay down your debt...and after ward set up that 4% as auto pay into an IRA, not into the 401k. An IRA will make you more money because YOU have control over its management, not your employer. If it is 50% match, contribute until the match is met because you cannot get 50% rate of return anywhere, then take your additional monies and get an IRA. As far as your debt, in this scenario simply suck it up and pay it as is. You will lose far more than you gain by stopping your contributions. If you simply must reduce your expenses by 150$ month try refinancing the mortgage and rolling the 6500$ into it. If you get a big enough drop in the interest rate you could still end up paying less. OR If you cannot make the gain there, try snowballing the three payments. You do this by calling your student loan vendor and telling them you need to make much smaller payments, like even zero depending on the type of loan. Then take ALL of the money you are currently spending on the 3 loans and put into the car payment. When it's gone, roll the whole thing into the higher interest student loan, then finally roll it all into the last student loan. You'll pay it off faster, and student loans have lots of laws and regulations regarding working with payers to keep them paying something without breaking them. WHATEVER YOU DO, DO NOT STOP YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS. 50% OR 100%, THAT MONEY IS GUARANTEED AT A HIGHER RATE OF RETURN THAN YOU CAN GET ANYWHERE, ESPECIALLY GUARANTEED." }, { "docid": "560208", "title": "", "text": "\"Often in life we have to choose the lesser of evils. Whole Life as an investment vs. Term Life and invest the difference is one of these times. I assume the following statement is true. \"\"The commissions on whole life are sick. The selling agent gets upward of 90% of your first year's premium.\"\" But how does that compare to investing in mutual funds (as one alternative)? Well according to Vanguard the average mutual fund keeps 60% of the total returns over the average investors lifetime. And of course income taxes (on withdrawal) consume another 30% (or more) of the dollars you withdraw (from a tax deferred retirement plan like a 401k.) http://www.fool.com/School/MutualFunds/Performance/Record.htm So you have to pick your poison and make the choice that fits your view of the future. Personally I don't believe my cost of living in retirement will be radically lower than my cost of living while working. Additionally I believe income tax rates will be higher in the future than the in the present and so deferring taxes (like a 401k) doesn't make sense to me. (In 1980 a 401k made sense when the average 401k participant was paying over 50% in federal income tax and also got a pension.) So paying 90% of my first year's premium rather than 60% of my gains over my lifetime seems acceptable. And borrowing tax free against my life insurance once retired (with no intention of paying it back) will, I believe, provide greater income than a 401k could.\"" }, { "docid": "464264", "title": "", "text": "Dollar cost averaging is a great strategy to use for investment vehicles where you can't invest it in a lump sum. A 401K is perfect for this. You take a specific amount out of each paycheck and invest it either in a single fund, or multiple funds, or some programs let you invest it in a brokerage account so you can invest in virtually any mutual fund or stock. With annual or semi-annual re-balancing of your investments dollar cost averaging is the way to invest in these programs. If you have a lump sum to invest, then dollar cost averaging is not the best way to invest. Imagine you want to invest 10K and you want to be 50% bonds and 50% stocks. Under dollar cost averaging you would take months to move the money from 100% cash to 50/50 bonds/stocks. While you are slowly moving towards the allocation you want, you will spend months not in the allocation you want. You will spend way too long in the heavy cash position you were trying to change. The problem works the other way also. Somebody trying to switch from stocks to gold a few years ago, would not have wanted to stay in limbo for months. Obviously day traders don't use dollar cost averaging. If you will will be a frequent trader, DCA is not the way to go. No particular stock type is better for DCA. It is dependent on how long you plan on keeping the investment, and if you will be working with a lump sum or not. EDIT: There have be comments regarding DCA and 401Ks. When experts discuss why people should invest via a 401K, they mention DCA as a plus along with the company match. Many participants walk away with the belief that DCA is the BEST strategy. Many articles have been written about how to invest an inheritance or tax refund, many people want to use DCA because they believe that it is good. In fact in the last few years the experts have begun to discourage ever using DCA unless there is no other way." }, { "docid": "66206", "title": "", "text": "Don't think it would happen - at least not for the next 4-5 years - they just put a pretty significant investment into BAMTech to invest in building out stronger online offerings, and are presumably working on an ESPN ott (over-the-top) platform that's gonna roll out later this year (although we know how flimsy timelines are with major networks). If the strategy doesn't work, or if Iger is hesitant to bet on switching to a more progressive technology (the future for cord-nevers, for sure) for the sake of appeasing shareholders, really the only turnaround strategy they have is the one they're pursuing currently - keep increasing carriage fees to cable/telecom providers so that they can continue to afford the rights they're stuck with for the next decade. If subscriber loss accelerates, or even continues at the current level they're at currently, ESPN won't be able to afford the cumulative rights fees by 2021, in which case we'll see what happens." }, { "docid": "119883", "title": "", "text": "\"Almost all companies in the US have changed from formal pension programs to 401k plans, and most companies that still have pension programs don't allow new employees to enroll in the new program; only the previous participants who are vested in the pension plan will get benefits while new employees get enrolled in the 401k plan. If this is the case with your prospective employer, then demanding that you be allowed to enroll in the pension plan is likely to be futile; in fact, the likely response may well be \"\"Here is our offer. Take it or leave it\"\" or \"\"We are withdrawing the offer we made\"\" especially if you are in a field where there are plenty of other people who could do the job instead of you. So be sure that you understand what your worth is to the company and how much leverage you have before starting to make counter-offers. With regard to money that you might have vested in your current employer's pension plan, your options are to leave it there until you retire and start getting a pension (generally not advisable in these parlous times when the company might not even exist by then), roll it over into an IRA or into your new employer's 401k plan. This last is the only matter that concerns your prospective employer and where you might need to ask; the new employer's 401k plan might not be structured to accept rollovers. If the money in your current employer's retirement plan is in a pension plan, what is paid out for rolling over might be different (and smaller) than what has been credited to you thus far. For example, my (State Government) pension plan credited 8% interest per annum on the amounts I contributed but this was fake money because had I resigned and withdrawn the pension contributions (for the purpose of rolling over into an IRA or even just taking it as cash), I would have received only my contributions plus only 4.5% interest per annum. The 8% interest credited is available only for the purpose of the purchase of an immediate annuity upon retirement; it is not something that is portable to a new plan, and if I want a lump-sum payout upon retirement instead of a pension in the form of an annuity, it would be the 4.5% rate again...\"" }, { "docid": "461193", "title": "", "text": "\"First, you need to figure out what your objectives for the money are. Mostly, this boils down to how soon you are going to need the money. If you are, as you say, very busy and you don't need the money until retirement, I'd suggest putting your money in a single target date fund, such as the BlackRock LifePath fund. You figure out when you are going to retire, and put your money in that fund. The fund will then pick a mix of stocks, bonds, and other investments, adjusting the risk for your time horizon. Maybe your objectives are different, and you want to become an trader. You value being able to say at a BBQ, \"\"oh, I bought AAPL at $20\"\", or \"\"I think small caps are over valued\"\". I'd suggest you take your $50,000, and structure it so you invest $5,000 a year over 10 years. Nothing teaches you about investing like making or losing a bit of money in the market. If you put it all in at once, you risk losing it all - well before you've learned many valuable lessons which only the market can teach you. I'd suggest you study the Efficient-market hypothesis before studying specific markets or strategies.\"" }, { "docid": "72402", "title": "", "text": "No, the situation is not different, the roll-over rules are the same. It won't be taxable (as opposed to traditional to Roth roll-over), but other than that it's the same. Whether the 401k allows rolling over or not while you're still employed - you have to check with the plan administrator (ask your payroll/HR for details). Usually, the deferred compensation cannot be rolled over out of the 401k while you're still employed." }, { "docid": "469519", "title": "", "text": "Consistently beating the market by picking stocks is hard. Professional fund managers can't really do it -- and they get paid big bucks to try! You can spend a lot of time researching and picking stocks, and you may find that you do a decent job. I found that, given the amount of money I had invested, even if I beat the market by a couple of points, I could earn more money by picking up some moonlighting gigs instead of spending all that time researching stocks. And I knew the odds were against me beating the market very often. Different people will tell you that they have a sure-fire strategy that gets returns. The thing I wonder is: why are you selling the information to me rather than simply making money by executing on your strategy? If they're promising to beat the market by selling you their strategy, they've probably figured out that they're better off selling subscriptions than putting their own capital on the line. I've found that it is easier to follow an asset allocation strategy. I have a target allocation that gives me fairly broad diversification. Nearly all of it is in ETFs. I rebalance a couple times a year if something is too far off the target. I check my portfolio when I get my quarterly statements. Lastly, I have to echo JohnFx's statement about keeping some of your portfolio in cash. I was almost fully invested going into early 2001 and wished I had more cash to invest when everything tanked -- lesson learned. In early 2003 when the DJIA dropped to around 8000 and everybody I talked to was saying how they had sold off chunks of their 401k in a panic and were staying out of stocks, I was able to push some of my uninvested cash into the market and gained ~25% in about a year. I try to avoid market timing, but when there's obvious panic or euphoria I might under- or over-allocate my cash position, respectively." }, { "docid": "472882", "title": "", "text": "\"Why not do both? The object is to \"\"squirrel\"\" away as much money as possible. The 401k has the advantage of being a payroll deduction. The IRA, if you can save the money, gives you more control. When you change jobs, you can \"\"roll over\"\" your first 401k into either your IRA or your second job's 401k. Note: There are legal limits on total contributions to IRA and 401ks. I've forgotten what they are, so find out for yourself. There may also be income limits, but ones that don't apply to most 23-year olds, unless they own their own company or work for say, Goldman Sachs.\"" }, { "docid": "136270", "title": "", "text": "The vanilla advice is investing your age in bonds and the rest in stocks (index funds, of course). So if you're 25, have 75% in stock index fund and 25% in bond index. Of course, your 401k is tax sheltered, so you want keep bonds there, assuming you have taxable investments. When comparing specific funds, you need to pay attention to expense ratios. For example, Vanguard's SP 500 index has an expense ratio of .17%. Many mutual funds charge around 1.5%. That means every year, 1.5% of the fund total goes to the fund manager(s). And that is regardless of up or down market. Since you're young, I would start studying up on personal finance as much as possible. Everyone has their favorite books and websites. For sane, no-nonsense investment advise I would start at bogleheads.org. I also recommend two books - This is assuming you want to set up a strategy and not fuss with it daily/weekly/monthly. The problem with so many financial strategies is they 1) don't work, i.e. try to time the market or 2) are so overly complex the gains are not worth the effort. I've gotten a LOT of help at the boglehead forums in terms of asset allocation and investment strategy. Good luck!" }, { "docid": "237052", "title": "", "text": "If you define dollar cost cost averaging as investing a specific dollar amount over a certain fixed time frame then it does not work statistically better than any other strategy for getting that money in the market. (IE Aunt Ruth wants to invest $60,000 in the stock market and does it $5000 a month for a year.) It will work better on some markets and worse on others, but on average it won't be any better. Dollar cost averaging of this form is effectively a bet that gains will occur at the end of the time period rather than the beginning, sometimes this bet will pay off, other times it won't. A regular investment contribution of what you can afford over an indefinite time period (IE 401k contribution) is NOT Dollar Cost Averaging but it is an effective investment strategy." }, { "docid": "521014", "title": "", "text": "If you do not need the money in the 401k right away and are interested in avoiding penalties on the amounts accumulated, roll over the 401k monies into a Roth IRA (your contributions and growth thereof) and a Traditional IRA (company match a d growth thereof). You can choose to take out money from the Traditional IRA not as a lump sum (penalties in addition to lots of income tax in the year of taking the distribution) but as series of equal payments over your life expectancy (no penalty but US income tax is still due each year). Be aware that he who rides a tiger cannot dismount: if you opt for this method, you must take a distribution every year whether you need the money or not, and the amount of the distribution must match what the IRS wants you to take exactly; excess withdrawals lead to penalties etc. Publication 590 says Annuity. You can receive distributions from your traditional IRA that are part of a series of substantially equal payments over your life (or your life expectancy), or over the lives (or the joint life expectancies) of you and your beneficiary, without having to pay the 10% additional tax, even if you receive such distributions before you are age 59.5. You must use an IRS-approved distribution method and you must take at least one distribution annually for this exception to apply. The “required minimum distribution method,” when used for this purpose, results in the exact amount required to be distributed, not the minimum amount. Be aware that, depending on your country of residence/citizenship, you may be required to close all foreign accounts within x months of return, and if so, this stratagem will not work." }, { "docid": "367355", "title": "", "text": "Which strategy makes more sense: Check your new Fidelity 401k plan. Make sure it has a good group of funds available at very low fees. If it does, roll over your Principal 401k to your new 401k. Call Principal and have them transfer the funds directly to Fidelity. Do not have them send you a check. If the new plan doesn't have a good fund lineup, or has high fees, create a rollover IRA and roll your old 401k plan into it. Again, have Principal transfer the funds directly. Consider using Vanguard or other very-low-cost funds in your IRA. Taking the money out of your old 401k to pay toward your mortgage has several disadvantages. You will pay taxes and a penalty. Your mortgage rate is very good, and since you are probably in a high tax bracket and perhaps itemize deductions, the effective rate is even less. And you lose liquidity that might come in handy down the road. You can always change your mind later, but for now don't pay down your mortgage using your 401k money. As a result of being under 20%, I am paying mortgage insurance of about $300/mo. This is wasted money. Save aggressively and get your mortgage down to 80% so that you can get rid of that PMI. If you are earning a high salary, you should be able to get there in reasonably short order. If you are maxing out your 401k ($18,000 per year), you might be better off putting it on pause and instead using that money to get rid of the PMI. I have no 'retirement' plans because I enjoy working and have plans to start a company, and essentially will be happy working until I die You are young. Your life will change over time. Everyone young seems to choose one of two extremes: In the end, very few choose either of these paths. For now, just plan on retiring somewhere close to normal retirement age. You can always change your plans later." }, { "docid": "85658", "title": "", "text": "401k choices are awful because: The best remedy I have found is to roll over to an IRA when changing jobs." }, { "docid": "550083", "title": "", "text": "\"I would create a \"\"Rollover IRA\"\". These IRAs are designed to take funds from a 401k and allow you to invest them without incurring a cash out penalty nor a tax due. You will have more choices than if you leave it at your old 401k. If you cash out the 401k, you'll have much less to invest ($1500 - penalty - taxes) vs. doing a rollover 401k where you'll still have $1500 to invest. Then, once the money is inside the new Rollover IRA you can invest in whatever you please. If you want to invest in Vanguard funds, I recommend opening the Rollover IRA at Vanguard. Here is Vanguard's information page about rollovers from 401ks: https://investor.vanguard.com/what-we-offer/401k-rollovers/401k-403b-to-ira-rollover-benefits When you next change jobs and have another 401k with funds in it, you can roll it into the same Rollover IRA.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "483268", "title": "", "text": "The time horizon for your 401K/IRA is essentially the same, and it doesn't stop at the day you retire. On the day you do the rollover you will be transferring your funds into similar investments. S&P500 index to S&P 500 index; 20xx retirement date to 20xx retirement date; small cap to small cap... If your vested portion is worth X $'s when the funds are sold, that is the amount that will be transferred to the IRA custodian or the custodian for the new employer. Use the transfer to make any rebalancing adjustments that you want to make. But with as much as a year before you leave the company if you need to rebalance now, then do that irrespective of your leaving. Cash is what is transferred, not the individual stock or mutual fund shares. Only move your funds into a money market account with your current 401K if that makes the most sense for your retirement plan. Also keep in mind unless the amount in the 401K is very small you don't have to do this on your last day of work. Even if you are putting the funds in a IRA wait until you have started with the new company and so can define all your buckets based on the options in the new company." } ]

[ { "docid": "461193", "title": "", "text": "\"First, you need to figure out what your objectives for the money are. Mostly, this boils down to how soon you are going to need the money. If you are, as you say, very busy and you don't need the money until retirement, I'd suggest putting your money in a single target date fund, such as the BlackRock LifePath fund. You figure out when you are going to retire, and put your money in that fund. The fund will then pick a mix of stocks, bonds, and other investments, adjusting the risk for your time horizon. Maybe your objectives are different, and you want to become an trader. You value being able to say at a BBQ, \"\"oh, I bought AAPL at $20\"\", or \"\"I think small caps are over valued\"\". I'd suggest you take your $50,000, and structure it so you invest $5,000 a year over 10 years. Nothing teaches you about investing like making or losing a bit of money in the market. If you put it all in at once, you risk losing it all - well before you've learned many valuable lessons which only the market can teach you. I'd suggest you study the Efficient-market hypothesis before studying specific markets or strategies.\"" }, { "docid": "332113", "title": "", "text": "You are in the perfect window for making an IRA contribution. The IRS allows you to make IRA contributions for last year until tax day. So you know that for 2014 you didn't have access to a 401K at work. You want to avoid making a deductible IRA contribution for this year (2015) until you are sure that you wont have a 401K at work this year. Take your time and decide if the detectible IRA or the Roth works best for your situation. Having a IRA now will be good becasue you have many years for it to grow. Keep in mind that it is not unusual to have multiple retirement accounts: Current 401K; rolled over into a IRA; Roth IRA... Each has different rules, limits, and benefits. There is no reason to pick one way of investing for retirement becasue you never know if the next employer will have the type of plan you like. I am assuming that your spouse, if you are married, doesn't have access to a 401K; otherwise you would have to consider the applicable limits." }, { "docid": "421586", "title": "", "text": "Don't steal from the 401k. If you take the money out, you'll pay 28% in taxes and 10% in penalties -- only getting $12,960 out. Before you do anything, consult an online refi calculator to make sure you'll be in the house beyond the break-even point. With the numbers you've given and some reasonable guesses I made, it looks like you'll break even within a year. If your new employer's plan allows for loans, roll it into the new plan. Based on what you say you're putting in, you should be able to take a loan out of about $15-20k, which would get you to your LTV goal. Before you do this, calculate: and make sure you will comfortably be able to handle all of the payments. Make sure you're aware of the loan terms on your 401k loan. Understand the penalties associated with failing to make timely payments. Finally, beware of sinking all of your liquid cash into this -- how will you handle an emergency that comes up soon after closing on the new loan before you have a chance to rebuild your emergency fund?" }, { "docid": "186538", "title": "", "text": "\"How often should one use dollar-cost averaging? Trivially, a dollar cost averaging (DCA) strategy must be used at least twice! More seriously, DCA is a discipline that people (typically investors with relatively small amounts of money to invest each month or each quarter) use to avoid succumbing to the temptation to \"\"time the market\"\". As mhoran_psprep points out, it is well-suited to 401k plans and the like (e.g. 403b plans for educational and non-profit institutions, 457 plans for State employees, etc), and indeed is actually the default option in such plans, since a fixed amount of money gets invested each week, or every two weeks, or every month depending on the payroll schedule. Many plans offer just a few mutual funds in which to invest, though far too many people, having little knowledge or understanding of investments, simply opt for the money-market fund or guaranteed annuity fund in their 4xx plans. In any case, all your money goes to work immediately since all mutual funds let you invest in thousandths of a share. Some 401k/403b/457 plans allow investments in stocks through a brokerage, but I think that using DCA to buy individual stocks in a retirement plan is not a good idea at all. The reasons for this are that not only must shares must be bought in whole numbers (integers) but it is generally cheaper to buy stocks in round lots of 100 (or multiples of 100) shares rather than in odd lots of, say, 37 shares. So buying stocks weekly, or biweekly or monthly in a 401k plan means paying more or having the money sit idle until enough is accumulated to buy 100 shares of a stock at which point the brokerage executes the order to buy the stock; and this is really not DCA at all. Worse yet, if you let the money accumulate but you are the one calling the shots \"\"Buy 100 shares of APPL today\"\" instead of letting the brokerage execute the order when there is enough money, you are likely to be timing the market instead of doing DCA. So, are brokerages useless in retirement fund accounts? No, they can be useful but they are not suitable for DCA strategies involving buying stocks. Stick to mutual funds for DCA. Do people use it across the board on all stock investments? As indicated above, using DCA to buy individual stocks is not the best idea, regardless of whether it is done inside a retirement plan or outside. DCA outside a retirement plan works best if you not trust yourself to stick with the strategy (\"\"Ooops, I forgot to mail the check yesterday; oh, well, I will do it next week\"\") but rather, arrange for your mutual fund company to take the money out of your checking account each week/month/quarter etc, and invest it in whatever fund(s) you have chosen. Most companies have such programs under names such as Automatic Investment Program (AIP) etc. Why not have your bank send the money to the mutual fund company instead? Well, that works too, but my bank charges me for sending the money whereas my mutual fund company does AIP for free. But YMMV. Dollar-cost averaging generally means investing a fixed amount of money on a periodic basis. An alternative strategy, if one has decided that owning 1200 shares of FlyByKnight Co is a good investment to have, is to buy round lots of 100 shares of FBKCO each month. The amount of money invested each month varies, but at the end of the year, the average cost of the 1200 shares is the average of the prices on the 12 days on which the investments were made. Of course, by the end of the year, you might not think FBKCO is worth holding any more. This technique worked best in the \"\"good old days\"\" when blue-chip stocks paid what was for all practical purposes a guaranteed dividend each year, and people bought these stocks with the intention of passing them on to their widows and children.\"" }, { "docid": "79375", "title": "", "text": "The presence of the 401K option means that your ability to contribute to an IRA will be limited, it doesn't matter if you contribute to the 401K or not. Unless your company allows you to roll over 401K money into an IRA while you are still an employee, your money in the 401K will remain there. Many 401K programs offer not just stock mutual funds, but bond mutual funds, and international funds. Many also have target date funds. You will have to look at the paperwork for the funds to determine if any of them meet your definition of low expense. Because any money you have in those 401K funds is going to remain in the 401K, you still need to look at your options and make the best choice. Very few companies allow employees to invest in individual stocks, but some do. You can ask your employer to research other options for the 401K. The are contracting with a investment company to make the plan. They may be able to switch to a different package from the same company or may need to switch companies. How much it will cost them is unknown. You will have to understand when their current contract is up for renewal. If you feel their current plan is poor, it may be making hiring new employees difficult, or ti may lead to some employees to leave in search of better options. It may also be a factor in the number of employees contributing and how much they contribute." }, { "docid": "484764", "title": "", "text": "I have considered doing the same thing. One idea I have tossed around is investing in a REIT. A REIT is kind of like a Mutual Fund for real-estate. They normally own a large portfolio of real-estate (perhaps apartments, or commercial space, etc) and by owning a share you get some of the upward swing, without the hassle of ownership (i.e. you can sell instantaneously). The REIT sometimes handles the whole lifecycle of property management: finding renters, collecting rent, maintenance, etc. There are a lot of public REITs in the US that you can buy. Another option might be to buy shares in a Home Building company like KB Homes. Yet another option that ties onto your lack of retirement savings is the little known fact that after tax Roth IRA contributions can be withdrawn without penalty! Since 401ks can be rolled over into a Roth IRA (normally you have to leave your employer), in theory a 401k contributions can also be cashed out you just need to be careful about tracking your contributions." }, { "docid": "9861", "title": "", "text": "I am assuming that you are talking about rolling a 401k over to an IRA since if you were rolling over to another 401k you probably would not have a choice as to where it would be. Ameriprise will generally have lower fees than JPMorgan. (Probably why your husband's mutual fund is with Ameriprise.) Additionally having both accounts with Ameriprise will better allow them to assist you with your long term financial planning. For these two reasons I would recommend rolling your account over to Ameriprise. No, I do not work for Ameriprise" }, { "docid": "192627", "title": "", "text": "You can't roll it over to a Roth IRA without tax penalties. The best thing to do is roll it to an IRA that isn't tied to work at all. Second best is to roll it into your new employer's 401k. The reason that an IRA makes sense is that it gives you the same tax savings as a 401k, but it allows you to remain in control of the money regardless of your employment status." }, { "docid": "392894", "title": "", "text": "You can probably roll it over into the new company's 401k too, so just talk to your HR rep there. I set up a separate Vangard IRA so when I changejobs or anything, I just dump my investments into that account and don't have to worry about keep track of them all over the place." }, { "docid": "174335", "title": "", "text": "\"This question had better be asked of the 401k plan administrator rather than here. The plan document that you received when you began participating undoubtedly has a page or more of definitions of the terms used in the contract, and especially so if the meanings are nonstandard. For example, one would expect that a Final Distribution leaves a balance of $0 in the 401k account and so a \"\"per distribution\"\" fee is meaningless in the context of Final Distribution. As the post by mbhunter indicates, withdrawal and distribution seem to be used interchangeably in IRS documents, and so there probably is a nonstandard meaning assigned to these terms in the 401k document. Three possible nonstandard meanings of these two words come to mind. Withdrawal = at the request of the participant, and Distribution = as required by law, e.g. required minimum distribution Withdrawal = anything before age 59.5 or before termination of employment and Distribution = anything after age 59.5 or after termination of employment Withdrawal = anything on which the 10% excise tax for premature distributions must be paid, or anything that is not eligible for rollover into another tax-deferred account and Distribution = anything on which the 10% excise tax does not need to be paid. But all the above is just idle speculation, and what matters is the plan document's definitions of these terms, and that can be determined only if you read your 401k plan document yourself. Reliance on the answers given by the employer's HR department, or the plan administrator, as to what the plan document says might or might not be advisable: even the IRS has been known to give out incorrect information. In general, money cannot be withdrawn from a 401k plan and rolled over (or transferred via a trustee-to-trustee transfer) into another tax-deferred plan while the participant is still employed by the sponsor of the 401k plan. Since most 401k plans have poor investment choices and excessive administrator fees, reflect that absent this prohibition, most people would with roll over money from their 401ks into their IRAs as often as feasible. You can withdraw money from a 401k account without paying the 10% excise tax for several reasons (including financial needs of various specified kinds), but you cannot then change your mind and put that money into your IRA, telling the IRA custodian that it is a rollover from the 401k. To do so will not just trigger the 10% excise tax on premature distributions from a 401k account, but you will also need to pay penalties for excess contributions to your IRA.\"" }, { "docid": "360059", "title": "", "text": "\"There are people (well, companies) who make money doing roughly what you describe, but not exactly. They're called \"\"market makers\"\". Their value for X% is somewhere on the scale of 1% (that is to say: a scale at which almost everything is \"\"volatile\"\"), but they use leverage, shorting and hedging to complicate things to the point where it's nothing like a simple as making a 1% profit every time they trade. Their actions tend to reduce volatility and increase liquidity. The reason you can't do this is that you don't have enough capital to do what market makers do, and you don't receive any advantages that the exchange might offer to official market makers in return for them contracting to always make both buy bids and sell offers (at different prices, hence the \"\"bid-offer spread\"\"). They have to be able to cover large short-term losses on individual stocks, but when the stock doesn't move too much they do make profits from the spread. The reason you can't just buy a lot of volatile stocks \"\"assuming I don't make too many poor choices\"\", is that the reason the stocks are volatile is that nobody knows which ones are the good choices and which ones are the poor choices. So if you buy volatile stocks then you will buy a bunch of losers, so what's your strategy for ensuring there aren't \"\"too many\"\"? Supposing that you're going to hold 10 stocks, with 10% of your money in each, what do you do the first time all 10 of them fall the day after you bought them? Or maybe not all 10, but suppose 75% of your holdings give no impression that they're going to hit your target any time soon. Do you just sit tight and stop trading until one of them hits your X% target (in which case you start to look a little bit more like a long-term investor after all), or are you tempted to change your strategy as the months and years roll by? If you will eventually sell things at a loss to make cash available for new trades, then you cannot assess your strategy \"\"as if\"\" you always make an X% gain, since that isn't true. If you don't ever sell at a loss, then you'll inevitably sometimes have no cash to trade with through picking losers. The big practical question then is when that state of affairs persists, for how long, and whether it's in force when you want to spend the money on something other than investing. So sure, if you used a short-term time machine to know in advance which volatile stocks are the good ones today, then it would be more profitable to day-trade those than it would be to invest for the long term. Investing on the assumption that you'll only pick short-term winners is basically the same as assuming you have that time machine ;-) There are various strategies for analysing the market and trying to find ways to more modestly do what market makers do, which is to take profit from the inherent volatility of the market. The simple strategy you describe isn't complete and cannot be assessed since you don't say how to decide what to buy, but the selling strategy \"\"sell as soon as I've made X% but not otherwise\"\" can certainly be improved. If you're keen you can test a give strategy for yourself using historical share price data (or current share price data: run an imaginary account and see how you're doing in 12 months). When using historical data you have to be realistic about how you'd choose what stocks to buy each day, or else you're just cheating at solitaire. When using current data you have to beware that there might not be a major market slump in the next 12 months, in which case you won't know how your strategy performs under conditions that it inevitably will meet eventually if you run it for real. You also have to be sure in either case to factor in the transaction costs you'd be paying, and the fact that you're buying at the offer price and selling at the bid price, you can't trade at the headline mid-market price. Finally, you have to consider that to do pure technical analysis as an individual, you are in effect competing against a bank that's camped on top of the exchange to get fastest possible access to trade, it has a supercomputer and a team of whizz-kids, and it's trying to find and extract the same opportunities you are. This is not to say the plucky underdog can't do well, but there are systematic reasons not to just assume you will. So folks investing for their retirement generally prefer a low-risk strategy that plays the averages and settles for taking long-term trends.\"" }, { "docid": "474129", "title": "", "text": "\"There's a few layers to the Momentum Theory discussed in that book. But speaking in general terms I can answer the following: Kind of. Assuming you understand that historically the Nasdaq has seen a little more volatility than the S&P. And, more importantly, that it tends to track the tech sector more than the general economy. Thus the pitfall is that it is heavily weighted towards (and often tracks) the performance of a few stocks including: Apple, Google (Alphabet), Microsoft, Amazon, Intel and Amgen. It could be argued this is counter intuitive to the general strategy you are trying to employ. This could be tougher to justify. The reason it is potentially not a great idea has less to do with the fact that gold has factors other than just risk on/off and inflation that affect its price (even though it does!); but more to do with the fact that it is harder to own gold and move in and out of positions efficiently than it is a bond index fund. For example, consider buying physical gold. To do so you have to spend some time evaluating the purchase, you are usually paying a slight premium above the spot price to purchase it, and you should usually also have some form of security or insurance for it. So, it has additional costs. Possibly worth it as part of a long-term investment strategy; if you believe gold will appreciate over a decade. But not so much if you are holding it for as little as a few weeks and constantly moving in and out of the position over the year. The same is true to some extent of investing in gold in the form of an ETF. At least a portion of \"\"their gold\"\" comes from paper or futures contracts which must be rolled every month. This creates a slight inefficiency. While possibly not a deal breaker, it would not be as attractive to someone trading on momentum versus fundamentals in my opinion. In the end though, I think all strategies are adaptable. And if you feel gold will be the big mover this year, and want to use it as your risk hedge, who am I or anyone else to tell you that you shouldn't.\"" }, { "docid": "59600", "title": "", "text": "It is really hard to tell where you should withdraw money from. So instead, I'll give you some pointers to make it easier for you to make the decision for yourself, while keeping the answer useful to others as well. I have 3 401ks, ... and some has post tax, non Roth money Why keeping 3 401ks? You can roll them over into an IRA or the one 401k which is still active (I assume here you're not currently employed with 3 different employers). This will also help you avoiding fees for too low balances on your IRAs. However, for the 401k with after tax (not Roth) balance - read the next part carefully. Post tax amounts are your basis. Generally, it is not a good idea to keep post-tax amounts in 401k/IRA, you usually do post-tax contributions to convert them to Roth ASAP. Withdrawing from 401k with basis may become a mess since you'll have to account for the basis portion of each withdrawal. Especially if you pool it with IRAs, so that one - don't rollover, keep it separately to make that accounting easier. I also have several smaller IRAs and Roth IRAs, Keep in mind the RMD requirements. Roth IRAs don't have those, and are non-taxable income, so you would probably want to keep them as long as possible. This is relevant for 401k as well. Again, consolidating will help you with the fees. I'm concerned about having easily accessible cash for emergencies. I suggest keeping Roth amounts for this purpose as they're easily accessible and bear no taxable consequence. Other than emergencies don't touch them for as long as you can. I do have some other money in taxable investments For those, consider re-balancing to a more conservative style, but beware of the capital gains taxes if you have a lot of gains accumulated. You may want consider loss-harvesting (selling the positions in the red) to liquidate investments without adverse tax consequences while getting some of your cash back into the checking account. In any case, depending on your tax bracket, capital gains taxes are generally lower (down to 0%) than ordinary income taxes (which is what you pay for IRA/401k withdrawals), so you would probably want to start with these, after careful planning and taking the RMD and the Social Security (if you're getting any) into account." }, { "docid": "592915", "title": "", "text": "Since you're coming out of college, you're probably a new investor and don't know too much about stocks, etc. I was in the same situation as well. I wanted to keep my cash 'liquid' and wanted to make low risk investments. What I ended up doing was investing the majority of my money in higher interest GICs (Guaranteed Investment Certificate) and keeping the rest in my chequing/savings account. I understand that GICs aren't exactly the most liquid asset out there. However, instead of investing it all into 1 GIC, I put them in to smaller increments with varying lock-in times and roll-over options. I.e. for 15000 keep $3000 on hand in your account 2x$1000 invested for 2 years 4x$1000 invested for 1 year 3x$1000 invested for 180 days 3x$1000 invested for 90 days When you find that you run out of cash from your $3000, you'll have a GIC expiring soon. The 'problem' with GICs is that redeeming them before the maturity period usually incurs a penalty in the form of no interest. Keeping them in smaller increments allows you to redeem only the amount you need without losing too much interest. At maturity, if you don't need the money, you can just have the GIC renew. The other problem with GICs, is that interest rates, though better than savings accounts, aren't that much more. You're basically just fighting off inflation. The benefit is that on maturity, you are guaranteed your principal and the interest. This plan is easy to implement if your bank/credit union allows you to create and manage GICs online." }, { "docid": "361037", "title": "", "text": "When you pick a company for your IRA, they should have information about rolling over funds from another IRA or a 401K. They will be able to walk you through the process. There shouldn't be a fee for doing this. They want your money to be invested in their funds. Once your money is in their hands they are able to generate their profits. You will want to do a direct transfer. Some employers will work with the investment companies and send the funds directly to the IRA. Others will insist on sending a check to you. The company that will have your IRA should give you exact specifications for the check so that you won't have to cash it. The check will be payable to you or the IRA account. The IRA company will have all the details. Decide if you will be converting non-Roth to Roth, before doing the rollover." }, { "docid": "179606", "title": "", "text": "If you really want to use the money roll it over to the new companies 401k and then take a 401k loan out for whatever the expense is. (Assuming the retirement plan allows them.) Generally 401k loans are frowned upon for all sorts of reasons however if the alternative is to just flat out withdraw the money it is a slightly better solution." }, { "docid": "140349", "title": "", "text": "Are you obligated to do what they ask? Probably not, with one big caveat discussed below. Your employer sent your money and their money after every paycheck to the 401K management company. Then after a while the 401K management company followed your instructions to roll it over into an IRA. Now the IRA management company has it. Pulling it out of the IRA would be very hard, and the IRA company would be required to report it to the IRS as a withdraw. Here is the caveat. If the extra funds you put in allowed you to exceed the annual contribution amount set by the law, or if it allowed you to put more than 100% of your income into the fund, then this would be an excess contribution, and you and your employer would have to resolve or face the excess contribution penalties. Though if the 401K company and HR allowed you to exceed the annual limit they have a much more complex problem with their payroll system. The bigger concern is why they want you to pull out your $27.50 and their $27.50. Unless you were hitting the maximum limit, your $27.50 could have been invested by adjusting the percentage taken out of each check. You could have picked a percentage to reach a goal. That money is yours because you contributed it and unless you exceed the IRS set limits it is still pre-tax retirement money. The return of matching funds may be harder to calculate. The returns for 2013 were very good. Each $1.06 of matching funds each paycheck purchased a fraction of some investment. That investment went up and down, ok mostly up, if it was invested in the broad market. I guess you should be glad they aren't asking for more due to the increase in value. It would be very hard to calculate what happened if you have moved it around since then. Which of course you did when you moved it into an IRA. If the average employee was also given a $55 gift last year, then the suggestion to the employer is that the tax complexity you and your fellow employees face would exceed the cost of the extra funds. They should chalk it up to an expensive lesson and move on." }, { "docid": "119883", "title": "", "text": "\"Almost all companies in the US have changed from formal pension programs to 401k plans, and most companies that still have pension programs don't allow new employees to enroll in the new program; only the previous participants who are vested in the pension plan will get benefits while new employees get enrolled in the 401k plan. If this is the case with your prospective employer, then demanding that you be allowed to enroll in the pension plan is likely to be futile; in fact, the likely response may well be \"\"Here is our offer. Take it or leave it\"\" or \"\"We are withdrawing the offer we made\"\" especially if you are in a field where there are plenty of other people who could do the job instead of you. So be sure that you understand what your worth is to the company and how much leverage you have before starting to make counter-offers. With regard to money that you might have vested in your current employer's pension plan, your options are to leave it there until you retire and start getting a pension (generally not advisable in these parlous times when the company might not even exist by then), roll it over into an IRA or into your new employer's 401k plan. This last is the only matter that concerns your prospective employer and where you might need to ask; the new employer's 401k plan might not be structured to accept rollovers. If the money in your current employer's retirement plan is in a pension plan, what is paid out for rolling over might be different (and smaller) than what has been credited to you thus far. For example, my (State Government) pension plan credited 8% interest per annum on the amounts I contributed but this was fake money because had I resigned and withdrawn the pension contributions (for the purpose of rolling over into an IRA or even just taking it as cash), I would have received only my contributions plus only 4.5% interest per annum. The 8% interest credited is available only for the purpose of the purchase of an immediate annuity upon retirement; it is not something that is portable to a new plan, and if I want a lump-sum payout upon retirement instead of a pension in the form of an annuity, it would be the 4.5% rate again...\"" }, { "docid": "482121", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't think there's a rule -- (I can't comment) but Brick cited IRS rules...but IMO Brick missed one thing -- @ashur668 is not looking for a distribution, but is looking for a rollover. My best guess: that this part of the ruleset is not well defined, and your (and my) employer have chosen to interpret any withdrawl as a \"\"distribution\"\", even if better characterized a rollover. A few months ago, I went so far as to explore if I could use a loophole -- my company had just gone through a merger; I was hoping I could rollover some or maybe all of my 401k to my IRA (I remember now, it would have been everything before starting roth 401k contributions). My company asserted this was not permitted, and further asserted that the rumors I had heard were mistaken that when we went through a company spin-off a few years before, that nobody under 59 1/2 was permitted to roll over. I did a quick search and found IRS topic 413 As far as I can tell, this topic is silent on the matter at hand. Topic 413 referred me to IRS Publication 575, where I started looking at the section on rollovers. I read some of it then got bored. Note that we're one step removed -- we are reading IRS publications and interpretations of IRS rules. I don't know that anybody here has read the actual tax law. There may be something in there that prevents companies from rolling over before 59 1/2 that is not well codified in IRS publications.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "284235", "title": "", "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.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "1203", "title": "", "text": "When you want to short a stock, you are trying to sell shares (that you are borrowing from your broker), therefore you need buyers for the shares you are selling. The ask prices represent people who are trying to sell shares, and the bid prices represent people who are trying to buy shares. Using your example, you could put in a limit order to short (sell) 1000 shares at $3.01, meaning that your order would become the ask price at $3.01. There is an ask price ahead of you for 500 shares at $3.00. So people would have to buy those 500 shares at $3.00 before anyone could buy your 1000 shares at $3.01. But it's possible that your order to sell 1000 shares at $3.01 never gets filled, if the buyers don't buy all the shares ahead of you. The price could drop to $1.00 without hitting $3.01 and you will have missed out on the trade. If you really wanted to short 1000 shares, you could use a market order. Let's say there's a bid for 750 shares at $2.50, and another bid for 250 shares at $2.49. If you entered a market order to sell 1000 shares, your order would get filled at the best bid prices, so first you would sell 750 shares at $2.50 and then you would sell 250 shares at $2.49. I was just using your example to explain things. In reality there won't be such a wide spread between the bid and ask prices. A stock might have a bid price of $10.50 and an ask price of $10.51, so there would only be a 1 cent difference between putting in a limit order to sell 1000 shares at $10.51 and just using a market order to sell 1000 shares and getting them filled at $10.50. Also, your example probably wouldn't work in real life, because brokers typically don't allow people to short stocks that are trading under $5 per share. As for your question about how often you are unable to make a short sale, it can sometimes happen with stocks that are heavily shorted and your broker may not be able to find any more shares to borrow. Also remember that you can only short stocks with a margin account, you cannot short stocks with a cash account." }, { "docid": "550643", "title": "", "text": "If you can afford the cost and risk of 100 shares of stock, then just sell a put option. If you can only afford a few shares, you can still use the information the options market is trying to give you -- see below. A standing limit order to buy a stock is essentially a synthetic short put option position. [1] So deciding on a stock limit order price is the same as valuing an option on that stock. Options (and standing limit orders) are hard to value, and the generally accepted math for doing so -- the Black-Scholes-Merton framework -- is also generally accepted to be wrong, because of black swans. So rather than calculate a stock buy limit price yourself, it's simpler to just sell a put at the put's own midpoint price, accepting the market's best estimate. Options market makers' whole job (and the purpose of the open market) is price discovery, so it's easier to let them fight it out over what price options should really be trading at. The result of that fight is valuable information -- use it. Sell a 1-month ATM put option every month until you get exercised, after which time you'll own 100 shares of stock, purchased at: This will typically give you a much better cost basis (several dollars better) versus buying the stock at spot, and it offloads the valuation math onto the options market. Meanwhile you get to keep the cash from the options premiums as well. Disclaimer: Markets do make mistakes. You will lose money when the stock drops more than the option market's own estimate. If you can't afford 100 shares, or for some reason still want to be in the business of creating synthetic options from pure stock limit orders, then you could maybe play around with setting your stock purchase bid price to (approximately): See your statistics book for how to set ndev -- 1 standard deviation gives you a 30% chance of a fill, 2 gives you a 5% chance, etc. Disclaimer: The above math probably has mistakes; do your own work. It's somewhat invalid anyway, because stock prices don't follow a normal curve, so standard deviations don't really mean a whole lot. This is where market makers earn their keep (or not). If you still want to create synthetic options using stock limit orders, you might be able to get the options market to do more of the math for you. Try setting your stock limit order bid equal to something like this: Where put_strike is the strike price of a put option for the equity you're trading. Which option expiration and strike you use for put_strike depends on your desired time horizon and desired fill probability. To get probability, you can look at the delta for a given option. The relationship between option delta and equity limit order probability of fill is approximately: Disclaimer: There may be math errors here. Again, do your own work. Also, while this method assumes option markets provide good estimates, see above disclaimer about the markets making mistakes." }, { "docid": "278450", "title": "", "text": "The strategy has intrinsic value, which may or may not be obstructed in practice by details mentioned in other answers (tax and other overheads, regulation, risk). John Bensin says that as a general principle, if a simple technical analysis is good then someone will have implemented it before you. That's fair, but we can do better than an existence proof for this particular case, we can point to who is doing approximately this. Market makers are already doing this with different numbers. They quote a buy price and a sell price on the same stock, so they are already buying low and selling high with a small margin. If your strategy works in practice, that means you can make low-risk money from short-term volatility that they're missing out on, by setting your margin at approximately the daily price variation instead of the current bid-offer spread. But market makers choose their own bid-offer spread, and they choose it because they think it's the best margin to make low-risk money in the long run. So you'd be relying that:" }, { "docid": "16531", "title": "", "text": "Looking at the SPY option chain you posted, all of the call options with a strike price of 199.50 or higher have a bid of N/A. That's because the ask price for all of those options is 0.01, and the bid price has to be less than the ask price, but buyers are not allowed to bid 0.00. It's not accurate to say that no one wants to buy those calls - anyone who wanted to buy one of those calls would just buy it at the ask price of 0.01. So why are people selling those calls for just 0.01? The further out of the money you go as you get closer to expiration, the less likely the underlying stock or ETF (SPY in this case) will go over the strike price, and the less you can sell it for. SPY closed yesterday at about 195, and it would have to go up almost 2.5% today for the 199.50 calls to be in the money, and a 2.5% move in one day is extremely unlikely." }, { "docid": "340607", "title": "", "text": "\"The \"\"price\"\" is the price of the last transaction that actually took place. According to Motley Fool wiki: A stock price is determined by what was last paid for it. During market hours (usually weekdays from 9:30AM-4:00PM eastern), a heavily traded issue will see its price change several times per second. A stock's price is, for many purposes, considered unchanged outside of market hours. Roughly speaking, a transaction is executed when an offer to buy matches an offer to sell. These offers are listed in the Order Book for a stock (Example: GOOG at Yahoo Finance). This is actively updated during trading hours. This lists all the currently active buy (\"\"bid\"\") and sell (\"\"ask\"\") orders for a stock, and looks like this: You'll notice that the stock price (again, the last sale price) will (usually*) be between the highest bid and the lowest ask price. * Exception: When all the buy or sell prices have moved down or up, but no trades have executed yet.\"" }, { "docid": "285126", "title": "", "text": "\"I may be underestimating your knowledge of how exchanges work; if so, I apologize. If not, then I believe the answer is relatively straightforward. Lets say price of a stock at time t1 is 15$ . There are many types of price that an exchange reports to the public (as discussed below); let's say that you're referring to the most recent trade price. That is, the last time a trade executed between a willing buyer and a willing seller was at $15.00. Lets say a significant buy order of 1M shares came in to the market. Here I believe might be a misunderstanding on your part. I think you're assuming that the buy order must necessarily be requesting a price of $15.00 because that was the last published price at time t1. In fact, orders can request any price they want. It's totally okay for someone to request to buy at $10.00. Presumably nobody will want to sell to him, but it's still a perfectly valid buy order. But let's continue under the assumptions that at t1: This makes the bid $14.99 and the ask $15.00. (NYSE also publishes these prices.) There aren't enough people selling that stock. It's quite rare (in major US equities) for anyone to place a buy order that exceeds the total available shares listed for sale at all prices. What I think you mean is that 1M is larger than the amount of currently-listed sell requests at the ask of $15.00. So say of the 1M only 100,000 had a matching sell order and others are waiting. So this means that there were exactly 100,000 shares waiting to be sold at the ask of $15.00, and that all other sellers currently in the market told NYSE they were only willing to sell for a price of $15.01 or higher. If there had been more shares available at $15.00, then NYSE would have matched them. This would be a trigger to the automated system to start increasing the price. Here is another point of misunderstanding, I think. NYSE's automated system does not invent a new, higher price to publish at this point. Instead it simply reports the last trade price (still $15.00), and now that all of the willing sellers at $15.00 have been matched, NYSE also publishes the new ask price of $15.01. It's not that NYSE has decided $15.01 is the new price for the stock; it's that $15.01 is now the lowest price at which anyone (known to NYSE) is willing to sell. If nobody happened to be interested in selling at $15.01 at t1, but there were people interested in selling at $15.02, then the new published ask would be $15.02 instead of $15.01 -- not because NYSE decided it, but just because those happened to be the facts at the time. Similarly, the new bid is most likely now $15.00, assuming the person who placed the order for 1M shares did not cancel the remaining unmatched 900,000 shares of his/her order. That is, $15.00 is now the highest price at which anyone (known to NYSE) is willing to buy. How much time does the automated system wait to increment the price, the frequency of the price change and by what percentage to increment etc. So I think the answer to all these questions is that the automated system does none of these things. It merely publishes information about (a) the last trade price, (b) the price that is currently the lowest price at which anyone has expressed a willingness to sell, and (c) the price that is currently the highest price at which anyone has expressed a willingness to buy. ::edit:: Oh, I forgot to answer your primary question. Can we estimate the impact of a large buy order on the share price? Not only can we estimate the impact, but we can know it explicitly. Because the exchange publishes information on all the orders it knows about, anyone tracking that information can deduce that (in this example) there were exactly 100,000 shares waiting to be purchased at $15.00. So if a \"\"large buy order\"\" of 1M shares comes in at $15.00, then we know that all of the people waiting to sell at $15.00 will be matched, and the new lowest ask price will be $15.01 (or whatever was the next lowest sell price that the exchange had previously published).\"" }, { "docid": "580364", "title": "", "text": "\"This is a misconception. One of the explanations is that if you buy at the ask price and want to sell it right away, you can only sell at the bid price. This is incorrect. There are no two separate bid and ask prices. The price you buy (your \"\"bid\"\") is the same price someone else sells (their \"\"sell\"\"). The same goes when you sell - the price you sell at is the price someone else buys. There's no spread with stocks. Emphasized it on purpose, because many people (especially those who gamble on stock exchange without knowing what they're doing) don't understand how the stock market works. On the stock exchange, the transaction price is the match between the bid price and the ask price. Thus, on any given transaction, bid always equals ask. There's no spread. There is spread with commodities (if you buy it directly, especially), contracts, mutual funds and other kinds of brokered transactions that go through a third party. The difference (spread) is that third party's fee for assuming part of the risk in the transaction, and is indeed added to your cost (indirectly, in the way you described). These transactions don't go directly between a seller and a buyer. For example, there's no buyer when you redeem some of your mutual fund - the fund pays you money. So the fund assumes certain risk, which is why there's a spread in the prices to invest and to redeem. Similarly with commodities: when you buy a gold bar - you buy it from a dealer, who needs to keep a stock. Thus, the dealer will not buy from you at the same price: there's a premium on sale and a discount on buy, which is a spread, to compensate the dealer for the risk of keeping a stock.\"" }, { "docid": "322798", "title": "", "text": "\"I think for this a picture is worth a thousand words. This is a \"\"depth chart\"\" that I pulled from google images, specifically because it doesn't name any security. On the left you have all of the \"\"bids\"\" to buy this security, on the right you have the \"\"asks\"\" to sell the security. In the middle you have the bid/ask spread, this is the space between the highest bid and the lowest ask. As you can see you are free to place you order to the market to buy for 232, and someone else is free to place their order to the market to sell for 234. When the bid and the ask match there's a transaction for the maximum number of available shares. Alternatively, someone can place a market order to buy or sell and they'll just take the current market price. Retail investors don't really get access to this kind of chart from their brokers because for the most part the information isn't terribly relevant at the retail level.\"" }, { "docid": "212685", "title": "", "text": "At any point of time, buyer wants to purchase a stock at lesser price and seller wants to sell the stock at a higher price. Let's consider this scenario Company XYZ is trading at 100$, as stated above buyer wants to purchase at lower price and seller at higher price, this information will be available in Market depth, let's consider there are 5 buyers and 5 sellers, below are the details of their orders Buyers List Sellers List Highest order in buyers list will contain the bid price and bid quantity, Lowest order in Sellers list will contain the offer price and offer quantity. Now, if I want to buy 50 Stocks of company XYZ, need to place an order first, it can be either limit or Market. Limit Order : In this order, I will mention the price(buy price) at which I wish to buy, if there is any seller selling the stock less than or equal to price I have mentioned, then the order will be executed else it will be added to buyers list Market Order : In this order, I will not mention the price, if I wish to purchase 50 Stocks, then it will find the lowest offer price and buy stocks, in our case it will be 101. if I wish to purchase 200 Stocks, then it will find the lowest offer price and buy stocks, in our case it will be 2 transactions, since entire request cannot be accommodated in single order Usually the volume(Ask Volume and Offer Volume) being displayed are all Limit orders and not Market orders, Market orders are executed immediately. This is just an example, However several transactions are executed within a second, hence we will get to know the exact value only after the order is completed(executed)" }, { "docid": "260085", "title": "", "text": "\"Some technical indicators (e.g. Williams %R) indicate whether the market is overbought or oversold. ... Every time a stock or commodity is bought, it is also sold. And vice versa. So how can anything ever be over-bought or over-sold? But I'm sure I'm missing something. What is it? You're thinking of this as a normal purchase, but that's not really how equity markets operate. First, just because there are shares of stock purchased, it doesn't mean that there was real investor buyer and seller demand for that instrument (at that point in time). Markets have dedicated middlemen called Market Makers, who are responsible to make sure that there is always someone to buy or sell; this ensures that all instruments have sufficient liquidity. Market Makers may decide to lower their bid on a stock based on a high number of sellers, or raise their ask for a high number of buyers. During an investor rush to buy or sell an instrument (perhaps in response to a news release), it's possible for Market Makers to accumulate a large number of shares, without end-investors being involved on both sides of the transaction. This is one example of how instruments can be over-bought or over-sold. Since Williams %R creates over-bought and over-sold signals based on historical averages of open / close prices, perhaps it's better to think of these terms as \"\"over-valued\"\" and \"\"under-valued\"\". Of course, there could be good reason for instruments to open or close outside their expected ranges, so Williams %R is just a tool to give you clues... not a real evaluation of the instrument's true value.\"" }, { "docid": "525231", "title": "", "text": "\"There are two distinct questions that may be of interest to you. Both questions are relevant for funds that need to buy or sell large orders that you are talking about. The answer depends on your order type and the current market state such as the level 2 order book. Suppose there are no iceberg or hidden orders and the order book (image courtesy of this question) currently is: An unlimited (\"\"at market\"\") buy order for 12,000 shares gets filled immediately: it gets 1,100 shares at 180.03 (1,100@180.03), 9,700 at 180.04 and 1,200 at 180.05. After this order, the lowest ask price becomes 180.05 and the highest bid is obviously still 180.02 (because the previous order was a 'market order'). A limited buy order for 12,000 shares with a price limit of 180.04 gets the first two fills just like the market order: 1,100 shares at 180.03 and 9,700 at 180.04. However, the remainder of the order will establish a new bid price level for 1,200 shares at 180.04. It is possible to enter an unlimited buy order that exhausts the book. However, such a trade would often be considered a mis-trade and either (i) be cancelled by the broker, (ii) be cancelled or undone by the exchange, or (iii) hit the maximum price move a stock is allowed per day (\"\"limit up\"\"). Funds and banks often have to buy or sell large quantities, just like you have described. However they usually do not punch through order book levels as I described before. Instead they would spread out the order over time and buy a smaller quantity several times throughout the day. Simple algorithms attempt to get a price close to the time-weighted average price (TWAP) or volume-weighted average price (VWAP) and would buy a smaller amount every N minutes. Despite splitting the order into smaller pieces the price usually moves against the trader for many reasons. There are many models to estimate the market impact of an order before executing it and many brokers have their own model, for example Deutsche Bank. There is considerable research on \"\"market impact\"\" if you are interested. I understand the general principal that when significant buy orders comes in relative to the sell orders price goes up and when a significant sell order comes in relative to buy orders it goes down. I consider this statement wrong or at least misleading. First, stocks can jump in price without or with very little volume. Consider a company that releases a negative earnings surprise over night. On the next day the stock may open 20% lower without any orders having matched for any price in between. The price moved because the perception of the stocks value changed, not because of buy or sell pressure. Second, buy and sell pressure have an effect on the price because of the underlying reason, and not necessarily/only because of the mechanics of the market. Assume you were prepared to sell HyperNanoTech stock, but suddenly there's a lot of buzz and your colleagues are talking about buying it. Would you still sell it for the same price? I wouldn't. I would try to find out how much they are prepared to buy it for. In other words, buy pressure can be the consequence of successful marketing of the stock and the marketing buzz is what changes the price.\"" }, { "docid": "137175", "title": "", "text": "If you are buying your order will be placed in Bid list. If you are selling your order will be placed in the Ask list. The highest Bid price will be placed at the top of the Bid list and the lowest Ask price will be placed at the top of the Ask list. When a Bid and Ask price are matched a transaction will take place and it will the last traded price. If you are looking to buy at a lower price, say $155.01, your Bid price will be placed 3rd in the Bid list, and unless the Ask prices fall to that level, your order will remain in the list until it trades, it expires or you cancel it. If prices don't fall to you Bid price you will not get a trade. If you wanted your trade to go through you could either place a limit buy order closer to the lowest Ask price (however this is still not a certainty), or to be certain place a market buy order which will trade at the lowest Ask price." }, { "docid": "24856", "title": "", "text": "\"In general, there should be a \"\"liquidity premium\"\" which means that less-liquid stocks should be cheaper. That's because to buy such a stock, you should demand a higher rate of return to compensate for the liquidity risk (the possibility that you won't be able to sell easily). Lower initial price = higher eventual rate of return. That's what's meant when Investopedia says the security would be cheaper (on average). Is liquidity good? It depends. Here's what illiquidity is. Imagine you own a rare piece of art. Say there are 10 people in the world who collect this type of art, and would appreciate what you own. That's an illiquid asset, because when you want to sell, maybe those 10 people aren't buying - maybe they don't want your particular piece, or they all happen to be short on funds. Or maybe worse, only one of them is buying, so they have all the negotiating leverage. You'll have to lower your price if you're really in a hurry to sell. Maybe if you lower your price enough, you can get one of the 10 buyers interested, even if none were initially. An illiquid asset is bad for sellers. Illiquid means there aren't enough buyers for you to get a bidding war going at the time of your choosing. You'll potentially have to wait around for buyers to turn up, or for a stock, maybe you'd have to sell a little bit at a time as buyers want the shares. Illiquid can be bad for buyers, too, if the buyer is for some reason in a hurry; maybe nobody is selling at any given time. But, usually buyers don't have to be in a hurry. An exception may be if you short sell something illiquid (brokers often won't let you do this, btw). In that case you could be a forced buyer and this could be very bad on an illiquid security. If there are only one or two sellers out there, they now have the negotiating leverage and they can ask whatever price they want. Illiquidity is very bad when mixed with margin or short sales because of the potential for forced trades at inopportune times. There are plenty of obscure penny stocks where there might be only one or two trades per day, or fewer. The spread is going to be high on these because the bids at a given time will just be lowball offers from buyers who aren't really all that interested, unless you want to give your stock away, in which case they'll take it. And the asks are going to be from sellers who want to get a decent price, but maybe there aren't really any buyers willing to pay, so the ask is just sitting there with no takers. The bids and asks may be limit orders that have been sitting open for 3 weeks and forgotten about. Contrast with a liquid asset. For example, a popular-model used car in good condition would be a lot more liquid than a rare piece of art, though not nearly as liquid as most stocks. You can probably find several people that want to buy it living nearby, and you're not going to have to drop the price to get a buyer to show up. You might even get those buyers in a bidding war. From illiquid penny stocks, there's a continuum all the way up to the most heavily-traded stocks such as those in the S&P500. With these at a given moment there will be thousands of buyers and sellers, so the spread is going to close down to nearly zero. If you think about it, just statistically, if there are thousands of bids and thousands of asks, then the closest bid-ask pair is going to be close together. That's a narrow spread. While if there are 3 bids and 2 asks on some illiquid penny stock, they might be dollars away from each other, and the number of shares desired might not match up. You can see how liquidity is good in some situations and not in others. An illiquid asset gives you more opportunity to get a good deal because there aren't a lot of other buyers and sellers around and there's some opportunity to \"\"negotiate\"\" within the wide spread. For some assets maybe you can literally negotiate by talking to the other party, though obviously not when trading stocks on an exchange. But an illiquid asset also means you might get a bad deal, especially if you need to sell quickly and the only buyers around are making lowball offers. So the time to buy illiquid assets is when you can take your time on both buying and selling, and will have no reason for a forced trade on a particular timeline. This usually means no debt is involved, since creditors (including your margin broker) can force you to trade. It also means you don't need to spend the money anytime soon, since if you suddenly needed the money you'd have a forced trade on your hands. If you have the time, then you put a price out there that's very good for you, and you wait for someone to show up and give you that price - this is how you get a good deal. One more note, another use of the term liquid is to refer to assets with low or zero volatility, such as money market funds. An asset with a lot of volatility around its intrinsic or true value is effectively illiquid even if there's high trade volume, in that any given point in time might not be a good time to sell, because the price isn't at the right level. Anyway, the general definition of a liquid investment is one that you'd be comfortable cashing out of at a moment's notice. In this sense, most stocks are not all that liquid, despite high trading volume. In different contexts people may use \"\"liquid\"\" in this sense or to mean a low bid-ask spread.\"" }, { "docid": "228983", "title": "", "text": "\"In a sense, yes. There's a view in Yahoo Finance that looks like this For this particular stock, a market order for 3000 shares (not even $4000, this is a reasonably small figure) will move the stock past $1.34, more than a 3% move. Say, on the Ask side there are 100,000 shares, all with $10 ask. It would take a lot of orders to purchase all these shares, so for a while, the price may stay right at $10, or a bit lower if there are those willing to sell lower. But, say that side showed $10 1000, $10.25 500, $10.50 1000. Now, the volume is so low that if I decided I wanted shares at any price, my order, a market order will actually drive the market price right up to $10.50 if I buy 2500 shares \"\"market\"\". You see, however, even though I'm a small trader, I drove the price up. But now that the price is $10.50 when I go to sell all 2500 at $10.50, there are no bids to pay that much, so the price the next trade will occur at isn't known yet. There may be bids at $10, with asking (me) at $10.50. No trades will happen until a seller takes the $10 bid or other buyers and sellers come in.\"" }, { "docid": "317365", "title": "", "text": "\"Most of the time* you're selling to other investors, not back to the company. The stock market is a collection of bid (buy offers) and asks (sell offers). When you sell your stock as a retail investor at the \"\"market\"\" price you're essentially just meeting whatever standing bid offers are on the market. For very liquid stocks (e.g. Apple), you can pretty much always get the displayed price because so many stocks are being traded. However during periods of very high volatility or for low-volume stocks, the quoted price may not be indicative of what you actually pay. As an example, let's say you have 5 stocks you're trying to sell and the bid-side order book is 2 stocks for $105, 2 for $100, and 5 for $95. In this scenario the quoted price will be $105 (the best bid price), but if you accept market price you'll settle 2 for 105, 2 for 100, and 1 for 95. After your sell order goes through, the new quoted price will be $95. For high volume stocks, there will usually be so many orders near the midpoint price ($105, in this case) that you won't see any price slippage for small orders. You can also post limit orders, which are essentially open orders waiting to be filled like in the above example. They ensure you get the price you want, but you have no way to guarantee they'll be filled or not. Edit: as a cool example, check out the bitcoin GDAX on coinbase for a live example of what the order book looks like for stocks. You'll see that the price of bitcoin will drift towards whichever direction has the less dense order book (e.g. price drifts upwards when there are far more bids than asks.)\"" }, { "docid": "151132", "title": "", "text": "\"First, keep in mind that there are generally 2 ways to buy a corporation's shares: You can buy a share directly from the corporation. This does not happen often; it usually happens at the Initial Public Offering [the first time the company becomes \"\"public\"\" where anyone with access to the stock exchange can become a part-owner], plus maybe a few more times during the corporations existence. In this case, the corporation is offering new ownership in exchange for a price set the corporation (or a broker hired by the corporation). The price used for a public offering is the highest amount that the company believes it can get - this is a very complicated field, and involves many different methods of evaluating what the company should be worth. If the company sets the price too low, then they have missed out on possible value which would be earned by the previous, private shareholders (they would have gotten the same share % of a corporation which would now have more cash to spend, because of increased money paid by new shareholders). If the company sets the price too high, then the share subscription might only be partially filled, so there might not be enough cash to do what the company wanted. You can buy a share from another shareholder. This is more common - when you see the company's share price on the stock exchange, it is this type of transaction - buying out other current shareholders. The price here is simply set based on what current owners are willing to sell at. The \"\"Bid Price\"\" listed by an exchange is the current highest bid that a purchaser is offering for a single share. The \"\"Ask Price\"\" is the current lowest offer that a seller is offering to sell a single share they currently own. When the bid price = the ask price, a share transaction happens, and the most recent stock price changes.\"" }, { "docid": "218842", "title": "", "text": "Prices quoted are primarily the offer prices quoted by the numerous market makers on the stock exchange(s) willing to sell you the stock. There is another price which generally isn't seen on these websites, the bid prices, which are lower prices quoted by buyers and market makers willing to buy your shares from you. You wouldn't see those prices, unless you login to your trade terminal. How meaningful are they to you depends on what you want to do buy or sell. If you want to buy then yes they are relevant. But if you want to sell, then no. And remember some websites delay market information by 15 minutes, in case of Google you might have seen that the volume is delayed by 15 minutes. So you need to consider that also while trading, but mayn't be a concern unless you are trying to buy out the company." }, { "docid": "472537", "title": "", "text": "The price of a share has two components: Bid: The highest price that someone who wants to buy shares is willing to pay for them. Ask: The lowest price that someone who has a share is willing to sell it for. The ask is always higher than the bid, since if they were equal the buyer and seller would have a deal, make a transaction, and that repeats until they are not equal. For stock with high volume, there is usually a very small difference between the bid and ask, but a stock with lower volume could have a major difference. When you say that the share price is $100, that could mean different things. You could be talking about the price that the shares sold for in the most recent transaction (and that might not even be between the current bid and ask), or you could be talking about any of the bid, the ask, or some value in between them. If you have shares that you are interested in selling, then the bid is what you could immediately sell a share for. If you sell a share for $100, that means someone was willing to pay you $100 for it. If after buying it, they still want to buy more for $100 each, or someone else does, then the bid is still $100, and you haven't changed the price. If no one else is willing to pay more than $90 for a share, then the price would drop to $90 next time a transaction takes place and thats what you would be able to immediately sell the next share for." }, { "docid": "307008", "title": "", "text": "\"I think you've got basics, but you may have the order / emphasis a bit wrong. I've changed the order of the things you've learned in to what I think is the most important to understand: Owning a stock is like owning a tiny chunk of the business Owning stock is owning a tiny chunk of the business, it's not just \"\"like\"\" it. The \"\"tiny chunks\"\" are called shares, because that is literally what they are, a share of the business. Sometimes shares are also called stocks. The words stock and share are mostly interchangeable, but a single stock normally means your holding of many shares in a business, so if you have 100 shares in 1 company, that's a stock in that company, if you then buy 100 shares in another company, you now own 2 stocks. An investor seeks to buy stocks at a low price, and sell when the price is high. Not necessarily. An investor will buy shares in a company that they believe will make them a profit. In general, a company will make a profit and distribute some or all of it to shareholders in the form of dividends. They will also keep back a portion of the profit to invest in growing the company. If the company does grow, it will grow in value and your shares will get more valuable. Price (of a stock) is affected by supply/demand, volume, and possibly company profits The price of a share that you see on a stock ticker is the price that people on the market have exchanged the share for recently, not the price you or I can buy a share for, although usually if people on the market are buying and selling at that price, someone will buy or sell from you at a similar sort of price. In theory, the price will be the companies total value, if you were to own the whole thing (it's market capitalisation) divided by the total number of shares that exist in that company. The problem is that it's very difficult to work out the total value of a company. You can start by counting the different things that it owns (including things like intellectual property and the knowledge and experience of people who work there), subtract all the money it owes in loans etc., and then make an allowance for how much profit you expect the company to make in the future. The problem is that these numbers are all going to be estimates, and different peoples estimates will disagree. Some people don't bother to estimate at all. The market makers will just follow supply and demand. They will hold a few shares in each of many companies that they are interested in. They will advertise a lower price that they are willing to buy at and a higher price that they will sell at all the time. When they hold a lot of a share, they will price it lower so that people buy it from them. When they start to run out, they will price it higher. You will never need to spend more than the market makers price to buy a share, or get less than the market makers price when you come to sell it (unless you want to buy or sell more shares than they are willing to). This is why stock price depends on supply and demand. The other category of people who don't care about the companies they are trading are the high speed traders. They just look at information like the past price, the volume (total amount of shares being exchanged on the market) and many other statistics both from the market and elsewhere and look for patterns. You cannot compete with these people - they do things like physically locate their servers nearer to the stock exchanges buildings to get a few milliseconds time advantage over their competitors to buy shares quicker than them.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "316838", "title": "", "text": "\"The answer posted by Kirill Fuchs is incorrect according to my series 65 text book and practice question answers. The everyday investor buys at the ask and sells at the bid but the market maker does the opposite. THE MARKET MAKER \"\"BUYS AT THE BID AND SELLS AT THE ASK\"\", he makes a profit form the spread. I have posted a quiz question and the answer created by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). To fill a customer buy order for 800 WXYZ shares, your firm requests a quote from a market maker. The response is \"\"bid 15, ask 15.25.\"\" If the order is placed, the market maker must sell: A) 800 shares at $15.25 per share. B) 800 shares at $15 per share. C) 100 shares at $15.25 per share. D) 800 shares at no more than $15 per share. Your answer, sell 800 shares at $15.25 per share., was correct!. A market maker is responsible for honoring a firm quote. If no size is requested by the inquiring trader, a quote is firm for 100 shares. In this example, the trader requested an 800-share quote, so the market maker is responsible for selling 8 round lots of 100 shares at the ask price of $15.25 per share.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "466143", "title": "", "text": "Will there be a scenario in which I want to sell, but nobody wants to buy from me and I'm stuck at the brokerage website? Similarly, if nobody wants to sell their stocks, I will not be able to buy at all? You're thinking of this as a normal purchase, but that's not really how US stock markets operate. First, just because there are shares of stock purchased, it doesn't mean that there was real investor buyer and seller demand for that instrument (at that point in time). Markets have dedicated middlemen called Market Makers (NASDAQ) or Specialists (NYSE), who are responsible to make sure that there is always someone to buy or sell; this ensures that all instruments have sufficient liquidity. Market Makers and specialists may decide to lower their bid on a stock based on a high number of sellers, or raise their ask for a high number of buyers. During an investor rush to buy or sell an instrument (perhaps in response to a news release), it's possible for the Market Maker / specialist to accumulate or distribute a large number of shares, without end-investors like you or I being involved on both sides of the same transaction." }, { "docid": "418937", "title": "", "text": "\"A market sell order will be filled at the highest current \"\"bid\"\" price. For a reasonably liquid stock, there will be several buy orders in line, and the highest bid must be filled first, so there should a very short time between when you place the order and when it is filled. What could happen is what's called front running. That's when the broker places their own order in front of yours to fulfill the current bid, selling their own stock at the slightly higher price, causing your sale to be filled at a lower price. This is not only unethical but illegal as well. It is not something you should be concerned about with a large broker. You should only place a market order when you don't care about minute differences between the current ask and your execution price, but want to guarantee order execution. If you absolutely have to sell at a minimum price, then a limit order is more appropriate, but you run the risk that your limit will not be reached and your order will not be filled. So the risk is a tradeoff between a guaranteed price and a guaranteed execution.\"" }, { "docid": "92109", "title": "", "text": "When a stock is ask for 15.2 and bid for 14.5, and the last market price was 14.5, what does it mean? It means that the seller wants to sell for a higher price than the last sale while the buyer does not want to buy for more than the last sale price. Or what if the last price is 15.2? The seller is offering to sell for the last sale price, but the buyer wants to buy for less." }, { "docid": "41468", "title": "", "text": "The obvious thing would happen. 10 shares change owner at the price of $100. A partially still open selling order would remain. Market orders without limits means to buy or sell at the best possible or current price. However, this is not very realistic. Usually there is a spread between the bid and the ask price and the reason is that market makers are acting in between. They would immediately exploit this situation, for example, by placing appropriately limited orders. Orders without limits are not advisable for stocks with low trading activity. Would you buy or sell stuff without caring for the price?" }, { "docid": "9274", "title": "", "text": "\"Futures are an agreement to buy or sell something in the future. The futures \"\"price\"\" is the price at which you agree to make the trade. This price does not indicate what will happen in the future so much as it indicates the cost of buying the item today and holding it until the future date. Hence, for very liquid products such as stock index futures, the futures price is a very simple function of today's stock index value and current short-term interest rates. If the stock exchange is closed but the futures exchange is open, then using the futures price and interest rates one can back out an implied \"\"fair value\"\" for the index, which is in essence the market's estimate of what the stock index value would be right now if the stock market were open. Of course, as soon as the stock exchange opens, the futures price trades to within a narrow band of the actual index value, where the size of the band depends on transaction costs (bid-ask spread, commissions, etc.).\"" }, { "docid": "373862", "title": "", "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)." }, { "docid": "236504", "title": "", "text": "What you have to remember is that Options are derivatives of another asset like stocks for example. The price of the Option is derived from the price of the underlying. If the underlying is a stock for example, as the price of the stock moves up and down during the trading day, so will the Market Maker's fair value for the Option. As Options are usually less liquid than the underlying stock, Market Makers are usually more active in 'Providing a Market' with Options. Thus if you place a limit order half way between the current Bid and Ask and the underlying stock price moves towards your limit order, the Market Maker will do their job and 'Provide a Market' at that price, thus executing your order." }, { "docid": "118360", "title": "", "text": "First, it depends on your broker. Full service firms will tear you a new one, discount brokers may charge ~nothing. You'll have to check with your broker on assignment fees. Theoretically, this is the case of the opposite of my answer in this question: Are underlying assets supposed to be sold/bought immediately after being bought/sold in call/put option? Your trading strategy/reasoning for your covered call notwithstanding, in your case, as an option writer covering in the money calls, you want to hold and pray that your option expires worthless. As I said in the other answer, there is always a theoretical premium of option price + exercise price to underlying prices, no matter how slight, right up until expiration, so on that basis, it doesn't pay to close out the option. However, there's a reality that I didn't mention in the other answer: if it's a deep in the money option, you can actually put a bid < stock price - exercise price - trade fee and hope for the best since the market makers rarely bid above stock price - exercise price for illiquid options, but it's unlikely that you'll beat the market makers + hft. They're systems are too fast. I know the philly exchange allows you to put in implied volatility orders, but they're expensive, and I couldn't tell you if a broker/exchange allows for dynamic orders with the equation I specified above, but it may be worth a shot to check out; however, it's unlikely that such a low order would ever be filled since you'll at best be lined up with the market makers, and it would require a big player dumping all its' holdings at once to get to your order. If you're doing a traditional, true-blue covered call, there's absolutely nothing wrong being assigned except for the tax implications. When your counterparty calls away your underlyings, it is a sell for tax purposes. If you're not covering with the underlying but with a more complex spread, things could get hairy for you real quick if someone were to exercise on you, but that's always a risk. If your broker is extremely strict, they may close the rest of your spread for you at the offer. In illiquid markets, that would be a huge percentage loss considering the wide bid/ask spreads." }, { "docid": "184051", "title": "", "text": "The point is that the bid and ask prices dictate what you can buy and sell at (at market, at least), and the difference between the two, or spread, contributes implicitly to your gains or losses. For example, say your $1 stock actually had a bid of $0.90 and an ask of $1.10; i.e. say that $1 was the last price. You would have to buy the stock at the ask price of $1.10, but now you can only sell that stock at the bid price of $0.90. Thus, you would need to make at least that $0.20 spread before you can make a profit." }, { "docid": "181158", "title": "", "text": "\"You will almost certainly be able to sell 10,000 shares at once. The question is a matter of price. If you sell \"\"at market\"\" then you may get a lower price for each \"\"batch\"\" of the stock sold (one person buys 50, another buys 200, another buys 1000 etc) at varying prices. Will you be able to execute a single order to sell them all at the same price at the same time? Nobody can say, and it's not really a function of the company size. The exchange has what's called \"\"open interest\"\" which roughly correlates to how many people have active orders in at a given price. This number is constantly changing alongside the bid and ask (particularly for active stocks). So let's say you have 10,000 shares and you want to sell them for $100 each. What you need is at least 10,000 in open interest at $100 bid to execute. By contrast let's say you issue a limit order at $100 for 10,000 shares. Your ask will stay outstanding at that price and you'll be filled at that price if there are enough buyers. I you have a limit sell order at $100 for 10,000 shares the strike price of the stock cannot go to $100.01 until all of your sell orders are filled.\"" }, { "docid": "118389", "title": "", "text": "One broker told me that I have to simply read the ask size and the bid size, seeing what the market makers are offering. This implies that my order would have to match that price exactly, which is unfortunate because options contract spreads can be WIDE. Also, if my planned position size is larger than the best bid/best ask, then I should break up the order, which is also unfortunate because most brokers charge a lot for options orders." }, { "docid": "310636", "title": "", "text": "You can*, if the market is open, in a normal trading phase (no auction phase), works, and there is an existing bid or offer on the product you want to trade, at the time the market learns of your order. Keep in mind there are 2 prices: bid and offer. If the current bid and current offer were the same, it would immediately result in a trade, and thus the bid and offer are no longer the same. Market Makers are paid / given lower fees in order to maintain buy and sell prices (called quotes) at most times. These conditions are usually all true, but commonly fail for these reasons: Most markets have an order type of market order that says buy/sell at any price. There are still sanity checks put in place on the price, with the exact rules for valid prices depending on the stock, so unless it's a penny stock you won't suddenly pay ten times a stock's value. *The amount you can buy sell is limited by the quantity that exists on the bid and offer. If there is a bid or offer, the quantity is always at least 1." }, { "docid": "376518", "title": "", "text": "\"You are right, if by \"\"a lot of time\"\" you mean a lot of occasions lasting a few milliseconds each. This is one of the oldest arbitrages in the book, and there's plenty of people constantly on the lookout for such situations, hence they are rare and don't last very long. Most of the time the relationship is satisfied to within the accuracy set by the bid-ask spread. What you write as an equality should actually be a set of inequalities. Continuing with your example, suppose 1 GBP ~ 2 USD, where the market price to buy GBP (the offer) is $2.01 and to sell GBP (the bid) is $1.99. Suppose further that 1 USD ~ 2 EUR, and the market price to buy USD is EUR2.01 and to sell USD is EUR1.99. Then converting your GBP to EUR in this way requires selling for USD (receive $1.99), then sell the USD for EUR (receive EUR3.9601). Going the other way, converting EUR to GBP, it will cost you EUR4.0401 to buy 1 GBP. Hence, so long as the posted prices for direct conversion are within these bounds, there is no arbitrage.\"" }, { "docid": "307155", "title": "", "text": "This is copying my own answer to another question, but this is definitely relevant for you: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). Going long, as you may have guessed, is the opposite of going short. Instead of betting that the price will go down, you buy shares in the hope that the price will go up. So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Similarly, the same is true in the reverse if you are going long. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible." }, { "docid": "480315", "title": "", "text": "\"ETFs purchases are subject to a bid/ask spread, which is the difference between the highest available purchase offer (\"\"bid\"\") and the lowest available sell offer (\"\"ask\"\"). You can read more about this concept here. This cost doesn't exist for mutual funds, which are priced once per day, and buyers and sellers all use the same price for transactions that day. ETFs allow you to trade any time that the market is open. If you're investing for the long term (which means you're not trying to time your buy/sell orders to a particular time of day), and the pricing is otherwise equal between the ETF and the mutual fund (which they are in the case of Vanguard's ETFs and Admiral Shares mutual funds), I would go with the mutual fund because it eliminates any cost associated with bid/ask spread.\"" }, { "docid": "585552", "title": "", "text": "\"When I first started working in finance I was given a rule of thumb to decide which price you will get in the market: \"\"You will always get the worst price for your deal, so when buying you get the higher ask price and when selling you get the lower bid price.\"\" I like to think of it in terms of the market as a participant who always buys at the lowest price they can (i.e. buys from you) and sells at the highest price they can. If that weren't true there would be an arbitrage opportunity and free money never exists for long.\"" }, { "docid": "394244", "title": "", "text": "Bid and ask prices are the reigning highest buy price and lowest sell price in the market which doesn't mean one must only buy/sell at thise prices. That said one can buy/sell at whatever price they so wish although doing it at any other price than the bid/ask is usually harder as other market participants will gravitate to the reigning bid/ask price. So in theory you can buy at ask and sell at bid, whether or not your order will be filled is another matter altogether." }, { "docid": "107227", "title": "", "text": "popularity that you are referring to is just known as liquidity when discussing markets. More liquid securities tend to trade more shares per day and have very tight bid/ask spreads as many investors are buying and selling the shares at one time. Some larger securities, especially on exchanges, further enhance liquidity by providing market makers. These are individuals on the NYSE, for example, that will make the market in large securities by handling large orders and providing liquidity through their own book of capital. The individuals on the floor on the NYSE you often see on TV are those market makers. However, as trading becomes more electronic, market markers are becoming less and less required. A previous comment suggested pink sheets are risky companies. This is not entirely factual. While the majority of pink sheets are very highly risky companies, many very solid international companies trade their ADRs (American Depository Receipt) on the pink sheets to avoid the high cost of setting up a large exchange at the NYSE and register and report through the SEC. As a TD Ameritrade user, I would be willing to help you out if you have any other questions." }, { "docid": "159822", "title": "", "text": "\"ETFs are well suited to day trading, but you should be mindful of the bid-ask spread. See article: Commission-free ETFs are a great way to save money, but watch the bid-ask spread too. Bid-ask spread is largely a function of liquidity, or the volume of buyers and sellers for an asset during a particular moment in time. ... It may be more difficult to trade certain assets that are less liquid, where bid-ask spreads can be higher. Think some penny stocks. If you have the choice, compare the spreads of the ETF and the target stock. Longer-term \"\"keep & hold\"\" trading on ETFs tracking futures can be somewhat disadvantageous. Futures contracts roll-over every month. Exchange traders have to sell and buy in on the next contract. ETFs don't reflect the price differential between the futures contract. See here for more detail on that: Positioning For An Oil ETF Rebound? Watch For Contango Contango occurs when the price on a futures contract is higher than the expected future spot price, which creates the upward sloping curve on future commodity prices over time. Essentially, the phenomenon reflects a current spot price that is lower than the futures price. ... While this phenomena is a normal occurrence in the futures market, contango can have a negative effect on ETFs.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "208070", "title": "", "text": "I think your confusion has arisen because in every transaction there is a buyer and a seller, so the market maker buys you're selling, and when you're buying the market maker is selling. Meaning they do in fact buy at the ask price and sell at the bid price (as the quote said)." } ]

[ { "docid": "314698", "title": "", "text": "\"I was the one who made the beating you to the punch comment. That liquidity is worthless without an active market. That's the whole point of liquidity. An ability to sell back when needed. High volume means nothing when the fucking HFT buys all the stock and holds you hostage to his sell price. The only thing raising the price of pineapples is high speed trading. They only buy OR sell **when they see a bid.** That is not a traditional market maker. Please, tell me how that is wrong. That is not a rhetorical question. edit: If a pineapple is listed at 6.00 let's say you decide to buy and throw it in your cart. A store employee overhears you saying \"\"I'd be willing to pay 6.02 for this\"\". The employee tells the cashier to raise the price to 6.02 right before you get to the register. This is HFT in a nutshell. It doesn't provide an active pineapple market because the pineapple was only being offered once a buyer was lined up.\"" }, { "docid": "501748", "title": "", "text": "To add a bit to Daniel Anderson's great answer, if you want to 'peek' at what a the set of bid and ask spreads looks like, the otc market page could be interesting (NOTE: I'm NOT recommending that you trade Over The Counter. Many of these stocks are amusingly scary): http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/ACBFF/quote You can see market makers essentially offering to buy or sell blocks of stock at a variety of prices." }, { "docid": "151132", "title": "", "text": "\"First, keep in mind that there are generally 2 ways to buy a corporation's shares: You can buy a share directly from the corporation. This does not happen often; it usually happens at the Initial Public Offering [the first time the company becomes \"\"public\"\" where anyone with access to the stock exchange can become a part-owner], plus maybe a few more times during the corporations existence. In this case, the corporation is offering new ownership in exchange for a price set the corporation (or a broker hired by the corporation). The price used for a public offering is the highest amount that the company believes it can get - this is a very complicated field, and involves many different methods of evaluating what the company should be worth. If the company sets the price too low, then they have missed out on possible value which would be earned by the previous, private shareholders (they would have gotten the same share % of a corporation which would now have more cash to spend, because of increased money paid by new shareholders). If the company sets the price too high, then the share subscription might only be partially filled, so there might not be enough cash to do what the company wanted. You can buy a share from another shareholder. This is more common - when you see the company's share price on the stock exchange, it is this type of transaction - buying out other current shareholders. The price here is simply set based on what current owners are willing to sell at. The \"\"Bid Price\"\" listed by an exchange is the current highest bid that a purchaser is offering for a single share. The \"\"Ask Price\"\" is the current lowest offer that a seller is offering to sell a single share they currently own. When the bid price = the ask price, a share transaction happens, and the most recent stock price changes.\"" }, { "docid": "307155", "title": "", "text": "This is copying my own answer to another question, but this is definitely relevant for you: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). Going long, as you may have guessed, is the opposite of going short. Instead of betting that the price will go down, you buy shares in the hope that the price will go up. So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Similarly, the same is true in the reverse if you are going long. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible." }, { "docid": "272929", "title": "", "text": "I don't know why a financial investor or a retail trader would do this. But I can guess why a market maker in options would do this. Let us say you buy an option from an option market maker and the market maker sold the option to you. He made a small profit in the bid-ask spread but now he is holding a short position in the option with unlimited risk exposure. So to protect himself, he will take an offsetting position in the underlying and become delta neutral, so that his position is not affected by the moves in the underlying. In the end, he can do this because he is not in the market to make money by betting on direction, unlike the rest of us poor mortals. He is making money from the bid-ask spread. So to ensure that his profits are not eroded by an adverse move in the underlying, he will continuously seek to be delta neutral. But once again, this is for a market maker. For market takers like us, I still don't understand why we would need to delta hedge." }, { "docid": "585552", "title": "", "text": "\"When I first started working in finance I was given a rule of thumb to decide which price you will get in the market: \"\"You will always get the worst price for your deal, so when buying you get the higher ask price and when selling you get the lower bid price.\"\" I like to think of it in terms of the market as a participant who always buys at the lowest price they can (i.e. buys from you) and sells at the highest price they can. If that weren't true there would be an arbitrage opportunity and free money never exists for long.\"" }, { "docid": "67069", "title": "", "text": "If you look at a trade grid you can see how this happens. If there are enough bids to cover all shares currently on the sell side at a certain price, those shares will be bought and increased price quotes will be shown for the bids and ask. If there are enough bids to cover this price, those will get bought and higher prices will be shown and this process will repeat until the sell side has more power than the buy side. It seems like this process is going on all day long with momentum either on the upside or downside. But I think that much of this bidding and selling is automatic and is being done by large trading firms and high tech computers. I also feel that many of these bids and asks are already programmed to appear once there is a price change. So once one price gets bought, computers will put in higher bids to take over asks. It's like a virtual war between trading firms and their computers. When more money is on the buy side the stock will go up, and vice versa. I sort of feel like this high-frequency trading is detrimental to the markets and doesn't really give everyone a fair shot. Retail investors do not have the resources and knowledge in order to do this sort of high frequency trading. It also seems to go against certain free market principles in my opinion." }, { "docid": "414036", "title": "", "text": "\"During market hours, there are a lot of dealers offering to buy and sell all exchange traded stocks. Dealers don't actually care about the company's fundamentals and they set their prices purely based on order flow. If more people start to buy than sell, the dealer notices his inventory going down and starts upping the price (both his bid and ask). There are also traders who may not be \"\"dealers\"\", but are willing to sell if the price goes high enough or buy if the price goes low enough. This keeps the prices humming along smoothly. During normal trading hours, if you buy something and turn around and sell it two minutes later, you'll probably be losing a couple cents per share. Outside normal market hours, the dealers who continue to have a bid and ask listed know that they don't have access to good price information -- there isn't a liquid market of continuous buying and selling for the dealer to set prices he considers safe. So what does he do? He widens the spread. He doesn't know what the market will open tomorrow at and doesn't know if he'll be able to react quickly to news. So instead of bidding $34.48 and offering at $34.52, he'll move that out to $33 and $36. The dealer still makes money sometimes off this because maybe some trader realized that he has options expiring tomorrow, or a short position that he's going to get a margin call on, or some kind of event that pretty much forces him to trade. Or maybe he's just panicking and overreacting to some news. So why not trade after hours? Because there's no liquidity, and trading when there's no liquidity costs you a lot.\"" }, { "docid": "87065", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "340607", "title": "", "text": "\"The \"\"price\"\" is the price of the last transaction that actually took place. According to Motley Fool wiki: A stock price is determined by what was last paid for it. During market hours (usually weekdays from 9:30AM-4:00PM eastern), a heavily traded issue will see its price change several times per second. A stock's price is, for many purposes, considered unchanged outside of market hours. Roughly speaking, a transaction is executed when an offer to buy matches an offer to sell. These offers are listed in the Order Book for a stock (Example: GOOG at Yahoo Finance). This is actively updated during trading hours. This lists all the currently active buy (\"\"bid\"\") and sell (\"\"ask\"\") orders for a stock, and looks like this: You'll notice that the stock price (again, the last sale price) will (usually*) be between the highest bid and the lowest ask price. * Exception: When all the buy or sell prices have moved down or up, but no trades have executed yet.\"" }, { "docid": "124038", "title": "", "text": "Some liquidity Since you're using IB, and you seem to be an investor not a trader, so you won't notice especially if you walk your orders, but you will suffer the bid/ask spread as everyone else albeit wider. If buying, the best strategy unless if one is time constrained is to walk the entire bid from the best bid to the best ask. It is highly likely that someone will hit your order before you hit the best ask. If they don't, as a long term investor, the few pennies won't make or break you, especially if the price per share is 100 USD equivalent, but it is an excellent habit to form and fun. Since you're buying ETFs, even though your orders are small, you would be adding liquidity to your market, helping it become more efficient because your orders could be used to arbitrage against all of the ETF's holdings, in turn providing liquidity for those holdings. No liquidity This could only be done with an extremely low cost broker like IB because the trading commissions would make it prohibitively expensive. There are huge risks when trading an illiquid security such as VEUR. EWL would be much less risky thus less expensive. Securities with no liquidity can be traded, but they must be traded very carefully. In the case of a security that can only attract about 20 shares per day in volume, only single shares should be bid. The market makers, suffering from a dearth in volume may not even be willing to haggle; therefore, the only recourse is a statistical arbitrageur, who will attempt to profit from the spread between other more liquid versions of the security. Considering the available alternative, VEUR is not recommended to trade." }, { "docid": "353396", "title": "", "text": "\"Say we have stock XYZ that costs $50 this second. It doesn't cost XYZ this second. The market price only reflects the last price at which the security traded. It doesn't mean that if you'll get that price when you place an order. The price you get if/when your order is filled is determined by the bid/ask spreads. Why would people sell below the current price, and not within the range of the bid/ask? Someone may be willing to sell at an ask price of $47 simply because that's the best price they think they can sell the security for. Keep in mind that the \"\"someone\"\" may be a computer that determined that $47 is a reasonable ask price. Remember that bid/ask spreads aren't fixed, and there can be multiple bid/ask prices in a market at any given time. Your buy order was filled because at the time, someone else in the market was willing to sell you the security for the same price as your bid price. Your respective buy/sell orders were matched based on their price (and volume, conditional orders, etc). These questions may be helpful to you as well: Can someone explain a stock's \"\"bid\"\" vs. \"\"ask\"\" price relative to \"\"current\"\" price? Bids and asks in case of market order Can a trade happen \"\"in between\"\" the bid and ask price? Also, you say you're a day trader. If that's so, I strongly recommend getting a better grasp on the basics of market mechanics before committing any more capital. Trading without understanding how markets work at the most fundamental levels is a recipe for disaster.\"" }, { "docid": "507357", "title": "", "text": "Many of the Bitcoin exchanges mimic stock exchanges, though they're much more rudimentary offering only simple buy/sell/cancel orders. It's fairly normal for retail stock brokerage accounts to allow other sorts of more complex orders, where once a certain criteria is met, (the price falls below some $ threshold, or has a movement greater than some %) then your order is executed. The space between the current buy order and the current sell order is the bid/ask spread, it's not really about timing. Person X will buy at $100, person Y will sell at $102. If both had a price set at $101, they would just transact. Both parties think they can do a little bit better than the current offer. The width of the bid/ask spread is not universal by any means. The current highest buy order and the current lowest sell order, are both the current price. The current quoted market price is generally the price of the last transaction, whether it's buy or sell." }, { "docid": "434596", "title": "", "text": "In general stock markets are very similar to that, however, you can also put in limit orders to say that you will only buy or sell at a given price. These sit in the market for a specified length of time and will be executed when an order arrives that matches the price (or better). Traders who set limit orders are called liquidity (or price) makers as they provide liquidity (i.e. volume to be traded) to be filled later. If there is no counterparty (i.e. buyer to your seller) in the market, a market maker; a large bank or brokerage who is licensed and regulated to do so, will fill your order at some price. That price is based on how much volume (i.e. trading) there is in that stock on average. This is called average daily volume (ADV) and is calculated over varying periods of time; we use ADV30 which is the 30 day average. You can always sell stocks for whatever price you like privately but a market order does not allow you to set your price (you are a price taker) therefore that kind of order will always fill at a market price. As mentioned above limit orders will not fill until the price is hit but will stay on book as long as they aren't filled, expired or cancelled." }, { "docid": "584295", "title": "", "text": "There are two terms that are related, but separate here: Broker and Market Maker. The former is who goes and finds a buyer/seller to buy/sell shares from/to you. The latter (Market Maker) is a company which will agree to partner with you to complete the sale at a set price (typically the market price, often by definition as the market maker often is the one who determines the market price in a relatively low volumne listing). A market maker will have as you say a 'pool' of relatively common stock (and even relatively uncommon, up to a point) for this purpose. A broker can be a market maker (or work for one), also, in which case he would sell you directly the shares from the market maker reservoir. This may be a bad idea for you - the broker (while obligated to act in your interest, in theory) may push you towards stocks that the brokerage acts as a market maker for." }, { "docid": "560558", "title": "", "text": "As others have stated, the current price is simply the last price at which the security traded. For any given tick, however, there are many bid-ask prices because securities can trade on multiple exchanges and between many agents on a single exchange. This is true for both types of exchanges that Chris mentioned in his answer. Chris' answer is pretty thorough in explaining how the two types of exchanges work, so I'll just add some minor details. In exchanges like NASDAQ, there are multiple market makers for most relatively liquid securities, which theoretically introduces competition between them and therefore lowers the bid-ask spreads that traders face. Although this results in the market makers earning less compensation for their risk, they hope to make up the difference by making the market for highly liquid securities. This could also result in your order filling, in pieces, at several different prices if your brokerage firm fills it through multiple market makers. Of course, if you place your order on an exchange where an electronic system fills it (the other type of exchange that Chris mentioned), this could happen anyway. In short, if you place a market order for 1000 shares, it could be filled at several different prices, depending on volume, multiple bid-ask prices, etc. If you place a sizable order, your broker may fill it in pieces regardless to prevent you from moving the market. This is rarely a problem for small-time investors trading securities with high volumes, but for investors with higher capital like institutional investors, mutual funds, etc. who place large orders relative to the average volume, this could conceivably be a burden, both in the price difference across time as the order is placed and the increased bookkeeping it demands. This is tangentially related, so I'll add it anyway. In cases like the one described above, all-or-none (AON) orders are one solution; these are orders that instruct the broker to only execute the order if it can be filled in a single transaction. Most brokers offer these, but there are some caveats that apply to them specifically. (I haven't been able to find some of this information, so some of this is from memory). All-or-none orders are only an option if the order is for more than a certain numbers of shares. I think the minimum size is 300 or 400 shares. Your order won't be placed until your broker places all other orders ahead of it that don't have special conditions attached to them. I believe all-or-none orders are day orders, which means that if there wasn't enough supply to fill the order during the day, the order is cancelled at market close. AON orders only apply to limit orders. If you want to replicate the behavior of a market order with AON characteristics, you can try setting a limit buy/sell order a few cents above/below the current market price." }, { "docid": "41468", "title": "", "text": "The obvious thing would happen. 10 shares change owner at the price of $100. A partially still open selling order would remain. Market orders without limits means to buy or sell at the best possible or current price. However, this is not very realistic. Usually there is a spread between the bid and the ask price and the reason is that market makers are acting in between. They would immediately exploit this situation, for example, by placing appropriately limited orders. Orders without limits are not advisable for stocks with low trading activity. Would you buy or sell stuff without caring for the price?" }, { "docid": "580364", "title": "", "text": "\"This is a misconception. One of the explanations is that if you buy at the ask price and want to sell it right away, you can only sell at the bid price. This is incorrect. There are no two separate bid and ask prices. The price you buy (your \"\"bid\"\") is the same price someone else sells (their \"\"sell\"\"). The same goes when you sell - the price you sell at is the price someone else buys. There's no spread with stocks. Emphasized it on purpose, because many people (especially those who gamble on stock exchange without knowing what they're doing) don't understand how the stock market works. On the stock exchange, the transaction price is the match between the bid price and the ask price. Thus, on any given transaction, bid always equals ask. There's no spread. There is spread with commodities (if you buy it directly, especially), contracts, mutual funds and other kinds of brokered transactions that go through a third party. The difference (spread) is that third party's fee for assuming part of the risk in the transaction, and is indeed added to your cost (indirectly, in the way you described). These transactions don't go directly between a seller and a buyer. For example, there's no buyer when you redeem some of your mutual fund - the fund pays you money. So the fund assumes certain risk, which is why there's a spread in the prices to invest and to redeem. Similarly with commodities: when you buy a gold bar - you buy it from a dealer, who needs to keep a stock. Thus, the dealer will not buy from you at the same price: there's a premium on sale and a discount on buy, which is a spread, to compensate the dealer for the risk of keeping a stock.\"" }, { "docid": "285126", "title": "", "text": "\"I may be underestimating your knowledge of how exchanges work; if so, I apologize. If not, then I believe the answer is relatively straightforward. Lets say price of a stock at time t1 is 15$ . There are many types of price that an exchange reports to the public (as discussed below); let's say that you're referring to the most recent trade price. That is, the last time a trade executed between a willing buyer and a willing seller was at $15.00. Lets say a significant buy order of 1M shares came in to the market. Here I believe might be a misunderstanding on your part. I think you're assuming that the buy order must necessarily be requesting a price of $15.00 because that was the last published price at time t1. In fact, orders can request any price they want. It's totally okay for someone to request to buy at $10.00. Presumably nobody will want to sell to him, but it's still a perfectly valid buy order. But let's continue under the assumptions that at t1: This makes the bid $14.99 and the ask $15.00. (NYSE also publishes these prices.) There aren't enough people selling that stock. It's quite rare (in major US equities) for anyone to place a buy order that exceeds the total available shares listed for sale at all prices. What I think you mean is that 1M is larger than the amount of currently-listed sell requests at the ask of $15.00. So say of the 1M only 100,000 had a matching sell order and others are waiting. So this means that there were exactly 100,000 shares waiting to be sold at the ask of $15.00, and that all other sellers currently in the market told NYSE they were only willing to sell for a price of $15.01 or higher. If there had been more shares available at $15.00, then NYSE would have matched them. This would be a trigger to the automated system to start increasing the price. Here is another point of misunderstanding, I think. NYSE's automated system does not invent a new, higher price to publish at this point. Instead it simply reports the last trade price (still $15.00), and now that all of the willing sellers at $15.00 have been matched, NYSE also publishes the new ask price of $15.01. It's not that NYSE has decided $15.01 is the new price for the stock; it's that $15.01 is now the lowest price at which anyone (known to NYSE) is willing to sell. If nobody happened to be interested in selling at $15.01 at t1, but there were people interested in selling at $15.02, then the new published ask would be $15.02 instead of $15.01 -- not because NYSE decided it, but just because those happened to be the facts at the time. Similarly, the new bid is most likely now $15.00, assuming the person who placed the order for 1M shares did not cancel the remaining unmatched 900,000 shares of his/her order. That is, $15.00 is now the highest price at which anyone (known to NYSE) is willing to buy. How much time does the automated system wait to increment the price, the frequency of the price change and by what percentage to increment etc. So I think the answer to all these questions is that the automated system does none of these things. It merely publishes information about (a) the last trade price, (b) the price that is currently the lowest price at which anyone has expressed a willingness to sell, and (c) the price that is currently the highest price at which anyone has expressed a willingness to buy. ::edit:: Oh, I forgot to answer your primary question. Can we estimate the impact of a large buy order on the share price? Not only can we estimate the impact, but we can know it explicitly. Because the exchange publishes information on all the orders it knows about, anyone tracking that information can deduce that (in this example) there were exactly 100,000 shares waiting to be purchased at $15.00. So if a \"\"large buy order\"\" of 1M shares comes in at $15.00, then we know that all of the people waiting to sell at $15.00 will be matched, and the new lowest ask price will be $15.01 (or whatever was the next lowest sell price that the exchange had previously published).\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "164008", "title": "", "text": "The everyday investor buys at the ask and sells at the bid but the market maker does the opposite This is misleading; it has nothing to do with being either an investor or a market maker. It is dependent on the type of order that is submitted. When a market trades at the ask, this means that a buy market order has interacted with a sell limit order at the limit price. When a market trades at the bid, this means that a sell market order has interacted with a buy limit order at the limit price. An ordinary investor can do exactly the same as a market maker and submit limit orders. Furthermore, they can sit on both sides of the bid and ask exactly as a market maker does. In the days before high frequency trading this was quite common (an example being Daytek, whose traders were notorious for stepping in front of the designated market maker's bid/ask on the Island ECN). An order executes ONLY when both bid and ask meet. (bid = ask) This is completely incorrect. A transaction occurs when an active (marketable) order is matched with a passive (limit book) order. If the passive order is a sell limit then the trade has occurred at the ask, and if it is a buy limit the trade has occurred at the bid. The active orders are not bids and asks. The only exception to this would be if the bid and ask have become crossed. When a seller steps in, he does so with an ask that's lower than the stock's current ask Almost correct; he does so with an order that's lower than the stock's current ask. If it's a marketable order it will fill the front queued best bid, and if it's a limit order his becomes the new ask price. A trade does not need to occur at this price for it to become the ask. This is wrong, market makers are the opposite party to you so the prices are the other way around for them. This is wrong. There is no distinction between the market maker and yourself or any other member of the public (beside the fact that designated market makers on some exchanges are obliged to post both a bid and ask at all times). You can open an account with any broker and do exactly the same as a market maker does (although with nothing like the speed that a high frequency market-making firm can, hence likely making you uncompetitive in this arena). The prices a market maker sees and the types of orders that they are able to use to realize them are exactly the same as for any other trader." } ]

[ { "docid": "317365", "title": "", "text": "\"Most of the time* you're selling to other investors, not back to the company. The stock market is a collection of bid (buy offers) and asks (sell offers). When you sell your stock as a retail investor at the \"\"market\"\" price you're essentially just meeting whatever standing bid offers are on the market. For very liquid stocks (e.g. Apple), you can pretty much always get the displayed price because so many stocks are being traded. However during periods of very high volatility or for low-volume stocks, the quoted price may not be indicative of what you actually pay. As an example, let's say you have 5 stocks you're trying to sell and the bid-side order book is 2 stocks for $105, 2 for $100, and 5 for $95. In this scenario the quoted price will be $105 (the best bid price), but if you accept market price you'll settle 2 for 105, 2 for 100, and 1 for 95. After your sell order goes through, the new quoted price will be $95. For high volume stocks, there will usually be so many orders near the midpoint price ($105, in this case) that you won't see any price slippage for small orders. You can also post limit orders, which are essentially open orders waiting to be filled like in the above example. They ensure you get the price you want, but you have no way to guarantee they'll be filled or not. Edit: as a cool example, check out the bitcoin GDAX on coinbase for a live example of what the order book looks like for stocks. You'll see that the price of bitcoin will drift towards whichever direction has the less dense order book (e.g. price drifts upwards when there are far more bids than asks.)\"" }, { "docid": "458933", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, almost always. I trade some of the most illiquid single stock options, and I would be absolutely murdered if I didn't try to work orders between the bid/ask. When I say illiquid, I mean almost non-existent: ~50 monthly contracts on ALL contracts for a given underlying. Spreads of 30% or more. The only time you shouldn't try to work an order, in my opinion, is when you think you need to trade immediately (rare), if implied volatility (IV) has moved to such a degree that the market makers (MM) won't hit your order while they're offering fair IV (they'll sometimes come down to meet you at their \"\"real\"\" price to get the exchange's liquidity rebate), or if the bid/ask spread is a penny. For illiquid single stock options, you need to be extremely mindful of implied and statistical volatility. You can't just try to always put your order in the middle. The MMs will play with the middle to get you to buy at higher IVs and sell at lower. The only way you can hope that an order working below the bid / above the ask will get filled is if a big player overwhelms the MMs' (who are lined up on the bid and ask) current orders and hits yours with one large order. I've never seen this happen. The only other way is like you said: if the market moves against you, the orders in front of yours disappear, and someone hits your order, but I think that defeats the intent of your question.\"" }, { "docid": "466143", "title": "", "text": "Will there be a scenario in which I want to sell, but nobody wants to buy from me and I'm stuck at the brokerage website? Similarly, if nobody wants to sell their stocks, I will not be able to buy at all? You're thinking of this as a normal purchase, but that's not really how US stock markets operate. First, just because there are shares of stock purchased, it doesn't mean that there was real investor buyer and seller demand for that instrument (at that point in time). Markets have dedicated middlemen called Market Makers (NASDAQ) or Specialists (NYSE), who are responsible to make sure that there is always someone to buy or sell; this ensures that all instruments have sufficient liquidity. Market Makers and specialists may decide to lower their bid on a stock based on a high number of sellers, or raise their ask for a high number of buyers. During an investor rush to buy or sell an instrument (perhaps in response to a news release), it's possible for the Market Maker / specialist to accumulate or distribute a large number of shares, without end-investors like you or I being involved on both sides of the same transaction." }, { "docid": "554207", "title": "", "text": "When there is a difference between the two ... no trading occurs. Let's look at an example: Investor A, B, C, and D all buy/sell shares of company X. Investor A wants to sell 10 shares at $20 a share (Ask price $20 x10). Investor B wants to buy 15 shares at $10 a share (Bid price $10 x15). Since the bid price and ask price are different, no sale is made. Next Investor C comes along and wants to sell 5 shares at $14 (Ask price $14 x5). Still no sale. Investor D comes along and wants to buy 5 shares for $14 each. So a sale is finally made. At this point, the stock quote moves to $14. The ask price is $20 x10 and the bid price is $10 x15. No further trading will occur until another investor is willing to buy at $20 or sell at $10. Another discussion of this topic is shown on this post." }, { "docid": "402482", "title": "", "text": "You can always trade at bid or ask price (depending if you are selling or buying). Market price is the price the last transaction was executed at so you may not be able to get that. If your order is large then you may not even be able to get bid/ask but should look at the depth of the order book (ie what prices are other market participants asking for and what is the size of their order). Usually only fast traders will trade at bid/ask, those who believe the price move is imminent. If you are a long term trader you can often get better than bid or ask by placing a limit order and waiting until a market participant takes your offer." }, { "docid": "294295", "title": "", "text": "I frequently do this on NADEX, selling out-of-the-money binary calls. NADEX is highly illiquid, and the bid/ask is almost always from the market maker. Out-of-the-money binary calls lose value quickly (NADEX daily options exist for only ~21 hours). If I place an above-ask order, it either gets filled quickly (within a few minutes) due to a spike in the underlying, or not at all. I compensate by changing my price hourly. As Joe notes, one of Black-Scholes inputs is volatility, but price determines (implied) volatility, so this is circular. In other words, you can treat the bid/ask prices as bid/ask volatilities. This isn't as far-fetched as it seems: http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/fx/volatility-quoting-fx-options.html" }, { "docid": "260153", "title": "", "text": "\"You can choose to place successively lower buy limit orders, but whether they get filled or not is not a given; it depends on whether sellers care to accept your bid. In your example of a 49.98 / 50.01 spread, if you place a buy with limit of 49.99, it won't get filled (if the order reaches the market while still at 49.98 / 50.01) immediately, but will be added to the order book. By being added to the order book, the markets bid and ask become 49.99 / 50.01. Your order won't get filled until some seller places a market order or a sell limit order of 49.99 or less. No guarantee that that will happen, and even if it does, there's nothing to say that your follow-up buy at 49.98 will ever be filled. In fact, your 49.98 buy order queues up at the \"\"end of the line\"\" behind all previously pending 49.98 bids, since your order arrived after those other bids. Since the initial conditions you supposed had a 49.98 bid, such an order exists (or at least did exist; it might have been cancelled in the intervening moment. Basically, your first buy at 49.99, if it happens, has essentially no influence on whether your second buy at 49.98 will happen. You can't expect to move the market lower by making a bid that is higher (49.99) than the existing best bid (49.98). Whatever influence your 49.99 order has is to raise the market's price, not lower it.\"" }, { "docid": "507357", "title": "", "text": "Many of the Bitcoin exchanges mimic stock exchanges, though they're much more rudimentary offering only simple buy/sell/cancel orders. It's fairly normal for retail stock brokerage accounts to allow other sorts of more complex orders, where once a certain criteria is met, (the price falls below some $ threshold, or has a movement greater than some %) then your order is executed. The space between the current buy order and the current sell order is the bid/ask spread, it's not really about timing. Person X will buy at $100, person Y will sell at $102. If both had a price set at $101, they would just transact. Both parties think they can do a little bit better than the current offer. The width of the bid/ask spread is not universal by any means. The current highest buy order and the current lowest sell order, are both the current price. The current quoted market price is generally the price of the last transaction, whether it's buy or sell." }, { "docid": "414036", "title": "", "text": "\"During market hours, there are a lot of dealers offering to buy and sell all exchange traded stocks. Dealers don't actually care about the company's fundamentals and they set their prices purely based on order flow. If more people start to buy than sell, the dealer notices his inventory going down and starts upping the price (both his bid and ask). There are also traders who may not be \"\"dealers\"\", but are willing to sell if the price goes high enough or buy if the price goes low enough. This keeps the prices humming along smoothly. During normal trading hours, if you buy something and turn around and sell it two minutes later, you'll probably be losing a couple cents per share. Outside normal market hours, the dealers who continue to have a bid and ask listed know that they don't have access to good price information -- there isn't a liquid market of continuous buying and selling for the dealer to set prices he considers safe. So what does he do? He widens the spread. He doesn't know what the market will open tomorrow at and doesn't know if he'll be able to react quickly to news. So instead of bidding $34.48 and offering at $34.52, he'll move that out to $33 and $36. The dealer still makes money sometimes off this because maybe some trader realized that he has options expiring tomorrow, or a short position that he's going to get a margin call on, or some kind of event that pretty much forces him to trade. Or maybe he's just panicking and overreacting to some news. So why not trade after hours? Because there's no liquidity, and trading when there's no liquidity costs you a lot.\"" }, { "docid": "360059", "title": "", "text": "\"There are people (well, companies) who make money doing roughly what you describe, but not exactly. They're called \"\"market makers\"\". Their value for X% is somewhere on the scale of 1% (that is to say: a scale at which almost everything is \"\"volatile\"\"), but they use leverage, shorting and hedging to complicate things to the point where it's nothing like a simple as making a 1% profit every time they trade. Their actions tend to reduce volatility and increase liquidity. The reason you can't do this is that you don't have enough capital to do what market makers do, and you don't receive any advantages that the exchange might offer to official market makers in return for them contracting to always make both buy bids and sell offers (at different prices, hence the \"\"bid-offer spread\"\"). They have to be able to cover large short-term losses on individual stocks, but when the stock doesn't move too much they do make profits from the spread. The reason you can't just buy a lot of volatile stocks \"\"assuming I don't make too many poor choices\"\", is that the reason the stocks are volatile is that nobody knows which ones are the good choices and which ones are the poor choices. So if you buy volatile stocks then you will buy a bunch of losers, so what's your strategy for ensuring there aren't \"\"too many\"\"? Supposing that you're going to hold 10 stocks, with 10% of your money in each, what do you do the first time all 10 of them fall the day after you bought them? Or maybe not all 10, but suppose 75% of your holdings give no impression that they're going to hit your target any time soon. Do you just sit tight and stop trading until one of them hits your X% target (in which case you start to look a little bit more like a long-term investor after all), or are you tempted to change your strategy as the months and years roll by? If you will eventually sell things at a loss to make cash available for new trades, then you cannot assess your strategy \"\"as if\"\" you always make an X% gain, since that isn't true. If you don't ever sell at a loss, then you'll inevitably sometimes have no cash to trade with through picking losers. The big practical question then is when that state of affairs persists, for how long, and whether it's in force when you want to spend the money on something other than investing. So sure, if you used a short-term time machine to know in advance which volatile stocks are the good ones today, then it would be more profitable to day-trade those than it would be to invest for the long term. Investing on the assumption that you'll only pick short-term winners is basically the same as assuming you have that time machine ;-) There are various strategies for analysing the market and trying to find ways to more modestly do what market makers do, which is to take profit from the inherent volatility of the market. The simple strategy you describe isn't complete and cannot be assessed since you don't say how to decide what to buy, but the selling strategy \"\"sell as soon as I've made X% but not otherwise\"\" can certainly be improved. If you're keen you can test a give strategy for yourself using historical share price data (or current share price data: run an imaginary account and see how you're doing in 12 months). When using historical data you have to be realistic about how you'd choose what stocks to buy each day, or else you're just cheating at solitaire. When using current data you have to beware that there might not be a major market slump in the next 12 months, in which case you won't know how your strategy performs under conditions that it inevitably will meet eventually if you run it for real. You also have to be sure in either case to factor in the transaction costs you'd be paying, and the fact that you're buying at the offer price and selling at the bid price, you can't trade at the headline mid-market price. Finally, you have to consider that to do pure technical analysis as an individual, you are in effect competing against a bank that's camped on top of the exchange to get fastest possible access to trade, it has a supercomputer and a team of whizz-kids, and it's trying to find and extract the same opportunities you are. This is not to say the plucky underdog can't do well, but there are systematic reasons not to just assume you will. So folks investing for their retirement generally prefer a low-risk strategy that plays the averages and settles for taking long-term trends.\"" }, { "docid": "285126", "title": "", "text": "\"I may be underestimating your knowledge of how exchanges work; if so, I apologize. If not, then I believe the answer is relatively straightforward. Lets say price of a stock at time t1 is 15$ . There are many types of price that an exchange reports to the public (as discussed below); let's say that you're referring to the most recent trade price. That is, the last time a trade executed between a willing buyer and a willing seller was at $15.00. Lets say a significant buy order of 1M shares came in to the market. Here I believe might be a misunderstanding on your part. I think you're assuming that the buy order must necessarily be requesting a price of $15.00 because that was the last published price at time t1. In fact, orders can request any price they want. It's totally okay for someone to request to buy at $10.00. Presumably nobody will want to sell to him, but it's still a perfectly valid buy order. But let's continue under the assumptions that at t1: This makes the bid $14.99 and the ask $15.00. (NYSE also publishes these prices.) There aren't enough people selling that stock. It's quite rare (in major US equities) for anyone to place a buy order that exceeds the total available shares listed for sale at all prices. What I think you mean is that 1M is larger than the amount of currently-listed sell requests at the ask of $15.00. So say of the 1M only 100,000 had a matching sell order and others are waiting. So this means that there were exactly 100,000 shares waiting to be sold at the ask of $15.00, and that all other sellers currently in the market told NYSE they were only willing to sell for a price of $15.01 or higher. If there had been more shares available at $15.00, then NYSE would have matched them. This would be a trigger to the automated system to start increasing the price. Here is another point of misunderstanding, I think. NYSE's automated system does not invent a new, higher price to publish at this point. Instead it simply reports the last trade price (still $15.00), and now that all of the willing sellers at $15.00 have been matched, NYSE also publishes the new ask price of $15.01. It's not that NYSE has decided $15.01 is the new price for the stock; it's that $15.01 is now the lowest price at which anyone (known to NYSE) is willing to sell. If nobody happened to be interested in selling at $15.01 at t1, but there were people interested in selling at $15.02, then the new published ask would be $15.02 instead of $15.01 -- not because NYSE decided it, but just because those happened to be the facts at the time. Similarly, the new bid is most likely now $15.00, assuming the person who placed the order for 1M shares did not cancel the remaining unmatched 900,000 shares of his/her order. That is, $15.00 is now the highest price at which anyone (known to NYSE) is willing to buy. How much time does the automated system wait to increment the price, the frequency of the price change and by what percentage to increment etc. So I think the answer to all these questions is that the automated system does none of these things. It merely publishes information about (a) the last trade price, (b) the price that is currently the lowest price at which anyone has expressed a willingness to sell, and (c) the price that is currently the highest price at which anyone has expressed a willingness to buy. ::edit:: Oh, I forgot to answer your primary question. Can we estimate the impact of a large buy order on the share price? Not only can we estimate the impact, but we can know it explicitly. Because the exchange publishes information on all the orders it knows about, anyone tracking that information can deduce that (in this example) there were exactly 100,000 shares waiting to be purchased at $15.00. So if a \"\"large buy order\"\" of 1M shares comes in at $15.00, then we know that all of the people waiting to sell at $15.00 will be matched, and the new lowest ask price will be $15.01 (or whatever was the next lowest sell price that the exchange had previously published).\"" }, { "docid": "124038", "title": "", "text": "Some liquidity Since you're using IB, and you seem to be an investor not a trader, so you won't notice especially if you walk your orders, but you will suffer the bid/ask spread as everyone else albeit wider. If buying, the best strategy unless if one is time constrained is to walk the entire bid from the best bid to the best ask. It is highly likely that someone will hit your order before you hit the best ask. If they don't, as a long term investor, the few pennies won't make or break you, especially if the price per share is 100 USD equivalent, but it is an excellent habit to form and fun. Since you're buying ETFs, even though your orders are small, you would be adding liquidity to your market, helping it become more efficient because your orders could be used to arbitrage against all of the ETF's holdings, in turn providing liquidity for those holdings. No liquidity This could only be done with an extremely low cost broker like IB because the trading commissions would make it prohibitively expensive. There are huge risks when trading an illiquid security such as VEUR. EWL would be much less risky thus less expensive. Securities with no liquidity can be traded, but they must be traded very carefully. In the case of a security that can only attract about 20 shares per day in volume, only single shares should be bid. The market makers, suffering from a dearth in volume may not even be willing to haggle; therefore, the only recourse is a statistical arbitrageur, who will attempt to profit from the spread between other more liquid versions of the security. Considering the available alternative, VEUR is not recommended to trade." }, { "docid": "278450", "title": "", "text": "The strategy has intrinsic value, which may or may not be obstructed in practice by details mentioned in other answers (tax and other overheads, regulation, risk). John Bensin says that as a general principle, if a simple technical analysis is good then someone will have implemented it before you. That's fair, but we can do better than an existence proof for this particular case, we can point to who is doing approximately this. Market makers are already doing this with different numbers. They quote a buy price and a sell price on the same stock, so they are already buying low and selling high with a small margin. If your strategy works in practice, that means you can make low-risk money from short-term volatility that they're missing out on, by setting your margin at approximately the daily price variation instead of the current bid-offer spread. But market makers choose their own bid-offer spread, and they choose it because they think it's the best margin to make low-risk money in the long run. So you'd be relying that:" }, { "docid": "159822", "title": "", "text": "\"ETFs are well suited to day trading, but you should be mindful of the bid-ask spread. See article: Commission-free ETFs are a great way to save money, but watch the bid-ask spread too. Bid-ask spread is largely a function of liquidity, or the volume of buyers and sellers for an asset during a particular moment in time. ... It may be more difficult to trade certain assets that are less liquid, where bid-ask spreads can be higher. Think some penny stocks. If you have the choice, compare the spreads of the ETF and the target stock. Longer-term \"\"keep & hold\"\" trading on ETFs tracking futures can be somewhat disadvantageous. Futures contracts roll-over every month. Exchange traders have to sell and buy in on the next contract. ETFs don't reflect the price differential between the futures contract. See here for more detail on that: Positioning For An Oil ETF Rebound? Watch For Contango Contango occurs when the price on a futures contract is higher than the expected future spot price, which creates the upward sloping curve on future commodity prices over time. Essentially, the phenomenon reflects a current spot price that is lower than the futures price. ... While this phenomena is a normal occurrence in the futures market, contango can have a negative effect on ETFs.\"" }, { "docid": "580364", "title": "", "text": "\"This is a misconception. One of the explanations is that if you buy at the ask price and want to sell it right away, you can only sell at the bid price. This is incorrect. There are no two separate bid and ask prices. The price you buy (your \"\"bid\"\") is the same price someone else sells (their \"\"sell\"\"). The same goes when you sell - the price you sell at is the price someone else buys. There's no spread with stocks. Emphasized it on purpose, because many people (especially those who gamble on stock exchange without knowing what they're doing) don't understand how the stock market works. On the stock exchange, the transaction price is the match between the bid price and the ask price. Thus, on any given transaction, bid always equals ask. There's no spread. There is spread with commodities (if you buy it directly, especially), contracts, mutual funds and other kinds of brokered transactions that go through a third party. The difference (spread) is that third party's fee for assuming part of the risk in the transaction, and is indeed added to your cost (indirectly, in the way you described). These transactions don't go directly between a seller and a buyer. For example, there's no buyer when you redeem some of your mutual fund - the fund pays you money. So the fund assumes certain risk, which is why there's a spread in the prices to invest and to redeem. Similarly with commodities: when you buy a gold bar - you buy it from a dealer, who needs to keep a stock. Thus, the dealer will not buy from you at the same price: there's a premium on sale and a discount on buy, which is a spread, to compensate the dealer for the risk of keeping a stock.\"" }, { "docid": "307008", "title": "", "text": "\"I think you've got basics, but you may have the order / emphasis a bit wrong. I've changed the order of the things you've learned in to what I think is the most important to understand: Owning a stock is like owning a tiny chunk of the business Owning stock is owning a tiny chunk of the business, it's not just \"\"like\"\" it. The \"\"tiny chunks\"\" are called shares, because that is literally what they are, a share of the business. Sometimes shares are also called stocks. The words stock and share are mostly interchangeable, but a single stock normally means your holding of many shares in a business, so if you have 100 shares in 1 company, that's a stock in that company, if you then buy 100 shares in another company, you now own 2 stocks. An investor seeks to buy stocks at a low price, and sell when the price is high. Not necessarily. An investor will buy shares in a company that they believe will make them a profit. In general, a company will make a profit and distribute some or all of it to shareholders in the form of dividends. They will also keep back a portion of the profit to invest in growing the company. If the company does grow, it will grow in value and your shares will get more valuable. Price (of a stock) is affected by supply/demand, volume, and possibly company profits The price of a share that you see on a stock ticker is the price that people on the market have exchanged the share for recently, not the price you or I can buy a share for, although usually if people on the market are buying and selling at that price, someone will buy or sell from you at a similar sort of price. In theory, the price will be the companies total value, if you were to own the whole thing (it's market capitalisation) divided by the total number of shares that exist in that company. The problem is that it's very difficult to work out the total value of a company. You can start by counting the different things that it owns (including things like intellectual property and the knowledge and experience of people who work there), subtract all the money it owes in loans etc., and then make an allowance for how much profit you expect the company to make in the future. The problem is that these numbers are all going to be estimates, and different peoples estimates will disagree. Some people don't bother to estimate at all. The market makers will just follow supply and demand. They will hold a few shares in each of many companies that they are interested in. They will advertise a lower price that they are willing to buy at and a higher price that they will sell at all the time. When they hold a lot of a share, they will price it lower so that people buy it from them. When they start to run out, they will price it higher. You will never need to spend more than the market makers price to buy a share, or get less than the market makers price when you come to sell it (unless you want to buy or sell more shares than they are willing to). This is why stock price depends on supply and demand. The other category of people who don't care about the companies they are trading are the high speed traders. They just look at information like the past price, the volume (total amount of shares being exchanged on the market) and many other statistics both from the market and elsewhere and look for patterns. You cannot compete with these people - they do things like physically locate their servers nearer to the stock exchanges buildings to get a few milliseconds time advantage over their competitors to buy shares quicker than them.\"" }, { "docid": "228983", "title": "", "text": "\"In a sense, yes. There's a view in Yahoo Finance that looks like this For this particular stock, a market order for 3000 shares (not even $4000, this is a reasonably small figure) will move the stock past $1.34, more than a 3% move. Say, on the Ask side there are 100,000 shares, all with $10 ask. It would take a lot of orders to purchase all these shares, so for a while, the price may stay right at $10, or a bit lower if there are those willing to sell lower. But, say that side showed $10 1000, $10.25 500, $10.50 1000. Now, the volume is so low that if I decided I wanted shares at any price, my order, a market order will actually drive the market price right up to $10.50 if I buy 2500 shares \"\"market\"\". You see, however, even though I'm a small trader, I drove the price up. But now that the price is $10.50 when I go to sell all 2500 at $10.50, there are no bids to pay that much, so the price the next trade will occur at isn't known yet. There may be bids at $10, with asking (me) at $10.50. No trades will happen until a seller takes the $10 bid or other buyers and sellers come in.\"" }, { "docid": "236504", "title": "", "text": "What you have to remember is that Options are derivatives of another asset like stocks for example. The price of the Option is derived from the price of the underlying. If the underlying is a stock for example, as the price of the stock moves up and down during the trading day, so will the Market Maker's fair value for the Option. As Options are usually less liquid than the underlying stock, Market Makers are usually more active in 'Providing a Market' with Options. Thus if you place a limit order half way between the current Bid and Ask and the underlying stock price moves towards your limit order, the Market Maker will do their job and 'Provide a Market' at that price, thus executing your order." }, { "docid": "260085", "title": "", "text": "\"Some technical indicators (e.g. Williams %R) indicate whether the market is overbought or oversold. ... Every time a stock or commodity is bought, it is also sold. And vice versa. So how can anything ever be over-bought or over-sold? But I'm sure I'm missing something. What is it? You're thinking of this as a normal purchase, but that's not really how equity markets operate. First, just because there are shares of stock purchased, it doesn't mean that there was real investor buyer and seller demand for that instrument (at that point in time). Markets have dedicated middlemen called Market Makers, who are responsible to make sure that there is always someone to buy or sell; this ensures that all instruments have sufficient liquidity. Market Makers may decide to lower their bid on a stock based on a high number of sellers, or raise their ask for a high number of buyers. During an investor rush to buy or sell an instrument (perhaps in response to a news release), it's possible for Market Makers to accumulate a large number of shares, without end-investors being involved on both sides of the transaction. This is one example of how instruments can be over-bought or over-sold. Since Williams %R creates over-bought and over-sold signals based on historical averages of open / close prices, perhaps it's better to think of these terms as \"\"over-valued\"\" and \"\"under-valued\"\". Of course, there could be good reason for instruments to open or close outside their expected ranges, so Williams %R is just a tool to give you clues... not a real evaluation of the instrument's true value.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "413041", "title": "", "text": "Market Makers are essentially just there to process the buys and sells of traders, so just like you and I buy and sell at the ask and bid prices they do to. They are just completing the process of making our orders a reality. Market makers are just representative of brokers, meaning that when you place your order at ask or bid, you are placing that particular brokers order at ask or bid. People often say that certain brokers have too many shares and claim that they are games when really that just means that there happen to be a lot of people using a particular broker all at once, or more troubling, perhaps even company execs using a broker, to sell a large amount of shares." } ]

[ { "docid": "580364", "title": "", "text": "\"This is a misconception. One of the explanations is that if you buy at the ask price and want to sell it right away, you can only sell at the bid price. This is incorrect. There are no two separate bid and ask prices. The price you buy (your \"\"bid\"\") is the same price someone else sells (their \"\"sell\"\"). The same goes when you sell - the price you sell at is the price someone else buys. There's no spread with stocks. Emphasized it on purpose, because many people (especially those who gamble on stock exchange without knowing what they're doing) don't understand how the stock market works. On the stock exchange, the transaction price is the match between the bid price and the ask price. Thus, on any given transaction, bid always equals ask. There's no spread. There is spread with commodities (if you buy it directly, especially), contracts, mutual funds and other kinds of brokered transactions that go through a third party. The difference (spread) is that third party's fee for assuming part of the risk in the transaction, and is indeed added to your cost (indirectly, in the way you described). These transactions don't go directly between a seller and a buyer. For example, there's no buyer when you redeem some of your mutual fund - the fund pays you money. So the fund assumes certain risk, which is why there's a spread in the prices to invest and to redeem. Similarly with commodities: when you buy a gold bar - you buy it from a dealer, who needs to keep a stock. Thus, the dealer will not buy from you at the same price: there's a premium on sale and a discount on buy, which is a spread, to compensate the dealer for the risk of keeping a stock.\"" }, { "docid": "1203", "title": "", "text": "When you want to short a stock, you are trying to sell shares (that you are borrowing from your broker), therefore you need buyers for the shares you are selling. The ask prices represent people who are trying to sell shares, and the bid prices represent people who are trying to buy shares. Using your example, you could put in a limit order to short (sell) 1000 shares at $3.01, meaning that your order would become the ask price at $3.01. There is an ask price ahead of you for 500 shares at $3.00. So people would have to buy those 500 shares at $3.00 before anyone could buy your 1000 shares at $3.01. But it's possible that your order to sell 1000 shares at $3.01 never gets filled, if the buyers don't buy all the shares ahead of you. The price could drop to $1.00 without hitting $3.01 and you will have missed out on the trade. If you really wanted to short 1000 shares, you could use a market order. Let's say there's a bid for 750 shares at $2.50, and another bid for 250 shares at $2.49. If you entered a market order to sell 1000 shares, your order would get filled at the best bid prices, so first you would sell 750 shares at $2.50 and then you would sell 250 shares at $2.49. I was just using your example to explain things. In reality there won't be such a wide spread between the bid and ask prices. A stock might have a bid price of $10.50 and an ask price of $10.51, so there would only be a 1 cent difference between putting in a limit order to sell 1000 shares at $10.51 and just using a market order to sell 1000 shares and getting them filled at $10.50. Also, your example probably wouldn't work in real life, because brokers typically don't allow people to short stocks that are trading under $5 per share. As for your question about how often you are unable to make a short sale, it can sometimes happen with stocks that are heavily shorted and your broker may not be able to find any more shares to borrow. Also remember that you can only short stocks with a margin account, you cannot short stocks with a cash account." }, { "docid": "434596", "title": "", "text": "In general stock markets are very similar to that, however, you can also put in limit orders to say that you will only buy or sell at a given price. These sit in the market for a specified length of time and will be executed when an order arrives that matches the price (or better). Traders who set limit orders are called liquidity (or price) makers as they provide liquidity (i.e. volume to be traded) to be filled later. If there is no counterparty (i.e. buyer to your seller) in the market, a market maker; a large bank or brokerage who is licensed and regulated to do so, will fill your order at some price. That price is based on how much volume (i.e. trading) there is in that stock on average. This is called average daily volume (ADV) and is calculated over varying periods of time; we use ADV30 which is the 30 day average. You can always sell stocks for whatever price you like privately but a market order does not allow you to set your price (you are a price taker) therefore that kind of order will always fill at a market price. As mentioned above limit orders will not fill until the price is hit but will stay on book as long as they aren't filled, expired or cancelled." }, { "docid": "151132", "title": "", "text": "\"First, keep in mind that there are generally 2 ways to buy a corporation's shares: You can buy a share directly from the corporation. This does not happen often; it usually happens at the Initial Public Offering [the first time the company becomes \"\"public\"\" where anyone with access to the stock exchange can become a part-owner], plus maybe a few more times during the corporations existence. In this case, the corporation is offering new ownership in exchange for a price set the corporation (or a broker hired by the corporation). The price used for a public offering is the highest amount that the company believes it can get - this is a very complicated field, and involves many different methods of evaluating what the company should be worth. If the company sets the price too low, then they have missed out on possible value which would be earned by the previous, private shareholders (they would have gotten the same share % of a corporation which would now have more cash to spend, because of increased money paid by new shareholders). If the company sets the price too high, then the share subscription might only be partially filled, so there might not be enough cash to do what the company wanted. You can buy a share from another shareholder. This is more common - when you see the company's share price on the stock exchange, it is this type of transaction - buying out other current shareholders. The price here is simply set based on what current owners are willing to sell at. The \"\"Bid Price\"\" listed by an exchange is the current highest bid that a purchaser is offering for a single share. The \"\"Ask Price\"\" is the current lowest offer that a seller is offering to sell a single share they currently own. When the bid price = the ask price, a share transaction happens, and the most recent stock price changes.\"" }, { "docid": "538915", "title": "", "text": "\"Market price is just the bid or offer price of the last sell or buy order in the market. The price that you actually receive or pay will be the price that the person buying the stock off you or selling it to you will accept. If there are no other participants in the market to make up the other side of your order (i.e. to buy off you if you are selling or to sell to you if you are buying) the exchange pays large banks to be \"\"market makers\"\"; they fulfil your order using stocks that they don't want to either buy or sell just so that you get your order filled. When you place an order outside of market hours the order is kept on the broker's order books until the market reopens and then, at market opening time there is an opening \"\"auction\"\" at which orders are matched to opposing orders (i.e. each buy order will be matched with a sell) at a price determined by auction. You will not know what price the order was filled at until it has been filled. If you want to guarantee a price you can do so by placing a limit order that says not to pay more than a certain price for any unit of the stock.\"" }, { "docid": "118360", "title": "", "text": "First, it depends on your broker. Full service firms will tear you a new one, discount brokers may charge ~nothing. You'll have to check with your broker on assignment fees. Theoretically, this is the case of the opposite of my answer in this question: Are underlying assets supposed to be sold/bought immediately after being bought/sold in call/put option? Your trading strategy/reasoning for your covered call notwithstanding, in your case, as an option writer covering in the money calls, you want to hold and pray that your option expires worthless. As I said in the other answer, there is always a theoretical premium of option price + exercise price to underlying prices, no matter how slight, right up until expiration, so on that basis, it doesn't pay to close out the option. However, there's a reality that I didn't mention in the other answer: if it's a deep in the money option, you can actually put a bid < stock price - exercise price - trade fee and hope for the best since the market makers rarely bid above stock price - exercise price for illiquid options, but it's unlikely that you'll beat the market makers + hft. They're systems are too fast. I know the philly exchange allows you to put in implied volatility orders, but they're expensive, and I couldn't tell you if a broker/exchange allows for dynamic orders with the equation I specified above, but it may be worth a shot to check out; however, it's unlikely that such a low order would ever be filled since you'll at best be lined up with the market makers, and it would require a big player dumping all its' holdings at once to get to your order. If you're doing a traditional, true-blue covered call, there's absolutely nothing wrong being assigned except for the tax implications. When your counterparty calls away your underlyings, it is a sell for tax purposes. If you're not covering with the underlying but with a more complex spread, things could get hairy for you real quick if someone were to exercise on you, but that's always a risk. If your broker is extremely strict, they may close the rest of your spread for you at the offer. In illiquid markets, that would be a huge percentage loss considering the wide bid/ask spreads." }, { "docid": "9274", "title": "", "text": "\"Futures are an agreement to buy or sell something in the future. The futures \"\"price\"\" is the price at which you agree to make the trade. This price does not indicate what will happen in the future so much as it indicates the cost of buying the item today and holding it until the future date. Hence, for very liquid products such as stock index futures, the futures price is a very simple function of today's stock index value and current short-term interest rates. If the stock exchange is closed but the futures exchange is open, then using the futures price and interest rates one can back out an implied \"\"fair value\"\" for the index, which is in essence the market's estimate of what the stock index value would be right now if the stock market were open. Of course, as soon as the stock exchange opens, the futures price trades to within a narrow band of the actual index value, where the size of the band depends on transaction costs (bid-ask spread, commissions, etc.).\"" }, { "docid": "382067", "title": "", "text": "Depends on when you are seeing these bids & asks-- off hours, many market makers pull their bid & ask prices entirely. In a lightly traded stock there may just be no market except during the regular trading day." }, { "docid": "228983", "title": "", "text": "\"In a sense, yes. There's a view in Yahoo Finance that looks like this For this particular stock, a market order for 3000 shares (not even $4000, this is a reasonably small figure) will move the stock past $1.34, more than a 3% move. Say, on the Ask side there are 100,000 shares, all with $10 ask. It would take a lot of orders to purchase all these shares, so for a while, the price may stay right at $10, or a bit lower if there are those willing to sell lower. But, say that side showed $10 1000, $10.25 500, $10.50 1000. Now, the volume is so low that if I decided I wanted shares at any price, my order, a market order will actually drive the market price right up to $10.50 if I buy 2500 shares \"\"market\"\". You see, however, even though I'm a small trader, I drove the price up. But now that the price is $10.50 when I go to sell all 2500 at $10.50, there are no bids to pay that much, so the price the next trade will occur at isn't known yet. There may be bids at $10, with asking (me) at $10.50. No trades will happen until a seller takes the $10 bid or other buyers and sellers come in.\"" }, { "docid": "560558", "title": "", "text": "As others have stated, the current price is simply the last price at which the security traded. For any given tick, however, there are many bid-ask prices because securities can trade on multiple exchanges and between many agents on a single exchange. This is true for both types of exchanges that Chris mentioned in his answer. Chris' answer is pretty thorough in explaining how the two types of exchanges work, so I'll just add some minor details. In exchanges like NASDAQ, there are multiple market makers for most relatively liquid securities, which theoretically introduces competition between them and therefore lowers the bid-ask spreads that traders face. Although this results in the market makers earning less compensation for their risk, they hope to make up the difference by making the market for highly liquid securities. This could also result in your order filling, in pieces, at several different prices if your brokerage firm fills it through multiple market makers. Of course, if you place your order on an exchange where an electronic system fills it (the other type of exchange that Chris mentioned), this could happen anyway. In short, if you place a market order for 1000 shares, it could be filled at several different prices, depending on volume, multiple bid-ask prices, etc. If you place a sizable order, your broker may fill it in pieces regardless to prevent you from moving the market. This is rarely a problem for small-time investors trading securities with high volumes, but for investors with higher capital like institutional investors, mutual funds, etc. who place large orders relative to the average volume, this could conceivably be a burden, both in the price difference across time as the order is placed and the increased bookkeeping it demands. This is tangentially related, so I'll add it anyway. In cases like the one described above, all-or-none (AON) orders are one solution; these are orders that instruct the broker to only execute the order if it can be filled in a single transaction. Most brokers offer these, but there are some caveats that apply to them specifically. (I haven't been able to find some of this information, so some of this is from memory). All-or-none orders are only an option if the order is for more than a certain numbers of shares. I think the minimum size is 300 or 400 shares. Your order won't be placed until your broker places all other orders ahead of it that don't have special conditions attached to them. I believe all-or-none orders are day orders, which means that if there wasn't enough supply to fill the order during the day, the order is cancelled at market close. AON orders only apply to limit orders. If you want to replicate the behavior of a market order with AON characteristics, you can try setting a limit buy/sell order a few cents above/below the current market price." }, { "docid": "351518", "title": "", "text": "Bid and ask prices of stocks change not just daily, but continuously. They are, as the names suggest, what price people are asking for to be willing to sell their stock, and how much people are bidding to be willing to buy it at that moment. Your equation is accurate in theory, but doesn't actually apply. The bid and ask prices are indicators of the value of the stock, but the only think you care about as a trader are what you actually pay and sell it for. So regardless of the bid/ask the equation is: Since you cannot buy an index directly (index, like indicator) it doesn't make sense to discuss how much people are bidding or asking for it. Like JoeTaxpayer said, you can buy (and therefore bid/ask) for ETFs and funds that attempt to track the value of the S&P 500." }, { "docid": "554207", "title": "", "text": "When there is a difference between the two ... no trading occurs. Let's look at an example: Investor A, B, C, and D all buy/sell shares of company X. Investor A wants to sell 10 shares at $20 a share (Ask price $20 x10). Investor B wants to buy 15 shares at $10 a share (Bid price $10 x15). Since the bid price and ask price are different, no sale is made. Next Investor C comes along and wants to sell 5 shares at $14 (Ask price $14 x5). Still no sale. Investor D comes along and wants to buy 5 shares for $14 each. So a sale is finally made. At this point, the stock quote moves to $14. The ask price is $20 x10 and the bid price is $10 x15. No further trading will occur until another investor is willing to buy at $20 or sell at $10. Another discussion of this topic is shown on this post." }, { "docid": "169062", "title": "", "text": "\"It's good to ask this question, because this is one of the fundamental dichotomies in market microstructure. At any time T for each product on a (typical) exchange there are two well-defined prices: At time T there is literally no person in the market who wants to sell below the ask, so all the people who are waiting to buy at the bid (or below) could very well be waiting there forever. There's simply no guarantee that any seller will ever want to part with their product for a lesser price than they think it's worth. So if you want to buy the product at time T you have a tough choice to make: you get in line at the bid price, where there's no guarantee that your request will ever be filled, and you might never get your hands on the product you decide that owning the product right now is more valuable to you than (ask - bid) * quantity, so you tell the exchange that you're willing to buy at the ask price, and the exchange matches you with whichever seller is first in line Now, if you're in the market for the long term, the above choice is completely immaterial to you. Who cares if you pay $10.00 * 1000 shares or $10.01 * 1000 shares when you plan to sell 30 years from now at $200 (or $200.01)? But if you're a day trader or anyone else with a very short time horizon, then this choice is extremely important: if the price is about to go up several cents and you got in line at the bid (and never got filled) then you missed out on some profit if you \"\"cross the spread\"\" to buy at the ask and then the price doesn't go up (or worse, goes down), you're screwed. In order to get out of the position you'll have to cross the spread again and sell at at most the bid, meaning you've now paid the spread twice (plus transaction fees and regulatory fees) for nothing. (All of the above also applies in reverse for selling at the ask versus selling at the bid, but most people like to learn in terms of buying rather than selling.)\"" }, { "docid": "278450", "title": "", "text": "The strategy has intrinsic value, which may or may not be obstructed in practice by details mentioned in other answers (tax and other overheads, regulation, risk). John Bensin says that as a general principle, if a simple technical analysis is good then someone will have implemented it before you. That's fair, but we can do better than an existence proof for this particular case, we can point to who is doing approximately this. Market makers are already doing this with different numbers. They quote a buy price and a sell price on the same stock, so they are already buying low and selling high with a small margin. If your strategy works in practice, that means you can make low-risk money from short-term volatility that they're missing out on, by setting your margin at approximately the daily price variation instead of the current bid-offer spread. But market makers choose their own bid-offer spread, and they choose it because they think it's the best margin to make low-risk money in the long run. So you'd be relying that:" }, { "docid": "418937", "title": "", "text": "\"A market sell order will be filled at the highest current \"\"bid\"\" price. For a reasonably liquid stock, there will be several buy orders in line, and the highest bid must be filled first, so there should a very short time between when you place the order and when it is filled. What could happen is what's called front running. That's when the broker places their own order in front of yours to fulfill the current bid, selling their own stock at the slightly higher price, causing your sale to be filled at a lower price. This is not only unethical but illegal as well. It is not something you should be concerned about with a large broker. You should only place a market order when you don't care about minute differences between the current ask and your execution price, but want to guarantee order execution. If you absolutely have to sell at a minimum price, then a limit order is more appropriate, but you run the risk that your limit will not be reached and your order will not be filled. So the risk is a tradeoff between a guaranteed price and a guaranteed execution.\"" }, { "docid": "16531", "title": "", "text": "Looking at the SPY option chain you posted, all of the call options with a strike price of 199.50 or higher have a bid of N/A. That's because the ask price for all of those options is 0.01, and the bid price has to be less than the ask price, but buyers are not allowed to bid 0.00. It's not accurate to say that no one wants to buy those calls - anyone who wanted to buy one of those calls would just buy it at the ask price of 0.01. So why are people selling those calls for just 0.01? The further out of the money you go as you get closer to expiration, the less likely the underlying stock or ETF (SPY in this case) will go over the strike price, and the less you can sell it for. SPY closed yesterday at about 195, and it would have to go up almost 2.5% today for the 199.50 calls to be in the money, and a 2.5% move in one day is extremely unlikely." }, { "docid": "322798", "title": "", "text": "\"I think for this a picture is worth a thousand words. This is a \"\"depth chart\"\" that I pulled from google images, specifically because it doesn't name any security. On the left you have all of the \"\"bids\"\" to buy this security, on the right you have the \"\"asks\"\" to sell the security. In the middle you have the bid/ask spread, this is the space between the highest bid and the lowest ask. As you can see you are free to place you order to the market to buy for 232, and someone else is free to place their order to the market to sell for 234. When the bid and the ask match there's a transaction for the maximum number of available shares. Alternatively, someone can place a market order to buy or sell and they'll just take the current market price. Retail investors don't really get access to this kind of chart from their brokers because for the most part the information isn't terribly relevant at the retail level.\"" }, { "docid": "501748", "title": "", "text": "To add a bit to Daniel Anderson's great answer, if you want to 'peek' at what a the set of bid and ask spreads looks like, the otc market page could be interesting (NOTE: I'm NOT recommending that you trade Over The Counter. Many of these stocks are amusingly scary): http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/ACBFF/quote You can see market makers essentially offering to buy or sell blocks of stock at a variety of prices." }, { "docid": "151987", "title": "", "text": "I don't think user4358's explanation is correct. A trailing LIT Sell Order adjusts downwards, i.e. if you place the order with an Aux price (in TWS it's trigger price) of 105.00 and a trailing amount of 6.00 then, assuming the ask is 100.00, TWS will add the trailing amount to the ask price and if it's less than the trigger price it will adjust. So in my example, if the market (ask) goes straight up to 105.00, nothing will be adjusted, the trigger is touched and the limit order will be placed (see below). If on the the other hand the market goes down to 99.00 then trlng amt + ask is 105.00, if it goes further down to 98.00 then the trigger price will be adjusted to 104.00 (because it's less than the current trigger), and so on. For the LIT part you have either an absolute limit price you can enter, or you have an offset limit which will be subtracted from the trigger price, in which case it is adjusted as well. So back to my example, the trigger is now 104.00 and the limit offset is say 1.00, so my limit order would be placed at 103.00 if the ask ever touches 104.00, and that in turn is only visible if the bid touches 103.00 (because it's limit-if-touched). For a buy just use the same explanation with some swapped roles, the trigger price adjust upwards when the trailing amount plus bid is larger than the current trigger, and the limit offset will be added to the trigger price. Edit Also quite succinct and worth having a look at: http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/trading/orders/trailingLimitTouched.php Guesswork, highly subjective As for why this might be good, well, you have to believe in momentum strategies, i.e. a market that goes down, will continue to go down, if you believe that and you believe in mean reversion as well, then a trailing limit order can assist you in not buying/selling impulsively, but closer to the mean. I've never used it that way though. What I have done, even just now to get the explanation right, is to place trailing buy and sell orders simultaneously. You will find that you can just go in with coarse estimates and because the adjustments will go towards each other, you will end up with a narrowing band of trigger prices (as opposed to trailing stop orders which will give you a widening band of trigger prices). If you believe in overshooting and equilibria then this can be one easy way to profit from it. I've just sold EURUSD for 1.26420 and bought it back at 1.26380 with a trailing amount of 5pips and a limit offset of 2pips within the time of writing this." } ]

[ { "docid": "568064", "title": "", "text": "\"As long as the IRS treats bitcoin as property, then whenever you use bitcoin to buy anything you are supposed to consider the capital gain or capital loss. There is no \"\"until it's converted to fiat\"\". You are paying local sales tax and capital gains, or paying local sales tax and reporting capital loss. As long as you are consistent, you can use either the total cost basis, or individual lot purchases. The same as other property like stocks (except without stock specific regulations like wash-sale rules :D ). There are a lot of perks or unintentional loopholes for speculators, with the property designation. There are a lot of disadvantages for consumers trying to use it like a currency. Someone mixing investment and spending funds across addresses is going to have complicated tax issues, but fortunately the exchanges have records of purchase times and prices, which you can compare with the addresses you control. Do note, after that IRS guideline, another federal agency designated Bitcoin as a commodity, which is a subset of \"\"property\"\" with its own more favorable but different tax guidelines.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "458915", "title": "", "text": "Its only a matter of time before Governments worldwide crack down on Bitcoin. Apart from using it for illicit purchases, money laundering or speculation based on its hard limited supply, what use does it have? The transaction fees are much greater than other methods for small transactions, and its store of wealth is questionable given the vulnerability to hacking and volatility." }, { "docid": "219351", "title": "", "text": "DJClayworth's response is generally correct. You wouldn't have to pay taxes on insurance benefits, since those are in fact bringing you whole to what you've lost. However, in some cases you do need to consider taxes. Specifically, if the insurance payout is higher than your cost basis in the lost property. While you may think that this never happens (why would the insurance company pay more than what it cost you?), it in fact quite frequently does. Specific example would be a car used in your business. If you used your car as part of your business and deducted car depreciation on your tax return - your cost basis was reduced by the depreciation. Getting a full car cost payout form insurance would in fact constitute taxable income to you for the difference between your cost basis (adjusted for the depreciation) and the payout. Another example would be collectibles. Say you bought a car 20 years ago at $5000, you maintained it well during the years (assume you spend another $5000 on repairs), and it is now insured at FMV of $50000. But, alas, it got destroyed by a mountain lion who climbed over the fence and pushed it over a cliff. You got a $50000 payout from your insurance company (because you insured it for full FMV coverage, as a collectible should be insured), of which $40000 will be taxable to you. There may be more specific cases where insurance payouts are (partially) taxable. However, as a general rule, they're not, as long as they're at or below your cost basis level." }, { "docid": "516148", "title": "", "text": "\"I was able to find a fairly decent index that trades very close to 1/10th the actual price of gold by the ounce. The difference may be accounted to the indexes operating cost, as it is very low, about 0.1%. The index is the ETFS Gold Trust index (SGOL). By using the SGOL index, along with a Standard Brokerage investment account, I was able to set up an investment that appropriately tracked my gold \"\"shares\"\" as 10x their weight in ounces, the share cost as 1/10th the value of a gold ounce at the time of purchase, and the original cost at time of purchase as the cost basis. There tends to be a 0.1% loss every time I enter a transaction, I'm assuming due to the index value difference against the actual spot value of the price of gold for any day, probably due to their operating costs. This solution should work pretty well, as this particular index closely follows the gold price, and should reflect an investment in gold over a long term very well. It is not 100% accurate, but it is accurate enough that you don't lose 2-3% every time you enter a new transaction, which would skew long-term results with regular purchases by a fair amount.\"" }, { "docid": "306810", "title": "", "text": "blockchain.info has all the most recent stats. 264,360 bitcoins traded in the last 24 hours. About [16.5 Million](http://moderninvestor.io/how-many-bitcoins-have-been-mined/) exist right now. Here is how they make more bitcoins &gt;12.5 [bitcoins per block](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin) (approximately every ten minutes) until mid 2020,[7] and then afterwards 6.25 bitcoins per block for 4 years until next halving. This halving continues until 2110–40, when 21 million bitcoins will have been issued. None of that is really making the price going up. There is not a shortage of bitcoins. There are just more people wanting to buy bitcoin right now then there are people who want to sale. So on the exchanges people keep offering to buy at a higher and higher price. Competing with each other causing the price to go up. It'll probably hit a peak and drop back down to 4k or so. That seems to be the trend with bitcoin. Climb real high, dip down to about halfway up that climb, level off, time goes by, peak again. Repeat." }, { "docid": "573523", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll assume United States as the country; the answer may (probably does) vary somewhat if this is not correct. Also, I preface this with the caveat that I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant. However, this is my understanding: You must recognize the revenue at the time the credits are purchased (when money changes hands), and charge sales tax on the full amount at that time. This is because the customer has pre-paid and purchased a service (i.e. the \"\"credits\"\", which are units of time available in the application). This is clearly a complete transaction. The use of the credits is irrelevant. This is equivalent to a customer purchasing a box of widgets for future delivery; the payment is made and the widgets are available but have simply not been shipped (and therefore used). This mirrors many online service providers (say, NetFlix) in business model. This is different from the case in which a customer purchases a \"\"gift card\"\" or \"\"reloadable debit card\"\". In this case, sales tax is NOT collected (because this is technically not a purchase). Revenue is also not booked at this time. Instead, the revenue is booked when the gift card's balance is used to pay for a good or service, and at that time the tax is collected (usually from the funds on the card). To do otherwise would greatly complicate the tax basis (suppose the gift card is used in a different state or county, where sales tax is charged differently? Suppose the gift card is used to purchase a tax-exempt item?) For justification, see bankruptcy consideration of the two cases. In the former, the customer has \"\"ownership\"\" of an asset (the credits), which cannot be taken from him (although it might be unusable). In the latter, the holder of the debit card is technically an unsecured creditor of the company - and is last in line if the company's assets are liquidated for repayment. Consider also the case where the cost of the \"\"credits\"\" is increased part-way through the year (say, from $10 per credit to $20 per credit) or if a discount promotion is applied (buy 5 credits, get one free). The customer has a \"\"tangible\"\" item (one credit) which gets the same functionality regardless of price. This would be different if instead of \"\"credits\"\" you instead maintain an \"\"account\"\" where the user deposited $1000 and was billed for usage; in this case you fall back to the \"\"gift card\"\" scenario (but usage is charged at the current rate) and revenue is booked when the usage is purchased; similarly, tax is collected on the purchase of the service. For this model to work, the \"\"credit\"\" would likely have to be refundable, and could not expire (see gift cards, above), and must be usable on a variety of \"\"services\"\". You may have particular responsibility in the handling of this \"\"deposit\"\" as well.\"" }, { "docid": "27283", "title": "", "text": "I'm in the US and I once transferred shares in a brokerage account from Schwab to Fidelity. I received the shares from my employer as RSUs and the employer used Schwab. After I quit and the shares vested, I wanted to move the shares to Fidelity because that is where all my other accounts are. I called Fidelity and they were more than happy to help, and it was an easy process. I believe Schwab charged about $50 for the transfer. The only tricky part is that you need to transfer the cost basis of the shares. I was on a three-way phone call with Schwab and Fidelity for Schwab to tell Fidelity what the purchase price was." }, { "docid": "207316", "title": "", "text": "Just a thought because this is a really good question: Would the buying and selling of blockchain based digital currency, using other blockchain based digital currencies, be subject to like kind treatment and exempt from capital gains until exchanged for a non-blockchain based good or service (or national currency) Suppose someone sells 1 bitcoin to buy 100 monero. Monero's price and bitcoin's price then change to where the 100 monero are 3 bitcoins. The person gets their bitcoin back and has 66.67 monero remaining. This scenario could be: Suppose someone sells 1 bitcoin at $1000 to buy 100 monero at $10. Bitcoin crashes 80% to $200 while monero crashes to only $6 per monero. $6 times 100 is $600 and if the person gets their bitcoin back (at $200 per bitcoi), they still lost money when measured in US Dollars if they move that bitcoin back to US dollars. In reading the IRS on bitcoin, they only care about the US dollar value of bitcoin or monero and in this example, the US dollar value is less. The person may have more bitcoins, but they still lost money if they sell." }, { "docid": "378654", "title": "", "text": "Paper money and coins cost real resources too, but it doesn't matter much that it costs resources, except maybe for the environment. No institutions controlling the price and supply is a good thing. I prefer a currency in which the global market decides the price and not some government I don't trust that keeps printing more and more for decades, causing the currency to lose value over time. Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies will never replace normal currencies, but they are already competing and it's good that governments and banks don't have an oligopoly anymore. Bitcoin is a great mix of a currency and safehaven for longterm inflation. It's easily transactable and divisible without a third party AND because it's scarce, yet more accessible than gold, it's a great place to store value to escape an economic crisis or simply monetary inflation. Now you'll probably say, something volatile isn't safe enough for a safehaven. But I think the higher the price and the longer it exists the less volatile the bitcoin price will be and that the longterm trend will be up, even after it surpasses the marketcap of gold. Meanwhile, cryptocurrencies are a great way to crowdfund interesting projects and create value out of nothing, enriching young smart people whom will be able stimulate the global economy." }, { "docid": "238333", "title": "", "text": "Assuming the stock was worth more at the time she gave it to you than when she bought it, the cost basis would be the amount that she bought it for. You would then pay tax on the increase in value from that time. Generally it's better to inherit assets than receive them as gifts, since the cost basis of inherited assets is raised to the value at the time of the death of the one leaving the inheritance. You will probably need to find some record of the original amount paid so you can determine the right cost basis." }, { "docid": "374867", "title": "", "text": "Does this make sense? I'm concerned that by buying shares with post tax income, I'll have ended up being taxed twice or have increased my taxable income. ... The company will then re-reimburse me for the difference in stock price between the vesting and the purchase share price. Sure. Assuming you received a 100-share RSU for shares worth $10, and your marginal tax rate is 30% (all made up numbers), either: or So you're in the same spot either way. You paid $300 to get $1,000 worth of stock. Taxes are the same as well. The full value of the RSU will count as income either way, and you'll either pay tax on the gains of the 100 shares in your RSU our you'll pay tax on gains on the 70 shares in your RSU and the 30 shares you bought. Since they're reimbursing you for any difference the cost basis will be the same (although you might get taxed on the reimbursement, but that should be a relatively small amount). This first year I wanted to keep all of the shares, due to tax reasons and because believe the share price will go up. I don't see how this would make a difference from a tax standpoint. You're going to pay tax on the RSU either way - either in shares or in cash. how does the value of the shares going up make a difference in tax? Additionally I'm concerned that by doing this I'm going to be hit by my bank for GBP->USD exchange fees, foreign money transfer charges, broker purchase fees etc. That might be true - if that's the case then you need to decide whether to keep fighting or decide if it's worth the transaction costs." }, { "docid": "181610", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://hodlthemoon.com/blog/cash-in-contango-bitcoin-enters-the-post-dream-world) reduced by 75%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Bitcoin: Cash or Commodity? Despite the name of Satoshi&amp;#039;s white paper, bitcoin is currently thought too volatile to be a currency or cash system for everyday transactions. &gt; So the investor will consider the opportunity cost of alternatives when looking at the bitcoin price: and holding normal cash in the era of historically low growth, low productivity and no return on money; foregoes the opportunity of cryptocurrency. &gt; If bitcoin has commoditized money, then the investor holding stable cash must be anticipating an unforeseen event whereby its forward value makes it higher than today&amp;#039;s - otherwise why keep it? ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6p2f43/cash_in_contango_bitcoin_enters_the_post_dream/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~173773 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*: **Bitcoin**^#1 **Commodity**^#2 **Cash**^#3 **money**^#4 **Satoshi&amp;#039;s**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "31863", "title": "", "text": "Profit = Sale price - Basis Basis = Purchase price - any depreciation taken, including expensing it." }, { "docid": "448582", "title": "", "text": "Adjusting for a market change from day to day, the dividend should have no impact on you. Your X shares time $Y should be nearly identical right after that dividend hits the account. And within the 401(k) or IRA for that matter, the accounting doesn't matter most of the time. Outside a retirement account, you need to pay tax on the dividend, and add the newly purchased shares' cost to your cost basis." }, { "docid": "216557", "title": "", "text": "\"The BitCoin section is just hilarious and highlights how rediculous some of the Crytocurrency market has become (not counting BitCoin and ETH). This quote in particular from the start-ups press-release had my cracking: &gt;\"\"In order to purchase and support WEED anyone that sends 1 President Johnson coin ($GARY) to the Company’s Omni Layer Bitcoin Wallet will receive 1 WEED coin into their Omni Wallet\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "258439", "title": "", "text": "My experience (two purchases, Ontario, Canada) is that the property taxes are paid by whomever is the owner on the date the tax bill comes due. The bill might be due before the owners even decide to sell. However: A part of the closing process is a Statement of Adjustments, in which various costs that span the tenure of two owners are split on a per-diem basis. In your case, there would have been a charge against you of 2/365 of the tax bill on this statement at the time of closing (if you hadn't paid any 2014 taxes) The statement also includes things like flat-rate water bills, monthly cable bills, security system monitoring... All paid by one owner or the other, but split fairly on a per diem basis at the time of closing..." }, { "docid": "113948", "title": "", "text": "Yes, an overall $500 loss on the stock can be claimed. Since the day trader sold both lots she acquired, the Wash Sale rule has no net impact on her taxes. The Wash Sale rule would come into play if within thirty days of second sale, she purchased the stock a third time. Then she would have to amend her taxes because claiming the $500 loss would no longer be a valid under the Wash Sale rule. It would have to be added to the cost basis of the most recent purchase." }, { "docid": "257609", "title": "", "text": "If the call is in the money and you believe the reason for the price jump was an overreaction with a pullback on the horizon or you anticipate downward movement for other reasons, I will roll (sometimes for a strike closer to at the money) as long as the trade results in a net credit! You already have the statistical edge trading covered calls over everyone who purchased stock at the same point in time. This is because covered calls reduce your cost basis and increase your probability of profit. For people reading this who are not interested in the math behind probability of profit(POP) for covered calls, you should be aware of why POP is higher for covered calls (CC). With CCs you win when the stock price stays the same, you win when it goes down slightly, you win when the stock goes up. You have two more ways to win than someone who just buys stock, therefore a higher probability of making a buck! Another option: If your stock is going to be called at a loss, or the strike you want to roll to results in a net debit, or your cash funds are short of owning 100x shares and you are familiar with the stock, try writing a naked put for the price you want to buy at. At experation, if the naked put is exercised, your basis is reduced by the premium of the put you sold, and you can write a covered call against the stock you now own. If it expires worthless you keep the premium. This is also another way to increase your POP." }, { "docid": "104453", "title": "", "text": "To sum up: My question came from misunderstanding what cost basis applies to. Now I get it that it applies to stocks as physical entities. Consider a chain of buys of 40 stock A with prices $1-$4-$10-$15 (qty 10 each time) then IRS wants to know exactly which stock I am selling. And when I transfer stocks to different account, that cost basis transfers with them. Cost basis is included in transfers, so that removes ambiguity which stock is being sold on the original account. In the example above, cost basis of 20 stocks moved to a new account would probably be $1 x 10 and $4 x 10, i.e. FIFO also applies to transfers." }, { "docid": "302691", "title": "", "text": "This are my opinions on the subject: -People are tired of the corrupt system of bankers who poorly manage money, Bitcoin is built on trust, and more people are starting to trust it. Can you trust a banker? NO. Can you trust computer systems built on strict code that will always do what you tell them too? YES. To understand why Bitcoin is safe, one must first understand the block-chain technology. MORE INFO -More companies are starting to accept Bitcoin as payment, which creates more trust in the system, which brings more people interest. LIST OF COMPANIES -Bitcoin is a worldwide coin, you can pay your friend in Japan with Bitcoin and the transaction is done in 10 minutes, as opposed to 5-7 business day if done through a bank. The banker fee is huge, the Bitcoin miner fee is minimal. -Bitcoin is like Gold but better, Bitcoin is not built for everyday transactions just like gold, its not built for buying coffee either, its built to retain value which is why there is a finite amount (21 million). -A huge benefit of bitcoin is anyone with a smartphone or a computer can download an App and start accepting Bitcoins as payments. Gold is not easily trade-able. Bitcoins is as simple as sending a picture message. (NOTE: More than 2 billion smartphone users around the world around 3.7 billion internet users around the world all capable of one day trading using bitcoin) LIVE INTERNET USERS -Keep in mind, there is more than one crypto currency, all built on different ideas and systems, all performing with incredible gains. MORE INFO" } ]

[ { "docid": "588116", "title": "", "text": "Unless I am missing something subtle, nothing happens to the buyer. Suppose Alice wants to sell short 1000 shares of XYZ at $5. She borrows the shares from Bob and sells them to Charlie. Now Charlie actually owns the shares; they are in his account. If the stock later goes up to $10, Charlie is happy; he could sell the shares he now owns, and make a $5000 profit. Alice still has the $5000 she received from her short sale, and she owes 1000 shares to Bob. So she's effectively $5000 in debt. If Bob calls in the loan, she'll have to try to come up with another $5000 to buy 1000 shares at $10 on the open market. If she can't, well, that's between her and Bob. Maybe she goes bankrupt and Bob has to write off a loss. But none of this has any effect on Charlie! He got the shares he paid for, and nobody's going to take them away from him. He has no reason to care where they came from, or what sort of complicated transactions brought them into Alice's possession. She had them, and she sold them to him, and that's the end of the story as far as he's concerned." } ]

[ { "docid": "42438", "title": "", "text": "Options are an indication what a particular segment of the market (those who deal a lot in options) think will happen. (and just because people think that, doesn't mean it will) Bearing in mind however that people writing covered-calls may due so simply as part of a strategy to mitigate downside risk at the expense of limiting upside potential. The presence of more people offering up options is to a degree an indication they are thinking the price will fall or hold steady, since that is in effect the 'bet' they are making. OTOH the people buying those options are making the opposite bet.. so who is to say which will be right. The balance between the two and how it affects the price of the options could be taken as an indication of market sentiment (within the options market) as to the future direction the stock is likely to take. (I just noticed that Blackjack posted the forumula that can be used to model all of this) To address the last part of your question 'does that mean it will go lower' I would say this. The degree to which any of this puts actual pressure on the stock of the underlying instrument is highly debatable, since many (likely most) people trading in a stock never look at what the options for that stock are doing, but base their decision on other factors such as price history, momentum, fundamentals and recent news about the company. To presume that actions in the options market would put pressure on a stock price, you would need to believe that a signficant fraction of the buyers and sellers were paying attention to the options market. Which might be the case for some Quants, but likely not for a lot of other buyers. And it could be argued even then that both groups, those trading options, and those trading stocks, are both looking at the same information to make their predictions of the likely future for the stock, and thus even if there is a correlation between what the stock price does in relation to options, there is no real causality that can be established. We would in fact predict that given access to the same information, both groups would by and large be taking similar parallel actions due to coming to similar conclusions regarding the future price of the stock. What is far MORE likely to pressure the price would be just the shear number of buyers or sellers, and also (especially since repeal of the uptick rule) someone who is trying to actively drive down the price via a lot of shorting at progressively lower prices. (something that is alleged to have been carried out by some hedge fund managers in the course of 'bear raids' on particular companies)" }, { "docid": "434212", "title": "", "text": "A stock exchange is a marketplace where people can bring their goods [shares] to be traded. There are certain rules. Stock Exchange does not own any shares of the companies that are trading in. The list of who owns with stock is with the registrar of each company. The electronic shares are held by a Financial Institution [Securities Depository]. So even if the exchange itself goes down, you still hold the same shares as you had before it went down. One would now have to find ways to trade these shares ... possibly via other stock exchange. This leaves the question of inflight transactions, which again would be recorded and available. Think of it similar to eBay. What happens when eBay goes bankrupt? Nothing much, all the seller still have their goods with them. All the buyers who had purchased good before have it when them ... so the question remains on inflight goods where the buyer has paid the seller and not yet received shipments ..." }, { "docid": "264820", "title": "", "text": "\"An investment is sold when you sell that particular stock or fund. It doesn't wait until you withdraw cash from the brokerage account. Whether an investment is subject to long term or short term taxes depends on how long you held that particular stock. Sorry, you can't get around the higher short term tax by leaving the money in a brokerage account or re-investing in something else. If you are invested in a mutual fund, whether it's long or short term depends on when you buy and sell the fund. The fact that the fund managers are buying and selling behind your back doesn't affect this. (I don't know what taxes they have to pay, maybe you really are paying for it in the form of management fees or lower returns, but you don't explicitly pay the tax on these \"\"inner\"\" transactions.) Your broker should send you a tax statement every year giving the numbers that you need to fill in to the various boxes of your income tax form. You don't have to figure it out. Of course it helps to know the rules. If you've held a stock for 11 1/2 months and are planning to sell, you might want to consider waiting a couple of weeks so it becomes a long term capital gain rather than short term and thus subject to lower tax.\"" }, { "docid": "214003", "title": "", "text": "\"For personal investing, and speculative/ highly risky securities (\"\"wasting assets\"\", which is exactly what options are), it is better to think in terms of sunk costs. Don't chase this trade, trying to make your money back. You should minimize your loss. Unwind the position now, while there is still some remaining value in those call options, and take a short-term loss. Or, you could try this. Let's say you own an exchange traded call option on a listed stock (very general case). I don't know how much time remains before the option's expiration date. Be that as it may, I could suggest this to effect a \"\"recovery\"\". You'll be long the call and short the stock. This is called a delta hedge, as you would be delta trading the stock. Delta refers to short-term price volatility. In other words, you'll short a single large block of the stock, then buy shares, in small increments, whenever the market drops slightly, on an intra-day basis. When the market price of the stock rises incrementally, you'll sell a few shares. Back and forth, in response to short-term market price moves, while maintaining a static \"\"hedge ratio\"\". As your original call option gets closer to maturity, roll it over into the next available contract, either one-month, or preferably three-month, time to expiration. If you don't want to, or can't, borrow the underlying stock to short, you could do a synthetic short. A synthetic short is a combination of a long put and a short call, whose pay-off replicates the short stock payoff. I personally would never purchase an unhedged option or warrant. But since that is what you own right now, you have two choices: Get out, or dig in deeper, with the realization that you are doing a lot of work just to trade your way back to a net zero P&L. *While you can make a profit using this sort of strategy, I'm not certain if that is within the scope of the money.stachexchange.com website.\"" }, { "docid": "333425", "title": "", "text": "As mentioned by Dilip, you need to provide more details. In general for transacting on stocks; Long Term: If you hold the stock for more than one year then its long term and not taxable. There is a STT [Securities Transaction Tax] that is already deducted/paid during buying and selling of a stock. Short Term: If you hold the stock for less than one year, it's short term gain. This can be adjusted against the short term loss for the financial year. The tax rate is 10%. Day Trading: Is same as short term from tax point of view. Unless you are doing it as a full time business. If you have purchased multiple quantities of same stock in different quantities and time, then when you selling you have to arrive at profit or loss on FIFO basis, ie First in First Out" }, { "docid": "405206", "title": "", "text": "Michael gave a good answer describing the transaction but I wanted to follow up on your questions about the lender. First, the lender does charge interest on the borrowed securities. The amount of interest can vary based on a number of factors, such as who is borrowing, how much are they borrowing, and what stock are they trying to borrow. Occasionally when you are trying to short a stock you will get an error that it is hard to borrow. This could be for a few reasons, such as there are already a large amount of people who have shorted your broker's shares, or your broker never acquired the shares to begin with (which usually only happens on very small stocks). In both cases the broker/lender doesnt have enough shares and may be unwilling to get more. In that way they are discriminating on what they lend. If a company is about to go bankrupt and a lender doesnt have any more shares to lend out, it is unlikely they will purchase more as they stand to lose a lot and gain very little. It might seem like lending is a risky business but think of it as occurring over decades and not months. General Motors had been around for 100 years before it went bankrupt, so any lender who had owned and been lending out GM shares for a fraction of that time likely still profited. Also this is all very simplified. JoeTaxpayer alluded to this in the comments but in actuality who is lending stock or even who owns stock is much more complicated and probably doesnt need to be explained here. I just wanted to show in this over-simplified explanation that lending is not as risky as it may first seem." }, { "docid": "518967", "title": "", "text": "There is some element of truth to what your realtor said. The seller takes the house off the market after the offer is accepted but the contract is contingent upon, among other things, buyer securing the financing. A lower down payment can mean a higher chance of failing that. The buyer might be going through FHA, VA or other programs that have additional restrictions. If the buyer fails to secure a financing, that's weeks and months lost to the seller. In a seller's market, this can be an important factor in how your bid is perceived by the seller. Sometimes it even helps to disclose your credit score, for the same reason. Of course for your situation you will have to assess whether this is the case. Certainly do not let your realtor push you around to do things you are not comfortable with. Edit: A higher down payment also helps in the situation where the house appraisal does not fare well. As @Dilip Sarwate has pointed out, the particular area you are interested in is probably a seller's market, thus giving sellers more leverage in picking bids. All else equal, if you are the seller with multiple offers coming in at similar price level, would you pick the one with 20% down or 5% down? While it is true that realtors have their own motives to push through a deal as quickly as possible, the sellers can also be in the same boat. One less mortgage payment is not trivial to many. It's a complicated issue, as every party involved have different interests. Again, do your own due diligence, be educated, and make informed decisions." }, { "docid": "125659", "title": "", "text": "\"Lending of shares happens in the background. Those who have lent them out are not aware that they have been lent out, nor when they are returned. The borrowers have to pay any dividends to the lenders and in the end the borrowers get their stock back. If you read the fine print on the account agreement for a margin account, you will see that you have given the brokerage the permission to silently loan your stocks out. Since the lending has no financial impact on your portfolio, there's no particular reason to know and no particular protection required. Actually, brokers typically don't bother going through the work of finding an actual stock to borrow. As long as lots of their customers have stocks to lend and not that many people have sold short, they just assume there is no problem and keep track of how many are long and short without designating which stocks are borrowed from whom. When a stock becomes hard to borrow because of liquidity issues or because many people are shorting it, the brokerage will actually start locating individual shares to borrow, which is a more time-consuming and costly procedure. Usually this involves the short seller actually talking to the broker on the phone rather than just clicking \"\"sell.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "363421", "title": "", "text": "\"Feel free to educate man. Everything I can find says the same thing. [Investopedia](http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100314/what-are-key-factors-cause-market-go-and-down.asp) &gt;If there are a greater number of buyers than sellers (more demand), the buyers bid up the prices of the stocks to entice sellers to get rid of them. Conversely, a larger number of sellers bids down the price of stocks hoping to entice buyers to purchase. Yes, if a company is performing well, you might find that more people want to buy then sale. That would cause it to go up. But if no one wants to buy, it doesn't matter how well the company is doing. I mean really, how would that work? Someone in the company notices they had more sales today then yesterday, email someone on wallstreet and they just mouse wheel the stock price up to something higher? Say the stock is $1.00 right now. But the lowest buy order is $.90. and the highest sale order is $1.10. (I guess there is some math there making is $1.) As soon as someone says, yeah. I'll sale at 90 cents, it'll go down. If someone says yeah, I'll buy at $1.10 it'll go up. I'm sure there is more to it than that. But everything I can find. It 100% has to have people more people wanting to buy then sale for it to go up. If more want to sale then buy, it'll go down. But hey, if this is way off base. Go ahead and fill me in. I'm open to CMV. This was all found after a short amount of time researching [\"\"What makes stock prices go up?\"\"](https://www.google.com/search?q=What+makes+stock+prices+go+up%3F&amp;oq=What+makes+stock+prices+go+up%3F&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i71k1l4.43421.43421.0.43882.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.6Crfejzb3XY)\"" }, { "docid": "458907", "title": "", "text": "\"If you can't find anyone to lend you the shares, then you can't short. You can attempt to raise the interest rate at which you will borrow at, in order to entice others to lend you their shares. In practice, broadcasting this information is pretty convoluted. If there aren't any stocks for you to buy back, then you have to buy back at a higher price. As in, place a limit buy order higher and higher until someone decides to sell to you. This affects your profit. Regarding the public ledger: This functions different in different markets. United States stock markets have an evolving body of regulations to alleviate the exact concerns you detailed, but Canada's or Dubai's stock markets would have different provisions. You make the assumption that it is an efficient process, but it is not and it is indeed ripe for abuse. In US stocks, the public ledger has a 3 business day delay between showing change of ownership. Many times brokers and clearing firms and other market participants allow a customer to go short with fake shares, with the idea that they will find real shares within the 3 business day time period to cover the position. During the time period that there is no real shares hitting the market, this is called a \"\"naked short\"\". The only legal system that attempts to deter this practice is the \"\"fail to deliver\"\" (FTD) list. If someone fails to deliver, that means there is a short position active with fake shares for which no real shares have been borrowed against. Too many FTD's allow for a short selling restriction to be placed, meaning nobody else can be short, and existing short sellers may be forced to cover.\"" }, { "docid": "148141", "title": "", "text": "\"In essence the problem that the OP identified is not that the FX market itself has poor liquidity but that retail FX brokerage sometimes have poor counterparty risk management. The problem is the actual business model that many FX brokerages have. Most FX brokerages are themselves customers of much larger money center banks that are very well capitalized and provide ample liquidity. By liquidity I mean the ability to put on a position of relatively decent size (long EURUSD say) at any particular time with a small price impact relative to where it is trading. For spot FX, intraday bid/ask spreads are extremely small, on the order of fractions of pips for majors (EUR/USD/GBP/JPY/CHF). Even in extremely volatile situations it rarely becomes much larger than a few pips for positions of 1 to 10 Million USD equivalent notional value in the institutional market. Given that retail traders rarely trade that large a position, the FX spot market is essentially very liquid in that respect. The problem is that there are retail brokerages whose business model is to encourage excessive trading in the hopes of capturing that spread, but not guaranteeing that it has enough capital to always meet all client obligations. What does get retail traders in trouble is that most are unaware that they are not actually trading on an exchange like with stocks. Every bid and ask they see on the screen the moment they execute a trade is done against that FX brokerage, and not some other trader in a transparent central limit order book. This has some deep implications. One is the nifty attribute that you rarely pay \"\"commission\"\" to do FX trades unlike in stock trading. Why? Because they build that cost into the quotes they give you. In sleepy markets, buyers and sellers cancel out, they just \"\"capture\"\" that spread which is the desired outcome when that business model functions well. There are two situations where the brokerage's might lose money and capital becomes very important. In extremely volatile markets, every one of their clients may want to sell for some reason, this forces the FX brokers to accumulate a large position in the opposite side that they have to offload. They will trade in the institutional market with other brokerages to net out their positions so that they are as close to flat as possible. In the process, since bid/ask spreads in the institutional market is tighter than within their own brokerage by design, they should still make money while not taking much risk. However, if they are not fast enough, or if they do not have enough capital, the brokerage's position might move against them too quickly which may cause them lose all their capital and go belly up. The brokerage is net flat, but there are huge offsetting positions amongst its clients. In the example of the Swiss Franc revaluation in early 2015, a sudden pop of 10-20% would have effectively meant that money in client accounts that were on the wrong side of the trade could not cover those on the other side. When this happens, it is theoretically the brokerage's job to close out these positions before it wipes out the value of the client accounts, however it would have been impossible to do so since there were no prices in between the instantaneous pop in which the brokerage could have terminated their client's losing positions, and offload the risk in the institutional market. Since it's extremely hard to ask for more money than exist in the client accounts, those with strong capital positions simply ate the loss (such as Oanda), those that fared worse went belly up. The irony here is that the more leverage the brokerage gave to their clients, the less money would have been available to cover losses in such an event. Using an example to illustrate: say client A is long 1 contract at $100 and client B is short 1 contract at $100. The brokerage is thus net flat. If the brokerage had given 10:1 leverage, then there would be $10 in each client's account. Now instantaneously market moves down $10. Client A loses $10 and client B is up $10. Brokerage simply closes client A's position, gives $10 to client B. The brokerage is still long against client B however, so now it has to go into the institutional market to be short 1 contract at $90. The brokerage again is net flat, and no money actually goes in or out of the firm. Had the brokerage given 50:1 leverage however, client A only has $2 in the account. This would cause the brokerage close client A's position. The brokerage is still long against client B, but has only $2 and would have to \"\"eat the loss\"\" for $8 to honor client B's position, and if it could not do that, then it technically became insolvent since it owes more money to its clients than it has in assets. This is exactly the reason there have been regulations in the US to limit the amount of leverage FX brokerages are allowed to offer to clients, to assure the brokerage has enough capital to pay what is owed to clients.\"" }, { "docid": "137073", "title": "", "text": "Trying to make money on something going down is inherently more complicated, risky and speculative than making money on it going up. Selling short allows for unlimited losses. Put options expire and have to be rebought if you want to keep playing that game. If you are that confident that the European market will completely crash (I'm not, but then again, I tend to be fairly contrarian) I'd recommend just sitting it out in cash (possibly something other than the Euro) and waiting until it gets so ridiculously cheap due to panic selling that it defies all common sense. For example, when companies that aren't completely falling apart are selling for less than book value and/or less than five times prior peak earnings that's a good sign. Another indicator is when you hear absolutely nothing other than doom-and-gloom and people swearing they'll never buy another stock as long as they live. Then buy at these depressed prices and when all the panic sellers realize that the world didn't end, it will go back up." }, { "docid": "336053", "title": "", "text": "\"There are a few of ways to do this: Ask the seller if they will hold a Vendor Take-Back Mortgage or VTB. They essentially hold a second mortgage on the property for a shorter amortization (1 - 5 years) with a higher interest rate than the bank-held mortgage. The upside for the seller is he makes a little money on the second mortgage. The downsides for the seller are that he doesn't get the entire purchase price of the property up-front, and that if the buyer goes bankrupt, the vendor will be second in line behind the bank to get any money from the property when it's sold for amounts owing. Look for a seller that is willing to put together a lease-to-own deal. The buyer and seller agree to a purchase price set 5 years in the future. A monthly rent is calculated such that paying it for 5 years equals a 20% down payment. At the 5 year mark you decide if you want to buy or not. If you do not, the deal is nulled. If you do, the rent you paid is counted as the down payment for the property and the sale moves forward. Find a private lender for the down payment. This is known as a \"\"hard money\"\" lender for a reason: they know you can't get it anywhere else. Expect to pay higher rates than a VTB. Ask your mortgage broker and your real estate agent about these options.\"" }, { "docid": "357324", "title": "", "text": "Cart's answer is basically correct, but I'd like to elaborate: A futures contract obligates both the buyer of a contract and the seller of a contract to conduct the underlying transaction (settle) at the agreed-upon future date and price written into the contract. Aside from settlement, the only other way either party can get out of the transaction is to initiate a closing transaction, which means: The party that sold the contract buys back another similar contract to close his position. The party that bought the contract can sell the contract on to somebody else. Whereas, an option contract provides the buyer of the option with the choice of completing the transaction. Because it's a choice, the buyer can choose to walk away from the transaction if the option exercise price is not attractive relative to the underlying stock price at the date written into the contract. When an option buyer walks away, the option is said to have expired. However – and this is the part I think needs elaboration – the original seller (writer) of the option contract doesn't have a choice. If a buyer chooses to exercise the option contract the seller wrote, the seller is obligated to conduct the transaction. In such a case, the seller's option contract is said to have been assigned. Only if the buyer chooses not to exercise does the seller's obligation go away. Before the option expires, the option seller can close their position by initiating a closing transaction. But, the seller can't simply walk away like the option buyer can." }, { "docid": "333339", "title": "", "text": "\"4) Finally, do all companies reduce their stock price when they pay a dividend? Are they required to? There seems to be confusion behind this question. A company does not set the price for their stock, so they can't \"\"reduce\"\" it either. In fact, nobody sets \"\"the price\"\" for a stock. The price you see reported is simply the last price that the stock was traded at. That trade was just one particular trade in a whole sequence of trades. The price used for the trade is simply the price which the particular buyer and particular seller agreed to for that particular trade. (No agreement, well then, no trade.) There's no authority for the price other than the collection of all buyers and sellers. So what happens when Nokia declares a 55 cent dividend? When they declare there is to be a dividend, they state the record date, which is the date which determines who will get the dividend: the owners of the shares on that date are the people who get the dividend payment. The stock exchanges need to account for the payment so that investors know who gets it and who doesn't, so they set the ex dividend date, which is the date on which trades of the stock will first trade without the right to receive the dividend payment. (Ex-dividend is usually about 2 days before record date.) These dates are established well before they occur so all market participants can know exactly when this change in value will occur. When trading on ex dividend day begins, there is no authority to set a \"\"different\"\" price than the previous day's closing price. What happens is that all (knowledgeable) market participants know that today Nokia is trading without the payment 55 cents that buyers the previous day get. So what do they do? They take that into consideration when they make an offer to buy stock, and probably end up offering a price that is about 55 cents less than they would have otherwise. Similarly, sellers know they will be getting that 55 cents, so when they choose a price to offer their stock at, it will likely be about that much less than they would have asked for otherwise.\"" }, { "docid": "444405", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "12367", "title": "", "text": "I think the simple answer to your question is: Yes, when you sell, that drives down the price. But it's not like you sell, and THEN the price goes down. The price goes down when you sell. You get the lower price. Others have discussed the mechanics of this, but I think the relevant point for your question is that when you offer shares for sale, buyers now have more choices of where to buy from. If without you, there were 10 people willing to sell for $100 and 10 people willing to buy for $100, then there will be 10 sales at $100. But if you now offer to sell, there are 11 people selling for $100 and 10 people buying for $100. The buyers have a choice, and for a seller to get them to pick him, he has to drop his price a little. In real life, the market is stable when one of those sellers drops his price enough that an 11th buyer decides that he now wants to buy at the lower price, or until one of the other 10 buyers decides that the price has gone too low and he's no longer interested in selling. If the next day you bought the stock back, you are now returning the market to where it was before you sold. Assuming that everything else in the market was unchanged, you would have to pay the same price to buy the stock back that you got when you sold it. Your net profit would be zero. Actually you'd have a loss because you'd have to pay the broker's commission on both transactions. Of course in real life the chances that everything else in the market is unchanged are very small. So if you're a typical small-fry kind of person like me, someone who might be buying and selling a few hundred or a few thousand dollars worth of a company that is worth hundreds of millions, other factors in the market will totally swamp the effect of your little transaction. So when you went to buy back the next day, you might find that the price had gone down, you can buy your shares back for less than you sold them, and pocket the difference. Or the price might have gone up and you take a loss." }, { "docid": "360059", "title": "", "text": "\"There are people (well, companies) who make money doing roughly what you describe, but not exactly. They're called \"\"market makers\"\". Their value for X% is somewhere on the scale of 1% (that is to say: a scale at which almost everything is \"\"volatile\"\"), but they use leverage, shorting and hedging to complicate things to the point where it's nothing like a simple as making a 1% profit every time they trade. Their actions tend to reduce volatility and increase liquidity. The reason you can't do this is that you don't have enough capital to do what market makers do, and you don't receive any advantages that the exchange might offer to official market makers in return for them contracting to always make both buy bids and sell offers (at different prices, hence the \"\"bid-offer spread\"\"). They have to be able to cover large short-term losses on individual stocks, but when the stock doesn't move too much they do make profits from the spread. The reason you can't just buy a lot of volatile stocks \"\"assuming I don't make too many poor choices\"\", is that the reason the stocks are volatile is that nobody knows which ones are the good choices and which ones are the poor choices. So if you buy volatile stocks then you will buy a bunch of losers, so what's your strategy for ensuring there aren't \"\"too many\"\"? Supposing that you're going to hold 10 stocks, with 10% of your money in each, what do you do the first time all 10 of them fall the day after you bought them? Or maybe not all 10, but suppose 75% of your holdings give no impression that they're going to hit your target any time soon. Do you just sit tight and stop trading until one of them hits your X% target (in which case you start to look a little bit more like a long-term investor after all), or are you tempted to change your strategy as the months and years roll by? If you will eventually sell things at a loss to make cash available for new trades, then you cannot assess your strategy \"\"as if\"\" you always make an X% gain, since that isn't true. If you don't ever sell at a loss, then you'll inevitably sometimes have no cash to trade with through picking losers. The big practical question then is when that state of affairs persists, for how long, and whether it's in force when you want to spend the money on something other than investing. So sure, if you used a short-term time machine to know in advance which volatile stocks are the good ones today, then it would be more profitable to day-trade those than it would be to invest for the long term. Investing on the assumption that you'll only pick short-term winners is basically the same as assuming you have that time machine ;-) There are various strategies for analysing the market and trying to find ways to more modestly do what market makers do, which is to take profit from the inherent volatility of the market. The simple strategy you describe isn't complete and cannot be assessed since you don't say how to decide what to buy, but the selling strategy \"\"sell as soon as I've made X% but not otherwise\"\" can certainly be improved. If you're keen you can test a give strategy for yourself using historical share price data (or current share price data: run an imaginary account and see how you're doing in 12 months). When using historical data you have to be realistic about how you'd choose what stocks to buy each day, or else you're just cheating at solitaire. When using current data you have to beware that there might not be a major market slump in the next 12 months, in which case you won't know how your strategy performs under conditions that it inevitably will meet eventually if you run it for real. You also have to be sure in either case to factor in the transaction costs you'd be paying, and the fact that you're buying at the offer price and selling at the bid price, you can't trade at the headline mid-market price. Finally, you have to consider that to do pure technical analysis as an individual, you are in effect competing against a bank that's camped on top of the exchange to get fastest possible access to trade, it has a supercomputer and a team of whizz-kids, and it's trying to find and extract the same opportunities you are. This is not to say the plucky underdog can't do well, but there are systematic reasons not to just assume you will. So folks investing for their retirement generally prefer a low-risk strategy that plays the averages and settles for taking long-term trends.\"" }, { "docid": "238024", "title": "", "text": "Just before a crash or at the start of the crash most of the smart money would have gotten out, the remaining technical traders would be out by the time the market has dropped 10 to 15%, and some of them would be shorting their positions by now. Most long-term buy and hold investors would stick to their guns and stay in for the long haul. Some will start to get nervous and have sleepless nights when the markets have fallen 30%+ and look to get out as well. Others stay in until they cannot stand it anymore. And some will stick it out throughout the downturn. So who are the buyers at this stage? Some are the so called bargain hunters that buy when the market has fallen over 30% (only to sell again when it falls another 20%), or maybe buy more (because they think they are dollar cost averaging and will make a packet when the price goes back up - if and when it does). Some are those with stops covering their short positions, whilst others may be fund managers and individuals looking to rebalance their portfolios. What you have to remember during both an uptrend and a downtrend the price does not move straight up or straight down. If we take the downtrend for instance, it will have lower lows and lower highs (that is the definition of a downtrend). See the chart below of the S&P 500 during the GFC falls. As you can see just before it really started falling in Jan 08 there was ample opportunity for the smart money and the technical traders to get out of the market as the price drops below the 200 MA and it fails to make a higher peak. As the price falls from Jan 08 to Mar 08 you suddenly start getting some movement upwards. This is the bargain hunters who come into the market thinking the price is a bargain compared to 3 months ago, so they start buying and pushing the price up somewhat for a couple of months before it starts falling again. The reason it falls again is because the people who wanted to sell at the start of the year missed the boat, so are taking the opportunity to sell now that the prices have increased a bit. So you get this battle between the buyers (bulls) and seller (bears), and of course the bears are winning during this downtrend. That is why you see more sharper falls between Aug to Oct 08, and it continues until the lows of Mar 09. In short it has got to do with the phycology of the markets and how people's emotions can make them buy and/or sell at the wrong times." } ]

[ { "docid": "431799", "title": "", "text": "\"Safe short term and \"\"pay almost nothing\"\" go hand in hand. Anything that is safe for the short term will not pay much in interest/appreciation. If you don't know what to do, putting it in a savings account is the safest thing. The purpose of that isn't to earn money, it's just to store the money while you figure out where to move it to earn money.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "436536", "title": "", "text": "Whenever a large number of shares to be sold hit the market at the same time the expectation is that the price for each share will drop. The employees in a normal market would be expected to sell some of their shares at the first opportunity. Because during the dot com boom some companies employees were able to become millionaires, every employee at a tech IPO hopes to be richly rewarded. If the long term prospects of the stock price are viewed by the employees as a continuous path up, then the percentage of shares that will hit the market is low. They do want some instant cash, but want the bulk of the shares to capture future growth. The more dismal the long term price lookout is, the greater the percentage of shares that will hit the market. The general consensus is that as each of the Lock Ups expires a significant percentage of shares will be sold, and the price will suffer a short term drop." }, { "docid": "222030", "title": "", "text": "Maryland is one of only two states (as of the writing of that article) that collects both inheritance tax and estate tax. These are two different issues, and it's important to differentiate between them sufficiently. I can't provide you a definitive answer, so consult a tax professional in Maryland for specific details to make sure you don't run afoul of tax authorities. This blog has a nice summary of the differences, as of 2012: The estate tax is assessable if more than one million dollars passes at death. The total dollar value of the property determines whether there is an estate tax. The inheritance tax is not dependent upon the value of the estate, as even very small estates can have inheritance tax imposed. Inheritance tax is assessed on property given to a person who is further removed in relationship than a sibling. Thus, for example, a 10% tax will be assessed on property passing to a cousin, niece, nephew or friend. Another section of the page states, as an example: If you give someone $10,000 in cash, the inheritance tax will simply reduce the amount inherited – in this case to $9,000. There are several other exemptions to the inheritance tax in addition to the immediate family exception discussed above: Property that passes from a decedent to or for the use of a grandparent, parent, spouse, child or other lineal descendant, spouse of a child or other lineal descendant, stepparent, stepchild, brother or sister of the decedent, or a corporation if all of its stockholders consist of the surviving spouse, parents, stepparents, stepchildren, brothers, sisters, and lineal descendants of the decedent and spouses of the lineal descendants. Putting this information together makes me think that the inheritance wouldn't be taxable in your case because it's a cash inheritance from an immediate family member, so it qualifies for one of the exemptions. Since I'm not a tax professional, however, I can't say that for sure. Hopefully these pages will give you enough of a foundation for when you talk to a professional." }, { "docid": "568411", "title": "", "text": "Here in Denver, which is clearly in the midst of an economic boom, the city's premiere shopping center (Cherry Creek Mall) is struggling despite the presence of high-end shops like Nieman Marcus and Restoration Hardware, among many others. The adjacent business district (Cherry Creek North) is awash in new high-rises, office buildings and stand-alone retail stores, but the city council is in the pocket of developers so they've approved all this growth while eliminating the need to provide adequate parking. Since so many non-shoppers were leaving their cars in mall garages all day long, mall officials instituted paid parking. Now, you can park for free if you're staying for less than an hour, but beginning with the 61st minute you're being charged. This has had a detrimental effect on many of the smaller stores in the mall, most of which relied on strolling visitors for a large share of their business. With the limited free parking, people are running their planned errands and then getting the hell out of there before the hour is up. It seems like a pretty stupid way to run a business, especially since several suburban malls have the same stores and unlimited parking." }, { "docid": "379307", "title": "", "text": "\"Finally some good examples! So clearly this is an issue, and many large companies do similar shenanigans. But the divisions being cut are massively unprofitable anyhow, even with these crappy tricks. I agree that a company like GE should be looking long term, but I'm not sure what % they do in technology R&amp;D so I'm not prepared to be too harsh on that front. I absolutely agree that having non software engineers write software is a long term failure. Even smart engineers who can pump out software often do so without having learned the lessons that software companies learn. Resulting in short term results followed by long term pain. Anyhow. Thanks for a real response. I wonder if the divisions being cut need to be cut or sold off regardless. But I think every large org should look at examples like this and not try to play the \"\"this quarter is good\"\" game.\"" }, { "docid": "244115", "title": "", "text": "The safest investment in the United States is Treasures. The Federal Reserve just increased the short term rate for the first time in about seven years. But the banks are under no obligation to increase the rate they pay. So you (or rather they) can loan money directly to the United States Government by buying Bills, Notes, or Bonds. To do this you set up an account with Treasury Direct. You print off a form (available at the website) and take the filled out form to the bank. At the bank their identity and citizenship will be verified and the bank will complete the form. The form is then mailed into Treasury Direct. There are at least two investments you can make at Treasury Direct that guarantee a rate of return better than the inflation rate. They are I-series bonds and Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). Personally, I prefer the I-series bonds to TIPS. Here is a link to the Treasury Direct website for information on I-series bonds. this link takes you to information on TIPS. Edit: To the best of my understanding, the Federal Reserve has no ability to set the rate for notes and bonds. It is my understanding that they can only directly control the overnight rate. Which is the rate the banks get for parking their money with the Fed overnight. I believe that the rates for longer term instruments are set by the market and are not mandated by the Fed (or anyone else in government). It is only by indirect influence that the Fed tries to change long term rates." }, { "docid": "35002", "title": "", "text": "15 years ago I bought a beach condo in Miami for $400,000 and two extra parking spaces for $3000 each. Today the condo is worth 600,000 but the rent barely covers mortgage repairs and property taxes. Most of The old people in the building have since died and are now replaced with families with at least two cars and spots are in short supply. I turned down offers of 25,000 for each parking space. I have the spaces rented out for $200 per month no maintenance for an 80% annual return on my purchase price and the value went has gone up over $700%. And no realtors commissions if i decide to sell the spaces." }, { "docid": "148270", "title": "", "text": "The Art of Short Selling by Kathryn Stanley providers for many case studies about what kind of opportunities to look for from a fundamental analysis perspective. Typically things you can look for are financing terms that are not very favorable (expensive interest payments) as well as other constrictions on cash flow, arbitrary decisions by management (poor management), and dilution that doesn't make sense (usually another product of poor management). From a quantitative analysis perspective, you can gain insight by looking at the credit default swap rate history, if the company is listed in that market. The things that affect a CDS spread are different than what immediately affects share prices. Some market participants trade DOOMs over Credit Default Swaps, when they are betting on a company's insolvency. But looking at large trades in the options market isn't indicative of anything on its own, but you can use that information to help confirm your opinion. You can certainly jump on a trend using bad headlines, but typically by the time it is headline news, the majority of the downward move in the share price has already happened, or the stock opened lower because the news came outside of market hours. You have to factor in the short interest of the company, if the short interest is high then it will be very easy to squeeze the shorts resulting in a rally of share prices, the opposite of what you want. A short squeeze doesn't change the fundamental or quantitative reasons you wanted to short. The technical analysis should only be used to help you decide your entry and exit price ranges amongst an otherwise random walk. The technical rules you created sound like something a very basic program or stock screener might be able to follow, but it doesn't tell you anything, you will have to do research in the company's public filings yourself." }, { "docid": "392056", "title": "", "text": "I am glad they are going away. Malls are an environmental tragedy. 1)They are the product (or maybe even part of the cause) of suburban sprawl. They encourage car usage and, by virtue of their need for large open areas to be constructed, are often far from where most people work and live. As a result, patrons have to drive large distances from their houses/jobs to the shopping centers. 2) The [parking lots are tremendous waste of space and hugely damage the environment.](https://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/transportation/parking-environmental-impacts-development-policies-research-roundup) 3) Online shopping is much better for the environment as the product can be shipped directly to the consumer. 4) Once they are built and then closed, the space where the centers sat is basically abandoned and turns into blight. Depending on the businesses that were housed in the mall and the businesses that were supported by the mail (especially gas stations), these sites could be toxic. I am sure there are more reasons why malls are environmentally harmful, but those are a few off the top of my head." }, { "docid": "457122", "title": "", "text": "\"For a two year time frame, a good insured savings account or a low-cost short-term government bond fund is most likely the way I would go. Depending on the specific amount, it may also be reasonable to look into directly buying government bonds. The reason for this is simply that in such a short time period, the stock market can be extremely volatile. Imagine if you had gone all in with the money on the stock market in, say, 2007, intending to withdraw the money after two years. Take a broad stock market index of your choice and see how much you'd have got back, and consider if you'd have felt comfortable sticking to your plan for the duration. Since you would likely be focused more on preservation of capital than returns during such a relatively short period, the risk of the stock market making a major (or even relatively minor) downturn in the interim would (should) be a bigger consideration than the possibility of a higher return. The \"\"return of capital, not return on capital\"\" rule. If the stock market falls by 10%, it must go up by 11% to break even. If it falls by 25%, it must go up by 33% to break even. If you are looking at a slightly longer time period, such as the example five years, then you might want to add some stocks to the mix for the possibility of a higher return. Still, however, since you have a specific goal in mind that is still reasonably close in time, I would likely keep a large fraction of the money in interest-bearing holdings (bank account, bonds, bond funds) rather than in the stock market. A good compromise may be medium-to-high-yield corporate bonds. It shouldn't be too difficult to find such bond funds that can return a few percentage points above risk-free interest, if you can live with the price volatility. Over time and as you get closer to actually needing the money, shift the holdings to lower-risk holdings to secure the capital amount. Yes, short-term government bonds tend to have dismal returns, particularly currently. (It's pretty much either that, or the country is just about bankrupt already, which means that the risk of default is quite high which is reflected in the interest premiums demanded by investors.) But the risk in most countries' short-term government bonds is also very much limited. And generally, when you are looking at using the money for a specific purpose within a defined (and relatively short) time frame, you want to reduce risk, even if that comes with the price tag of a slightly lower return. And, as always, never put all your eggs in one basket. A combination of government bonds from various countries may be appropriate, just as you should diversify between different stocks in a well-balanced portfolio. Make sure to check the limits on how much money is insured in a single account, for a single individual, in a single institution and for a household - you don't want to chase high interest bank accounts only to be burned by something like that if the institution goes bankrupt. Generally, the sooner you expect to need the money, the less risk you should take, even if that means a lower return on capital. And the risk progression (ignoring currency effects, which affects all of these equally) is roughly short-term government bonds, long-term government bonds or regular corporate bonds, high-yield corporate bonds, stock market large cap, stock market mid and low cap. Yes, there are exceptions, but that's a resonable rule of thumb.\"" }, { "docid": "452837", "title": "", "text": "\"My grandma left a 50K inheritance You don't make clear where in the inheritance process you are. I actually know of one case where the executor (a family member, not a professional) distributed the inheritance before paying the estate taxes. Long story short, the heirs had to pay back part of the inheritance. So the first thing that I would do is verify that the estate is closed and all the taxes paid. If the executor is a professional, just call and ask. If a family member, you may want to approach it more obliquely. Or not. The important thing is not to start spending that money until you're sure that you have it. One good thing is that my husband is in grad school and will be done in 2019 and will then make about 75K/yr with his degree profession. Be a bit careful about relying on this. Outside the student loans, you should build other expenses around the assumption that he won't find a job immediately after grad school. For example, we could be in a recession in 2019. We'll be about due by then. Paying off the $5k \"\"other debt\"\" is probably a no brainer. Chances are that you're paying double-digit interest. Just kill it. Unless the car loan is zero-interest, you probably want to get rid of that loan too. I would tend to agree that the car seems expensive for your income, but I'm not sure that the amount that you could recover by selling it justifies the loss of value. Hopefully it's in good shape and will last for years without significant maintenance. Consider putting $2k (your monthly income) in your checking account. Instead of paying for things paycheck-to-paycheck, this should allow you to buy things on schedule, without having to wait for the money to appear in your account. Put the remainder into an emergency account. Set aside $12k (50% of your annual income/expenses) for real emergencies like a medical emergency or job loss. The other $16k you can use the same way you use the $5k other debt borrowing now, for small emergencies. E.g. a car repair. Make a budget and stick to it. The elimination of the car loan should free up enough monthly income to support a reasonable budget. If it seems like it isn't, then you are spending too much money for your income. Don't forget to explicitly budget for entertainment and vacations. It's easy to overspend there. If you don't make a budget, you'll just find yourself back to your paycheck-to-paycheck existence. That sounds like it is frustrating for you. Budget so that you know how much money you really need to live.\"" }, { "docid": "370290", "title": "", "text": "\"Both explanations are partly true. There are many investors who do not want to sell an asset at a loss. This causes \"\"resistance\"\" at prices where large amounts of the asset were previously traded by such investors. It also explains why a \"\"break-through\"\" of such a \"\"resistance\"\" is often associated with a substantial \"\"move\"\" in price. There are also many investors who have \"\"stop-loss\"\" or \"\"trailing stop-loss\"\" \"\"limit orders\"\" in effect. These investors will automatically sell out of a long position (or buy out of a short position) if the price drops (or rises) by a certain percentage (typically 8% - 10%). There are periods of time when money is flowing into an asset or asset class. This could be due to a large investor trying to quietly purchase the asset in a way that avoids raising the price earlier than necessary. Or perhaps a large investor is dollar-cost-averaging. Or perhaps a legal mandate for a category of investors has changed, and they need to rebalance their portfolios. This rebalancing is likely to take place over time. Or perhaps there is a fad where many small investors (at various times) decide to increase (or decrease) their stake in an asset class. Or perhaps (for demographic reasons) the number of investors in a particular situation is increasing, so there are more investors who want to make particular investments. All of these phenomena can be summarized by the word \"\"momentum\"\". Traders who use technical analysis (including most day traders and algorithmic speculators) are aware of these phenomena. They are therefore more likely to purchase (or sell, or short) an asset shortly after one of their \"\"buy signals\"\" or \"\"sell signals\"\" is triggered. This reinforces the phenomena. There are also poorly-understood long-term cycles that affect business fundamentals and/or the politics that constrain business activity. For example: Note that even if the markets really were a random walk, it would still be profitable (and risk-reducing) to perform dollar-cost-averaging when buying into a position, and also perform averaging when selling out of a position. But this means that recent investor behavior can be used to predict the near-future behavior of investors, which justifies technical analysis.\"" }, { "docid": "429704", "title": "", "text": "\"First it is worth noting the two sided nature of the contracts (long one currency/short a second) make leverage in currencies over a diverse set of clients generally less of a problem. In equities, since most margin investors are long \"\"equities\"\" making it more likely that large margin calls will all be made at the same time. Also, it's worth noting that high-frequency traders often highly levered make up a large portion of all volume in all liquid markets ~70% in equity markets for instance. Would you call that grossly artificial? What is that volume number really telling us anyway in that case? The major players holding long-term positions in the FX markets are large banks (non-investment arm), central banks and corporations and unlike equity markets which can nearly slow to a trickle currency markets need to keep trading just for many of those corporations/banks to do business. This kind of depth allows these brokers to even consider offering 400-to-1 leverage. I'm not suggesting that it is a good idea for these brokers, but the liquidity in currency markets is much deeper than their costumers.\"" }, { "docid": "206298", "title": "", "text": "Your question is actually quite broad, so will try to split it into it's key parts: Yes, standard bank ISAs pay very poor rates of interest at the moment. They are however basically risk free and should track inflation. Any investment in the 6-7% return range at the moment will be linked to stock. Stock always carries large risks (~50% swings in capital are pretty standard in the short run. In the long run it generally beats every other asset class by miles). If you can’t handle those types of short terms swings, you shouldn’t get involved. If you do want to invest in stock, there is a hefty ignorance tax waiting at every corner in terms of how brokers construct their fees. In a nutshell, there is a different best value broker in the UK for virtually every band of capital, and they make their money through people signing up when they are in range x, and not moving their money when they reach band y; or just having a large marketing budget and screwing you from the start (Nutmeg at ~1% a year is def in this category). There isn't much of an obvious way around this if you are adamant you don't want to learn about it - the way the market is constructed is just a total predatory minefield for the complete novice. There are middle ground style investments between the two extremes you are looking at: bonds, bond funds and mixes of bonds and small amounts of stock (such as the Vanguard income or Conservative Growth funds outlined here), can return more than savings accounts with less risk than stocks, but again its a very diverse field that's hard to give specific advice about without knowing more about what your risk tolerance, timelines and aims are. If you do go down this (or the pure stock fund) route, it will need to be purchased via a broker in an ISA wrapper. The broker charges a platform fee, the fund charges a fund fee. In both cases you want these as low as possible. The Telegraph has a good heat map for the best value ISA platform providers by capital range here. Fund fees are always in the key investor document (KIID), under 'ongoing charges'." }, { "docid": "192900", "title": "", "text": "This is the bird's eye view of how shorting works: When you place an order to sell a stock short, your broker attempts to grab the desired number of shares from any accounts of its other customers and makes them available for you to sell. If no other customers own shares of this stock, then generally you are out of luck (It is more complicated like that in practice, but this is just an overview). Your odds are better if the particular stock has a large float (i.e. a large number of shares that are actually available for trading) and its short ratio is low (which means relatively few shares are currently being sold short). Also, a large brokerage may be more likely to have access to the shares than a small niche-market broker. The example you've given, Angie's List (ANGI) is a $600M small-cap with a comparatively low float, and though I haven't been able to glean the short ratio, it appears that a lot of investors are bearish on this stock and probably already had the same idea to short it. There is really no way to find out if a specific broker has shares in inventory available for shorting, short of (forgive the pun) checking directly with the broker." }, { "docid": "266898", "title": "", "text": "Capital losses do mirror capital gains within their holding periods. An asset or investment this is certainly held for a year into the day or less, and sold at a loss, will create a short-term capital loss. A sale of any asset held for over a year to your day, and sold at a loss, will create a loss that is long-term. When capital gains and losses are reported from the tax return, the taxpayer must first categorize all gains and losses between long and short term, and then aggregate the sum total amounts for every single regarding the four categories. Then the gains that are long-term losses are netted against each other, therefore the same is done for short-term gains and losses. Then your net gain that is long-term loss is netted against the net short-term gain or loss. This final net number is then reported on Form 1040. Example Frank has the following gains and losses from his stock trading for the year: Short-term gains - $6,000 Long-term gains - $4,000 Short-term losses - $2,000 Long-term losses - $5,000 Net short-term gain/loss - $4,000 ST gain ($6,000 ST gain - $2,000 ST loss) Net long-term gain/loss - $1,000 LT loss ($4,000 LT gain - $5,000 LT loss) Final net gain/loss - $3,000 short-term gain ($4,000 ST gain - $1,000 LT loss) Again, Frank can only deduct $3,000 of final net short- or long-term losses against other types of income for that year and must carry forward any remaining balance." }, { "docid": "169178", "title": "", "text": "A normal FSA also gives you a short term loan: money earmarked is available in entirety immediately, while you repay it every paycheck. This is interest free, and if you time your large planned medical expenses for January, can be a nice cheap loan." }, { "docid": "159725", "title": "", "text": "This all depends on your timeline and net worth. If you're short on time before you plan to start spending it or have a large net worth, parking some of your money in CDs is a good idea. If you have lots of time or not much net worth, then index funds are a better bet. Equity or dividend index funds are the way to go when you have 10+ years before you reach your goal. CDs major downside is that they don't beat inflation 1 - 3% a year. This is why you only use them when it's absolutely critical you hold onto every penny of the principal. The reason is because with CDs your 10k is actually losing its value (not the principal) the longer you leave it in CDs. I generally wouldn't recommend CDs unless you are in or approaching your 60s or have assets over 500k. Even still I would limit the use of CDs to no more than 20%. I would view them as catastrophic loss protection." }, { "docid": "344283", "title": "", "text": "\"While @JB's \"\"yes\"\" is correct, a few more points to consider: There is no tax penalty for withdrawing any time from a taxable investment, that is, one not using specific tax protections like 401k/IRA or ESA or HSA. But you do pay tax on any income or gain distributions you receive from a taxable investment in a fund (except interest on tax-exempt aka \"\"municipal\"\" bonds), and any net capital gains you realize when selling (or technically redeeming for non-ETF funds). Just like you do for dividends and interest and gains on non-fund taxable investments. Many funds have a sales charge or \"\"load\"\" which means you will very likely lose money if you sell quickly typically within at least several months and usually a year or more, and even some no-load funds, to discourage rapid trading that makes their management more difficult (and costly), have a \"\"contingent sales charge\"\" if you sell after less than a stated period like 3 months or 6 months. For funds that largely or entirely invest in equities or longer term bonds, the share value/price is practically certain to fluctuate up and down, and if you sell during a \"\"down\"\" period you will lose money; if \"\"liquid\"\" means you want to take out money anytime without waiting for the market to move, you might want funds focussing on short-term bonds, especially government bonds, and \"\"money market\"\" funds which hold only very short bonds (usually duration under 90 days), which have much more stable prices (but lower returns over the longer term).\"" }, { "docid": "163197", "title": "", "text": "If you want to invest in stocks, bonds and mutual funds I would suggest you take a portion of your inheritance and use it to learn how to invest in this asset class wisely. Take courses on investing and trading (two different things) in paper assets and start trading on a fantasy exchange to test and hone your investment skills before risking any of your money. Personally I don't find bonds to have a meaningful rate of return and I prefer stocks that have a dividend over those that don't. Parking some of your money in an IRA is a good strategy for when you do not see opportunities to purchase cashflow-positive assets right away; this allows you to wait and deploy your capital when the opportunity presents itself and to educate yourself on what a good opportunity looks like." } ]

[ { "docid": "495774", "title": "", "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." } ]

[ { "docid": "22026", "title": "", "text": "\"Plenty of good answers here, but probably the best answer is that The Market relies on suckers...er...investors like you. The money has to come from somewhere, it might as well be you. So-called \"\"day traders\"\" or \"\"short-term investors\"\" are a huge part of the market, and they perform a vital function: they provide capital that flows to the large, well-equipped, institutional investors. Thing is, you can never be big enough, smart enough, well-informed enough, or quick enough to beat the big guys. You may have a run of good fortune, but over the long term aggregate, you're a PAYOR into the market, not a DIVIDEND reaper.\"" }, { "docid": "240215", "title": "", "text": "\"The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or \"\"going short.\"\" When you use money to buy shares, it is called \"\"going long.\"\" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything. Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share. You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000. You are both long and short in the stock for $2000. At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds. You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share. Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000. However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares. Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest. Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share. Your long shares have lost $1000 in value. However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares. However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything. Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time. However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame. The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting. Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time. You are only attempting to hedge your bets. And it doesn't work. A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position. And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future. This, however, doesn't really change things much. Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term. Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess. And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain. You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop. You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon. Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short. However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position. And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up. You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain.\"" }, { "docid": "457122", "title": "", "text": "\"For a two year time frame, a good insured savings account or a low-cost short-term government bond fund is most likely the way I would go. Depending on the specific amount, it may also be reasonable to look into directly buying government bonds. The reason for this is simply that in such a short time period, the stock market can be extremely volatile. Imagine if you had gone all in with the money on the stock market in, say, 2007, intending to withdraw the money after two years. Take a broad stock market index of your choice and see how much you'd have got back, and consider if you'd have felt comfortable sticking to your plan for the duration. Since you would likely be focused more on preservation of capital than returns during such a relatively short period, the risk of the stock market making a major (or even relatively minor) downturn in the interim would (should) be a bigger consideration than the possibility of a higher return. The \"\"return of capital, not return on capital\"\" rule. If the stock market falls by 10%, it must go up by 11% to break even. If it falls by 25%, it must go up by 33% to break even. If you are looking at a slightly longer time period, such as the example five years, then you might want to add some stocks to the mix for the possibility of a higher return. Still, however, since you have a specific goal in mind that is still reasonably close in time, I would likely keep a large fraction of the money in interest-bearing holdings (bank account, bonds, bond funds) rather than in the stock market. A good compromise may be medium-to-high-yield corporate bonds. It shouldn't be too difficult to find such bond funds that can return a few percentage points above risk-free interest, if you can live with the price volatility. Over time and as you get closer to actually needing the money, shift the holdings to lower-risk holdings to secure the capital amount. Yes, short-term government bonds tend to have dismal returns, particularly currently. (It's pretty much either that, or the country is just about bankrupt already, which means that the risk of default is quite high which is reflected in the interest premiums demanded by investors.) But the risk in most countries' short-term government bonds is also very much limited. And generally, when you are looking at using the money for a specific purpose within a defined (and relatively short) time frame, you want to reduce risk, even if that comes with the price tag of a slightly lower return. And, as always, never put all your eggs in one basket. A combination of government bonds from various countries may be appropriate, just as you should diversify between different stocks in a well-balanced portfolio. Make sure to check the limits on how much money is insured in a single account, for a single individual, in a single institution and for a household - you don't want to chase high interest bank accounts only to be burned by something like that if the institution goes bankrupt. Generally, the sooner you expect to need the money, the less risk you should take, even if that means a lower return on capital. And the risk progression (ignoring currency effects, which affects all of these equally) is roughly short-term government bonds, long-term government bonds or regular corporate bonds, high-yield corporate bonds, stock market large cap, stock market mid and low cap. Yes, there are exceptions, but that's a resonable rule of thumb.\"" }, { "docid": "443926", "title": "", "text": "If there are no traded options in a company you can get your broker to write OTC options but this may not be possible given some restrictions on accounts. Going short on futures may also be an option. You can also open a downside CFD (contract for difference) on the stock but will have to have margin posted against it so will have to hold cash (or possibly liquid assets if your AUM is large enough) to cover the margin which is unutilized cash in the portfolio that needs to be factored into any portfolio calculations as a cost. Diversifying into uncorrelated stock or shorting correlated (but low div yield) stock would also have the same effect. stop loss orders would probably not be appropriate as it is not the price of the stock that you are concerned with but mitigating all price changes and just receiving the dividend on the stock. warning: in a crash (almost) all stocks become suddenly correlated so be aware that might cause you a short term loss. CFDs are complex and require a degree of sophistication before you can trade them well but as you seem to understand options they should not be too hard to understand." }, { "docid": "392056", "title": "", "text": "I am glad they are going away. Malls are an environmental tragedy. 1)They are the product (or maybe even part of the cause) of suburban sprawl. They encourage car usage and, by virtue of their need for large open areas to be constructed, are often far from where most people work and live. As a result, patrons have to drive large distances from their houses/jobs to the shopping centers. 2) The [parking lots are tremendous waste of space and hugely damage the environment.](https://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/transportation/parking-environmental-impacts-development-policies-research-roundup) 3) Online shopping is much better for the environment as the product can be shipped directly to the consumer. 4) Once they are built and then closed, the space where the centers sat is basically abandoned and turns into blight. Depending on the businesses that were housed in the mall and the businesses that were supported by the mail (especially gas stations), these sites could be toxic. I am sure there are more reasons why malls are environmentally harmful, but those are a few off the top of my head." }, { "docid": "91076", "title": "", "text": "Not charging taxes on a money losing investment or business is much more than humanitarian it is common sense. In general money that is used to invest has already been taxed as income or inheritance to the person making the investment so taxing that money again not just the profit would provide a disincentive for people to invest. Which would be bad for economic growth over the medium and long term. As far as taxing a money losing businesses goes, most businesses don't make money in their couple of years and adding further tax burdens would be counter productive because it would provide a major hurdle for people wanting to start a business. Other have already mentioned that the money losing operation likely paid indirect taxes as well. Small businesses provide a majority of the economic growth and innovation. So in short additional taxes on money losing investments and businesses would be both foolish and shortsighted." }, { "docid": "222030", "title": "", "text": "Maryland is one of only two states (as of the writing of that article) that collects both inheritance tax and estate tax. These are two different issues, and it's important to differentiate between them sufficiently. I can't provide you a definitive answer, so consult a tax professional in Maryland for specific details to make sure you don't run afoul of tax authorities. This blog has a nice summary of the differences, as of 2012: The estate tax is assessable if more than one million dollars passes at death. The total dollar value of the property determines whether there is an estate tax. The inheritance tax is not dependent upon the value of the estate, as even very small estates can have inheritance tax imposed. Inheritance tax is assessed on property given to a person who is further removed in relationship than a sibling. Thus, for example, a 10% tax will be assessed on property passing to a cousin, niece, nephew or friend. Another section of the page states, as an example: If you give someone $10,000 in cash, the inheritance tax will simply reduce the amount inherited – in this case to $9,000. There are several other exemptions to the inheritance tax in addition to the immediate family exception discussed above: Property that passes from a decedent to or for the use of a grandparent, parent, spouse, child or other lineal descendant, spouse of a child or other lineal descendant, stepparent, stepchild, brother or sister of the decedent, or a corporation if all of its stockholders consist of the surviving spouse, parents, stepparents, stepchildren, brothers, sisters, and lineal descendants of the decedent and spouses of the lineal descendants. Putting this information together makes me think that the inheritance wouldn't be taxable in your case because it's a cash inheritance from an immediate family member, so it qualifies for one of the exemptions. Since I'm not a tax professional, however, I can't say that for sure. Hopefully these pages will give you enough of a foundation for when you talk to a professional." }, { "docid": "438874", "title": "", "text": "A more recent article on inheritance taxes than the one cited by @JohnBensin says that Maryland does not charge inheritance tax on inheritances received from parents (and other close relatives as well). Thus, there is no inheritance tax due to Maryland on your inheritance, and of course, estate tax (both Federal and State) is imposed on the estate and payable by the estate, and thus should have been taken into account by the executor before determining the amount to be divided among the children. If the executor screwed up on this point, some of the inheritance may have to be returned to the estate so that the estate can pay the taxes due, or be paid directly to the Federal Government and/or the State of Maryland on behalf of the estate. Some part of the inheritance might be taxable income to you if it came in the form of an Inherited IRA on which Federal (and possibly State) taxes have to paid on the (taxable part of) any distribution from the IRA including the Required Minimum Distribution that must be made from the IRA each year. (There is also a 50% penalty for not taking at least the RMD each year). Note that the value of the IRA is not taxable income in the year of inheritance, just the money taken as a distribution. Some people liquidate the IRA within 5 years, as used to be required for non-spouse inheritors under earlier tax law, and thus end up paying a lot more income tax than they would have to pay if they went the RMD route. If your uncle took the help of a lawyer in winding up your father's estate, you are probably OK in that all the rules were likely followed, but if it was a do-it-yourself job (or you don't trust your uncle not to screw it up anyway!), then, as John Bensin has already told you, you should certainly consult a tax professional in Maryland to make sure you don't run afoul of tax authorities." }, { "docid": "406926", "title": "", "text": "For safety. If something catastrophic happens to your bank and your money is in there you will lose any not covered by FDIC. So if you have a very large amount of money you will store it in bonds as its much less likely that the US treasury will go bankrupt than your bank. I also literally just posted this in another thread: Certain rules and regulations penalize companies or institutions for holding cash, so they are shifting to bonds and bills. Fidelity, for example, is completely converting its $100 billion dollar cash fund to short term bills. Its estimated that over $2 trillion that is now in cash may be converted to bills, and that will obviously put upward preasure on the price of them. The treasury is trying to issue more short term debt to balance out the demand. read more here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/money-funds-clamor-for-short-term-treasurys-1445300813" }, { "docid": "51803", "title": "", "text": "3G capital is one of the major holding companies of Heinz. They own (co-own) many major bands, such as Burger King. They are known for completely gutting the core values these companies were built on. All the matters to them is cost cutting (often food/product quality, salaries, wages, benefits, company perks, company celebrations, etc). They promote a zero based budget meaning every organizational expense is tirelessly scrutinized in the search of slimmer costs to increase profit. They embody all the is wrong with capitalism when it comes to society-at-large. So how does this guy play into it? They are also known for promoting their young employees quickly. It effectively allows them to pay young employees less for more work. I know first hand, it creates a culture of young people working long hours for low pay with the hopes of being the next rising star. People like this 29 year old CFO may be compensated well, but likely has most of the compensation held in bonuses for short-term results. The result is very quick employee burnout and turnover, and zero work-life balance. All i can say to finish this rant off is that in the short-term, the system 3G is putting into place for the companies they are absorbing is effective for trimming costs and increasing profits for shareholders. Long-term, the low pay, long hours, and zero family values is and drain on society. They are a cancer in the business world. Read some articles about their takeovers of Heinz, Burger King, Tim Hortons. Their treatment of employees is horrific, again I've seen it first hand. Head over to /r/Canada and read how Canadians now view the products and values of their once beloved Tim Hortons." }, { "docid": "264029", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "441260", "title": "", "text": "Is this an inheritance (tax-free) or is it taxable income from a large project? I won't argue with knocking out the student loan, it's a monthly payment that's nice to get rid of. You make no mention of your age or your current retirement assets. Call me boring, but if I were handed $100K it would simply be added to the mix. A conservative withdrawal rate of 4%/yr, means that $100K to me is really a $4K annual income. That makes it seem like far less of a windfall, I know. The problem I see in your question is that there's an inclination to 'do something' with it all. You've already trimmed it down to $40,000. As a freelancer with income that's probably not steady why not just start to put it aside for the long term. In good income years, a pretax account, in low income years, use a Roth IRA. As littleadv asks - what are your plans if any to buy a house? $40K may not even be a full downpayment." }, { "docid": "169178", "title": "", "text": "A normal FSA also gives you a short term loan: money earmarked is available in entirety immediately, while you repay it every paycheck. This is interest free, and if you time your large planned medical expenses for January, can be a nice cheap loan." }, { "docid": "279303", "title": "", "text": "Over the long run, yeah I agree that that the technology consumers have and their real incomes have gone up. However, people don’t live their lives in the long run, their experiences are firmly centered in the short run. People marry, have children, move, start work, lose work, suffer health problems, divorce, homelessness all in the short run. When you zoom in from the long run view, life and individual fortunes seem a bit more dependent on luck and relative positioning than long run technological or economic trends. This is exacerbated by our political system where money seems to positively correlate with the ability to wield political power. Folks with political power can engineer changes that can improve their bottom line through zero sum political games (think taxes, regulation, etc) and maybe even turn a short run advantage (starting a successful business, generating wealth) into a longer run advantage (eliminating taxes on inheritance, potentially cementing family wealth for generations)." }, { "docid": "322806", "title": "", "text": "\"Diversification is the only real free lunch in finance (reduction in risk without any reduction in expected returns), so clearly every good answer to your question will be \"\"yes.\"\" Diversification is good.\"\" Let's talk about many details your question solicits. Many funds are already pretty diversified. If you buy a mutual fund, you are generally already getting a large portion of the gains from diversification. There is a very large difference between the unnecessary risk in your portfolio if you only hold a couple of stocks and if you hold a mutual fund. Should you be diversified across mutual funds as well? It depends on what your funds are. Many funds, such as target-date funds, are intended to be your sole investment. If you have funds covering every major asset class, then there may not be any additional benefit to buying other funds. You probably could not have picked your \"\"favorite fund\"\" early on. As humans, we have cognitive biases that make us think we knew things early on that we did not. I'm sure at some point at the very beginning you had a positive feeling toward that fund. Today you regret not acting on it and putting all your money there. But the number of such feelings is very large and if you acted on all those, you would do a lot of crazy and harmful things. You didn't know early on which fund would do well. You could just as well have had a good feeling about a fund that subsequently did much worse than your diversified portfolio did. The advice you have had about your portfolio probably isn't based on sound finance theory. You say you have always kept your investments in line with your age. This implies that you believe the guidelines given you by your broker or financial advisor are based in finance theory. Generally speaking, they are not. They are rules of thumb that seemed good to someone but are not rigorously proven either in theory or empirics. For example the notion that you should slowly shift your investments from speculative to conservative as you age is not based on sound finance theory. It just seems good to the people who give advice on such things. Nothing particularly wrong with it, I guess, but it's not remotely on par with the general concept of being well-diversified. The latter is extremely well established and verified, both in theory and in practice. Don't confuse the concept of diversification with the specific advice you have received from your advisor. A fund averaging very good returns is not an anomaly--at least going forward it will not be. There are many thousand funds and a large distribution in their historical performance. Just by random chance, some funds will have a truly outstanding track record. Perhaps the manager really was skilled. However, very careful empirical testing has shown the following: (1) You, me, and people whose profession it is to select outperforming mutual funds are unable to reliably detect which ones will outperform, except in hindsight (2) A fund that has outperformed, even over a long horizon, is not more likely to outperform in the future. No one is stopping you from putting all your money in that fund. Depending on its investment objective, you may even have decent diversification if you do so. However, please be aware that if you move your money based on historical outperformance, you will be acting on the same cognitive bias that makes gamblers believe they are on a \"\"hot streak\"\" and \"\"can't lose.\"\" They can, and so can you. ======== Edit to answer a more specific line of questions =========== One of your questions is whether it makes sense to buy a number of mutual funds as part of your diversification strategy. This is a slightly more subtle question and I will indicate where there is uncertainty in my answer. Diversifying across asset classes. Most of the gains from diversification are available in a single fund. There is a lot of idiosyncratic risk in one or two stocks and much less in a collection of hundreds of stocks, which is what any mutual fund will hold. Still,you will probably want at least a couple of funds in your portfolio. I will list them from most important to least and I will assume the bulk of your portfolio is in a total US equity fund (or S&P500-style fund) so that you are almost completely diversified already. Risky Bonds. These are corporate, municipal, sovereign debt, and long-term treasury debt funds. There is almost certainly a good deal to be gained by having a portion of your portfolio in bonds, and normally a total market fund will not include bond exposure. Bonds fund returns are closely related to interest rate and inflation changes. They are also exposed to some market risk but it's more efficient to get that from equity. The bond market is very large, so if you did market weights you would have more in bonds than in equity. Normally people do not do this, though. Instead you can get the exposure to interest rates by holding a lesser amount in longer-term bonds, rather than more in shorter-term bonds. I don't believe in shifting your weights toward nor away from this type of bond (as opposed to equity) as you age so if you are getting that advice, know that it is not well-founded in theory. Whatever your relative weight in risky bonds when you are young is should also be your weight when you are older. International. There are probably some gains from having some exposure to international markets, although these have decreased over time as economies have become more integrated. If we followed market weights, you would actually put half your equity weight in an international fund. Because international funds are taxed differently (gains are always taxed at the short-term capital gains rate) and because they have higher management fees, most people make only a small investment to international funds, if any at all. Emerging markets International funds often ignore emerging markets in order to maintain liquidity and low fees. You can get some exposure to these markets through emerging markets funds. However, the value of public equity in emerging markets is small when compared with that of developed markets, so according to finance theory, your investment in them should be small as well. That's a theoretical, not an empirical result. Emerging market funds charge high fees as well, so this one is kind of up to your taste. I can't say whether it will work out in the future. Real estate. You may want to get exposure to real estate by buying a real-estate fund (REIT). Though, if you own a house you are already exposed to the real estate market, perhaps more than you want to be. REITs often invest in commercial real estate, which is a little different from the residential market. Small Cap. Although total market funds invest in all capitalization levels, the market is so skewed toward large firms that many total market funds don't have any significant small cap exposure. It's common for individuals to hold a small cap fund to compensate for this, but it's not actually required by investment theory. In principle, the most diversified portfolio should be market-cap weighted, so small cap should have negligible weight in your portfolio. Many people hold small cap because historically it has outperformed large cap firms of equal risk, but this trend is uncertain. Many researchers feel that the small cap \"\"premium\"\" may have been a short-term artifact in the data. Given these facts and the fact that small-cap funds charge higher fees, it may make sense to pass on this asset class. Depends on your opinion and beliefs. Value (or Growth) Funds. Half the market can be classed as \"\"value\"\", while the other half is \"\"growth.\"\" Your total market fund should have equal representation in both so there is no diversification reason to buy a special value or growth fund. Historically, value funds have outperformed over long horizons and many researchers think this will continue, but it's not exactly mandated by the theory. If you choose to skew your portfolio by buying one of these, it should be a value fund. Sector funds. There is, in general, no diversification reason to buy funds that invest in a particular sector. If you are trying to hedge your income (like trying to avoid investing in the tech sector because you work in that sector) or your costs (buying energy because you buy use a disproportionate amount of energy) I could imagine you buying one of these funds. Risk-free bonds. Funds specializing in short-term treasuries or short-term high-quality bonds of other types are basically a substitute for a savings account, CD, money market fund, or other cash equivalent. Use as appropriate but there is little diversification here per se. In short, there is some value in diversifying across asset classes, and it is open to opinion how much you should do. Less well-justified is diversifying across managers within the same asset class. There's very little if any advantage to doing that.\"" }, { "docid": "148270", "title": "", "text": "The Art of Short Selling by Kathryn Stanley providers for many case studies about what kind of opportunities to look for from a fundamental analysis perspective. Typically things you can look for are financing terms that are not very favorable (expensive interest payments) as well as other constrictions on cash flow, arbitrary decisions by management (poor management), and dilution that doesn't make sense (usually another product of poor management). From a quantitative analysis perspective, you can gain insight by looking at the credit default swap rate history, if the company is listed in that market. The things that affect a CDS spread are different than what immediately affects share prices. Some market participants trade DOOMs over Credit Default Swaps, when they are betting on a company's insolvency. But looking at large trades in the options market isn't indicative of anything on its own, but you can use that information to help confirm your opinion. You can certainly jump on a trend using bad headlines, but typically by the time it is headline news, the majority of the downward move in the share price has already happened, or the stock opened lower because the news came outside of market hours. You have to factor in the short interest of the company, if the short interest is high then it will be very easy to squeeze the shorts resulting in a rally of share prices, the opposite of what you want. A short squeeze doesn't change the fundamental or quantitative reasons you wanted to short. The technical analysis should only be used to help you decide your entry and exit price ranges amongst an otherwise random walk. The technical rules you created sound like something a very basic program or stock screener might be able to follow, but it doesn't tell you anything, you will have to do research in the company's public filings yourself." }, { "docid": "257835", "title": "", "text": "The easiest way to deal with risks for individual stocks is to diversify. I do most of my investing in broad market index funds, particularly the S&P 500. I don't generally hold individual stocks long, but I do buy options when I think there are price moves that aren't supported by the fundamentals of a stock. All of this riskier short-term investing is done in my Roth IRA, because I want to maximize the profits in the account that won't ever be taxed. I wouldn't want a particularly fruitful investing year to bite me with short term capital gains on my income tax. I usually beat the market in that account, but not by much. It would be pretty easy to wipe out those gains on a particularly bad year if I was investing in the actual stocks and not just using options. Many people who deal in individual stocks hedge with put options, but this is only cost effective at strike prices that represent losses of 20% or more and it eats away the gains. Other people or try to add to their gains by selling covered call options figuring that they're happy to sell with a large upward move, but if that upward move doesn't happen you still get the gains from the options you've sold." }, { "docid": "429704", "title": "", "text": "\"First it is worth noting the two sided nature of the contracts (long one currency/short a second) make leverage in currencies over a diverse set of clients generally less of a problem. In equities, since most margin investors are long \"\"equities\"\" making it more likely that large margin calls will all be made at the same time. Also, it's worth noting that high-frequency traders often highly levered make up a large portion of all volume in all liquid markets ~70% in equity markets for instance. Would you call that grossly artificial? What is that volume number really telling us anyway in that case? The major players holding long-term positions in the FX markets are large banks (non-investment arm), central banks and corporations and unlike equity markets which can nearly slow to a trickle currency markets need to keep trading just for many of those corporations/banks to do business. This kind of depth allows these brokers to even consider offering 400-to-1 leverage. I'm not suggesting that it is a good idea for these brokers, but the liquidity in currency markets is much deeper than their costumers.\"" }, { "docid": "350933", "title": "", "text": "A CD is guaranteed to pay its return on maturation. So if you need a certain amount of money at a specific time in the future, the CD is a more reliable way of getting it. The stock market might give you more money or less. More is obviously OK. Less is not if you're planning to pay basic expenses with it, e.g. food, rent, etc. Most retirement portfolios will have a mix of investments. Some securities (stocks and bonds), some guaranteed returns (CDs, treasuries), and some cash equivalents (money market, savings, and checking accounts). Cash equivalents are good for short term expenses and an emergency fund. Guaranteed returns are good for medium term expenses. Securities are good for the long term. Once retired, the general system is to maintain enough cash equivalents for the next few months of expenses and emergencies. Then schedule CDs for the next few years so that you have a predictable amount. Finally, keep the bulk of your wealth in securities. As you get older, your potential emergencies increase and your need for savings decreases, so the mix shifts more and more to the cash equivalents and guaranteed returns and away from securities. CDs have limited use prior to retirement (and the couple years right before retirement), mainly saving up for a large purchase like a house, car, or major appliance. Even there if you have the option of delaying the purchase, that might allow you to use securities instead. Perhaps some of your emergency fund in a short term CD that you keep rolling over. Note that the problem isn't so much that securities will fall. It's that they'll fall right when you need the money. So rather than sell 1% of your securities to meet your needs, you have to sell 2%. That's a dead weight loss of 1% that you have to deduct from your returns. That roughly matches the drop from the height of 2007 to the trough of 2009 of the S&P 500. And it was 2012 before it recovered. If in 2007, you had put the 1% of your portfolio in a two-year CD, you'd be ahead even at zero interest in 2009." } ]

[ { "docid": "278453", "title": "", "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.\"\"\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "554734", "title": "", "text": "A good way to measure the performance of your investments is over the long term. 25-30% returns are easy to get! It's not going to be 25-30% in a single year, though. You shouldn't expect more than about 4% real (inflation-adjusted) return per year, on average, over the long term, unless you have reason to believe that you're doing a better job of predicting the market than the intellectual and investment might of Wall Street - which is possible, but hard. (Pro tip: It's actually quite easy to outdo the market at large over the short term just by getting lucky or investing in risky askets in a good year. Earning this sort of return consistently over many years, though, is stupidly hard. Usually you'll wipe out your gains several years into the process, instead.) The stock market fluctuates like crazy, which is why they tell you not to invest any money you're likely to need sooner than about 5 years out and you switch your portfolio from stocks to bonds as you approach and enter retirement. The traditional benchmark for comparison, as others have mentioned, is the rate of return (including dividends) from the Standard and Poors 500 Index. These are large stable companies which make up the core of larger United States business. (Most people supplement these with some smaller companies and overseas companies as a part of the portfolio.)" }, { "docid": "148270", "title": "", "text": "The Art of Short Selling by Kathryn Stanley providers for many case studies about what kind of opportunities to look for from a fundamental analysis perspective. Typically things you can look for are financing terms that are not very favorable (expensive interest payments) as well as other constrictions on cash flow, arbitrary decisions by management (poor management), and dilution that doesn't make sense (usually another product of poor management). From a quantitative analysis perspective, you can gain insight by looking at the credit default swap rate history, if the company is listed in that market. The things that affect a CDS spread are different than what immediately affects share prices. Some market participants trade DOOMs over Credit Default Swaps, when they are betting on a company's insolvency. But looking at large trades in the options market isn't indicative of anything on its own, but you can use that information to help confirm your opinion. You can certainly jump on a trend using bad headlines, but typically by the time it is headline news, the majority of the downward move in the share price has already happened, or the stock opened lower because the news came outside of market hours. You have to factor in the short interest of the company, if the short interest is high then it will be very easy to squeeze the shorts resulting in a rally of share prices, the opposite of what you want. A short squeeze doesn't change the fundamental or quantitative reasons you wanted to short. The technical analysis should only be used to help you decide your entry and exit price ranges amongst an otherwise random walk. The technical rules you created sound like something a very basic program or stock screener might be able to follow, but it doesn't tell you anything, you will have to do research in the company's public filings yourself." }, { "docid": "505351", "title": "", "text": "Very wealthy people usually have an investment manager who is constantly moving money between investments and accounts. They hold cash (or cash equivalent) accounts for use in a near-term buying opportunity, for example if they believe certain stocks will go down in price soon. This amount can vary from under 1% (for a money manager with no intention of any short-term trading) to over 20% (for a market pessimist who expects a huge price reduction shortly). In rare cases they will also hold significant cash because of a planned large purchase, but there's almost never a reason for that to exceed 1% of their net worth." }, { "docid": "322806", "title": "", "text": "\"Diversification is the only real free lunch in finance (reduction in risk without any reduction in expected returns), so clearly every good answer to your question will be \"\"yes.\"\" Diversification is good.\"\" Let's talk about many details your question solicits. Many funds are already pretty diversified. If you buy a mutual fund, you are generally already getting a large portion of the gains from diversification. There is a very large difference between the unnecessary risk in your portfolio if you only hold a couple of stocks and if you hold a mutual fund. Should you be diversified across mutual funds as well? It depends on what your funds are. Many funds, such as target-date funds, are intended to be your sole investment. If you have funds covering every major asset class, then there may not be any additional benefit to buying other funds. You probably could not have picked your \"\"favorite fund\"\" early on. As humans, we have cognitive biases that make us think we knew things early on that we did not. I'm sure at some point at the very beginning you had a positive feeling toward that fund. Today you regret not acting on it and putting all your money there. But the number of such feelings is very large and if you acted on all those, you would do a lot of crazy and harmful things. You didn't know early on which fund would do well. You could just as well have had a good feeling about a fund that subsequently did much worse than your diversified portfolio did. The advice you have had about your portfolio probably isn't based on sound finance theory. You say you have always kept your investments in line with your age. This implies that you believe the guidelines given you by your broker or financial advisor are based in finance theory. Generally speaking, they are not. They are rules of thumb that seemed good to someone but are not rigorously proven either in theory or empirics. For example the notion that you should slowly shift your investments from speculative to conservative as you age is not based on sound finance theory. It just seems good to the people who give advice on such things. Nothing particularly wrong with it, I guess, but it's not remotely on par with the general concept of being well-diversified. The latter is extremely well established and verified, both in theory and in practice. Don't confuse the concept of diversification with the specific advice you have received from your advisor. A fund averaging very good returns is not an anomaly--at least going forward it will not be. There are many thousand funds and a large distribution in their historical performance. Just by random chance, some funds will have a truly outstanding track record. Perhaps the manager really was skilled. However, very careful empirical testing has shown the following: (1) You, me, and people whose profession it is to select outperforming mutual funds are unable to reliably detect which ones will outperform, except in hindsight (2) A fund that has outperformed, even over a long horizon, is not more likely to outperform in the future. No one is stopping you from putting all your money in that fund. Depending on its investment objective, you may even have decent diversification if you do so. However, please be aware that if you move your money based on historical outperformance, you will be acting on the same cognitive bias that makes gamblers believe they are on a \"\"hot streak\"\" and \"\"can't lose.\"\" They can, and so can you. ======== Edit to answer a more specific line of questions =========== One of your questions is whether it makes sense to buy a number of mutual funds as part of your diversification strategy. This is a slightly more subtle question and I will indicate where there is uncertainty in my answer. Diversifying across asset classes. Most of the gains from diversification are available in a single fund. There is a lot of idiosyncratic risk in one or two stocks and much less in a collection of hundreds of stocks, which is what any mutual fund will hold. Still,you will probably want at least a couple of funds in your portfolio. I will list them from most important to least and I will assume the bulk of your portfolio is in a total US equity fund (or S&P500-style fund) so that you are almost completely diversified already. Risky Bonds. These are corporate, municipal, sovereign debt, and long-term treasury debt funds. There is almost certainly a good deal to be gained by having a portion of your portfolio in bonds, and normally a total market fund will not include bond exposure. Bonds fund returns are closely related to interest rate and inflation changes. They are also exposed to some market risk but it's more efficient to get that from equity. The bond market is very large, so if you did market weights you would have more in bonds than in equity. Normally people do not do this, though. Instead you can get the exposure to interest rates by holding a lesser amount in longer-term bonds, rather than more in shorter-term bonds. I don't believe in shifting your weights toward nor away from this type of bond (as opposed to equity) as you age so if you are getting that advice, know that it is not well-founded in theory. Whatever your relative weight in risky bonds when you are young is should also be your weight when you are older. International. There are probably some gains from having some exposure to international markets, although these have decreased over time as economies have become more integrated. If we followed market weights, you would actually put half your equity weight in an international fund. Because international funds are taxed differently (gains are always taxed at the short-term capital gains rate) and because they have higher management fees, most people make only a small investment to international funds, if any at all. Emerging markets International funds often ignore emerging markets in order to maintain liquidity and low fees. You can get some exposure to these markets through emerging markets funds. However, the value of public equity in emerging markets is small when compared with that of developed markets, so according to finance theory, your investment in them should be small as well. That's a theoretical, not an empirical result. Emerging market funds charge high fees as well, so this one is kind of up to your taste. I can't say whether it will work out in the future. Real estate. You may want to get exposure to real estate by buying a real-estate fund (REIT). Though, if you own a house you are already exposed to the real estate market, perhaps more than you want to be. REITs often invest in commercial real estate, which is a little different from the residential market. Small Cap. Although total market funds invest in all capitalization levels, the market is so skewed toward large firms that many total market funds don't have any significant small cap exposure. It's common for individuals to hold a small cap fund to compensate for this, but it's not actually required by investment theory. In principle, the most diversified portfolio should be market-cap weighted, so small cap should have negligible weight in your portfolio. Many people hold small cap because historically it has outperformed large cap firms of equal risk, but this trend is uncertain. Many researchers feel that the small cap \"\"premium\"\" may have been a short-term artifact in the data. Given these facts and the fact that small-cap funds charge higher fees, it may make sense to pass on this asset class. Depends on your opinion and beliefs. Value (or Growth) Funds. Half the market can be classed as \"\"value\"\", while the other half is \"\"growth.\"\" Your total market fund should have equal representation in both so there is no diversification reason to buy a special value or growth fund. Historically, value funds have outperformed over long horizons and many researchers think this will continue, but it's not exactly mandated by the theory. If you choose to skew your portfolio by buying one of these, it should be a value fund. Sector funds. There is, in general, no diversification reason to buy funds that invest in a particular sector. If you are trying to hedge your income (like trying to avoid investing in the tech sector because you work in that sector) or your costs (buying energy because you buy use a disproportionate amount of energy) I could imagine you buying one of these funds. Risk-free bonds. Funds specializing in short-term treasuries or short-term high-quality bonds of other types are basically a substitute for a savings account, CD, money market fund, or other cash equivalent. Use as appropriate but there is little diversification here per se. In short, there is some value in diversifying across asset classes, and it is open to opinion how much you should do. Less well-justified is diversifying across managers within the same asset class. There's very little if any advantage to doing that.\"" }, { "docid": "370290", "title": "", "text": "\"Both explanations are partly true. There are many investors who do not want to sell an asset at a loss. This causes \"\"resistance\"\" at prices where large amounts of the asset were previously traded by such investors. It also explains why a \"\"break-through\"\" of such a \"\"resistance\"\" is often associated with a substantial \"\"move\"\" in price. There are also many investors who have \"\"stop-loss\"\" or \"\"trailing stop-loss\"\" \"\"limit orders\"\" in effect. These investors will automatically sell out of a long position (or buy out of a short position) if the price drops (or rises) by a certain percentage (typically 8% - 10%). There are periods of time when money is flowing into an asset or asset class. This could be due to a large investor trying to quietly purchase the asset in a way that avoids raising the price earlier than necessary. Or perhaps a large investor is dollar-cost-averaging. Or perhaps a legal mandate for a category of investors has changed, and they need to rebalance their portfolios. This rebalancing is likely to take place over time. Or perhaps there is a fad where many small investors (at various times) decide to increase (or decrease) their stake in an asset class. Or perhaps (for demographic reasons) the number of investors in a particular situation is increasing, so there are more investors who want to make particular investments. All of these phenomena can be summarized by the word \"\"momentum\"\". Traders who use technical analysis (including most day traders and algorithmic speculators) are aware of these phenomena. They are therefore more likely to purchase (or sell, or short) an asset shortly after one of their \"\"buy signals\"\" or \"\"sell signals\"\" is triggered. This reinforces the phenomena. There are also poorly-understood long-term cycles that affect business fundamentals and/or the politics that constrain business activity. For example: Note that even if the markets really were a random walk, it would still be profitable (and risk-reducing) to perform dollar-cost-averaging when buying into a position, and also perform averaging when selling out of a position. But this means that recent investor behavior can be used to predict the near-future behavior of investors, which justifies technical analysis.\"" }, { "docid": "568411", "title": "", "text": "Here in Denver, which is clearly in the midst of an economic boom, the city's premiere shopping center (Cherry Creek Mall) is struggling despite the presence of high-end shops like Nieman Marcus and Restoration Hardware, among many others. The adjacent business district (Cherry Creek North) is awash in new high-rises, office buildings and stand-alone retail stores, but the city council is in the pocket of developers so they've approved all this growth while eliminating the need to provide adequate parking. Since so many non-shoppers were leaving their cars in mall garages all day long, mall officials instituted paid parking. Now, you can park for free if you're staying for less than an hour, but beginning with the 61st minute you're being charged. This has had a detrimental effect on many of the smaller stores in the mall, most of which relied on strolling visitors for a large share of their business. With the limited free parking, people are running their planned errands and then getting the hell out of there before the hour is up. It seems like a pretty stupid way to run a business, especially since several suburban malls have the same stores and unlimited parking." }, { "docid": "266323", "title": "", "text": "The main advantage of commodities to a largely stock and bond portfolio is diversification and the main disadvantages are investment complexity and low long-term returns. Let's start with the advantage. Major commodities indices and the single commodities tend to be uncorrelated to stocks and bonds and will in general be diversifying especially over short periods. This relationship can be complex though as Supply can be even more complicated (think weather) so diversification may or may not work in your favor over long periods. However, trading in commodities can be very complex and expensive. Futures need to be rolled forward to keep an investment going. You really, really don't want to accidentally take delivery of 40000 pounds of cattle. Also, you need to properly take into account roll premiums (carry) when choosing the closing date for a future. This can be made easier by using commodities index ETFs but they can also have issues with rolling and generally have higher fees than stock index ETFs. Most importantly, it is worth understanding that the long-term return from commodities should be by definition (roughly) the inflation rate. With stocks and bonds you expect to make more than inflation over the long term. This is why many large institutions talk about commodities in their portfolio they often actually mean either short term tactical/algorithmic trading or long term investments in stocks closely tied to commodities production or processing. The two disadvantages above are why commodities are not recommended for most individual investors." }, { "docid": "344283", "title": "", "text": "\"While @JB's \"\"yes\"\" is correct, a few more points to consider: There is no tax penalty for withdrawing any time from a taxable investment, that is, one not using specific tax protections like 401k/IRA or ESA or HSA. But you do pay tax on any income or gain distributions you receive from a taxable investment in a fund (except interest on tax-exempt aka \"\"municipal\"\" bonds), and any net capital gains you realize when selling (or technically redeeming for non-ETF funds). Just like you do for dividends and interest and gains on non-fund taxable investments. Many funds have a sales charge or \"\"load\"\" which means you will very likely lose money if you sell quickly typically within at least several months and usually a year or more, and even some no-load funds, to discourage rapid trading that makes their management more difficult (and costly), have a \"\"contingent sales charge\"\" if you sell after less than a stated period like 3 months or 6 months. For funds that largely or entirely invest in equities or longer term bonds, the share value/price is practically certain to fluctuate up and down, and if you sell during a \"\"down\"\" period you will lose money; if \"\"liquid\"\" means you want to take out money anytime without waiting for the market to move, you might want funds focussing on short-term bonds, especially government bonds, and \"\"money market\"\" funds which hold only very short bonds (usually duration under 90 days), which have much more stable prices (but lower returns over the longer term).\"" }, { "docid": "240215", "title": "", "text": "\"The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or \"\"going short.\"\" When you use money to buy shares, it is called \"\"going long.\"\" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything. Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share. You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000. You are both long and short in the stock for $2000. At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds. You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share. Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000. However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares. Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest. Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share. Your long shares have lost $1000 in value. However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares. However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything. Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time. However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame. The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting. Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time. You are only attempting to hedge your bets. And it doesn't work. A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position. And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future. This, however, doesn't really change things much. Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term. Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess. And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain. You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop. You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon. Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short. However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position. And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up. You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain.\"" }, { "docid": "244111", "title": "", "text": "Laser hair removal isn't permanent, you have to have several sessions to get all of the hair, each session costing hundreds. And then it may only last a few years before you have hair growing back again. It's not worth the money unless you have such a large amount that you can throw away several thousand. As others have said, either buy blades in bulk or get a straight razor. They will be much more economical in both the short term and long term." }, { "docid": "327901", "title": "", "text": "\"They always use the term \"\"spike\"\" - making the assumption they will go down. An large eruption in Iceland, if one occurs, (less likely than not) would cause major increases in food prices globally, just like a limited nuclear war would. In even a small nuclear war the food cost increase subsequent to a short \"\"nuclear winter\"\" is projected to kill two billion people, mostly children, worldwide.\"" }, { "docid": "589455", "title": "", "text": "Samsung tried making smaller screens with the Galaxy S2 Mini and the Mini S3. They had iPhone sized screens compared to their larger main lines. They had the same specs and price, they were just an inch smaller. Long story short, no one bought them and the Mini line tanked. Now Samsung only makes large phones and they are dominating the smartphone market in terms of phones sold." }, { "docid": "220276", "title": "", "text": "Right now interest rates are pretty low and as such you won't see blockbuster interest rates in anything highly liquid. That being said you're motivation is liquidity over rate of return anyway so I don't think that is a concern. Money Market funds should give you a similar return to AMEX Personal Savings. Due to their lack of a rate guarantee I wouldn't be surprised if that is simply a branded Money Market account. Your best bet is to look at what rates you can get on any short term security and park your money in the one that best suites your needs and offers the greatest return. Money Markets are simply a great way for you to keep your cash liquid while investing you in a broad range of liquid assets (diversification is key)." }, { "docid": "51803", "title": "", "text": "3G capital is one of the major holding companies of Heinz. They own (co-own) many major bands, such as Burger King. They are known for completely gutting the core values these companies were built on. All the matters to them is cost cutting (often food/product quality, salaries, wages, benefits, company perks, company celebrations, etc). They promote a zero based budget meaning every organizational expense is tirelessly scrutinized in the search of slimmer costs to increase profit. They embody all the is wrong with capitalism when it comes to society-at-large. So how does this guy play into it? They are also known for promoting their young employees quickly. It effectively allows them to pay young employees less for more work. I know first hand, it creates a culture of young people working long hours for low pay with the hopes of being the next rising star. People like this 29 year old CFO may be compensated well, but likely has most of the compensation held in bonuses for short-term results. The result is very quick employee burnout and turnover, and zero work-life balance. All i can say to finish this rant off is that in the short-term, the system 3G is putting into place for the companies they are absorbing is effective for trimming costs and increasing profits for shareholders. Long-term, the low pay, long hours, and zero family values is and drain on society. They are a cancer in the business world. Read some articles about their takeovers of Heinz, Burger King, Tim Hortons. Their treatment of employees is horrific, again I've seen it first hand. Head over to /r/Canada and read how Canadians now view the products and values of their once beloved Tim Hortons." }, { "docid": "8012", "title": "", "text": "It is worth noting first that interest and short-term dividends/capital gains are all taxed at the same rate. So all the investments below I mention (even savings accounts) will be taxed at the same rate. Also, even short-term capital losses can often be harvested to reduce your tax rate in many countries. While it is worth paying attention to the taxes when investing in the short term the more important factor is how much risk that you can take or want to take with the money. Most equity portfolios like the S&P index give a much higher risk that there will be much less in the account when you need to buy. You generally have a higher expected return with equity but as you mention that return is very random over such a short period. Over such a short variable period many people will invest in short term bond-index funds or just keep the fund in a high-yielding savings account. With the savings account your money is guaranteed. Short term bond funds will have generally higher yields but a small chance you may lose money in the short term. Some people can trade short-term bond indices for free with their broker but if you can't be sure to include the trading costs when thinking about which investment to use as with how low yields are currently the fees may eat up any advantage you gain." }, { "docid": "110624", "title": "", "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.\"" }, { "docid": "443926", "title": "", "text": "If there are no traded options in a company you can get your broker to write OTC options but this may not be possible given some restrictions on accounts. Going short on futures may also be an option. You can also open a downside CFD (contract for difference) on the stock but will have to have margin posted against it so will have to hold cash (or possibly liquid assets if your AUM is large enough) to cover the margin which is unutilized cash in the portfolio that needs to be factored into any portfolio calculations as a cost. Diversifying into uncorrelated stock or shorting correlated (but low div yield) stock would also have the same effect. stop loss orders would probably not be appropriate as it is not the price of the stock that you are concerned with but mitigating all price changes and just receiving the dividend on the stock. warning: in a crash (almost) all stocks become suddenly correlated so be aware that might cause you a short term loss. CFDs are complex and require a degree of sophistication before you can trade them well but as you seem to understand options they should not be too hard to understand." }, { "docid": "406926", "title": "", "text": "For safety. If something catastrophic happens to your bank and your money is in there you will lose any not covered by FDIC. So if you have a very large amount of money you will store it in bonds as its much less likely that the US treasury will go bankrupt than your bank. I also literally just posted this in another thread: Certain rules and regulations penalize companies or institutions for holding cash, so they are shifting to bonds and bills. Fidelity, for example, is completely converting its $100 billion dollar cash fund to short term bills. Its estimated that over $2 trillion that is now in cash may be converted to bills, and that will obviously put upward preasure on the price of them. The treasury is trying to issue more short term debt to balance out the demand. read more here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/money-funds-clamor-for-short-term-treasurys-1445300813" }, { "docid": "175819", "title": "", "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." } ]

[ { "docid": "163353", "title": "", "text": "\"What are the options available for safe, short-term parking of funds? Savings accounts are the go-to option for safely depositing funds in a way that they remain accessible in the short-term. There are many options available, and any recommendations on a specific account from a specific institution depend greatly on the current state of banks. As you're in the US, If you choose to save funds in a savings account, it's important that you verify that the account (or accounts) you use are FDIC insured. Also be aware that the insurance limit is $250,000, so for larger volumes of money you may need to either break up your savings into multiple accounts, or consult a Accredited Investment Fiduciary (AIF) rather than random strangers on the internet. I received an inheritance check... Money is a token we exchange for favors from other people. As their last act, someone decided to give you a portion of their unused favors. You should feel honored that they held you in such esteem. I have no debt at all and aside from a few deferred expenses You're wise to bring up debt. As a general answer not geared toward your specific circumstances: Paying down debt is a good choice, if you have any. Investment accounts have an unknown interest rate, whereas reducing debt is guaranteed to earn you the interest rate that you would have otherwise paid. Creating new debt is a bad choice. It's common for people who receive large windfalls to spend so much that they put themselves in financial trouble. Lottery winners tend to go bankrupt. The best way to double your money is to fold it in half and put it back in your pocket. I am not at all savvy about finances... The vast majority of people are not savvy about finances. It's a good sign that you acknowledge your inability and are willing to defer to others. ...and have had a few bad experiences when trying to hire someone to help me Find an AIF, preferably one from a largish investment firm. You don't want to be their most important client. You just want them to treat you with courtesy and give you simple, and sound investment advice. Don't be afraid to shop around a bit. I am interested in options for safe, short \"\"parking\"\" of these funds until I figure out what I want to do. Apart from savings accounts, some money market accounts and mutual funds may be appropriate for parking funds before investing elsewhere. They come with their own tradeoffs and are quite likely higher risk than you're willing to take while you're just deciding what to do with the funds. My personal recommendation* for your specific circumstances at this specific time is to put your money in an Aspiration Summit Account purely because it has 1% APY (which is the highest interest rate I'm currently aware of) and is FDIC insured. I am not affiliated with Aspiration. I would then suggest talking to someone at Vanguard or Fidelity about your investment options. Be clear about your expectations and don't be afraid to simply walk away if you don't like the advice you receive. I am not affiliated with Vanguard or Fidelity. * I am not a lawyer, fiduciary, or even a person with a degree in finances. For all you know I'm a dog on the internet.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "327901", "title": "", "text": "\"They always use the term \"\"spike\"\" - making the assumption they will go down. An large eruption in Iceland, if one occurs, (less likely than not) would cause major increases in food prices globally, just like a limited nuclear war would. In even a small nuclear war the food cost increase subsequent to a short \"\"nuclear winter\"\" is projected to kill two billion people, mostly children, worldwide.\"" }, { "docid": "81353", "title": "", "text": "When you sell a stock that you own, you realize gains, or losses. Short-term gains, realized within a year of buying and selling an asset, are taxed at your maximum (or marginal) tax rate. Long term-gains, realized after a year, are taxed at a lower, preferential rate. The first thing to consider is losses. Losses can be cancelled against gains, reducing your tax liability. Losses can also be carried over to the next tax year and be redeemed against those gains. When you own a bunch of the same type of stock, bought at different times and prices, you can choose which shares to sell. This allows you to decide whether you realize short- or long-term gains (or losses). This is known as lot matching (or order matching). You want to sell the shares that lost value before selling the ones that gained value. Booking losses reduces your taxes; booking gains increases them. If faced with a choice between booking short term and long term losses, I'd go with the former. Since net short-term gains are taxed at a higher rate, I'd want to minimize the short-term tax liability before moving on to long-term tax liability. If my remaining shares had gains, I'd sell the ones purchased earliest since long-term gains are taxed at a lower rate, and delaying the booking of gains converts short-term gains into long-term ones. If there's a formula for this, I'd say it's (profit - loss) x (tax bracket) = tax paid" }, { "docid": "457122", "title": "", "text": "\"For a two year time frame, a good insured savings account or a low-cost short-term government bond fund is most likely the way I would go. Depending on the specific amount, it may also be reasonable to look into directly buying government bonds. The reason for this is simply that in such a short time period, the stock market can be extremely volatile. Imagine if you had gone all in with the money on the stock market in, say, 2007, intending to withdraw the money after two years. Take a broad stock market index of your choice and see how much you'd have got back, and consider if you'd have felt comfortable sticking to your plan for the duration. Since you would likely be focused more on preservation of capital than returns during such a relatively short period, the risk of the stock market making a major (or even relatively minor) downturn in the interim would (should) be a bigger consideration than the possibility of a higher return. The \"\"return of capital, not return on capital\"\" rule. If the stock market falls by 10%, it must go up by 11% to break even. If it falls by 25%, it must go up by 33% to break even. If you are looking at a slightly longer time period, such as the example five years, then you might want to add some stocks to the mix for the possibility of a higher return. Still, however, since you have a specific goal in mind that is still reasonably close in time, I would likely keep a large fraction of the money in interest-bearing holdings (bank account, bonds, bond funds) rather than in the stock market. A good compromise may be medium-to-high-yield corporate bonds. It shouldn't be too difficult to find such bond funds that can return a few percentage points above risk-free interest, if you can live with the price volatility. Over time and as you get closer to actually needing the money, shift the holdings to lower-risk holdings to secure the capital amount. Yes, short-term government bonds tend to have dismal returns, particularly currently. (It's pretty much either that, or the country is just about bankrupt already, which means that the risk of default is quite high which is reflected in the interest premiums demanded by investors.) But the risk in most countries' short-term government bonds is also very much limited. And generally, when you are looking at using the money for a specific purpose within a defined (and relatively short) time frame, you want to reduce risk, even if that comes with the price tag of a slightly lower return. And, as always, never put all your eggs in one basket. A combination of government bonds from various countries may be appropriate, just as you should diversify between different stocks in a well-balanced portfolio. Make sure to check the limits on how much money is insured in a single account, for a single individual, in a single institution and for a household - you don't want to chase high interest bank accounts only to be burned by something like that if the institution goes bankrupt. Generally, the sooner you expect to need the money, the less risk you should take, even if that means a lower return on capital. And the risk progression (ignoring currency effects, which affects all of these equally) is roughly short-term government bonds, long-term government bonds or regular corporate bonds, high-yield corporate bonds, stock market large cap, stock market mid and low cap. Yes, there are exceptions, but that's a resonable rule of thumb.\"" }, { "docid": "175819", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "436536", "title": "", "text": "Whenever a large number of shares to be sold hit the market at the same time the expectation is that the price for each share will drop. The employees in a normal market would be expected to sell some of their shares at the first opportunity. Because during the dot com boom some companies employees were able to become millionaires, every employee at a tech IPO hopes to be richly rewarded. If the long term prospects of the stock price are viewed by the employees as a continuous path up, then the percentage of shares that will hit the market is low. They do want some instant cash, but want the bulk of the shares to capture future growth. The more dismal the long term price lookout is, the greater the percentage of shares that will hit the market. The general consensus is that as each of the Lock Ups expires a significant percentage of shares will be sold, and the price will suffer a short term drop." }, { "docid": "264029", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "23387", "title": "", "text": "\"You need to have 3 things if you are considering short-term trading (which I absolutely do not recommend): The ability to completely disconnect your emotions from your gains and losses (yes, even your gains but especially your losses). The winning/losing on a daily basis will cause you to start taking unnecessary risk in order to win again. If you can't disconnect your emotions, then this isn't the game for you. The lowest possible trading costs to enter and exit a position. People will talk about 1% trading costs; that rule-of-thumb doesn't apply anymore. Personally, my trading costs are a total 13.9 basis points to enter and exit a $10,000 position and I think it's still too high (that's just a hair above one-eighth of 1% for you non-traders). The ability to \"\"gut-check\"\" and exit a losing position FAST. Don't hesitate and don't hope for it to go up. GTFO. If you are serious about short-term trading then you must close all positions on a daily basis. Don't do margin in today's market as many valuations are high and some industries are not trending as they have in the past. The leverage will kill you. It's not a question of \"\"if\"\", it's a when. You're new. Don't trade anything larger than a $5,000 position, no matter what. Don't hold more than 10% of your portfolio in the same industry. Don't be afraid to sit on 50% cash or more for months at a time. Use money market funds to park cash because they are T+1 settlement and most firms will let you trade the stock without cash as long as you effect the money market trade on the same day since stock settlement is T+3.\"" }, { "docid": "182055", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "266898", "title": "", "text": "Capital losses do mirror capital gains within their holding periods. An asset or investment this is certainly held for a year into the day or less, and sold at a loss, will create a short-term capital loss. A sale of any asset held for over a year to your day, and sold at a loss, will create a loss that is long-term. When capital gains and losses are reported from the tax return, the taxpayer must first categorize all gains and losses between long and short term, and then aggregate the sum total amounts for every single regarding the four categories. Then the gains that are long-term losses are netted against each other, therefore the same is done for short-term gains and losses. Then your net gain that is long-term loss is netted against the net short-term gain or loss. This final net number is then reported on Form 1040. Example Frank has the following gains and losses from his stock trading for the year: Short-term gains - $6,000 Long-term gains - $4,000 Short-term losses - $2,000 Long-term losses - $5,000 Net short-term gain/loss - $4,000 ST gain ($6,000 ST gain - $2,000 ST loss) Net long-term gain/loss - $1,000 LT loss ($4,000 LT gain - $5,000 LT loss) Final net gain/loss - $3,000 short-term gain ($4,000 ST gain - $1,000 LT loss) Again, Frank can only deduct $3,000 of final net short- or long-term losses against other types of income for that year and must carry forward any remaining balance." }, { "docid": "322806", "title": "", "text": "\"Diversification is the only real free lunch in finance (reduction in risk without any reduction in expected returns), so clearly every good answer to your question will be \"\"yes.\"\" Diversification is good.\"\" Let's talk about many details your question solicits. Many funds are already pretty diversified. If you buy a mutual fund, you are generally already getting a large portion of the gains from diversification. There is a very large difference between the unnecessary risk in your portfolio if you only hold a couple of stocks and if you hold a mutual fund. Should you be diversified across mutual funds as well? It depends on what your funds are. Many funds, such as target-date funds, are intended to be your sole investment. If you have funds covering every major asset class, then there may not be any additional benefit to buying other funds. You probably could not have picked your \"\"favorite fund\"\" early on. As humans, we have cognitive biases that make us think we knew things early on that we did not. I'm sure at some point at the very beginning you had a positive feeling toward that fund. Today you regret not acting on it and putting all your money there. But the number of such feelings is very large and if you acted on all those, you would do a lot of crazy and harmful things. You didn't know early on which fund would do well. You could just as well have had a good feeling about a fund that subsequently did much worse than your diversified portfolio did. The advice you have had about your portfolio probably isn't based on sound finance theory. You say you have always kept your investments in line with your age. This implies that you believe the guidelines given you by your broker or financial advisor are based in finance theory. Generally speaking, they are not. They are rules of thumb that seemed good to someone but are not rigorously proven either in theory or empirics. For example the notion that you should slowly shift your investments from speculative to conservative as you age is not based on sound finance theory. It just seems good to the people who give advice on such things. Nothing particularly wrong with it, I guess, but it's not remotely on par with the general concept of being well-diversified. The latter is extremely well established and verified, both in theory and in practice. Don't confuse the concept of diversification with the specific advice you have received from your advisor. A fund averaging very good returns is not an anomaly--at least going forward it will not be. There are many thousand funds and a large distribution in their historical performance. Just by random chance, some funds will have a truly outstanding track record. Perhaps the manager really was skilled. However, very careful empirical testing has shown the following: (1) You, me, and people whose profession it is to select outperforming mutual funds are unable to reliably detect which ones will outperform, except in hindsight (2) A fund that has outperformed, even over a long horizon, is not more likely to outperform in the future. No one is stopping you from putting all your money in that fund. Depending on its investment objective, you may even have decent diversification if you do so. However, please be aware that if you move your money based on historical outperformance, you will be acting on the same cognitive bias that makes gamblers believe they are on a \"\"hot streak\"\" and \"\"can't lose.\"\" They can, and so can you. ======== Edit to answer a more specific line of questions =========== One of your questions is whether it makes sense to buy a number of mutual funds as part of your diversification strategy. This is a slightly more subtle question and I will indicate where there is uncertainty in my answer. Diversifying across asset classes. Most of the gains from diversification are available in a single fund. There is a lot of idiosyncratic risk in one or two stocks and much less in a collection of hundreds of stocks, which is what any mutual fund will hold. Still,you will probably want at least a couple of funds in your portfolio. I will list them from most important to least and I will assume the bulk of your portfolio is in a total US equity fund (or S&P500-style fund) so that you are almost completely diversified already. Risky Bonds. These are corporate, municipal, sovereign debt, and long-term treasury debt funds. There is almost certainly a good deal to be gained by having a portion of your portfolio in bonds, and normally a total market fund will not include bond exposure. Bonds fund returns are closely related to interest rate and inflation changes. They are also exposed to some market risk but it's more efficient to get that from equity. The bond market is very large, so if you did market weights you would have more in bonds than in equity. Normally people do not do this, though. Instead you can get the exposure to interest rates by holding a lesser amount in longer-term bonds, rather than more in shorter-term bonds. I don't believe in shifting your weights toward nor away from this type of bond (as opposed to equity) as you age so if you are getting that advice, know that it is not well-founded in theory. Whatever your relative weight in risky bonds when you are young is should also be your weight when you are older. International. There are probably some gains from having some exposure to international markets, although these have decreased over time as economies have become more integrated. If we followed market weights, you would actually put half your equity weight in an international fund. Because international funds are taxed differently (gains are always taxed at the short-term capital gains rate) and because they have higher management fees, most people make only a small investment to international funds, if any at all. Emerging markets International funds often ignore emerging markets in order to maintain liquidity and low fees. You can get some exposure to these markets through emerging markets funds. However, the value of public equity in emerging markets is small when compared with that of developed markets, so according to finance theory, your investment in them should be small as well. That's a theoretical, not an empirical result. Emerging market funds charge high fees as well, so this one is kind of up to your taste. I can't say whether it will work out in the future. Real estate. You may want to get exposure to real estate by buying a real-estate fund (REIT). Though, if you own a house you are already exposed to the real estate market, perhaps more than you want to be. REITs often invest in commercial real estate, which is a little different from the residential market. Small Cap. Although total market funds invest in all capitalization levels, the market is so skewed toward large firms that many total market funds don't have any significant small cap exposure. It's common for individuals to hold a small cap fund to compensate for this, but it's not actually required by investment theory. In principle, the most diversified portfolio should be market-cap weighted, so small cap should have negligible weight in your portfolio. Many people hold small cap because historically it has outperformed large cap firms of equal risk, but this trend is uncertain. Many researchers feel that the small cap \"\"premium\"\" may have been a short-term artifact in the data. Given these facts and the fact that small-cap funds charge higher fees, it may make sense to pass on this asset class. Depends on your opinion and beliefs. Value (or Growth) Funds. Half the market can be classed as \"\"value\"\", while the other half is \"\"growth.\"\" Your total market fund should have equal representation in both so there is no diversification reason to buy a special value or growth fund. Historically, value funds have outperformed over long horizons and many researchers think this will continue, but it's not exactly mandated by the theory. If you choose to skew your portfolio by buying one of these, it should be a value fund. Sector funds. There is, in general, no diversification reason to buy funds that invest in a particular sector. If you are trying to hedge your income (like trying to avoid investing in the tech sector because you work in that sector) or your costs (buying energy because you buy use a disproportionate amount of energy) I could imagine you buying one of these funds. Risk-free bonds. Funds specializing in short-term treasuries or short-term high-quality bonds of other types are basically a substitute for a savings account, CD, money market fund, or other cash equivalent. Use as appropriate but there is little diversification here per se. In short, there is some value in diversifying across asset classes, and it is open to opinion how much you should do. Less well-justified is diversifying across managers within the same asset class. There's very little if any advantage to doing that.\"" }, { "docid": "66644", "title": "", "text": "As far as Driving Schools in Roxburgh Park are concerned, we at HOGGS Driving School are one of the best out there, not to mention the fact that we have a very large list of varied services in store for you. Do give us a call at the very earliest. Address: 112 Royal Terrace, Craigieburn, Victoria 3064, Ph.no: 0416 243 024" }, { "docid": "220276", "title": "", "text": "Right now interest rates are pretty low and as such you won't see blockbuster interest rates in anything highly liquid. That being said you're motivation is liquidity over rate of return anyway so I don't think that is a concern. Money Market funds should give you a similar return to AMEX Personal Savings. Due to their lack of a rate guarantee I wouldn't be surprised if that is simply a branded Money Market account. Your best bet is to look at what rates you can get on any short term security and park your money in the one that best suites your needs and offers the greatest return. Money Markets are simply a great way for you to keep your cash liquid while investing you in a broad range of liquid assets (diversification is key)." }, { "docid": "329662", "title": "", "text": "\"As the other answer said, the person who owns the lent stock does not benefit directly. They may benefit indirectly in that brokers can use the short lending profits to reduce their fees or in that they have the option to short other stocks at the same terms. Follow-up question: what prevents the broker lending the shares for a very short time (less than a day), pocketing the interest and returning the lenders their shares without much change in share price (because borrowing period was very short). What prevents them from doing that many times a day ? Lack of market. Short selling for short periods of time isn't so common as to allow for \"\"many\"\" times a day. Some day traders may do it occasionally, but I don't know that it would be a reliable business model to supply them. If there are enough people interested in shorting the stock, they will probably want to hold onto it long enough for the anticipated movement to happen. There are transaction costs here. Both fees for trading at all and the extra charges for short sale borrowing and interest. Most stocks do not move down by large enough amounts \"\"many\"\" times a day. Their fluctuations are smaller. If the stock doesn't move enough to cover the transaction fees, then that seller lost money overall. Over time, sellers like that will stop trading, as they will lose all their money. All that said, there are no legal blocks to loaning the stock out many times, just practical ones. If a stock was varying wildly for some bizarre reason, it could happen.\"" }, { "docid": "409350", "title": "", "text": "Shorting is the term used when someone borrows a stock and sells it at the current price to then buy it back later at hopefully a lower price. There are rules about this as noted in the link that begins this answer as there are risks to selling a stock you don't own of course. If you look up various large companies you may find that there are millions of shares sold short throughout the market as someone does have the shares and they will need to be put back eventually." }, { "docid": "443926", "title": "", "text": "If there are no traded options in a company you can get your broker to write OTC options but this may not be possible given some restrictions on accounts. Going short on futures may also be an option. You can also open a downside CFD (contract for difference) on the stock but will have to have margin posted against it so will have to hold cash (or possibly liquid assets if your AUM is large enough) to cover the margin which is unutilized cash in the portfolio that needs to be factored into any portfolio calculations as a cost. Diversifying into uncorrelated stock or shorting correlated (but low div yield) stock would also have the same effect. stop loss orders would probably not be appropriate as it is not the price of the stock that you are concerned with but mitigating all price changes and just receiving the dividend on the stock. warning: in a crash (almost) all stocks become suddenly correlated so be aware that might cause you a short term loss. CFDs are complex and require a degree of sophistication before you can trade them well but as you seem to understand options they should not be too hard to understand." }, { "docid": "277827", "title": "", "text": "This is largely dependent on your overall investment goals. GIC's provide protection of the invested capital and a guaranteed return at the end of the term. However, in real terms, 1.4% over 18 months results in a loss of capital in real terms. This is because inflation in Canada is just about at or higher than 1.4% per year. In other words, at best, you are equalling inflation and gaining nothing in those 18 months. If their typical rate is 1.2% over 12 months, you are only gaining an additional 0.2% for the additional 6 months. You know as well as I do, 0.2% for 6 months is abysmal. If you have no use for the money in the medium to long term, you should look in to an index fund that is balanced, and diversified and more likely to get you a higher real return over the time period of a few years. Look in to: If you want to preserve the capital over the short term because you might need it after the 18 months period, the GIC is the safer and recommended option." }, { "docid": "488615", "title": "", "text": "Since the bondholders have voted to reject the emergency manager's plan, which would have paid them pennies on the dollar, the city is now attempting to discharge its short-term and long-term debt. If they get what they want in court, it is likely these bonds will become worthless. Even if they are only able to restructure the debt, its likely that bondholders will need to accept large concessions. However, this may not be immediately reflected in bond prices as it's very possible that the market for these bonds will be very limited in terms of who they could sell them to. If you were to buy them now , that would be a bet on some outcome other than bankruptcy and the discharge of the city's long-term obligations. President Obama has already stated that he monitoring the situation, and it seems unlikely to me that after all of the support given to the auto industry in the last several years that the federal government will do nothing, if only to avert job losses. However, I think it's likely that state aid will be limited at best, as Michigan's economy has been struggling for a number of years. There aren't many large precedents to look at for guidance. One of the largest public entities to declare bankruptcy, Orange County, was a very different situation because this was due to malfeasance on the part of its investment manager, whereas Detroit's situation is a much larger structural problem with its declining economy and tax base. I think the key question will be whether the Federal Government will consider a Detroit bankruptcy to be a large enough embarassment/failure to take significant action." }, { "docid": "554734", "title": "", "text": "A good way to measure the performance of your investments is over the long term. 25-30% returns are easy to get! It's not going to be 25-30% in a single year, though. You shouldn't expect more than about 4% real (inflation-adjusted) return per year, on average, over the long term, unless you have reason to believe that you're doing a better job of predicting the market than the intellectual and investment might of Wall Street - which is possible, but hard. (Pro tip: It's actually quite easy to outdo the market at large over the short term just by getting lucky or investing in risky askets in a good year. Earning this sort of return consistently over many years, though, is stupidly hard. Usually you'll wipe out your gains several years into the process, instead.) The stock market fluctuates like crazy, which is why they tell you not to invest any money you're likely to need sooner than about 5 years out and you switch your portfolio from stocks to bonds as you approach and enter retirement. The traditional benchmark for comparison, as others have mentioned, is the rate of return (including dividends) from the Standard and Poors 500 Index. These are large stable companies which make up the core of larger United States business. (Most people supplement these with some smaller companies and overseas companies as a part of the portfolio.)" }, { "docid": "22026", "title": "", "text": "\"Plenty of good answers here, but probably the best answer is that The Market relies on suckers...er...investors like you. The money has to come from somewhere, it might as well be you. So-called \"\"day traders\"\" or \"\"short-term investors\"\" are a huge part of the market, and they perform a vital function: they provide capital that flows to the large, well-equipped, institutional investors. Thing is, you can never be big enough, smart enough, well-informed enough, or quick enough to beat the big guys. You may have a run of good fortune, but over the long term aggregate, you're a PAYOR into the market, not a DIVIDEND reaper.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "187039", "title": "", "text": "\"The person who told you \"\"no-load funds\"\" had the right idea. Since you are risk-averse, you tend to want a \"\"value\"\" fund; that is, it's not likely to grow in value (that would be a \"\"growth\"\" fund), but it isn't like to fall either. To pick an example more-or-less at random, Fidelity Blue Chip Value Fund \"\"usually\"\" returns around 8% a year, which in your case would have meant about $20,000 every year -- but it's lost 4.35% in the last year. I like Fidelity, as a brokerage as well as a fund-manager. Their brokers are salaried, so they have no incentive to push load funds or other things that make them, but not you, money. For intermediate investors like you and me, they seem like a good choice. Be careful of \"\"short term\"\". Most funds have some small penalty if you sell within 90 days. Carve off whatever amount you think you might need and keep that in your cash account. And a piece of personal advice: don't be too risk-averse. You don't need this money. For you, the cost of losing it completely is exactly equal as the benefit of doubling it. You can afford to be aggressive. Think of it this way: the expected return of a no-load fund is around 5%-7%. For a savings account, the return is within rounding error of zero. Do you spend that much, $15,000, on anything in your life right now? Any recreation or hobby or activity. Maybe your rent or your tuition. Why spend it for a vague sense of \"\"safety\"\", when you are in no danger of losing anything that you need?\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "8012", "title": "", "text": "It is worth noting first that interest and short-term dividends/capital gains are all taxed at the same rate. So all the investments below I mention (even savings accounts) will be taxed at the same rate. Also, even short-term capital losses can often be harvested to reduce your tax rate in many countries. While it is worth paying attention to the taxes when investing in the short term the more important factor is how much risk that you can take or want to take with the money. Most equity portfolios like the S&P index give a much higher risk that there will be much less in the account when you need to buy. You generally have a higher expected return with equity but as you mention that return is very random over such a short period. Over such a short variable period many people will invest in short term bond-index funds or just keep the fund in a high-yielding savings account. With the savings account your money is guaranteed. Short term bond funds will have generally higher yields but a small chance you may lose money in the short term. Some people can trade short-term bond indices for free with their broker but if you can't be sure to include the trading costs when thinking about which investment to use as with how low yields are currently the fees may eat up any advantage you gain." }, { "docid": "266323", "title": "", "text": "The main advantage of commodities to a largely stock and bond portfolio is diversification and the main disadvantages are investment complexity and low long-term returns. Let's start with the advantage. Major commodities indices and the single commodities tend to be uncorrelated to stocks and bonds and will in general be diversifying especially over short periods. This relationship can be complex though as Supply can be even more complicated (think weather) so diversification may or may not work in your favor over long periods. However, trading in commodities can be very complex and expensive. Futures need to be rolled forward to keep an investment going. You really, really don't want to accidentally take delivery of 40000 pounds of cattle. Also, you need to properly take into account roll premiums (carry) when choosing the closing date for a future. This can be made easier by using commodities index ETFs but they can also have issues with rolling and generally have higher fees than stock index ETFs. Most importantly, it is worth understanding that the long-term return from commodities should be by definition (roughly) the inflation rate. With stocks and bonds you expect to make more than inflation over the long term. This is why many large institutions talk about commodities in their portfolio they often actually mean either short term tactical/algorithmic trading or long term investments in stocks closely tied to commodities production or processing. The two disadvantages above are why commodities are not recommended for most individual investors." }, { "docid": "424220", "title": "", "text": "\"short answer: any long term financial planning (~10yrs+). e.g. mortgage and retirement planning. long answer: inflation doesn't really matter in short time frames. on any given day, you might get a rent hike, or a raise, or the grocery store might have a sale. inflation is really only relevant over the long term. annual inflation is tiny (2~4%) compared to large unexpected expenses(5-10%). however, over 10 years, even your \"\"large unexpected expenses\"\" will still average out to a small fraction of your spending (5~10%) compared to the impact of compounded inflation (30~40%). inflation is really critical when you are trying to plan for retirement, which you should start doing when you get your first job. when making long-term projections, you need to consider not only your expected nominal rate of investment return (e.g. 7%) but also subtract the expected rate of inflation (e.g. 3%). alternatively, you can add the inflation rate to your projected spending (being sure to compound year-over-year). when projecting your income 10+ years out, you can use inflation to estimate your annual raises. up to age 30, people tend to get raises that exceed inflation. thereafter, they tend to track inflation. if you ever decide to buy a house, you need to consider the impact of inflation when calculating the total cost over a 30-yr mortgage. generally, you can expect your house to appreciate over 30 years in line with inflation (possibly more in an urban area). so a simple mortgage projection needs to account for interest, inflation, maintenance, insurance and closing costs. you could also consider inflation for things like rent and income, but only over several years. generally, rent and income are such large amounts of money it is worth your time to research specific alternatives rather than just guessing what market rates are this year based on average inflation. while it is true that rent and wages go up in line with inflation in the long run, you can make a lot of money in the short run if you keep an eye on market rates every year. over 10-20 years your personal rate of inflation should be very close to the average rate when you consider all your spending (housing, food, energy, clothing, etc.).\"" }, { "docid": "568411", "title": "", "text": "Here in Denver, which is clearly in the midst of an economic boom, the city's premiere shopping center (Cherry Creek Mall) is struggling despite the presence of high-end shops like Nieman Marcus and Restoration Hardware, among many others. The adjacent business district (Cherry Creek North) is awash in new high-rises, office buildings and stand-alone retail stores, but the city council is in the pocket of developers so they've approved all this growth while eliminating the need to provide adequate parking. Since so many non-shoppers were leaving their cars in mall garages all day long, mall officials instituted paid parking. Now, you can park for free if you're staying for less than an hour, but beginning with the 61st minute you're being charged. This has had a detrimental effect on many of the smaller stores in the mall, most of which relied on strolling visitors for a large share of their business. With the limited free parking, people are running their planned errands and then getting the hell out of there before the hour is up. It seems like a pretty stupid way to run a business, especially since several suburban malls have the same stores and unlimited parking." }, { "docid": "257835", "title": "", "text": "The easiest way to deal with risks for individual stocks is to diversify. I do most of my investing in broad market index funds, particularly the S&P 500. I don't generally hold individual stocks long, but I do buy options when I think there are price moves that aren't supported by the fundamentals of a stock. All of this riskier short-term investing is done in my Roth IRA, because I want to maximize the profits in the account that won't ever be taxed. I wouldn't want a particularly fruitful investing year to bite me with short term capital gains on my income tax. I usually beat the market in that account, but not by much. It would be pretty easy to wipe out those gains on a particularly bad year if I was investing in the actual stocks and not just using options. Many people who deal in individual stocks hedge with put options, but this is only cost effective at strike prices that represent losses of 20% or more and it eats away the gains. Other people or try to add to their gains by selling covered call options figuring that they're happy to sell with a large upward move, but if that upward move doesn't happen you still get the gains from the options you've sold." }, { "docid": "23387", "title": "", "text": "\"You need to have 3 things if you are considering short-term trading (which I absolutely do not recommend): The ability to completely disconnect your emotions from your gains and losses (yes, even your gains but especially your losses). The winning/losing on a daily basis will cause you to start taking unnecessary risk in order to win again. If you can't disconnect your emotions, then this isn't the game for you. The lowest possible trading costs to enter and exit a position. People will talk about 1% trading costs; that rule-of-thumb doesn't apply anymore. Personally, my trading costs are a total 13.9 basis points to enter and exit a $10,000 position and I think it's still too high (that's just a hair above one-eighth of 1% for you non-traders). The ability to \"\"gut-check\"\" and exit a losing position FAST. Don't hesitate and don't hope for it to go up. GTFO. If you are serious about short-term trading then you must close all positions on a daily basis. Don't do margin in today's market as many valuations are high and some industries are not trending as they have in the past. The leverage will kill you. It's not a question of \"\"if\"\", it's a when. You're new. Don't trade anything larger than a $5,000 position, no matter what. Don't hold more than 10% of your portfolio in the same industry. Don't be afraid to sit on 50% cash or more for months at a time. Use money market funds to park cash because they are T+1 settlement and most firms will let you trade the stock without cash as long as you effect the money market trade on the same day since stock settlement is T+3.\"" }, { "docid": "222030", "title": "", "text": "Maryland is one of only two states (as of the writing of that article) that collects both inheritance tax and estate tax. These are two different issues, and it's important to differentiate between them sufficiently. I can't provide you a definitive answer, so consult a tax professional in Maryland for specific details to make sure you don't run afoul of tax authorities. This blog has a nice summary of the differences, as of 2012: The estate tax is assessable if more than one million dollars passes at death. The total dollar value of the property determines whether there is an estate tax. The inheritance tax is not dependent upon the value of the estate, as even very small estates can have inheritance tax imposed. Inheritance tax is assessed on property given to a person who is further removed in relationship than a sibling. Thus, for example, a 10% tax will be assessed on property passing to a cousin, niece, nephew or friend. Another section of the page states, as an example: If you give someone $10,000 in cash, the inheritance tax will simply reduce the amount inherited – in this case to $9,000. There are several other exemptions to the inheritance tax in addition to the immediate family exception discussed above: Property that passes from a decedent to or for the use of a grandparent, parent, spouse, child or other lineal descendant, spouse of a child or other lineal descendant, stepparent, stepchild, brother or sister of the decedent, or a corporation if all of its stockholders consist of the surviving spouse, parents, stepparents, stepchildren, brothers, sisters, and lineal descendants of the decedent and spouses of the lineal descendants. Putting this information together makes me think that the inheritance wouldn't be taxable in your case because it's a cash inheritance from an immediate family member, so it qualifies for one of the exemptions. Since I'm not a tax professional, however, I can't say that for sure. Hopefully these pages will give you enough of a foundation for when you talk to a professional." }, { "docid": "505351", "title": "", "text": "Very wealthy people usually have an investment manager who is constantly moving money between investments and accounts. They hold cash (or cash equivalent) accounts for use in a near-term buying opportunity, for example if they believe certain stocks will go down in price soon. This amount can vary from under 1% (for a money manager with no intention of any short-term trading) to over 20% (for a market pessimist who expects a huge price reduction shortly). In rare cases they will also hold significant cash because of a planned large purchase, but there's almost never a reason for that to exceed 1% of their net worth." }, { "docid": "434869", "title": "", "text": "\"It is difficult to become a millionaire in the short term (a few years) working at a 9-to-5 job, unless you get lucky (win the lottery, inheritance, gambling at a casino, etc). However, if you max out your employer's Retirement Plan (401k, 403b) for the next 30 years, and you average a 5% rate of return on your investment, you will reach millionaire status. Many people would consider this \"\"easy\"\" and \"\"automatic\"\". Of course, this assumes you are able to max our your retirement savings at the start of your career, and keep it going. The idea is that if you get in the habit of saving early in your career and live modestly, it becomes an automatic thing. Unfortunately, the value of $1 million after 30 years of inflation will be eroded somewhat. (Sorry.) If you don't want to wait 30 years, then you need to look at a different strategy. Work harder or take risks. Some options:\"" }, { "docid": "175819", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "457122", "title": "", "text": "\"For a two year time frame, a good insured savings account or a low-cost short-term government bond fund is most likely the way I would go. Depending on the specific amount, it may also be reasonable to look into directly buying government bonds. The reason for this is simply that in such a short time period, the stock market can be extremely volatile. Imagine if you had gone all in with the money on the stock market in, say, 2007, intending to withdraw the money after two years. Take a broad stock market index of your choice and see how much you'd have got back, and consider if you'd have felt comfortable sticking to your plan for the duration. Since you would likely be focused more on preservation of capital than returns during such a relatively short period, the risk of the stock market making a major (or even relatively minor) downturn in the interim would (should) be a bigger consideration than the possibility of a higher return. The \"\"return of capital, not return on capital\"\" rule. If the stock market falls by 10%, it must go up by 11% to break even. If it falls by 25%, it must go up by 33% to break even. If you are looking at a slightly longer time period, such as the example five years, then you might want to add some stocks to the mix for the possibility of a higher return. Still, however, since you have a specific goal in mind that is still reasonably close in time, I would likely keep a large fraction of the money in interest-bearing holdings (bank account, bonds, bond funds) rather than in the stock market. A good compromise may be medium-to-high-yield corporate bonds. It shouldn't be too difficult to find such bond funds that can return a few percentage points above risk-free interest, if you can live with the price volatility. Over time and as you get closer to actually needing the money, shift the holdings to lower-risk holdings to secure the capital amount. Yes, short-term government bonds tend to have dismal returns, particularly currently. (It's pretty much either that, or the country is just about bankrupt already, which means that the risk of default is quite high which is reflected in the interest premiums demanded by investors.) But the risk in most countries' short-term government bonds is also very much limited. And generally, when you are looking at using the money for a specific purpose within a defined (and relatively short) time frame, you want to reduce risk, even if that comes with the price tag of a slightly lower return. And, as always, never put all your eggs in one basket. A combination of government bonds from various countries may be appropriate, just as you should diversify between different stocks in a well-balanced portfolio. Make sure to check the limits on how much money is insured in a single account, for a single individual, in a single institution and for a household - you don't want to chase high interest bank accounts only to be burned by something like that if the institution goes bankrupt. Generally, the sooner you expect to need the money, the less risk you should take, even if that means a lower return on capital. And the risk progression (ignoring currency effects, which affects all of these equally) is roughly short-term government bonds, long-term government bonds or regular corporate bonds, high-yield corporate bonds, stock market large cap, stock market mid and low cap. Yes, there are exceptions, but that's a resonable rule of thumb.\"" }, { "docid": "225395", "title": "", "text": "\"Yep, most 401k options suck. You'll have access to a couple dozen funds that have been blessed by the organization that manages your account. I recently rolled my 401k over into a self-directed IRA at Fidelity, and I have access to the entire mutual fund market, and can trade stocks/bonds if I wish. As for a practical solution for your situation: the options you've given us are worryingly vague -- hopefully you're able to do research on what positions these funds hold and make your own determination. Quick overview: Energy / Utilities: Doing good right now because they are low-risk, generally high dividends. These will underperform in the short-term as the market recovers. Health Care: riskier, and many firms are facing a sizable patent cliff. I am avoiding this sector. Emerging Markets: I'm also avoiding this due to the volatility and accounting issues, but it's up to you. Most large US companies have \"\"emerging markets\"\" exposure, so not necessary for to invest in a dedicated fund in my unprofessional opinion. Bonds: Avoid. Bonds are at their highest levels in decades. Short-term they might be ok; but medium-term, the only place to go is down. All of this depends on your age, and your own particular investment objectives. Don't listen to me or anyone else without doing your own research.\"" }, { "docid": "240215", "title": "", "text": "\"The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or \"\"going short.\"\" When you use money to buy shares, it is called \"\"going long.\"\" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything. Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share. You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000. You are both long and short in the stock for $2000. At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds. You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share. Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000. However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares. Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest. Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share. Your long shares have lost $1000 in value. However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares. However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything. Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time. However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame. The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting. Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time. You are only attempting to hedge your bets. And it doesn't work. A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position. And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future. This, however, doesn't really change things much. Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term. Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess. And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain. You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop. You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon. Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short. However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position. And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up. You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain.\"" }, { "docid": "452837", "title": "", "text": "\"My grandma left a 50K inheritance You don't make clear where in the inheritance process you are. I actually know of one case where the executor (a family member, not a professional) distributed the inheritance before paying the estate taxes. Long story short, the heirs had to pay back part of the inheritance. So the first thing that I would do is verify that the estate is closed and all the taxes paid. If the executor is a professional, just call and ask. If a family member, you may want to approach it more obliquely. Or not. The important thing is not to start spending that money until you're sure that you have it. One good thing is that my husband is in grad school and will be done in 2019 and will then make about 75K/yr with his degree profession. Be a bit careful about relying on this. Outside the student loans, you should build other expenses around the assumption that he won't find a job immediately after grad school. For example, we could be in a recession in 2019. We'll be about due by then. Paying off the $5k \"\"other debt\"\" is probably a no brainer. Chances are that you're paying double-digit interest. Just kill it. Unless the car loan is zero-interest, you probably want to get rid of that loan too. I would tend to agree that the car seems expensive for your income, but I'm not sure that the amount that you could recover by selling it justifies the loss of value. Hopefully it's in good shape and will last for years without significant maintenance. Consider putting $2k (your monthly income) in your checking account. Instead of paying for things paycheck-to-paycheck, this should allow you to buy things on schedule, without having to wait for the money to appear in your account. Put the remainder into an emergency account. Set aside $12k (50% of your annual income/expenses) for real emergencies like a medical emergency or job loss. The other $16k you can use the same way you use the $5k other debt borrowing now, for small emergencies. E.g. a car repair. Make a budget and stick to it. The elimination of the car loan should free up enough monthly income to support a reasonable budget. If it seems like it isn't, then you are spending too much money for your income. Don't forget to explicitly budget for entertainment and vacations. It's easy to overspend there. If you don't make a budget, you'll just find yourself back to your paycheck-to-paycheck existence. That sounds like it is frustrating for you. Budget so that you know how much money you really need to live.\"" }, { "docid": "148270", "title": "", "text": "The Art of Short Selling by Kathryn Stanley providers for many case studies about what kind of opportunities to look for from a fundamental analysis perspective. Typically things you can look for are financing terms that are not very favorable (expensive interest payments) as well as other constrictions on cash flow, arbitrary decisions by management (poor management), and dilution that doesn't make sense (usually another product of poor management). From a quantitative analysis perspective, you can gain insight by looking at the credit default swap rate history, if the company is listed in that market. The things that affect a CDS spread are different than what immediately affects share prices. Some market participants trade DOOMs over Credit Default Swaps, when they are betting on a company's insolvency. But looking at large trades in the options market isn't indicative of anything on its own, but you can use that information to help confirm your opinion. You can certainly jump on a trend using bad headlines, but typically by the time it is headline news, the majority of the downward move in the share price has already happened, or the stock opened lower because the news came outside of market hours. You have to factor in the short interest of the company, if the short interest is high then it will be very easy to squeeze the shorts resulting in a rally of share prices, the opposite of what you want. A short squeeze doesn't change the fundamental or quantitative reasons you wanted to short. The technical analysis should only be used to help you decide your entry and exit price ranges amongst an otherwise random walk. The technical rules you created sound like something a very basic program or stock screener might be able to follow, but it doesn't tell you anything, you will have to do research in the company's public filings yourself." }, { "docid": "327901", "title": "", "text": "\"They always use the term \"\"spike\"\" - making the assumption they will go down. An large eruption in Iceland, if one occurs, (less likely than not) would cause major increases in food prices globally, just like a limited nuclear war would. In even a small nuclear war the food cost increase subsequent to a short \"\"nuclear winter\"\" is projected to kill two billion people, mostly children, worldwide.\"" }, { "docid": "406926", "title": "", "text": "For safety. If something catastrophic happens to your bank and your money is in there you will lose any not covered by FDIC. So if you have a very large amount of money you will store it in bonds as its much less likely that the US treasury will go bankrupt than your bank. I also literally just posted this in another thread: Certain rules and regulations penalize companies or institutions for holding cash, so they are shifting to bonds and bills. Fidelity, for example, is completely converting its $100 billion dollar cash fund to short term bills. Its estimated that over $2 trillion that is now in cash may be converted to bills, and that will obviously put upward preasure on the price of them. The treasury is trying to issue more short term debt to balance out the demand. read more here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/money-funds-clamor-for-short-term-treasurys-1445300813" }, { "docid": "279303", "title": "", "text": "Over the long run, yeah I agree that that the technology consumers have and their real incomes have gone up. However, people don’t live their lives in the long run, their experiences are firmly centered in the short run. People marry, have children, move, start work, lose work, suffer health problems, divorce, homelessness all in the short run. When you zoom in from the long run view, life and individual fortunes seem a bit more dependent on luck and relative positioning than long run technological or economic trends. This is exacerbated by our political system where money seems to positively correlate with the ability to wield political power. Folks with political power can engineer changes that can improve their bottom line through zero sum political games (think taxes, regulation, etc) and maybe even turn a short run advantage (starting a successful business, generating wealth) into a longer run advantage (eliminating taxes on inheritance, potentially cementing family wealth for generations)." }, { "docid": "589455", "title": "", "text": "Samsung tried making smaller screens with the Galaxy S2 Mini and the Mini S3. They had iPhone sized screens compared to their larger main lines. They had the same specs and price, they were just an inch smaller. Long story short, no one bought them and the Mini line tanked. Now Samsung only makes large phones and they are dominating the smartphone market in terms of phones sold." } ]

[ { "docid": "588607", "title": "", "text": "\"Rebalancing a portfolio helps you reduce risk, sell high, and buy low. I'll use international stocks and large cap US stocks. They both have ups and downs, and they don't always track with each other (international might be up while large cap US stocks are down and vice-versa) If you started with 50% international and 50% large cap stocks and 1 year later you have 75% international and 25% large cap stocks that means that international stocks are doing (relatively) well to large cap stocks. Comparing only those two categories, large cap stocks are \"\"on sale\"\" relative to international stocks. Now move so you have 50% in each category and you've realized some of the gains from your international investment (sell high) and added to your large cap stocks (buy low). The reason to rebalance is to lower risk. You are spreading your investments across multiple categories to manage risk. If you don't rebalance, you could end up with 95% in one category and 5% in another which means 95% of your portfolio is tied to the performance of a single asset category. I try to rebalance every 12 months and usually get it done by every 18 months. I like being a hands-off long term investor and this has proven often enough to beat the S&P500.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "291830", "title": "", "text": "\"You're right, the asset allocation is one fundamental thing you want to get right in your portfolio. I agree 110%. If you really want to understand asset allocation, I suggest any and all of the following three books, all by the same author, William J. Bernstein. They are excellent – and yes I've read each. From a theory perspective, and being about asset allocation specifically, the Intelligent Asset Allocator is a good choice. Whereas, the next two books are more accessible and more complete, covering topics including investor psychology, history, financial products you can use to implement a strategy, etc. Got the time? Read them all. I finished reading his latest book, The Investor's Manifesto, two weeks ago. Here are some choice quotes from Chapter 3, \"\"The Nature of the Portfolio\"\", that address some of the points you've asked about. All emphasis below is mine. Page 74: The good news is [the asset allocation process] is not really that hard: The investor only makes two important decisions: Page 76: Rather, younger investors should own a higher portion of stocks because they have the ability to apply their regular savings to the markets at depressed prices. More precisely, young investors possess more \"\"human capital\"\" than financial capital; that is, their total future earnings dwarf their savings and investments. From a financial perspective, human capital looks like a bond whose coupons escalate with inflation.   Page 78: The most important asset allocation decision is the overall stock/bind mix; start with age = bond allocation rule of thumb. [i.e. because the younger you are, you already have bond-like income from anticipated employment earnings; the older you get, the less bond-like income you have in your future, so buy more bonds in your portfolio.] He also mentions adjusting that with respect to one's risk tolerance. If you can't take the ups-and-downs of the market, adjust the stock portion down (up to 20% less); if you can stomach the risk without a problem, adjust the stock portion up (up to 20% more). Page 86: [in reference to a specific example where two assets that zig and zag are purchased in a 50/50 split and adjusted back to targets]   This process, called \"\"rebalancing,\"\" provides the investor with an automatic buy-low/sell-high bias that over the long run usually – but not always – improves returns. Page 87: The essence of portfolio construction is the combination of asset classes that move in different directions at least some of the time. Finally, this gem on pages 88 and 89: Is there a way of scientifically picking the very best future allocation, which offers the maximum return for the minimum risk? No, but people still try.   [... continues with description of Markowitz's \"\"mean-variance analysis\"\" technique...]   It took investment professionals quite a while to realize that limitation of mean-variance analysis, and other \"\"black box\"\" techniques for allocating assets. I could go on quoting relevant pieces ... he even goes into much detail on constructing an asset allocation suitable for a large portfolio containing a variety of different stock asset classes, but I suggest you read the book :-)\"" }, { "docid": "257274", "title": "", "text": "\"There are ways to mitigate, but since you're not protected by a tax-deferred/advantaged account, the realized income will be taxed. But you can do any of the followings to reduce the burden: Prefer selling either short positions that are at loss or long positions that are at gain. Do not invest in stocks, but rather in index funds that do the rebalancing for you without (significant) tax impact on you. If you are rebalancing portfolio that includes assets that are not stocks (real-estate, mainly) consider performing 1031 exchanges instead of plain sale and re-purchase. Maximize your IRA contributions, even if non-deductible, and convert them to Roth IRA. Hold your more volatile investments and individual stocks there - you will not be taxed when rebalancing. Maximize your 401K, HSA, SEP-IRA and any other tax-advantaged account you may be eligible for. On some accounts you'll pay taxes when withdrawing, on others - you won't. For example - Roth IRA/401k accounts are not taxed at all when withdrawing qualified distributions, while traditional IRA/401k are taxed as ordinary income. During the \"\"low income\"\" years, consider converting portions of traditional accounts to Roth.\"" }, { "docid": "317354", "title": "", "text": "You can simply stick with some index funds that tracks the S&P 500 and Ex-US world market. That should provide some good diversification. And of course, you should always have a portion of your money in short/mid term bond fund, rebalancing your stock/bond ratio all the way as deemed necessary. If you want to follow the The Über–Tuber portfolio, you'd better make sure that there's minimum overlapping among the underlying shares that they hold." }, { "docid": "233226", "title": "", "text": "Before investing, absolutely follow the advice in mbhunter's answer. There is no safe investment (unless you count your mattress, and even there you could find moths, theives, or simple inflation taking a chunk out of your change). There is only maximizing your reward for a given level of risk - and there is always risk. This question should be enshrined somewhere on the Q&A site for its comprehensive list of sources for information on asset allocation. The tag is also going to have tons of good information for you. To answer your question on what slice of the pie is devoted to what, you can check out some common portfolios given by U. S. experts for U. S. investors - these should be convertible into Australian funds. Another portfolio that is, like all those above, loosely based on Modern Portfolio Theory for maximizing reward for a given level of risk is the Gone Fishin' Portfolio. A common denominator amongst these portfolios is that they emphasize index funds over mutual funds for their long-term performance and preference lazy management (yearly rebalancing is a common suggestion as the maximum level of involvement) over active management. You can see more Lazy Portfolios." }, { "docid": "340131", "title": "", "text": "You may want to move money between your investments within the plan, rebalancing money to maintain your diversification. You don't have to deal with the details if selling and buying, just tell them how much to move where. Many plans offer investments that automatically rebalance for you such as Target Date accounts. You may be able to select one of those and just ignore the 401k until retirement, or at most rebalance even less often. Look at what's offered, look at what it costs as fees, run the numbers and decide whether you can do better." }, { "docid": "333059", "title": "", "text": "If you are looking to begin living off the money now, then Dheer's answer is correct - it is not possible. However, if you are looking to grow that money (and potentially additional money added at later dates), then you could make this work. 250 a month corresponds to 3000 per year. A first approximation is that you will need a diversified portfolio of 20-25x that amount (60k-75k) to get the required return. This approximation is based on the rule of thumb for how much life insurance to buy. Therefore you need to determine how to grow the 4k you currently have into 60-75k. These numbers, however, are not adjusted for inflation. In the US I would like put the long term inflation adjust diversified market return at 4% per year (your money doubles about every 18 years). So your best approach if you have time is a diversified portfolio with rebalancing and adding additional money each year." }, { "docid": "469141", "title": "", "text": "When you are starting out using a balanced fund can be quite advantageous. A balanced fund is represents a diversified portfolio in single fund. The primary advantage of using a balanced fund is that with it being a single fund it is easier to meet the initial investment minimum. Later once you have enough to transition to a portfolio of diversified funds you would sell the fund and buy the portfolio. With a custom portfolio, you will be better able to target your risk level and you might also be able to use lower cost funds. The other item to check is do any of the funds that you might be interested in for the diversified portfolio have lower initial investment option if you can commit to adding money on a specified basis (assuming that you are able to). Also there might be an ETF version of a mutual fund and for those the initial investment amount is just the share price. The one thing to be aware of is make sure that you can buy enough shares that you can rebalance (holding a single share makes it hard to sell some gain when rebalancing). I would stay away from individual stocks until you have a much larger portfolio, assuming that you want to invest with a diversified portfolio. The reason being that it takes a lot more money to create a diversified portfolio out of individual stocks since you have to buy whole shares. With a mutual fund or ETF, your underlying ownership of can be fractional with no issue as each fund share is going to map into a fraction of the various companies held and with mutual funds you can buy fractional shares of the fund itself." }, { "docid": "480590", "title": "", "text": "People that argue for an FTT, whether they know it or not, are directly advocating for savers to have reduced stock market returns, making it even harder to save for retirement. Make no mistake - a financial transactions tax would disproportionately hurt middle class savers the most. In almost every article I see advocating an FTT, the authors have a profound misunderstanding about how financial markets work. They focus on jealousy politics (target the rich!) and dismiss the hugely detrimental effects on the market as obscure academic objections. FFTs impose a DIRECT cost on ALL investors in four major ways: (1) larger bid/ask spreads, (2) higher volatility, (3) reduced capital mobility, and obviously (4) the tax itself. All of these things are BAD for any investor. Advocates for FFT essentially want the stock market to be less efficient. Even investors that make NO trades during the year will see the returns drop on their ETFs, mutual funds, index funds, that they are accumulating for retirement. Why? Institutional funds (Vanguard, Fidelity, etc) churn billions of dollars during the normal course of business handling buy/sell orders, portfolio rebalancing, unit creation/elimination. Increased bid/ask spreads make these transactions more expensive, higher volatility makes them more risky, reduced capital mobility reduces volumes available to trade, and the tax adds to the cost. All of these effects show up as reduced returns on a typical fund. Vanguard put the reduced returns on the order of 1% depending on fund style - in other words, hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost savings compounded over a middle class working career. For a middle class saver, that could mean the difference between retiring at a reasonable age or never being able to retire! But don't take my word on it. [There are an extensive number of studies and statements from both academia and industry on this subject, all saying the same thing.](https://modernmarketsinitiative.org/topics/ftt/) When Vanguard says an FTT will hurt investors, people should listen. Vanguard is perhaps the most consumer friendly investment firm in history, single-handedly responsible for bringing investing costs down near zero. They have done more for middle class investors than virtually any other firm." }, { "docid": "410461", "title": "", "text": "\"If you want to make a profit from long term trading (whatever \"\"long term\"\" means for you), the best strategy is to let the good performers in your portfolio run, and cull the bad ones. Of course that strategy is hard to follow, unless you have the perfect foresight to know exactly how long your best performing investments will continue to outperform the market, but markets don't always follow the assumption that perfect information is available to all participants, and hence \"\"momentum\"\" has a real-world effect on prices, whether or not some theorists have chosen to ignore it. But a fixed strategy of \"\"daily rebalancing\"\" does exactly the opposite of the above - it continuously reduces the holdings of good performers and increases the holdings of bad. If this type of rebalancing is done more frequently than the constituents of benchmark index are adjusted, it is very likely to underperform the index in the long term. Other issues in a \"\"real world\"\" market are the impact of increased dealing costs on smaller parcels of securities, and the buy/sell spreads incurred in the daily rebalancing trades. If the market is up and down 1% on alternate days with no long tern trend, quite likely the fund will be repeatedly buying and selling small parcels of the same stocks to do its daily balancing.\"" }, { "docid": "458244", "title": "", "text": "\"'Buy and Hold' Is Still a Winner: An investor who used index funds and stayed the course could have earned satisfactory returns even during the first decade of the 21st century. by By Burton G. Malkiel in The Wall Street Journal on November 18, 2010: \"\"The other useful technique is \"\"rebalancing,\"\" keeping the portfolio asset allocation consistent with the investor's risk tolerance. For example, suppose an investor was most comfortable choosing an initial allocation of 60% equities, 40% bonds. As stock and bond prices change, these proportions will change as well. Rebalancing involves selling some of the asset class whose share is above the desired allocation and putting the money into the other asset class. From 1996 through 1999, annually rebalancing such a portfolio improved its return by 1 and 1/3 percentage points per year versus a strategy of making no changes.\"\" Mr. Malkiel is a professor of economics at Princeton University. This op-ed was adapted from the upcoming 10th edition of his book \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street,\"\" out in December by W.W. Norton. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703848204575608623469465624.html\"" }, { "docid": "102684", "title": "", "text": "\"I've just recently launched an open source wealth management platform - wealthbot.io ... \"\"Webo\"\" is mostly targeted at RIA's to help the manage multiple portfolios, etc. Take a look at the demo at demo.wealthbot.io, you'll also find links to github, etc. there. It's a rather involved project, but if you are looking for use cases of rebalancing, portfolio accounting, custodian integration, tax loss harvesting, and many other features available at some of the popular robo-advisors, you might find it interesting.\"" }, { "docid": "301877", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/us/politics/republicans-tax-401-k.html) reduced by 71%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Republicans drafting the tax bill have kept its details closely held, and they would not comment on Friday about whether 401(k) changes were under discussion. &gt; Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee &amp;quot;Are developing pro-growth tax reform policies that will encourage and support retirement savings for all Americans,&amp;quot; a committee spokeswoman said. &gt; The tax framework that President Trump and congressional Republican leaders released last month promised to retain &amp;quot;Tax benefits that encourage work, higher education and retirement security.&amp;quot; It left the door open to changes in the current system, saying that &amp;quot;The committees are encouraged to simplify these benefits to improve their efficiency and effectiveness.\"\" ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/788pfk/republicans_consider_sharp_cut_in_401k/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~233609 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*: **tax**^#1 **save**^#2 **Republican**^#3 **retirement**^#4 **Committee**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "542795", "title": "", "text": "So I did some queries on Google Scholar, and the term of art academics seem to use is target date fund. I notice divided opinions among academics on the matter. W. Pfau gave a nice set of citations of papers with which he disagrees, so I'll start with them. In 1969, Paul Sameulson published the paper Lifetime Portfolio Selection By Dynamic Stochaistic Programming, which found that there's no mathematical foundation for an age based risk tolerance. There seems to be a fundamental quibble relating to present value of future wages; if they are stable and uncorrelated with the market, one analysis suggests the optimal lifecycle investment should start at roughly 300 percent of your portfolio in stocks (via crazy borrowing). Other people point out that if your wages are correlated with stock returns, allocations to stock as low as 20 percent might be optimal. So theory isn't helping much. Perhaps with the advent of computers we can find some kind of empirical data. Robert Shiller authored a study on lifecycle funds when they were proposed for personal Social Security accounts. Lifecycle strategies fare poorly in his historical simulation: Moreover, with these life cycle portfolios, relatively little is contributed when the allocation to stocks is high, since earnings are relatively low in the younger years. Workers contribute only a little to stocks, and do not enjoy a strong effect of compounding, since the proceeds of the early investments are taken out of the stock market as time goes on. Basu and Drew follow up on that assertion with a set of lifecycle strategies and their contrarian counterparts: whereas a the lifecycle plan starts high stock exposure and trails off near retirement, the contrarian ones will invest in bonds and cash early in life and move to stocks after a few years. They show that contrarian strategies have higher average returns, even at the low 25th percentile of returns. It's only at the bottom 5 or 10 percent where this is reversed. One problem with these empirical studies is isolating the effect of the glide path from rebalancing. It could be that a simple fixed allocation works plenty fine, and that selling winners and doubling down on losers is the fundamental driver of returns. Schleef and Eisinger compare lifecycle strategy with a number of fixed asset allocation schemes in Monte Carlo simulations and conclude that a 70% equity, 30% long term corp bonds does as well as all of the lifecycle funds. Finally, the earlier W Pfau paper offers a Monte Carlo simulation similar to Schleef and Eisinger, and runs final portfolio values through a utility function designed to calculate diminishing returns to more money. This seems like a good point, as the risk of your portfolio isn't all or nothing, but your first dollar is more valuable than your millionth. Pfau finds that for some risk-aversion coefficients, lifecycles offer greater utility than portfolios with fixed allocations. And Pfau does note that applying their strategies to the historical record makes a strong recommendation for 100 percent stocks in all but 5 years from 1940-2011. So maybe the best retirement allocation is good old low cost S&P index funds!" }, { "docid": "314056", "title": "", "text": "This question is indeed rather complicated. Let's simplify it a little bit. Paying down your mortgage makes sense if your expected return in the rest of your portfolio is less than the cost of the mortgage. In many cases, people may also decide to pay down their mortgage because they are risk-averse and do not like carrying debt. There's no tax benefit to doing so, though; Canada doesn't generally allow you to write off mortgage interest, unlike the U.S. As to keeping money in the corporation or not, I'm not going to address that. I don't have a firm enough understanding of corporate taxation. Canadian Couch Potato advises treating all of your investment assets as one large portfolio. That is what you are trying to do here. However, let's consider a different approach. If you do not have enough money to max out your RRSP or TFSA, you may choose to keep your TFSA for an emergency fund, where the money is kept highly liquid. Keep your cash in an interest-bearing TFSA, or perhaps invest it in the money market, inside your TFSA. Then, use your RRSP for the rest of your investment money, split according to your investment goals. This is not the most tax-efficient approach, but it is nice and simple. But you are looking for the most tax-efficient approach. So, let's assume you have enough to more than max out your TFSA and RRSP contributions, and all of your investments are going toward your retirement, which is at least a decade away. Because you are not taxed on your investment income from RRSPs (until you withdraw the money) or TFSA, it makes sense to hold the least tax-efficient investments there. Tax-advantaged investments such as Canadian equities should be held in your investment accounts outside of TFSA and RRSPs. Again, the Canadian Couch Potato has a great article on where to put your investment assets. That article covers interest, dividends, foreign dividends, and capital gains, as well as RRSPs, RESPs, and TFSAs. That article recommends holding Canadian equities in a taxable account, REITs in a tax-sheltered account (TFSA or RRSP), bonds, GICs, and money-market funds in a tax-sheltered account (as these count as interest). The article goes into rather more detail than this, and is worth checking out. It mentions the 15% withholding tax on US-listed ETFs, for example. In addition to that website, I recommend the following three books: The above three resources strongly advocate passive indexed investments, which I like but not everyone agrees with. All three specifically discuss tax implications, which is why I include them here." }, { "docid": "370290", "title": "", "text": "\"Both explanations are partly true. There are many investors who do not want to sell an asset at a loss. This causes \"\"resistance\"\" at prices where large amounts of the asset were previously traded by such investors. It also explains why a \"\"break-through\"\" of such a \"\"resistance\"\" is often associated with a substantial \"\"move\"\" in price. There are also many investors who have \"\"stop-loss\"\" or \"\"trailing stop-loss\"\" \"\"limit orders\"\" in effect. These investors will automatically sell out of a long position (or buy out of a short position) if the price drops (or rises) by a certain percentage (typically 8% - 10%). There are periods of time when money is flowing into an asset or asset class. This could be due to a large investor trying to quietly purchase the asset in a way that avoids raising the price earlier than necessary. Or perhaps a large investor is dollar-cost-averaging. Or perhaps a legal mandate for a category of investors has changed, and they need to rebalance their portfolios. This rebalancing is likely to take place over time. Or perhaps there is a fad where many small investors (at various times) decide to increase (or decrease) their stake in an asset class. Or perhaps (for demographic reasons) the number of investors in a particular situation is increasing, so there are more investors who want to make particular investments. All of these phenomena can be summarized by the word \"\"momentum\"\". Traders who use technical analysis (including most day traders and algorithmic speculators) are aware of these phenomena. They are therefore more likely to purchase (or sell, or short) an asset shortly after one of their \"\"buy signals\"\" or \"\"sell signals\"\" is triggered. This reinforces the phenomena. There are also poorly-understood long-term cycles that affect business fundamentals and/or the politics that constrain business activity. For example: Note that even if the markets really were a random walk, it would still be profitable (and risk-reducing) to perform dollar-cost-averaging when buying into a position, and also perform averaging when selling out of a position. But this means that recent investor behavior can be used to predict the near-future behavior of investors, which justifies technical analysis.\"" }, { "docid": "441176", "title": "", "text": "If you are making regular periodic investments (e.g. each pay period into a 401(k) plan) or via automatic investment scheme in a non-tax-deferred portfolio (e.g. every month, $200 goes automatically from your checking account to your broker or mutual fund house), then one way of rebalancing (over a period of time) is to direct your investment differently into the various accounts you have, with more going into the pile that needs bringing up, and less into the pile that is too high. That way, you can avoid capital gains or losses etc in doing the selling-off of assets. You do, of course, take longer to achieve the balance that you seek, but you do get some of the benefits of dollar-cost averaging." }, { "docid": "429929", "title": "", "text": "While it is certainly easy to manage single fund, I am not sure it's the right strategy. It's been proven again and again that portfolio diversification is key to long term gains in wealth. I think your best option is to invest in low cost index funds and ETFs. While rebalancing your portfolio is hard, it is vastly simpler if your portfolio only has ETFs." }, { "docid": "493366", "title": "", "text": "Here are the specific Vanguard index funds and ETF's I use to mimic Ray Dalio's all weather portfolio for my taxable investment savings. I invest into this with Vanguard personal investor and brokerage accounts. Here's a summary of the performance results from 2007 to today: 2007 is when the DBC commodity fund was created, so that's why my results are only tested back that far. I've tested the broader asset class as well and the results are similar, but I suggest doing that as well for yourself. I use portfoliovisualizer.com to backtest the results of my portfolio along with various asset classes, that's been tremendously useful. My opinionated advice would be to ignore the local investment advisor recommendations. Nobody will ever care more about your money than you, and their incentives are misaligned as Tony mentions in his book. Mutual funds were chosen over ETF's for the simplicity of auto-investment. Unfortunately I have to manually buy the ETF shares each month (DBC and GLD). I'm 29 and don't use this for retirement savings. My retirement is 100% VSMAX. I'll adjust this in 20 years or so to be more conservative. However, when I get close to age 45-50 I'm planning to shift into this allocation at a market high point. When I approach retirement, this is EXACTLY where I want to be. Let's say you had $2.7M in your retirement account on Oct 31, 2007 that was invested in 100% US Stocks. In Feb of 2009 your balance would be roughly $1.35M. If you wanted to retire in 2009 you most likely couldn't. If you had invested with this approach you're account would have dropped to $2.4M in Feb of 2009. Disclaimer: I'm not a financial planner or advisor, nor do I claim to be. I'm a software engineer and I've heavily researched this approach solely for my own benefit. I have absolutely no affiliation with any of the tools, organizations, or funds mentioned here and there's no possible way for me to profit or gain from this. I'm not recommending anyone use this, I'm merely providing an overview of how I choose to invest my own money. Take or leave it, that's up to you. The loss/gain incured from this is your responsibility, and I can't be held accountable." }, { "docid": "83079", "title": "", "text": "Check out some common portfolios compared: Note that all these portfolios are loosely based on Modern Portfolio Theory, a theory of how to maximize reward given a risk tolerance introduced by Harry Markowitz. The theory behind the Gone Fishin' Portfolio and the Couch Potato Portfolio (more info) is that you can make money by rebalancing once a year or less. You can take a look at 8 Lazy ETF Portfolios to see other lazy allocation percentages. One big thing to remember - the expense ratio of the funds you invest in is a major contributor to the return you get. If they're taking 1% of all of your gains, you're not. If they're only taking .2%, that's an automatic .8% you get. The reason Vanguard is so often used in these model portfolios is that they have the lowest expense ratios around. If you are talking about an IRA or a mutual fund account where you get to choose who you go with (as opposed to a 401K with company match), conventional wisdom says go with Vanguard for the lowest expense ratios." } ]

[ { "docid": "22221", "title": "", "text": "Rebalancing your portfolio doesn't have to include selling. You could simply adjust your buying to keep your portfolio in balance. If you portfolio has shifted from 50% stocks and 50% bonds to 75% stocks and 25% bonds, you can just only use new savings to buy bonds, until you are back at 50-50. Remember to take into account taxes if you are thinking of selling to rebalance in taxable accounts. The goal of rebalancing is to keep your exposures the way that you want them. Assuming that you had a good reason to have a portfolio of 50% stocks and 50% bonds, you probably want to keep your portfolio similar in the future. If you end up with a portfolio of 75% stocks and 25% bonds due to stock market fluctuations, the exposure and the risk / return profile of your portfolio will have changed, and it's probably not something that you want. You don't want to rebalance just for the sake of rebalancing either. There can be costs to rebalancing (taxes, transaction fees, etc...) and these aren't always worth the effort. That's why you don't need to rebalance every month or if your portfolio has shifted from 50/50 to 51/49. I take a look at my portfolio once a year, and adjust my automated investments so that by the end of the next year I'm back to the ratio I want." } ]

[ { "docid": "441176", "title": "", "text": "If you are making regular periodic investments (e.g. each pay period into a 401(k) plan) or via automatic investment scheme in a non-tax-deferred portfolio (e.g. every month, $200 goes automatically from your checking account to your broker or mutual fund house), then one way of rebalancing (over a period of time) is to direct your investment differently into the various accounts you have, with more going into the pile that needs bringing up, and less into the pile that is too high. That way, you can avoid capital gains or losses etc in doing the selling-off of assets. You do, of course, take longer to achieve the balance that you seek, but you do get some of the benefits of dollar-cost averaging." }, { "docid": "430398", "title": "", "text": "Exactly. Regardless of just the volatility, to weight an asset or two with a majority of your portfolio is poor investment strategy. Ron is a smart guy and obviously understands the benefits of diversification. As others have suggested, I think he is doing it more to make a statement. When he retires, I hope it doesn't come back to bite him." }, { "docid": "83079", "title": "", "text": "Check out some common portfolios compared: Note that all these portfolios are loosely based on Modern Portfolio Theory, a theory of how to maximize reward given a risk tolerance introduced by Harry Markowitz. The theory behind the Gone Fishin' Portfolio and the Couch Potato Portfolio (more info) is that you can make money by rebalancing once a year or less. You can take a look at 8 Lazy ETF Portfolios to see other lazy allocation percentages. One big thing to remember - the expense ratio of the funds you invest in is a major contributor to the return you get. If they're taking 1% of all of your gains, you're not. If they're only taking .2%, that's an automatic .8% you get. The reason Vanguard is so often used in these model portfolios is that they have the lowest expense ratios around. If you are talking about an IRA or a mutual fund account where you get to choose who you go with (as opposed to a 401K with company match), conventional wisdom says go with Vanguard for the lowest expense ratios." }, { "docid": "161295", "title": "", "text": "You're right, of course - But that's not something you would ever want to do *accidentally*. Five years from now, the OP may well decide to convert some of his traditional funds to Roth; for now, even though Roth was his original intent, that would mean a tax bloodbath come next April. As an aside, the biggest reason (for most people) to have Roth funds **isn't** because you expect to make more (inflation - or more importantly, tax-code - adjusted) in retirement than now. If that were the case, the entire concept would be almost worthless - Who the heck makes more *after* retiring than *before*? The best reason to have substantial Roth funds in your retirement portfolio is the way that Social Security is taxed. If you can keep your AGI under $25k (note that includes half of your SS benefits, but since the standard deduction is roughly $10k, those more-or-less cancel each other out), you don't pay a dime in taxes on your SSI. So, if you have a solid budget, take your yearly expenses, subtract out $25k, and that's what you should (sustainably) have in Roth funds. The remaining $25k is what you should have in traditional funds." }, { "docid": "301877", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/us/politics/republicans-tax-401-k.html) reduced by 71%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Republicans drafting the tax bill have kept its details closely held, and they would not comment on Friday about whether 401(k) changes were under discussion. &gt; Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee &amp;quot;Are developing pro-growth tax reform policies that will encourage and support retirement savings for all Americans,&amp;quot; a committee spokeswoman said. &gt; The tax framework that President Trump and congressional Republican leaders released last month promised to retain &amp;quot;Tax benefits that encourage work, higher education and retirement security.&amp;quot; It left the door open to changes in the current system, saying that &amp;quot;The committees are encouraged to simplify these benefits to improve their efficiency and effectiveness.\"\" ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/788pfk/republicans_consider_sharp_cut_in_401k/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~233609 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*: **tax**^#1 **save**^#2 **Republican**^#3 **retirement**^#4 **Committee**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "436904", "title": "", "text": "This is Ellie Lan, investment analyst at Betterment. To answer your question, American investors are drawn to use the S&P 500 (SPY) as a benchmark to measure the performance of Betterment portfolios, particularly because it’s familiar and it’s the index always reported in the news. However, going all in to invest in SPY is not a good investment strategy—and even using it to compare your own diversified investments is misleading. We outline some of the pitfalls of this approach in this article: Why the S&P 500 Is a Bad Benchmark. An “algo-advisor” service like Betterment is a preferable approach and provides a number of advantages over simply investing in ETFs (SPY or others like VOO or IVV) that track the S&P 500. So, why invest with Betterment rather than in the S&P 500? Let’s first look at the issue of diversification. SPY only exposes investors to stocks in the U.S. large cap market. This may feel acceptable because of home bias, which is the tendency to invest disproportionately in domestic equities relative to foreign equities, regardless of their home country. However, investing in one geography and one asset class is riskier than global diversification because inflation risk, exchange-rate risk, and interest-rate risk will likely affect all U.S. stocks to a similar degree in the event of a U.S. downturn. In contrast, a well-diversified portfolio invests in a balance between bonds and stocks, and the ratio of bonds to stocks is dependent upon the investment horizon as well as the individual's goals. By constructing a portfolio from stock and bond ETFs across the world, Betterment reduces your portfolio’s sensitivity to swings. And the diversification goes beyond mere asset class and geography. For example, Betterment’s basket of bond ETFs have varying durations (e.g., short-term Treasuries have an effective duration of less than six months vs. U.S. corporate bonds, which have an effective duration of just more than 8 years) and credit quality. The level of diversification further helps you manage risk. Dan Egan, Betterment’s Director of Behavioral Finance and Investing, examined the increase in returns by moving from a U.S.-only portfolio to a globally diversified portfolio. On a risk-adjusted basis, the Betterment portfolio has historically outperformed a simple DIY investor portfolio by as much as 1.8% per year, attributed solely to diversification. Now, let’s assume that the investor at hand (Investor A) is a sophisticated investor who understands the importance of diversification. Additionally, let’s assume that he understands the optimal allocation for his age, risk appetite, and investment horizon. Investor A will still benefit from investing with Betterment. Automating his portfolio management with Betterment helps to insulate Investor A from the ’behavior gap,’ or the tendency for investors to sacrifice returns due to bad timing. Studies show that individual investors lose, on average, anywhere between 1.2% to 4.3% due to the behavior gap, and this gap can be as high as 6.5% for the most active investors. Compared to the average investor, Betterment customers have a behavior gap that is 1.25% lower. How? Betterment has implemented smart design to discourage market timing and short-sighted decision making. For example, Betterment’s Tax Impact Preview feature allows users to view the tax hit of a withdrawal or allocation change before a decision is made. Currently, Betterment is the only automated investment service to offer this capability. This function allows you to see a detailed estimate of the expected gains or losses broken down by short- and long-term, making it possible for investors to make better decisions about whether short-term gains should be deferred to the long-term. Now, for the sake of comparison, let’s assume that we have an even more sophisticated investor (Investor B), who understands the pitfalls of the behavior gap and is somehow able to avoid it. Betterment is still a better tool for Investor B because it offers a suite of tax-efficient features, including tax loss harvesting, smarter cost-basis accounting, municipal bonds, smart dividend reinvesting, and more. Each of these strategies can be automatically deployed inside the portfolio—Investor B need not do a thing. Each of these strategies can boost returns by lowering tax exposure. To return to your initial question—why not simply invest in the S&P 500? Investing is a long-term proposition, particularly when saving for retirement or other goals with a time horizon of several decades. To be a successful long-term investor means employing the core principles of diversification, tax management, and behavior management. While the S&P might look like a ‘hot’ investment one year, there are always reversals of fortune. The goal with long-term passive investing—the kind of investing that Betterment offers—is to help you reach your investing goals as efficiently as possible. Lastly, Betterment offers best-in-industry advice about where to save and how much to save for no fee." }, { "docid": "464502", "title": "", "text": "So far we have a case for yes and no. I believe the correct answer is... maybe. You mention that most of your expenses are in dollars which is definitely correct, but there is an important complication that I will try to simplify greatly here. Many of the goods you buy are priced on the international market (a good example is oil) or are made from combinations of these goods. When the dollar is strong the price of oil is low but when the dollar is weak the price of oil is high. However, when you buy stuff like services (think a back massage) then you pay the person in dollars and the person you are paying just wants dollars so the strength of the dollar doesn't really matter. Most people's expenses are a mix of things that are priced internationally and locally with a bias toward local expenses. If they also have a mix of investments some of which are international and depend on the strength of the dollar and some are domestic and do not, then they don't have to worry much about the strength/weakness of the dollar later when they sell their investments and buy what they want. If the dollar is weak than the international goods will be more expensive, but at the same time international part of their portfolio will be worth more. If you plan on retiring in a different country or have 100% of your investments in emerging market stocks than it is worth thinking about either currency hedging or changing your investment mix. However, for many people a good mix of domestic and international investments covers much of the risk that their currency will weaken while offering the benefits of diversification. The best part is you don't need to guess if the dollar will get stronger or weaker. tl;dr: If you want your portfolio to not depend on currency moves then hedge. If you want your retirement to not depend on currency moves then have a good mix of local and unhedged international investments." }, { "docid": "347825", "title": "", "text": "The reason diversification in general is a benefit is easily seen in your first graph. While the purple line (Betterment 100% Stock) is always below the blue line (S&P), and the blue line is the superior return over the entire period, it's a bit different if you retired in 2009, isn't it? In that case the orange line is superior: because its risk is much lower, so it didn't drop much during the major crash. Lowering risk (and lowering return) is a benefit the closer you get to retirement as you won't see as big a cumulative return from the large percentage, but you could see a big temporary drop, and need your income to be relatively stable (if you're living off it or soon going to). Now, you can certainly invest on your own in a diverse way, and if you're reasonably smart about it and have enough funds to avoid any fees, you can almost certainly do better than a managed solution - even a relatively lightly managed solution like Betterment. They take .15% off the top, so if you just did exactly the same as them, you would end up .15% (per year) better off. However, not everyone is reasonably smart, and not everyone has much in the way of funds. Betterment's target audience are people who aren't terribly smart about investing and/or have very small amounts of funds to invest. Plenty of people aren't able to work out how to do diversification on their own; while they probably mostly aren't asking questions on this site, they're a large percentage of the population. It's also work to diversify your portfolio: you have to make minor changes every year at a minimum to ensure you have a nicely balanced portfolio. This is why target retirement date portfolios are very popular; a bit higher cost (similar to Betterment, roughly) but no work required to diversify correctly and maintain that diversification." }, { "docid": "310218", "title": "", "text": "\"If the stock market dropped 30%-40% next month, providing you with a rare opportunity to buy stocks at a deep discount, wouldn't you want to have some of your assets in investments other than stocks? If you don't otherwise have piles of new cash to throw into the market when it significantly tanks, then having some of your portfolio invested elsewhere will enable you to back up the proverbial truck and load up on more stocks while they are on sale. I'm not advocating active market timing. Rather, the way that long-term investors capitalize on such opportunities is by choosing a portfolio asset allocation that includes some percentage of safer assets (e.g. cash, short term bonds, etc.), permitting the investor to rebalance the portfolio periodically back to target allocations (e.g. 80% stocks, 20% bonds.) When rebalancing would have you buy stocks, it's usually because they are on sale. Similarly, when rebalancing would have you sell stocks, it's usually because they are overpriced. So, don't consider \"\"safer investments\"\" strictly as a way to reduce your risk. Rather, they can give you the means to take advantage of market drops, rather than just riding it out when you are already 100% invested in stocks. I could say a lot more about diversification and risk reduction, but there are plenty of other great questions on the site that you can look through instead.\"" }, { "docid": "320362", "title": "", "text": "\"You'd need to talk with an attorney familiar with Social Security, or an appropriately qualified SSA representative to be sure - but all signs point to the idea that unfortunately Social Security does not work the way your father was told it would. And if he doesn't file to receive benefits the reality is actually much worse than \"\"throwing away free money\"\"! However, this is not due to a complete misunderstanding of the system! Social Security does work the way he thinks in some instances, just that the rules don't apply to his exact situation! First of all, retroactive benefits come in a few forms: File and suspend to get a lump only if you really need it - BEFORE the age of 70 only! In this method you apply for retirement, but you tell the SSA to suspend/delay your benefits. You are entitled to full lump sum of the payments you deferred...but at a cost of getting lower monthly benefits permanently (and that also lowers spousal and dependent children's benefits, too - if those could apply to your dad). But note that at the age of 70, Social Security will stop deferring the payments and start paying you the full maximum retirement benefit monthly, with no lump sum. This is a kind of emergency insurance policy for those who want to try to defer retirement benefits, but who want the opportunity to cash out and get the money they would have been getting \"\"just in case\"\". You can get up to 6 months of retroactive benefits, such as if you wait past your exact retirement age to apply for benefits. But no more: \"\"we cannot pay retroactive benefits for any month before you reached full retirement age or more than 6 months in the past\"\". As for after-death benefits, an estate can only get benefits that were already due to be paid, which generally means a person died and did not get their benefits for that month, so SSA can re-issue a check to the estate following these rules. But as a person cannot be due a lump sum payment after age 70 (for more than 6 months at most), the estate will only be able to get at most 1-6 months of payments (and 6 months is doubtful - you'll need to ask a lawyer if that much would even be possible). If your father was below 70 and wanted to file-and-suspend, the question of lump on death would be more complex and I don't know that answer - but once you are past 70 this doesn't matter any more as you aren't due a lump anymore. Given the above, we've established pretty clearly that if you don't claim your benefits within 6 months after age 70, any months of payment you would have gotten are just forfeited to the system. But if you claim the benefits and stick them in the bank, can they be taken? Well, if a lawsuit is really a worry, then yes these accumulated funds can required to pay a debt - but this potential for loss can be protected against without forfeiting the benefits entirely! This is not very common, but if your father doesn't need the money now he may be able to deposit some of the money into a special partially-lawsuit protected format of the Roth IRA (which has no age limits) as detailed here. If he never gets sued, that's OK - it's still his money! If he passes away, the value goes to his estate and does not disappear. And he doesn't forfeit any of his earned retirement benefits. Finally, I would like to share one last thing with you and your father. These benefits aren't free - he has been paying a portion of his paycheck for decades into Social Security, and now he is eligible for the maximum amount of benefits per month that he will qualify for - and if he wants to keep working he loses no benefit and the amount could potentially even go up. That's up to him. But not filing for benefits now will mean that all this money he's been paying in for decades will just be lost - they'll basically just be a tax he's paid out to other retirees. His estate (which means you kids) won't get any of it, either. That'd just be a waste for everyone involved. If you have continued doubts or questions, I wouldn't hesitate to consult a specialist lawyer or talk with the SSA directly to make sure this is all correct. It's his money, and he has earned his benefits for many years. I very much hope he gets to enjoy as much of them as he can!\"" }, { "docid": "402051", "title": "", "text": "(a) 5 funds for $15K is not too many or too few ? A bit high as I'd wonder if you've thought of how you'll rebalance the funds over time so you aren't investing too much in a particular market segment. I'd also question if you know what kinds of fees you may have with those funds as some of Vanguard's index funds had fees if the balance is under $10K that may change how much you'll be paying. From Vanguard's site: We charge a $20 annual account service fee for each Vanguard fund with a balance of less than $10,000 in an account. This fee doesn’t apply if you sign up for account access on Vanguard.com and choose electronic delivery of statements, confirmations, and Vanguard fund reports and prospectuses. This fee also doesn’t apply to members of Flagship®, Voyager Select®, and Voyager Services®. So, if you don't do the delivery this would be an extra $100/year that I wonder if you factored that into things here. (b) Have I diversified my portfolio too much or not enough ? Perhaps I am missing something that would be recommended for the portfolio of this kind with this goal. Both, in my opinion. Too much in the sense that you are looking at Morningstar's style box to pick a fund for this box and that which I'd consider consolidating on one hand yet at the same time I notice that you are sticking purely to US stocks and ignoring international funds. I do think taxes may be something you haven't considered too much as stocks will outgrow most of those funds and trigger capital gains that you don't mention at all. (c) If not my choice of my portfolio, where would you invest $15K under similar circumstances and similar goals. What is the goal here? You state that this is your first cash investment but don't state if this is for retirement, a vacation in 10 years, a house in 7 years or a bunch of other possibilities which is something to consider. If I consider this as retirement investments, I'd like pick 1 or 2 funds known for being tax-efficient that would be where I'd start. So, if a fund goes down 30%, that's OK? Do you have a rebalancing strategy of any kind? Do you realize what taxes you may have even if the fund doesn't necessarily have gains itself? In not stating a goal, I wonder how well do you have a strategy worked out for how you'll sell off these funds down the road at some point as something to ponder." }, { "docid": "178438", "title": "", "text": "Look into the asset allocations of lifecycle funds offered by a company like Vanguard. This page allows you to select your current age and find a fund based on that. You could pick a fund, like the Target Retirement 2055 Fund (ages 21-25), and examine its allocation in the Portfolio & Management tab. For this fund, the breakdown is: Then, look at the allocation of the underlying funds that comprise the lifecycle fund, in the same tab. Look at each of those funds and see what asset allocation they use, and that should give you a rough idea for an age-based allocation. For example, the Total Stock Market Index Fund page has a sector breakdown, so if you wanted to get very fine-grained with your allocation, you could. (You're probably much better off investing in the index fund, low-cost ETFs, or the lifecycle fund itself, however; it'll be much cheaper). Doing this for several lifecycle funds should be a good start. Keep in mind, however, that these funds are rebalanced as the target date approaches, so if you're following the allocation of some particular funds, you'll have to rebalance as well. If you really want an age-based allocation that you don't have to think about, invest in a lifecycle fund directly. You'll probably pay a lower expense ratio than if you invested in a whole slew of funds directory, and it's less work for someone who isn't comfortable managing their portfolio themselves. Furthermore, with Vanguard, the expense ratios are already fairly low. This is only one example of an allocation, however; your tolerance of risk, age, etc. may affect what allocation you're willing to accept. Full disclosure: Part of my Roth IRA is invested in the Target 2055 fund I used as an example above, and another part uses a similar rebalancing strategy to the one I used above, but with Admiral Share funds, which have higher minimum investments but lower expense ratios." }, { "docid": "31581", "title": "", "text": "When interest rates rise, the price of bonds fall because bonds have a fixed coupon rate, and since the interest rate has risen, the bond's rate is now lower than what you can get on the market, so it's price falls because it's now less valuable. Bonds diversify your portfolio as they are considered safer than stocks and less volatile. However, they also provide less potential for gains. Although diversification is a good idea, for the individual investor it is far too complicated and incurs too much transaction costs, not to mention that rebalancing would have to be done on a regular basis. In your case where you have mutual funds already, it is probably a good idea to keep investing in mutual funds with a theme which you understand the industry's role in the economy today rather than investing in some special bonds which you cannot relate to. The benefit of having a mutual fund is to have a professional manage your money, and that includes diversification as well so that you don't have to do that." }, { "docid": "25753", "title": "", "text": "How do I start? (What broker do I use?) We don't make specific recommendations because in a few years that might not be the best recommendation any more. You are willing to do your own research, so here are some things to look for when choosing a broker: What criticism do you have for my plan? Seeking dividend paying stock is a sensible way to generate income, but share prices can still be very volatile for a conservative investor. A good strategy might be to invest in several broad market index and bond funds in a specific allocation (for example you might choose 50% stocks and 50% bonds). Then as the market moves, your stocks might increase by 15% one year while bonds stay relatively flat, so at the beginning of the next year you can sell some of your stocks and buy bonds so that you are back to a 50-50 allocation. The next year there might be a stock market correction, so you sell some of your bonds and buy stock until you are back to a 50-50 allocation. This is called rebalancing, and it doesn't require you to look at the market daily, just on a regular interval (every 3 months, 6 months, or 1 year, whatever interval you are comfortable with). Rebalancing will give you greater gains than a static portfolio, and it can insulate you from losses when the stock market panics occasionally if you choose a conservative allocation." }, { "docid": "493366", "title": "", "text": "Here are the specific Vanguard index funds and ETF's I use to mimic Ray Dalio's all weather portfolio for my taxable investment savings. I invest into this with Vanguard personal investor and brokerage accounts. Here's a summary of the performance results from 2007 to today: 2007 is when the DBC commodity fund was created, so that's why my results are only tested back that far. I've tested the broader asset class as well and the results are similar, but I suggest doing that as well for yourself. I use portfoliovisualizer.com to backtest the results of my portfolio along with various asset classes, that's been tremendously useful. My opinionated advice would be to ignore the local investment advisor recommendations. Nobody will ever care more about your money than you, and their incentives are misaligned as Tony mentions in his book. Mutual funds were chosen over ETF's for the simplicity of auto-investment. Unfortunately I have to manually buy the ETF shares each month (DBC and GLD). I'm 29 and don't use this for retirement savings. My retirement is 100% VSMAX. I'll adjust this in 20 years or so to be more conservative. However, when I get close to age 45-50 I'm planning to shift into this allocation at a market high point. When I approach retirement, this is EXACTLY where I want to be. Let's say you had $2.7M in your retirement account on Oct 31, 2007 that was invested in 100% US Stocks. In Feb of 2009 your balance would be roughly $1.35M. If you wanted to retire in 2009 you most likely couldn't. If you had invested with this approach you're account would have dropped to $2.4M in Feb of 2009. Disclaimer: I'm not a financial planner or advisor, nor do I claim to be. I'm a software engineer and I've heavily researched this approach solely for my own benefit. I have absolutely no affiliation with any of the tools, organizations, or funds mentioned here and there's no possible way for me to profit or gain from this. I'm not recommending anyone use this, I'm merely providing an overview of how I choose to invest my own money. Take or leave it, that's up to you. The loss/gain incured from this is your responsibility, and I can't be held accountable." }, { "docid": "340131", "title": "", "text": "You may want to move money between your investments within the plan, rebalancing money to maintain your diversification. You don't have to deal with the details if selling and buying, just tell them how much to move where. Many plans offer investments that automatically rebalance for you such as Target Date accounts. You may be able to select one of those and just ignore the 401k until retirement, or at most rebalance even less often. Look at what's offered, look at what it costs as fees, run the numbers and decide whether you can do better." }, { "docid": "410461", "title": "", "text": "\"If you want to make a profit from long term trading (whatever \"\"long term\"\" means for you), the best strategy is to let the good performers in your portfolio run, and cull the bad ones. Of course that strategy is hard to follow, unless you have the perfect foresight to know exactly how long your best performing investments will continue to outperform the market, but markets don't always follow the assumption that perfect information is available to all participants, and hence \"\"momentum\"\" has a real-world effect on prices, whether or not some theorists have chosen to ignore it. But a fixed strategy of \"\"daily rebalancing\"\" does exactly the opposite of the above - it continuously reduces the holdings of good performers and increases the holdings of bad. If this type of rebalancing is done more frequently than the constituents of benchmark index are adjusted, it is very likely to underperform the index in the long term. Other issues in a \"\"real world\"\" market are the impact of increased dealing costs on smaller parcels of securities, and the buy/sell spreads incurred in the daily rebalancing trades. If the market is up and down 1% on alternate days with no long tern trend, quite likely the fund will be repeatedly buying and selling small parcels of the same stocks to do its daily balancing.\"" }, { "docid": "195515", "title": "", "text": "Comparing retirement savings to ordinary investment is not an apples-to-apples comparison - retirement savings are savings for retirement - if you want to invest in things now and live off of (or reinvest) those earnings, then retirement accounts are not the right vehicle. That said, here are some benefits of the main types of retirement accounts: Benefits of a 401(k): Benefits of a tratitional IRA: Benefits of a ROTH 401(k): Benefits of a ROTH IRA: (the benefits above are not exhaustive, there are other benefits such as using a ROTH IRA for higher ed. expenses, etc. but those are the highlights) If you have a plan for how you hope to use the money now rather than later does it make sense to hold onto it? If your plan is meant to provide income at retirement, and earns returns higher than the returns plus matches and tax benefits you get from retirement accounts, then yes, it may make more sense, but those benefits are generally very hard to beat. Plus, having the money locked away in an account that is painful to tap can be a good thing - you're less tempted to use that money for foolish decisions (which everyone makes at some point)." }, { "docid": "47614", "title": "", "text": "If you can afford it, there are very few reasons not to save for retirement. The biggest reason I can think of is that, simply, you are saving in general. The tax advantages of 401k and IRA accounts help increase your wealth, but the most important thing is to start saving at an early age in your career (as you are doing) and making sure to continue contributing throughout your life. Compound interest serves you well. If you are really concerned that saving for retirement in your situation would equate to putting money away for no good reason, you can do a couple of things: Save in a Roth IRA account which does not require minimum distributions when you get past a certain age. Additionally, your contributions only (that is, not your interest earnings) to a Roth can be withdrawn tax and penalty free at any time while you are under the age of 59.5. And once you are older than that you can take distributions as however you need. Save by investing in a balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds. You won't get the tax advantages of a retirement account, but you will still benefit from the time value of money. The bonus here is that you can withdraw your money whenever you want without penalty. Both IRA accounts and mutual fund/brokerage accounts will give you a choice of many securities that you can invest in. In comparison, 401k plans (below) often have limited choices for you. Most people choose to use their company's 401k plan for retirement savings. In general you do not want to be in a position where you have to borrow from your 401k. As such it's not a great option for savings that you think you'd need before you retire. Additionally 401k plans have minimum distributions, so you will have to periodically take some money from the account when you are in retirement. The biggest advantage of 401k plans is that often employers will match contributions to a certain extent, which is basically free money for you. In the end, these are just some suggestions. Probably best to consult with a financial planner to hammer out all the details." } ]

[ { "docid": "99857", "title": "", "text": "\"Assuming you are referring to macro corrections and crashes (as opposed to technical crashes like the \"\"flash crash\"\") -- It is certainly possible to sell stocks during a market drop -- by definition, the market is dropping not only because there are a larger number of sellers, but more importantly because there are a large number of transactions that are driving prices down. In fact, volumes are strongly correlated with volatility, so volumes are actually higher when the market is going down dramatically -- you can verify this on Yahoo or Google Finance (pick a liquid stock like SPY and look at 2008 vs recent years). That doesn't say anything about the kind of selling that occurs though. With respect to your question \"\"Whats the best strategy for selling stocks during a drop?\"\", it really depends on your objective. You can generally always sell at some price. That price will be worse during market crashes. Beyond the obvious fact that prices are declining, spreads in the market will be wider due to heightened volatility. Many people are forced to sell during crashes due to external and / or psychological pressures -- and sometimes selling is the right thing to do -- but the best strategy for long-term investors is often to just hold on.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "201484", "title": "", "text": "Shit article that displays the author has no farming idea of how Warren Buffet operates. The man has metrics that tell him when shares are too expensive. When this happens, he doesn't buy, and dividends can tend to accumulate when you have almost $500 billion in assets (which could just be 2 years of 5% dividend yields). If they are expensive, he won't buy, and money will accumulate. When there is a crash, he buys on the cheap. That how you get 23% of Year-on-year gains for 40 years. The fact that he is not buying does indicate that the market is overvalued, which is consistent with the fact that there is still a substantial amount of QE. The question is: what will happen as the Fed winds it down. They are aiming for a small decrease or leveling out of the stock market. If that happens, and the market stagnates for a couple of years, maybe the metrics will catch up and he will buy again without a crash happening." }, { "docid": "186184", "title": "", "text": "\"In general, I think you're conflating a lot of ideas. The stock market is not like a supermarket. With the exception of a direct issue, you're not buying your shares from the company or from the New York Stock Exchange you're buying from an owner of stock, Joe, Sally, a pension fund, a hedge fund, etc; it's not sitting on a shelf at the stock market. When you buy an Apple stock you don't own $10 of Apple, you own 1/5,480,000,000th of Apple because Apple has 5,480,000,000 shares outstanding. When a the board gets together to vote on and approve a dividend the approved dividend is then divided by 5.48 billion to determine how much each owner receives. The company doesn't pay dividends out to owners from a pot of money it received from new owners; it sold iPhones at a profit and is sending a portion of that profit to the owners of the company. \"\"When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets.\"\" The statement does have backing. It's backed by the US Judicial system. But there's a difference between owning a company and owning the assets of the company. You own 1/5,480,000,000 of the company and the company owns the company's assets. Nevermind how disruptive it would be if any shareholder could unilaterally decide to sell a company's buildings or other assets. This is not a ponzi scheme because when you buy or sell your Apple stock, it has no impact on Apple, you're simply transacting with another random shareholder (barring a share-repurchase or direct issue). Apple doesn't receive the proceeds of your private transaction, you do. As far as value goes, yes the stock market provides tons of value and is a staple of capitalism. The stock market provides an avenue of financing for companies. Rather than taking a loan, a company's board can choose to relinquish some control and take on additional owners who will share in the spoils of the enterprise. Additionally, the exchanges deliver value via an unbelievable level of liquidity. You don't have to go seek out Joe or Sally when you want to sell your Apple stock. You don't need to put your shares on Craigslist in the hope of finding a buyer. You don't have to negotiate a price with someone who knows you want to sell. You just place an order at an exchange and you're aligned with a buyer. Also understand that anything can move up or down in value without any money actually changing hands. Say you get your hands on a pair of shoes (or whatever), they're hot on the market, very rare and sought after. You think you can sell them for $1,000. On tonight's news it turns out that the leather is actually from humans and the CEO of the company is being indicted, the company is falling apart, etc. Your shoes just went from $1,000 to $0 with no money changing hands (or from $1,000 to $100,000 depending on how cynical you are).\"" }, { "docid": "96228", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; the president has little to nothing to do with the stock market. Absolutely not! Nonsense! The president can easily kill the economy and cause a crash in the stock market in few day. The current improvement in the economy, employment, stock market, etc is directly because of Trump stance against the TPP, Immigration, over-regulation, etc. &gt; What I do is listen to the idiotic words that your leader says. He's your president! He's much smarter than Hillary who can't even handle debate questions unless she cheat with another fake-News, CNN. For God sake, never ever any candidate did such a thing and if my son cheated on a test like this, he would be expelled from school. In any case, Trump must be smart because he's very successful business person, and Hillary is just \"\"the wife of\"\". How can anyone vote for Hillary or Democrats in the last elections is beyond me. And for your information, I am a democrat who voted for Obama twice, for Al Gore (idiot!) and Kerry (a bigger idiot!). The DNC is totally corrupt, evil, untrustworthy and dysfunctioning. I hope that by next election they will fix the issues and have a descent candidate. Most likely not.\"" }, { "docid": "166597", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "485801", "title": "", "text": "&gt;What is your prediction for the next 12 months of the stock market? Not good. I'm not seeing any of the factors that contributed to what happened in 2008 change, which suggests, imho, that the market is still really unstable and prone to wild fluctuation and crashes. If you like risk perhaps that's okay, but for most investors it's a nightmare. Austerity seems to be winning out in government reaction to economic problems instead of stimulus, which is only going to shrink demand across the board. If you can find something for which there is a hungry consumer base willing and able to pay, maybe that's a good direction to go in, but those are more and more rare these days. I'm almost completely withdrawn from the market, save for my 'fun stocks', investments I've made not to make money but just to toy around with, and my Apple investments, which defy logic. And Netflix, which I support on principle. Last year was a good year for investing in healthcare, but I'm not sure how that's going to pan out this year." }, { "docid": "115652", "title": "", "text": "\"Of the two, an option is a more reliable but more expensive means to get rid of a stock. As sdg said, a put option is basically an insurance policy on the stock; you pay a certain price for the contract itself, which locks in a sale price up to a particular future date. If the stock depreciates significantly, you exercise the option and get the contract price; otherwise you let the contract expire and keep the stock. Long-term, these are bad bets as each expired contract will offset earnings, but if you foresee a near-term steep drop in the stock price but aren't quite sure, a put option is good peace of mind. A sell stop order is generally cheaper, but less reliable. You set a trigger price, say a loss of 10% of the stock's current value. If that threshold is reached, the stop order becomes a sell order and the broker will sell the stock on the market, take his commission (or a fixed price depending on your broker) and you get the rest. However, there has to be a buyer willing to buy at that price at the moment the trigger fires; if a stock has lost 10% rapidly, it's probably on the way down hard, and the order might not complete until you realize a 12% loss, or a 15%, or even 20%. A sell stop limit (a combination stop order and limit order) allows you to say that you want to sell if the stock drops to $X, but not sell if it drops below $X-Y. This allows you to limit realized losses by determining a band within which it should be sold, and not to sell above or below that price. These are cheaper because you only pay for the order if it is executed successfully; if you never need it, it's free (or very cheap; some brokers will charge a token service fee to maintain a stop or stop limit). However, if the price drops very quickly or you specify too narrow a band, the stock can drop through that band too quickly to execute the sell order and you end up with a severely depreciated stock and an unexercised order. This can happen if the company whose stock you own buys another company; VERY quickly, both stocks will adjust, the buying company will often plummet inside a few seconds after news of the merger is announced, based on the steep drop in working capital and/or the infusion of a large amount of new stock in the buying company to cover the equity of the purchased company. You end up with devalued stock and a worthless option (but one company buying another is not usually reason to sell; if the purchase is a good idea, their stock will recover). Another option which may be useful to you is a swaption; this basically amounts to buying a put option on one financial instrument and a call on another, rolled into one option contract specifying a swap. This allows you to pick something you think would rise if your stock fell and exchange your stock for it at your option. For example, say the stock on which you buy this swaption is an airline stock, and you contract the option to swap for oil. If oil surges, the airline's stock will tank sharply, and you win both ways (avoiding loss and realizing a gain). You'd also win if either half of this option realized a gain over the option price; oil could surge or the airline could tank and you could win. You could even do this \"\"naked\"\" since its your option; if the airline's stock tanks, you buy it at the crashed price to exercise the option and then do so. The downside is a higher option cost; the seller will be no fool, so if your position appears to be likely, anyone who'd bet against you by selling you this option will want a pretty high return.\"" }, { "docid": "129997", "title": "", "text": "I can understand your fears, and there is nothing wrong with taking action to protect yourself from them. How much income do you need in retirement? For arguments sake, lets say you need to pull 36K per year from your 401K or 3K per month. Lets also assume that you current contribute (with any match) 1,000 per month. Please adjust to your actual numbers accordingly. One option would be to pull out 48K right now and put it in a money market. With your contributions, I would then put half into the money market and half into more aggressive investments. In 10 years, you would have about 110K in your money market account. You could live off of that for three years. If the market does crash, this should give you plenty of time to recover. Taking this option opens you to another risk, which is being beat up by inflation or lack of growth on a nice pile of cash. My time frame is not that different then yours (I am about 12 years away), but am still all in stocks. Having 48K and more with not opportunity for growth frightens me more than any temporary stock market crash. Having said that I think it would be a horrible mistake to get completely out of stocks. Many of those destroyed in 2008 also missed 2012 through 2014 which were awesome years. So do some. Set aside a year or three of income in something nice and safe. Maybe one year of income in money market, one in bonds and preferred stocks, and one in blue chips." }, { "docid": "480967", "title": "", "text": "\"Aganju has mentioned put options, which are one good possibility. I would suggest considering an even easier strategy: short selling. Technically you are borrowing the stock from someone and selling it. At some point you repurchase the stock to return to the lender (\"\"covering your short\"\"). If the stock price has fallen, then when you repurchase it, it will be cheaper and you keep the profit. Short selling sounds complicated but it's actually very easy--your broker takes care of all the details. Just go to your brokerage and click \"\"sell\"\" or \"\"sell short.\"\" You can use a market or limit order just like you were selling something you own. When it sells, you are done. The money gets credited to your account. At some point (after the price falls) you should repurchase it so you don't have a negative position any more, but your brokerage isn't going to hassle you for this unless you bought a lot and the stock price starts rising. There will be limits on how much you can short, depending on how much money is in your account. Some stocks (distressed and small stocks) may sometimes be hard to short, meaning your broker will charge you a kind of interest and/or may not be able to complete your transaction. You will need a margin account (a type of brokerage account) to either use options or short sell. They are easy to come by, though. Note that for a given amount of starting money in your account, puts can give you a much more dramatic gain if the stock price falls. But they can (and often do) expire worthless, causing you to lose all money you have spent on them. If you want to maximize how much you make, use puts. Otherwise I'd short sell. About IPOs, it depends on what you mean. If the IPO has just completed and you want to bet that the share price will fall, either puts or short selling will work. Before an IPO you can't short sell and I doubt you would be able to buy an option either. Foreign stocks? Depends on whether there is an ADR for them that trades on the domestic market and on the details of your brokerage account. Let me put it this way, if you can buy it, you can short sell it.\"" }, { "docid": "351181", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;Of course; the generation Xers are those in the age range where many were approaching the time when they would, but had not yet, transferred the bulk of their retirement savings to lower risk investments. **Your analysis is WAY off-base.** Gen X was more than a DECADE AWAY from even *thinking* of switching to \"\"lower risk investments\"\". The OLDEST Gen X'ers were born in 1964 and have (just now) turned 48 -- they were (at most) 44 years old in 2008 when the market crashed. The YOUNGEST Gen X'ers were born circa 1981-82, and (just now) have reached age 30 -- they were just getting started in their careers (around age 26) in 2008 when the market crashed. The MAJORITY of Gen X'ers were -- in 2008 -- in their mid 30's. NO ONE switches to \"\"low risk investments\"\" in their mid 30's. --- No, the only Gen X'ers who DIDN'T get \"\"screwed\"\" by the market crash were either: 1. Savvy enough to have SEEN the bubble &amp; crash coming and so got OUT of the stock market and/or housing; or... 2. Waited out the storm &amp; sat tight -- and allowed their market holdings to both crash and then rebound (though they would still largely be \"\"down\"\" from where they were at peak 2008, they wouldn't have suffered huge losses).\"" }, { "docid": "378189", "title": "", "text": "@victor has the most descriptive and basic idea on how this is done. The only thing I would add is that one benefit to real estate is that you can control how much the property is worth. By increasing rents and making the property one of the best in the neighborhood, you increase the value. As for the comment that this is the type of investing that caused the 1929 stock market crash, there are many other aspects that are overlooked. Taking equity out of real estate has been happening long before and after the depression. People do it all the time by taking out home equity loans, just not everyone uses it to purchase another investment." }, { "docid": "400016", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "384857", "title": "", "text": "The common advice you mentioned is just a guideline and has little to do with how your portfolio would look like when you construct it. In order to diversify you would be using correlations and some common sense. Recall the recent global financial crisis, ones of the first to crash were AAA-rated CDO's, stocks and so on. Because correlation is a statistical measure this can work fine when the economy is stable, but it doesn't account for real-life interrelations, especially when population is affected. Once consumers are affected this spans to the entire economy so that sectors that previously seemed unrelated have now been tied together by the fall in demand or reduced ability to pay-off. I always find it funny how US advisers tell you to hold 80% of US stocks and bonds, while UK ones tell you to stick to the UK securities. The same happens all over the world, I would assume. The safest portfolio is a Global Market portfolio, obviously I wouldn't be getting, say, Somalian bonds (if such exist at all), but there are plenty of markets to choose from. A chance of all of them crashing simultaneously is significantly lower. Why don't people include derivatives in their portfolios? Could be because these are mainly short-term, while most of the portfolios are being held for a significant amount of time thus capital and money markets are the key components. Derivatives are used to hedge these portfolios. As for the currencies - by having foreign stocks and bonds you are already exposed to FX risk so you, again, could be using it as a hedging instrument." }, { "docid": "547553", "title": "", "text": "\"Most of the investors who have large holdings in a particular stock have pretty good exit strategies for those positions to ensure they are getting the best price they can by selling gradually into the volume over time. Putting a single large block of stock up for sale is problematic for one simple reason: Let's say you have 100,000 shares of a stock, and for some reason you decide today is the day to sell them, take your profits, and ride off into the sunset. So you call your broker (or log into your brokerage account) and put them up for sale. He puts in an order somewhere, the stock is sold, and your account is credited. Seems simple, right? Well...not so fast. Professionals - I'm keeping this simple, so please don't beat me up for it! The way stocks are bought and sold is through companies known as \"\"market makers\"\". These are entities which sit between the markets and you (and your broker), and when you want to buy or sell a stock, most of the time the order is ultimately handled somewhere along the line by a market maker. If you work with a large brokerage firm, sometimes they'll buy or sell your shares out of their own accounts, but that's another story. It is normal for there to be many, sometimes hundreds, of market makers who are all trading in the same equity. The bigger the stock, the more market makers it attracts. They all compete with each other for business, and they make their money on the spread between what they buy stock from people selling for and what they can get for it selling it to people who want it. Given that there could be hundreds of market makers on a particular stock (Google, Apple, and Microsoft are good examples of having hundreds of market makers trading in their stocks), it is very competitive. The way the makers compete is on price. It might surprise you to know that it is the market makers, not the markets, that decide what a stock will buy or sell for. Each market maker sets their own prices for what they'll pay to buy from sellers for, and what they'll sell it to buyers for. This is called, respectively, the \"\"bid\"\" and the \"\"ask\"\" prices. So, if there are hundreds of market makers then there could be hundreds of different bid and ask prices on the same stock. The prices you see for stocks are what are called the \"\"best bid and best ask\"\" prices. What that means is, you are being shown the highest \"\"bid\"\" price (what you can sell your shares for) and the best \"\"ask\"\" price (what you can buy those shares for) because that's what is required. That being said, there are many other market makers on the same stock whose bid prices are lower and ask prices are higher. Many times there will be a big clump of market makers all at the same bid/ask, or within fractions of a cent of each other, all competing for business. Trading computers are taught to seek out the best prices and the fastest trade fills they can. The point to this very simplistic lesson is that the market makers set the prices that shares trade at. They adjust those prices based (among other factors) on how much buying and selling volume they're seeing. If they see a wave of sell orders coming into the system then they'll start marking down their bid prices. This keeps them from paying too much for shares they're going to have to find a buyer for eventually, and it can sometimes slow down the pace of selling as investors and automated systems notice the price decline and decide to wait to sell. Conversely, if market makers see a wave of buy orders coming into the system, they'll start marking their ask prices up to maximize their gains, since they're selling you shares they bought from someone else, presumably at a lower price. But they typically adjust their prices up or down before they actually fill trades. (sneaky, eh?) Depending on how much volume there is on the shares of the company you're selling, and depending on whether there are more buyers than sellers at the moment, your share sell order may be filled at market by a market maker with no real consequence to the share's price. If the block is large enough then it's possible it will not all sell to one market maker, or it might not all happen in one transaction or even all at the same price. This is a pretty complex subject, as you can see, and I've cut a LOT of corners and oversimplified much to keep it comprehensible. But the short answer to your question is -- it depends. Hope this helps. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "251715", "title": "", "text": "Market Capitalization is the product of the current share price (the last time someone sold a share of the stock, how much?) times the number of outstanding shares of stock, summed up over all of the stock categories. Assuming the efficient market hypothesis and a liquid market, this gives the current total value of the companies' assets (both tangible and intangible). Both the EMH and perfect liquidity may not hold at all times. Beyond those theoretical problems, in practice, someone trying to buy or sell the company at that price is going to be in for a surprise; the fact that someone wants to sell that many stocks, or buy that many stocks, will move the price of the company stock." }, { "docid": "23116", "title": "", "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.\"" }, { "docid": "554674", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "461217", "title": "", "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.\"" }, { "docid": "89947", "title": "", "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.\"" }, { "docid": "517323", "title": "", "text": "The stock market is just like any other market, but stocks are bought and sold here. Just like you buy and sell your electronics at the electronics market, this is a place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares or stocks or equity, no matter what you call it. What are these shares? A share is nothing but a portion of ownership of a company. Suppose a company has 100 shares issued to it, and you were sold 10 out of those, it literally means you are a 10% owner of the company. Why do companies sell shares? Companies sell shares to grow or expand. Suppose a business is manufacturing or producing and selling goods or services that are high in demand, the owners would want to take advantage of it and increase the production of his goods or services. And in order to increase production he would need money to buy land or equipment or labor, etc. Now either he could go get a loan by pledging something, or he could partner with someone who could give him money in exchange for some portion of the ownership of the company. This way, the owner gets the money to expand his business and make more profit, and the lender gets a portion of profit every time the company makes some. Now if the owner decides to sell shares rather than getting a loan, that's when the stock market comes into the picture. Why would a person want to trade stocks? First of all, please remember that stocks were never meant to be traded. You always invest in stocks. What's the difference? Trading is short term and investing is long term, in very simple language. It's the greed of humans which led to this concept of trading stocks. A person should only buy stocks if he believes in the business the company is doing and sees the potential of growth. Back to the question: a person would want to buy stocks of the company because: How does a stock market help society? Look around you for the answer to this question. Let me give you a start and I wish everyone reading this post to add at least one point to the answer. Corporations in general allow many people come together and invest in a business without fear that their investment will cause them undue liability - because shareholders are ultimately not liable for the actions of a corporation. The cornerstone North American case of how corporations add value is by allowing many investors to have put money towards the railroads that were built across America and Canada. For The stock market in particular, by making it easier to trade shares of a company once the company sells them, the number of people able to conveniently invest grows exponentially. This means that someone can buy shares in a company without needing to knock door to door in 5 years trying to find someone to sell to. Participating in the stock market creates 'liquidity', which is essentially the ease with which stocks are converted into cash. High liquidity reduces risk overall, and it means that those who want risk [because high risk often creates high reward] can buy shares, and those who want low risk [because say they are retiring and don't have a risk appetite anymore] can sell shares." } ]

[ { "docid": "257241", "title": "", "text": "It is typically possible to sell during a crash, because there are enough people that understand the mechanics behind a crash. Generally, you need to understand that you don't lose money from the crash, but from selling. Every single crash in history more than recovered, and by staying invested, you wouldn't have lost anything (this assumes you have enough time to sit it out; it could take several years to recover). On the other side of those deals are people that understand that, and make money by buying during a crash. They simply sit the crash out, and some time later they made a killing from what you panic-sold, when it recovers its value." } ]

[ { "docid": "167322", "title": "", "text": "\"I probably don't understand something. I think you are correct about that. :) The main way money enters the stock market is through investors investing and taking money out. Money doesn't exactly \"\"enter\"\" the stock market. Shares of stock are bought and sold by investors to investors. The market is just a mechanism for a buyer and seller to find each other. For the purposes of this question, we will only consider non-dividend stocks. Okay. When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets. For example, if I bought $10 of Apple Stock early on, but it later went up to $399, I can't go to Apple and say \"\"I own $399 of you, here you go it back, give me an iPhone.\"\" The only way to redeem this is to sell the stock to another investor (like a Ponzi Scheme.) It is true that when you own stock, you own a small portion of the company. No, you can't just destroy your portion of the company; that wouldn't be fair to the other investors. But you can very easily sell your portion to another investor. The stock market facilitates that sale, making it very easy to either sell your shares or buy more shares. It's not a Ponzi scheme. The only reason your hypothetical share is said to be \"\"worth\"\" $399 is that there is a buyer that wants to buy it at $399. But there is a real company behind the stock, and it is making real money. There are several existing questions that discuss what gives a stock value besides a dividend: The stock market goes up only when more people invest in it. Although the stock market keeps tabs on Businesses, the profits of Businesses do not actually flow into the Stock Market. In particular, if no one puts money in the stock market, it doesn't matter how good the businesses do. The value of a stock is simply what a buyer is willing to pay for it. You are correct that there is not always a correlation between the price of a stock and how well the company is doing. But let's look at another hypothetical scenario. Let's say that I started and run a publicly-held company that sells widgets. The company is doing very well; I'm selling lots of widgets. In fact, the company is making incredible amounts of money. However, the stock price is not going up as fast as our revenues. This could be due to a number of reasons: investors might not be aware of our success, or investors might not think our success is sustainable. I, as the founder, own lots of shares myself, and if I want a return on my investment, I can do a couple of things with the large revenues of the company: I can either continue to reinvest revenue in the company, growing the company even more (in the hopes that investors will start to notice and the stock price will rise), or I can start paying a dividend. Either way, all the current stock holders benefit from the success of the company.\"" }, { "docid": "351055", "title": "", "text": "Thanks for the link. The way I interpretet is like this: IPOs are underpriced to make sure they will sell all the shares to the market, avoiding lose of face. (short term andslide 4) But that doesn't mean it is a good investment in the long run, because these companies have their reasons to go public, and one of those reasons could be that they think the market is overpricing stocks (long term and slide 5) There are of course other reasons, one of them to finance the business. By the way, I think the data is heavily skewed because of the dotcom crash, but interesting nonetheless." }, { "docid": "480967", "title": "", "text": "\"Aganju has mentioned put options, which are one good possibility. I would suggest considering an even easier strategy: short selling. Technically you are borrowing the stock from someone and selling it. At some point you repurchase the stock to return to the lender (\"\"covering your short\"\"). If the stock price has fallen, then when you repurchase it, it will be cheaper and you keep the profit. Short selling sounds complicated but it's actually very easy--your broker takes care of all the details. Just go to your brokerage and click \"\"sell\"\" or \"\"sell short.\"\" You can use a market or limit order just like you were selling something you own. When it sells, you are done. The money gets credited to your account. At some point (after the price falls) you should repurchase it so you don't have a negative position any more, but your brokerage isn't going to hassle you for this unless you bought a lot and the stock price starts rising. There will be limits on how much you can short, depending on how much money is in your account. Some stocks (distressed and small stocks) may sometimes be hard to short, meaning your broker will charge you a kind of interest and/or may not be able to complete your transaction. You will need a margin account (a type of brokerage account) to either use options or short sell. They are easy to come by, though. Note that for a given amount of starting money in your account, puts can give you a much more dramatic gain if the stock price falls. But they can (and often do) expire worthless, causing you to lose all money you have spent on them. If you want to maximize how much you make, use puts. Otherwise I'd short sell. About IPOs, it depends on what you mean. If the IPO has just completed and you want to bet that the share price will fall, either puts or short selling will work. Before an IPO you can't short sell and I doubt you would be able to buy an option either. Foreign stocks? Depends on whether there is an ADR for them that trades on the domestic market and on the details of your brokerage account. Let me put it this way, if you can buy it, you can short sell it.\"" }, { "docid": "501984", "title": "", "text": "To short a stock you actually borrow shares and sell them. The shorter gets the money from selling immediately, and pays interest for the share he borrows until he covers the short. The amount of interest varies depending on the stock. It's typically under 1% a year for large cap stocks, but can be 20% or more for small, illiquid, or heavily shorted stocks. In this scam only a few people own the shares that are lent to shorters, so they essentially have a monopoly and can set really high borrow costs. The shorter probably assumes that a pump-and-dump will crash quickly, so wouldn't mind paying a high borrow cost." }, { "docid": "212871", "title": "", "text": "I don't believe I said anything about the stock market going down, which happens regularly. It's not like municipal bond markets crash very often—once every few generations, maybe. So her being off by a couple years would be insignificant. Not saying I think it's going to happen. I'm just posing the question. If the municipal bond markets crashed within the next year, she would be vindicated." }, { "docid": "563416", "title": "", "text": "This belong in /r/redacted If there's a market correction (not crash, as the economy is on good foundation), it will not topple the sitting president, as it did not topple other president who went through corrections and crashes. The economy is improving a lot under Trump. Hence the stock market going up. &gt; the Swamp is so undrainable that it will end up making mincemeat of Donald Trump Then give up? Actually, that's why Trump was elected." }, { "docid": "466711", "title": "", "text": "Because buying at discount provides a considerable safety of margin -- it increases the likelihood of profiting. The margin serves to cushion future adverse price movement. Why is so much effort made to get a small percentage off an investment, if one is then willing to let the investment drop another 20% or more with the reason of being in it for the long term? Nobody can predict the stock price. Now if a long term investor happens to buy some stocks and the market crashes the next day, he could afford to wait for the stock prices to bounce back. Why should he sells immediately to incur a definite loss, should he has confidence in the underlying companies to recover eventually? One can choose to buy wisely, but the market fluctuation is out of his/her control. Wouldn't you agree that he/she should spend much efforts on something that can be controlled?" }, { "docid": "273565", "title": "", "text": "Try to find out (online) what 'the experts' think about your stock. Normally, there are some that advise you to sell, some to hold and some to buy. Hold on to your stock when most advise you to buy, otherwise, just sell it and get it over with. A stock's estimated value depends on a lot of things, the worst of these are human emotions... People buy with the crowd and sell on panic. Not something you should want to do. The 'real' value of a stock depends on assets, cash-flow, backlog, benefits, dividends, etc. Also, their competitors, the market position they have, etc. So, once you have an estimate of how much the stock is 'worth', then you can buy or sell according to the market value. Beware of putting all your eggs in one basket. Look at what happened to Arthur Andersen, Lehman Brothers, Parmalat, Worldcom, Enron, etc." }, { "docid": "543589", "title": "", "text": "\"Your question contains a faulty assumption: During crashes and corrections the amount of sellers is of course higher than the amount of buyers, making it difficult to sell stocks. This simply isn't true. Every trade has two sides; thus, by definition, for every seller there is buyer and vice versa. Even if we broaden the definition of \"\"buyers\"\" and \"\"sellers\"\" to mean \"\"people willing to buy (or sell) at some price\"\", the assumption still isn't true. When a stock is falling it is generally not because potential buyers are exiting the market; it is because they are revising the prices they are willing to buy at downward. For example, say there are a bunch of orders to buy Frobnitz Consolidated (DUMB) at $5. Suppose DUMB announces a downward revision to its earnings guidance. Those people might not be willing to buy at $50 anymore, so they'll probably cancel their $50 buy orders. However, just because DUMB isn't worth as much as they thought it was, that doesn't mean it's completely worthless. So, those prospective buyers will likely enter new orders at some lower value, say, $45. With that, the value of DUMB has just dropped by $5, a 10% correction. However, there are still plenty of buyers, and you can still sell your DUMB holdings, if you're willing to take $45 for them. In other words, the value of a security is not determined by the relative numbers of buyers and sellers. It is determined by the prices those buyers and sellers are willing to pay to buy or accept to sell. Except for cases of massive IT disruptions, such as we saw in the \"\"flash crash\"\", there is always somebody willing to buy or sell at some price.\"" }, { "docid": "563798", "title": "", "text": "\"You got out in time, great, but how did you know when to get back in? The internet is littered with threads by people who got out (in advance, or during), then didn't get back in in time, because the recoveries didn't 'feel real'. Some people are still sitting out, just hoping against hope the market crashes - but it probably won't to those 2009 levels. I recommend looking at [Trinity Study](https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Safe_withdrawal_rates) results as a place to start getting a sense of portfolio longevity when totally out of the market. The reality is that all cash (which is basically a zero-duration bond) is a dangerous position, as is all stocks. A balanced portfolio gives you diversification, the only \"\"free lunch\"\" in investing. Better to not try and time your way in and out of the market, but rather glide within a range (Benjamin Graham recommends no more/less than 75/25, 25/75). If you want to skip the research headaches, stick with a 'total bond' or 'intermediate-term bond' fund (or Google around for 'lazy portfolios'). The real key is not to let emotions drive your decisions - it always 'feels different this time' until it isn't. Much better to set a target portfolio of stocks/bonds (rule of thumb: imagine you might lose half the stock portion in a downturn) then ride it out. That way you don't have to worry about being at one extreme or the other.\"" }, { "docid": "137073", "title": "", "text": "Trying to make money on something going down is inherently more complicated, risky and speculative than making money on it going up. Selling short allows for unlimited losses. Put options expire and have to be rebought if you want to keep playing that game. If you are that confident that the European market will completely crash (I'm not, but then again, I tend to be fairly contrarian) I'd recommend just sitting it out in cash (possibly something other than the Euro) and waiting until it gets so ridiculously cheap due to panic selling that it defies all common sense. For example, when companies that aren't completely falling apart are selling for less than book value and/or less than five times prior peak earnings that's a good sign. Another indicator is when you hear absolutely nothing other than doom-and-gloom and people swearing they'll never buy another stock as long as they live. Then buy at these depressed prices and when all the panic sellers realize that the world didn't end, it will go back up." }, { "docid": "509819", "title": "", "text": "I am a believer in stocks for the long term, I sat on the S&P right though the last crash, and am 15% below the high before the crash. For individual stocks, you need to look more closely, and often ask yourself about its valuation. The trick is to buy right and not be afraid to sell when the stock appears to be too high for the underlying fundamentals. Before the dotcom bubble I bought Motorola at $40. Sold some at $80, $100, and out at $120. Coworkers who bought in were laughing as it went to $160. But soon after, the high tech bubble burst, and my sales at $100 looked good in hindsight. The stock you are looking at - would you buy more at today's price? If not, it may be time to sell at least some of that position." }, { "docid": "485801", "title": "", "text": "&gt;What is your prediction for the next 12 months of the stock market? Not good. I'm not seeing any of the factors that contributed to what happened in 2008 change, which suggests, imho, that the market is still really unstable and prone to wild fluctuation and crashes. If you like risk perhaps that's okay, but for most investors it's a nightmare. Austerity seems to be winning out in government reaction to economic problems instead of stimulus, which is only going to shrink demand across the board. If you can find something for which there is a hungry consumer base willing and able to pay, maybe that's a good direction to go in, but those are more and more rare these days. I'm almost completely withdrawn from the market, save for my 'fun stocks', investments I've made not to make money but just to toy around with, and my Apple investments, which defy logic. And Netflix, which I support on principle. Last year was a good year for investing in healthcare, but I'm not sure how that's going to pan out this year." }, { "docid": "362250", "title": "", "text": "No, don't bother. You need to decide what you are saving for, and how much risk you are prepared to take. It would make sense if you wanted the money only in x years, and couldn't afford to lose say 20% or more if the stock market crashed the day before you needed the cash. Typically if you are about to retire and buy an annuity, you want to protect your capital. This isn't you. At 28, you might be saving for a wedding, a deposit on a house, possibly for school fees, or for eventual retirement. It doesn't sound like you need to get back exactly 24k in July 2022. Keep the 6 months expenses in accounts that you can withdraw from at short notice. Some of this in a current account, some might be in a savings account that doesn't pay interest if you make withdrawals. After that, I'd stick most of the rest in stock market tracker funds, but you might go for actively managed funds instead (ask another question and take professional advice, there will presumably be local tax considerations too), and add in most of your monthly savings too. These should beat the 2.3% over the 5 years, and you can liquidate them easily if you want to buy a house. If there is a recession and a stock market dip, you presumably have the flexibility to hold on to them longer for the economy to recover. And if you are intending to buy a house, then a recession will probably also involve a fall in house prices, so the loss in your savings will be somewhat balanced by the drop in the purchase price of your house. Of course, the worst case scenario is a severe downturn where you lose your job, are unemployed for a considerable period of time, burn through your emergency fund, and need to sell shares at a considerable loss to meet your expenses. You might have family or dependents that you can borrow from or would need to support, which would change your tolerance for risk. Having money locked away for 5 years in this scenario is even worse. So if you don't want to put all your non-emergency savings into the stock market, you still want to choose something that is accessible at a slightly lower interest rate. But ultimately it sounds like you can afford to lose some of your savings, and the probability is that you will be rewarded with much better returns than 2.3% over 5 years." }, { "docid": "348250", "title": "", "text": "Although it is impossible to predict the next stock market crash, what are some signs or measures that indicate the economy is unstable? These questions are really two sides of the same coin. As such, there's really no way to tell, at least not with any amount of accuracy that would allow you time the market. Instead, follow the advice of William Bernstein regarding long-term investments. I'm paraphrasing, but the gist is: Markets crash every so often. It's a fact of life. If you maintain financial and investment discipline, you can take advantage of the crashes by having sufficient funds to purchase when stocks are on sale. With a long-term investment horizon, crashes are actually a blessing since you're in prime position to profit from them." }, { "docid": "265330", "title": "", "text": "\"One wonders where the author thinks the monies for the generous Boomer pension payouts will come from? And of course they utterly ignore the fact that things like 401k's and IRA's *require* that a person begin divesting (at a progressive rate) after one hits age 70-1/2. Yes, post retirement fund sales (minus the taxes on the proceeds of course, which taxes are not to be ignored) these people COULD turn the entire remainder of those monies back around and then re-invest them back into the stock market as (non tax-deferred) retail stock purchasers ... but that is pretty unlikely to happen. In addition, the Boomers as a generation have become accustomed to a far higher lifestyle (newer cars, larger &amp; fancier homes, more vacations, etc) than the previous generation(s), and so -- just as with many other things where Boomers \"\"broke the mold\"\" -- relying the the data from those generations as an economic model of how much wealth retirees tend to \"\"cash in\"\" and how they spend (versus what they \"\"sit on\"\" and hoard for their heirs) may be rather foolish. (Somewhat akin to building an economic model on 20 years of data that proclaimed \"\"Americans don't default on their mortgages\"\"... yeah that turned out to NOT be very wise.) And then finally, I wonder if this author really comprehends the meaning of the phrase \"\"at the margin\"\"; after all *everyone* in a neighborhood doesn't have to default on their mortgage to drive house prices down, in fact all it takes is a lack of BUYERS and prices cannot be sustained. So, the problem with the Boomer \"\"en masse\"\" retirement is not JUST the possibility that they will \"\"all sell everything at the same time\"\"; but rather that the \"\"demographic bulge\"\" will at a certain tipping point, change from buyer-hoarders, to divester-sellers, and that inevitably WILL have a major affect on the float and thus the prices of stocks... and just as inevitably, at some stage of that change, herd behavior (even *panicked* herd behavior) will take over. It really doesn't take much to drive a stock down... nor even an entire stock market. (If the authors' wisdom were true, would we EVER have had any stock market crashes in the first place?)\"" }, { "docid": "219563", "title": "", "text": "I'm normally not a fan of partitioning investment money into buckets but your case may be the clearest case for it I've seen in awhile. Your income and saving is good and you have two clearly defined goals of retirement saving and saving for a house each with very different time frames ~30 years and 3-5 years respectively. For medium term money, like saving for a house, just building up cash is not actually a bad idea. This minimizes the chance that a market crash will happen at the same time you need to withdraw the money. However, given you have the means to take more risk a generally smarter scheme would be to invest much of the money in a broad liquid bond funds with a somewhat lower percentage in stocks and then reduce the amount of stock each year as you get closer even moving some into cash. This gives reasonable positive expected return while lowering the risk of having to sell during a crisis as the time to purchase gets shorter and shorter. The retirement money should be invested for the long term as usual. A majority in low-fee index stock funds/etfs is the standard advice for good reason." }, { "docid": "251715", "title": "", "text": "Market Capitalization is the product of the current share price (the last time someone sold a share of the stock, how much?) times the number of outstanding shares of stock, summed up over all of the stock categories. Assuming the efficient market hypothesis and a liquid market, this gives the current total value of the companies' assets (both tangible and intangible). Both the EMH and perfect liquidity may not hold at all times. Beyond those theoretical problems, in practice, someone trying to buy or sell the company at that price is going to be in for a surprise; the fact that someone wants to sell that many stocks, or buy that many stocks, will move the price of the company stock." }, { "docid": "485760", "title": "", "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.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "543589", "title": "", "text": "\"Your question contains a faulty assumption: During crashes and corrections the amount of sellers is of course higher than the amount of buyers, making it difficult to sell stocks. This simply isn't true. Every trade has two sides; thus, by definition, for every seller there is buyer and vice versa. Even if we broaden the definition of \"\"buyers\"\" and \"\"sellers\"\" to mean \"\"people willing to buy (or sell) at some price\"\", the assumption still isn't true. When a stock is falling it is generally not because potential buyers are exiting the market; it is because they are revising the prices they are willing to buy at downward. For example, say there are a bunch of orders to buy Frobnitz Consolidated (DUMB) at $5. Suppose DUMB announces a downward revision to its earnings guidance. Those people might not be willing to buy at $50 anymore, so they'll probably cancel their $50 buy orders. However, just because DUMB isn't worth as much as they thought it was, that doesn't mean it's completely worthless. So, those prospective buyers will likely enter new orders at some lower value, say, $45. With that, the value of DUMB has just dropped by $5, a 10% correction. However, there are still plenty of buyers, and you can still sell your DUMB holdings, if you're willing to take $45 for them. In other words, the value of a security is not determined by the relative numbers of buyers and sellers. It is determined by the prices those buyers and sellers are willing to pay to buy or accept to sell. Except for cases of massive IT disruptions, such as we saw in the \"\"flash crash\"\", there is always somebody willing to buy or sell at some price.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "466143", "title": "", "text": "Will there be a scenario in which I want to sell, but nobody wants to buy from me and I'm stuck at the brokerage website? Similarly, if nobody wants to sell their stocks, I will not be able to buy at all? You're thinking of this as a normal purchase, but that's not really how US stock markets operate. First, just because there are shares of stock purchased, it doesn't mean that there was real investor buyer and seller demand for that instrument (at that point in time). Markets have dedicated middlemen called Market Makers (NASDAQ) or Specialists (NYSE), who are responsible to make sure that there is always someone to buy or sell; this ensures that all instruments have sufficient liquidity. Market Makers and specialists may decide to lower their bid on a stock based on a high number of sellers, or raise their ask for a high number of buyers. During an investor rush to buy or sell an instrument (perhaps in response to a news release), it's possible for the Market Maker / specialist to accumulate or distribute a large number of shares, without end-investors like you or I being involved on both sides of the same transaction." }, { "docid": "400016", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "265330", "title": "", "text": "\"One wonders where the author thinks the monies for the generous Boomer pension payouts will come from? And of course they utterly ignore the fact that things like 401k's and IRA's *require* that a person begin divesting (at a progressive rate) after one hits age 70-1/2. Yes, post retirement fund sales (minus the taxes on the proceeds of course, which taxes are not to be ignored) these people COULD turn the entire remainder of those monies back around and then re-invest them back into the stock market as (non tax-deferred) retail stock purchasers ... but that is pretty unlikely to happen. In addition, the Boomers as a generation have become accustomed to a far higher lifestyle (newer cars, larger &amp; fancier homes, more vacations, etc) than the previous generation(s), and so -- just as with many other things where Boomers \"\"broke the mold\"\" -- relying the the data from those generations as an economic model of how much wealth retirees tend to \"\"cash in\"\" and how they spend (versus what they \"\"sit on\"\" and hoard for their heirs) may be rather foolish. (Somewhat akin to building an economic model on 20 years of data that proclaimed \"\"Americans don't default on their mortgages\"\"... yeah that turned out to NOT be very wise.) And then finally, I wonder if this author really comprehends the meaning of the phrase \"\"at the margin\"\"; after all *everyone* in a neighborhood doesn't have to default on their mortgage to drive house prices down, in fact all it takes is a lack of BUYERS and prices cannot be sustained. So, the problem with the Boomer \"\"en masse\"\" retirement is not JUST the possibility that they will \"\"all sell everything at the same time\"\"; but rather that the \"\"demographic bulge\"\" will at a certain tipping point, change from buyer-hoarders, to divester-sellers, and that inevitably WILL have a major affect on the float and thus the prices of stocks... and just as inevitably, at some stage of that change, herd behavior (even *panicked* herd behavior) will take over. It really doesn't take much to drive a stock down... nor even an entire stock market. (If the authors' wisdom were true, would we EVER have had any stock market crashes in the first place?)\"" }, { "docid": "190891", "title": "", "text": "\"The price of real estate reacts to both demand for property and the rate of inflation and rate of income growth. Mortgage rates generally move as treasury rates move. See this paragraph: As we mentioned, intermediate term bonds and long-term mortgages (more properly, Mortgage-Backed Securities, or MBS) compete for the same fixed-income investor dollar. Treasury issues are 100% guaranteed to be repaid, but mortgages are not; therefore mortgages carry more risk of default or early repayment, which could potentially disturb the return on the investment. Therefore, mortgage rates must be priced higher to compensate for that risk. But how much higher are mortgages priced? In a normal market, the average \"\"spread\"\" or markup above the 100% secured Treasury is about 170 basis points, or 1.7%. That markup -- the spread relationship -- widens and contracts with a range of market conditions, investor appetites and supply of available product -- as well as the presence of competing investment opportunities, like corporate bonds or domestic (or foreign) equity markets Source: What Moves Mortgage Rates? And when the stock market crashes, investors tend to run to bonds and treasuries, which causes prices to go up and treasury yields to drop. Theoretically, this would also cause mortgage rates to drop, although most mortgage rates have a base price below which they cannot fall. How easy is it to profit from recent stock market drops and at what frequency? Incredibly difficult. The issue with your strategy is that you cannot predict the bottom of the market (at least us mortals can't). Just take the month of August for example. Stocks fell something like 15%? After the first 5-10% drop, people felt that the bottom was there, so they rushed in, only to have the market fall even more. How will you know when to invest? Even if the market falls by 50%, and there's a huge buying opportunity, and you increase the mortgage on your house, odds are your rates will increase because of the equity you take out. What if the market stays low for a very long time? Will you be able to maintain mortgage payments? Japan's stock bubble popped in the early 90's, and they've had two lost decade's now. Furthermore, there are issues of liquidity. What if you need more capital? Can you just sell a property or can you buy now property to draw equity against? What if the market is moving too fast for you to take advantage of. Don't ignore transaction costs and taxes either. Overall, there are a lot of ways that your idea can go wrong, and not many ways it can go right.\"" }, { "docid": "47795", "title": "", "text": "The long term view you are referring to would be over 30 to 40 years (i.e. your working life). Yes in general you should be going for higher growth options when you are young. As you approach retirement you may change to a more balanced or capital guaranteed option. As the higher growth options will have a larger proportion of funds invested into higher growth assets like shares and property, they will be affected by market movements in these asset classes. So when there is a market crash like with the GFC in 2007/2008 and share prices drop by 40% to 50%, then this will have an effect on your superannuation returns for that year. I would say that if your fund was invested mainly in the Australian stock market over the last 7 years your returns would still be lower than what they were in mid-2007, due to the stock market falls in late 2007 and early 2008. This would mean that for the 7 year time frame your returns would be lower than a balanced or capital guaranteed fund where a majority of funds are invested in bonds and other fixed interest products. However, I would say that for the 5 and possibly the 10 year time frames the returns of the high growth options should have outperformed the balanced and capital guaranteed options. See examples below: First State Super AMP Super Both of these examples show that over a 5 year period or less the more aggressive or high growth options performed better than the more conservative options, and over the 7 year period for First State Super the high growth option performed similar to the more conservative option. Maybe you have been looking at funds with higher fees so in good times when the fund performs well the returns are reduced by excessive fees and when the fund performs badly in not so good time the performance is even worse as the fees are still excessive. Maybe look at industry type funds or retail funds that charge much smaller fees. Also, if a fund has relatively low returns during a period when the market is booming, maybe this is not a good fund to choose. Conversely, it the fund doesn't perform too badly when the market has just crashed, may be it is worth further investigating. You should always try to compare the performance to the market in general and other similar funds. Remember, super should be looked at over a 30 to 40 year time frame, and it is a good idea to get interested in how your fund is performing from an early age, instead of worrying about it only a few years before retirement." }, { "docid": "238024", "title": "", "text": "Just before a crash or at the start of the crash most of the smart money would have gotten out, the remaining technical traders would be out by the time the market has dropped 10 to 15%, and some of them would be shorting their positions by now. Most long-term buy and hold investors would stick to their guns and stay in for the long haul. Some will start to get nervous and have sleepless nights when the markets have fallen 30%+ and look to get out as well. Others stay in until they cannot stand it anymore. And some will stick it out throughout the downturn. So who are the buyers at this stage? Some are the so called bargain hunters that buy when the market has fallen over 30% (only to sell again when it falls another 20%), or maybe buy more (because they think they are dollar cost averaging and will make a packet when the price goes back up - if and when it does). Some are those with stops covering their short positions, whilst others may be fund managers and individuals looking to rebalance their portfolios. What you have to remember during both an uptrend and a downtrend the price does not move straight up or straight down. If we take the downtrend for instance, it will have lower lows and lower highs (that is the definition of a downtrend). See the chart below of the S&P 500 during the GFC falls. As you can see just before it really started falling in Jan 08 there was ample opportunity for the smart money and the technical traders to get out of the market as the price drops below the 200 MA and it fails to make a higher peak. As the price falls from Jan 08 to Mar 08 you suddenly start getting some movement upwards. This is the bargain hunters who come into the market thinking the price is a bargain compared to 3 months ago, so they start buying and pushing the price up somewhat for a couple of months before it starts falling again. The reason it falls again is because the people who wanted to sell at the start of the year missed the boat, so are taking the opportunity to sell now that the prices have increased a bit. So you get this battle between the buyers (bulls) and seller (bears), and of course the bears are winning during this downtrend. That is why you see more sharper falls between Aug to Oct 08, and it continues until the lows of Mar 09. In short it has got to do with the phycology of the markets and how people's emotions can make them buy and/or sell at the wrong times." }, { "docid": "563798", "title": "", "text": "\"You got out in time, great, but how did you know when to get back in? The internet is littered with threads by people who got out (in advance, or during), then didn't get back in in time, because the recoveries didn't 'feel real'. Some people are still sitting out, just hoping against hope the market crashes - but it probably won't to those 2009 levels. I recommend looking at [Trinity Study](https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Safe_withdrawal_rates) results as a place to start getting a sense of portfolio longevity when totally out of the market. The reality is that all cash (which is basically a zero-duration bond) is a dangerous position, as is all stocks. A balanced portfolio gives you diversification, the only \"\"free lunch\"\" in investing. Better to not try and time your way in and out of the market, but rather glide within a range (Benjamin Graham recommends no more/less than 75/25, 25/75). If you want to skip the research headaches, stick with a 'total bond' or 'intermediate-term bond' fund (or Google around for 'lazy portfolios'). The real key is not to let emotions drive your decisions - it always 'feels different this time' until it isn't. Much better to set a target portfolio of stocks/bonds (rule of thumb: imagine you might lose half the stock portion in a downturn) then ride it out. That way you don't have to worry about being at one extreme or the other.\"" }, { "docid": "501984", "title": "", "text": "To short a stock you actually borrow shares and sell them. The shorter gets the money from selling immediately, and pays interest for the share he borrows until he covers the short. The amount of interest varies depending on the stock. It's typically under 1% a year for large cap stocks, but can be 20% or more for small, illiquid, or heavily shorted stocks. In this scam only a few people own the shares that are lent to shorters, so they essentially have a monopoly and can set really high borrow costs. The shorter probably assumes that a pump-and-dump will crash quickly, so wouldn't mind paying a high borrow cost." }, { "docid": "554674", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "509819", "title": "", "text": "I am a believer in stocks for the long term, I sat on the S&P right though the last crash, and am 15% below the high before the crash. For individual stocks, you need to look more closely, and often ask yourself about its valuation. The trick is to buy right and not be afraid to sell when the stock appears to be too high for the underlying fundamentals. Before the dotcom bubble I bought Motorola at $40. Sold some at $80, $100, and out at $120. Coworkers who bought in were laughing as it went to $160. But soon after, the high tech bubble burst, and my sales at $100 looked good in hindsight. The stock you are looking at - would you buy more at today's price? If not, it may be time to sell at least some of that position." }, { "docid": "79777", "title": "", "text": "\"It's simply supply and demand. First, demand: If you're an importer trying to buy from overseas, you'll need foreign currency, maybe Euros. Or if you want to make a trip to Europe you'll need to buy Euros. Or if you're a speculator and think the USD will fall in value, you'll probably buy Euros. Unless there's someone willing to sell you Euros for dollars, you can't get any. There are millions of people trying to exchange currency all over the world. If more want to buy USD, than that demand will positively influence the price of the USD (as measured in Euros). If more people want to buy Euros, well, vice versa. There are so many of these transactions globally, and the number of people and the nature of these transactions change so continuously, that the prices (exchange rates) for these currencies fluctuate continuously and smoothly. Demand is also impacted by what people want to buy and how much they want to buy it. If people generally want to invest their savings in stocks instead of dollars, i.e., if lots of people are attempting to buy stocks (by exchanging their dollars for stock), then the demand for the dollar is lower and the demand for stocks is higher. When the stock market crashes, you'll often see a spike in the exchange rate for the dollar, because people are trying to exchange stocks for dollars (this represents a lot of demand for dollars). Then there's \"\"Supply:\"\" It may seem like there are a fixed number of bills out there, or that supply only changes when Bernanke prints money, but there's actually a lot more to it than that. If you're coming from Europe and want to buy some USD from the bank, well, how much USD does the bank \"\"have\"\" and what does it mean for them to have money? The bank gets money from depositors, or from lenders. If one person puts money in a deposit account, and then the bank borrows that money from the account and lends it to a home buyer in the form of a mortgage, the same dollar is being used by two people. The home buyer might use that money to hire a carpenter, and the carpenter might put the dollar back into a bank account, and the same dollar might get lent out again. In economics this is called the \"\"multiplier effect.\"\" The full supply of money being used ends up becoming harder to calculate with this kind of debt and re-lending. Since money is something used and needed for conducting of transactions, the number of transactions being conducted (sometimes on credit) affects the \"\"supply\"\" of money. Demand and supply blur a bit when you consider people who hoard cash. If I fear the stock market, I might keep all my money in dollars. This takes cash away from companies who could invest it, takes the cash out of the pool of money being used for transactions, and leaves it waiting under my mattress. You could think of my hoarding as a type of demand for currency, or you could think of it as a reduction in the supply of currency available to conduct transactions. The full picture can be a bit more complicated, if you look at every way currencies are used globally, with swaps and various exchange contracts and futures, but this gives the basic story of where prices come from, that they are not set by some price fixer but are driven by market forces. The bank just facilitates transactions. If the last price (exchange rate) is 1.2 Dollars per Euro, and the bank gets more requests to buy USD for Euros than Euros for USD, it adjusts the rate downwards until the buying pressure is even. If the USD gets more expensive, at some point fewer people will want to buy it (or want to buy products from the US that cost USD). The bank maintains a spread (like buy for 1.19 and sell for 1.21) so it can take a profit. You should think of currency like any other commodity, and consider purchases for currency as a form of barter. The value of currency is merely a convention, but it works. The currency is needed in transactions, so it maintains value in this global market of bartering goods/services and other currencies. As supply and demand for this and other commodities/goods/services fluctuate, so does the quantity of any particular currency necessary to conduct any of these transactions. A official \"\"basket of goods\"\" and the price of those goods is used to determine consumer price indexes / inflation etc. The official price of this particular basket of goods is not a fundamental driver of exchange rates on a day to day basis.\"" }, { "docid": "462135", "title": "", "text": "\"Because more people bought it than sold it. That's really all one can say. You look for news stories related to the event, but you don't really know that's what drove people to buy or sell. We're still trying to figure out the cause of the recent flash crash, for example. For the most part, I feel journalism trying to describe why the markets moved is destined to fail. It's very complicated. Stocks can fall on above average earnings reports, and rise on dismal annual reports. I've heard a suggestion before that people \"\"buy on the rumor, sell on the news\"\". Which is just this side of insider trading.\"" }, { "docid": "186184", "title": "", "text": "\"In general, I think you're conflating a lot of ideas. The stock market is not like a supermarket. With the exception of a direct issue, you're not buying your shares from the company or from the New York Stock Exchange you're buying from an owner of stock, Joe, Sally, a pension fund, a hedge fund, etc; it's not sitting on a shelf at the stock market. When you buy an Apple stock you don't own $10 of Apple, you own 1/5,480,000,000th of Apple because Apple has 5,480,000,000 shares outstanding. When a the board gets together to vote on and approve a dividend the approved dividend is then divided by 5.48 billion to determine how much each owner receives. The company doesn't pay dividends out to owners from a pot of money it received from new owners; it sold iPhones at a profit and is sending a portion of that profit to the owners of the company. \"\"When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets.\"\" The statement does have backing. It's backed by the US Judicial system. But there's a difference between owning a company and owning the assets of the company. You own 1/5,480,000,000 of the company and the company owns the company's assets. Nevermind how disruptive it would be if any shareholder could unilaterally decide to sell a company's buildings or other assets. This is not a ponzi scheme because when you buy or sell your Apple stock, it has no impact on Apple, you're simply transacting with another random shareholder (barring a share-repurchase or direct issue). Apple doesn't receive the proceeds of your private transaction, you do. As far as value goes, yes the stock market provides tons of value and is a staple of capitalism. The stock market provides an avenue of financing for companies. Rather than taking a loan, a company's board can choose to relinquish some control and take on additional owners who will share in the spoils of the enterprise. Additionally, the exchanges deliver value via an unbelievable level of liquidity. You don't have to go seek out Joe or Sally when you want to sell your Apple stock. You don't need to put your shares on Craigslist in the hope of finding a buyer. You don't have to negotiate a price with someone who knows you want to sell. You just place an order at an exchange and you're aligned with a buyer. Also understand that anything can move up or down in value without any money actually changing hands. Say you get your hands on a pair of shoes (or whatever), they're hot on the market, very rare and sought after. You think you can sell them for $1,000. On tonight's news it turns out that the leather is actually from humans and the CEO of the company is being indicted, the company is falling apart, etc. Your shoes just went from $1,000 to $0 with no money changing hands (or from $1,000 to $100,000 depending on how cynical you are).\"" }, { "docid": "10558", "title": "", "text": "\"At the most fundamental level, every market is comprised of buyers and selling trading securities. These buyers and sellers decide what and how to trade based on the probability of future events, as they see it. That's a simple statement, but an example demonstrates how complicated it can be. Picture a company that's about to announce earnings. Some investors/traders (from here on, \"\"agents\"\") will have purchased the company's stock a while ago, with the expectation that the company will have strong earnings and grow going forward. Other agents will have sold the stock short, bought put options, etc. with the expectation that the company won't do as well in the future. Still others may be unsure about the future of the company, but still expecting a lot of volatility around the earnings announcement, so they'll have bought/sold the stock, options, futures, etc. to take advantage of that volatility. All of these various predictions, expectations, etc. factor into what agents are bidding and asking for the stock, its associated derivatives, and other securities, which in turn determines its price (along with overall economic factors, like the sector's performance, interest rates, etc.) It can be very difficult to determine exactly how markets are factoring in information about an event, though. Take the example in your question. The article states that if market expectations of higher interest rates tightened credit conditions... In this case, lenders could expect higher interest rates in the future, so they may be less willing to lend money now because they expect to earn a higher interest rate in the future. You could also see this reflected in bond prices, because since interest rates are inversely related to bond prices, higher interest rates could decrease the value of bond portfolios. This could lead agents to sell bonds now in order to lock in their profits, while other agents could wait to buy bonds because they expect to be able to purchase bonds with a higher rate in the future. Furthermore, higher interest rates make taking out loans more expensive for individuals and businesses. This potential decline in investment could lead to decreased revenue/profits for businesses, which could in turn cause declines in the stock market. Agents expecting these declines could sell now in order to lock in their profits, buy derivatives to hedge against or ride out possible declines, etc. However, the current low interest rate environment makes it cheaper for businesses to obtain loans, which can in turn drive investment and lead to increases in the stock market. This is one criticism of the easy money/quantitative easing policies of the US Federal Reserve, i.e. the low interest rates are driving a bubble in the stock market. One quick example of how tricky this can be. The usual assumption is that positive economic news, e.g. low unemployment numbers, strong business/residential investment, etc. will lead to price increases in the stock market as more agents see growth in the future and buy accordingly. However, in the US, positive economic news has recently led to declines in the market because agents are worried that positive news will lead the Federal Reserve to taper/stop quantitative easing sooner rather than later, thus ending the low interest rate environment and possibly tampering growth. Summary: In short, markets incorporate information about an event because the buyers and sellers trade securities based on the likelihood of that event, its possible effects, and the behavior of other buyers and sellers as they react to the same information. Information may lead agents to buy and sell in multiple markets, e.g. equity and fixed-income, different types of derivatives, etc. which can in turn affect prices and yields throughout numerous markets.\"" }, { "docid": "201484", "title": "", "text": "Shit article that displays the author has no farming idea of how Warren Buffet operates. The man has metrics that tell him when shares are too expensive. When this happens, he doesn't buy, and dividends can tend to accumulate when you have almost $500 billion in assets (which could just be 2 years of 5% dividend yields). If they are expensive, he won't buy, and money will accumulate. When there is a crash, he buys on the cheap. That how you get 23% of Year-on-year gains for 40 years. The fact that he is not buying does indicate that the market is overvalued, which is consistent with the fact that there is still a substantial amount of QE. The question is: what will happen as the Fed winds it down. They are aiming for a small decrease or leveling out of the stock market. If that happens, and the market stagnates for a couple of years, maybe the metrics will catch up and he will buy again without a crash happening." }, { "docid": "419747", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "166597", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "480967", "title": "", "text": "\"Aganju has mentioned put options, which are one good possibility. I would suggest considering an even easier strategy: short selling. Technically you are borrowing the stock from someone and selling it. At some point you repurchase the stock to return to the lender (\"\"covering your short\"\"). If the stock price has fallen, then when you repurchase it, it will be cheaper and you keep the profit. Short selling sounds complicated but it's actually very easy--your broker takes care of all the details. Just go to your brokerage and click \"\"sell\"\" or \"\"sell short.\"\" You can use a market or limit order just like you were selling something you own. When it sells, you are done. The money gets credited to your account. At some point (after the price falls) you should repurchase it so you don't have a negative position any more, but your brokerage isn't going to hassle you for this unless you bought a lot and the stock price starts rising. There will be limits on how much you can short, depending on how much money is in your account. Some stocks (distressed and small stocks) may sometimes be hard to short, meaning your broker will charge you a kind of interest and/or may not be able to complete your transaction. You will need a margin account (a type of brokerage account) to either use options or short sell. They are easy to come by, though. Note that for a given amount of starting money in your account, puts can give you a much more dramatic gain if the stock price falls. But they can (and often do) expire worthless, causing you to lose all money you have spent on them. If you want to maximize how much you make, use puts. Otherwise I'd short sell. About IPOs, it depends on what you mean. If the IPO has just completed and you want to bet that the share price will fall, either puts or short selling will work. Before an IPO you can't short sell and I doubt you would be able to buy an option either. Foreign stocks? Depends on whether there is an ADR for them that trades on the domestic market and on the details of your brokerage account. Let me put it this way, if you can buy it, you can short sell it.\"" }, { "docid": "107688", "title": "", "text": "Since you mention the religion restriction, you should probably look into the stock market or funds investing in it. Owning stock basically means you own a part of a company and benefit from any increase in value the company may have (and 'loose' on decreases, provided you sell your stock) and you also earn dividends over the company's profit. If you do your research properly and buy into stable companies you shouldn't need to bother about temporary market movements or crashes (do pay attention to deterioration on the businesses you own though). When buying stocks you should be aiming for the very long run. As mentioned by Victor, do your research, I recommend you start it by looking into 'value stocks' should you choose that path." } ]

[ { "docid": "3095", "title": "", "text": "What is essential is that company you are selling is transparent enough. Because it will provide additional liquidity to market. When I decide to sell, I drop all volume once at a time. Liquidation price will be somewhat worse then usual. But being out of position will save you nerves for future thinking where to step in again. Cold head is best you can afford in such scenario. In very large crashes, there could be large liquidity holes. But if you are on upper side of sigmoid, you will be profiting from selling before that holes appear. Problem is, nobody could predict if market is on upper-fall, mid-fall or down-fall at any time." } ]

[ { "docid": "96228", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; the president has little to nothing to do with the stock market. Absolutely not! Nonsense! The president can easily kill the economy and cause a crash in the stock market in few day. The current improvement in the economy, employment, stock market, etc is directly because of Trump stance against the TPP, Immigration, over-regulation, etc. &gt; What I do is listen to the idiotic words that your leader says. He's your president! He's much smarter than Hillary who can't even handle debate questions unless she cheat with another fake-News, CNN. For God sake, never ever any candidate did such a thing and if my son cheated on a test like this, he would be expelled from school. In any case, Trump must be smart because he's very successful business person, and Hillary is just \"\"the wife of\"\". How can anyone vote for Hillary or Democrats in the last elections is beyond me. And for your information, I am a democrat who voted for Obama twice, for Al Gore (idiot!) and Kerry (a bigger idiot!). The DNC is totally corrupt, evil, untrustworthy and dysfunctioning. I hope that by next election they will fix the issues and have a descent candidate. Most likely not.\"" }, { "docid": "384857", "title": "", "text": "The common advice you mentioned is just a guideline and has little to do with how your portfolio would look like when you construct it. In order to diversify you would be using correlations and some common sense. Recall the recent global financial crisis, ones of the first to crash were AAA-rated CDO's, stocks and so on. Because correlation is a statistical measure this can work fine when the economy is stable, but it doesn't account for real-life interrelations, especially when population is affected. Once consumers are affected this spans to the entire economy so that sectors that previously seemed unrelated have now been tied together by the fall in demand or reduced ability to pay-off. I always find it funny how US advisers tell you to hold 80% of US stocks and bonds, while UK ones tell you to stick to the UK securities. The same happens all over the world, I would assume. The safest portfolio is a Global Market portfolio, obviously I wouldn't be getting, say, Somalian bonds (if such exist at all), but there are plenty of markets to choose from. A chance of all of them crashing simultaneously is significantly lower. Why don't people include derivatives in their portfolios? Could be because these are mainly short-term, while most of the portfolios are being held for a significant amount of time thus capital and money markets are the key components. Derivatives are used to hedge these portfolios. As for the currencies - by having foreign stocks and bonds you are already exposed to FX risk so you, again, could be using it as a hedging instrument." }, { "docid": "471870", "title": "", "text": "That's not why they crashed. They crashed because the only reason people were buying them is because they would go up in value and then they could sell them for profit later. Sounds exactly like Bitcoin in my opinion. The only difference is Bitcoin is useful in the sense that criminals can use it and not get in trouble. How many people do you know using Bitcoin as a currency? They aren't, they are only buying it to sell it for a profit later. That isn't sustainable. It isn't backed by a government or military and it is too volatile to actually use as a currency. When it crashes and criminals are the only ones using it, then what is it worth? Maybe $100 a coin? $10? Who knows, it sure as hell isn't $5,000 a coin though." }, { "docid": "405212", "title": "", "text": "\"In a comment you say, if the market crashes, doesn't \"\"regress to the mean\"\" mean that I should still expect 7% over the long run? That being the case, wouldn't I benefit from intentionally unbalancing my portfolio and going all in on equities? I can can still rebalance using new savings. No. Regress to the mean just tells you that the future rate is likely to average 7%. The past rate and the future rate are entirely unconnected. Consider a series: The running average is That running average is (slowly) regressing to the long term mean without ever a member of the series being above 7%. Real markets actually go farther than this though. Real value may be increasing by 7% per year, but prices may move differently. Then market prices may revert to the real value. This happened to the S&P 500 in 2000-2002. Then the market started climbing again in 2003. In your system, you would have bought into the falling markets of 2001 and 2002. And you would have missed the positive bond returns in those years. That's about a -25% annual shift in returns on that portion of your portfolio. Since that's a third of your portfolio, you'd have lost 8% more than with the balanced strategy each of those two years. Note that in that case, the market was in an over-valued bubble. The bubble spent three years popping and overshot the actual value. So 2003 was a good year for stocks. But the three year return was still -11%. In retrospect, investors should have gone all in on bonds before 2000 and switched back to stocks for 2003. But no one knew that in 2000. People in the know actually started backing off in 1998 rather than 2000 and missed out on the tail end of the bubble. The rebalancing strategy automatically helps with your regression to the mean. It sells expensive bonds and buys cheaper stocks on average. Occasionally it sells modest priced bonds and buys over-priced stocks. But rarely enough that it is a better strategy overall. Incidentally, I would consider a 33% share high for bonds. 30% is better. And that shouldn't increase as you age (less than 30% bonds may be practical when you are young enough). Once you get close to retirement (five to ten years), start converting some of your savings to cash equivalents. The cash equivalents are guaranteed not to lose value (but might not gain much). This gives you predictable returns for your immediate expenses. Once retired, try to keep about five years of expenses in cash equivalents. Then you don't have to worry about short term market fluctuations. Spend down your buffer until the market catches back up. It's true that bonds are less volatile than stocks, but they can still have bad years. A 70%/30% mix of stocks/bonds is safer than either alone and gives almost as good of a return as stocks alone. Adding more bonds actually increases your risk unless you carefully balance them with the right stocks. And if you're doing that, you don't need simplistic rules like a 70%/30% balance.\"" }, { "docid": "251715", "title": "", "text": "Market Capitalization is the product of the current share price (the last time someone sold a share of the stock, how much?) times the number of outstanding shares of stock, summed up over all of the stock categories. Assuming the efficient market hypothesis and a liquid market, this gives the current total value of the companies' assets (both tangible and intangible). Both the EMH and perfect liquidity may not hold at all times. Beyond those theoretical problems, in practice, someone trying to buy or sell the company at that price is going to be in for a surprise; the fact that someone wants to sell that many stocks, or buy that many stocks, will move the price of the company stock." }, { "docid": "79777", "title": "", "text": "\"It's simply supply and demand. First, demand: If you're an importer trying to buy from overseas, you'll need foreign currency, maybe Euros. Or if you want to make a trip to Europe you'll need to buy Euros. Or if you're a speculator and think the USD will fall in value, you'll probably buy Euros. Unless there's someone willing to sell you Euros for dollars, you can't get any. There are millions of people trying to exchange currency all over the world. If more want to buy USD, than that demand will positively influence the price of the USD (as measured in Euros). If more people want to buy Euros, well, vice versa. There are so many of these transactions globally, and the number of people and the nature of these transactions change so continuously, that the prices (exchange rates) for these currencies fluctuate continuously and smoothly. Demand is also impacted by what people want to buy and how much they want to buy it. If people generally want to invest their savings in stocks instead of dollars, i.e., if lots of people are attempting to buy stocks (by exchanging their dollars for stock), then the demand for the dollar is lower and the demand for stocks is higher. When the stock market crashes, you'll often see a spike in the exchange rate for the dollar, because people are trying to exchange stocks for dollars (this represents a lot of demand for dollars). Then there's \"\"Supply:\"\" It may seem like there are a fixed number of bills out there, or that supply only changes when Bernanke prints money, but there's actually a lot more to it than that. If you're coming from Europe and want to buy some USD from the bank, well, how much USD does the bank \"\"have\"\" and what does it mean for them to have money? The bank gets money from depositors, or from lenders. If one person puts money in a deposit account, and then the bank borrows that money from the account and lends it to a home buyer in the form of a mortgage, the same dollar is being used by two people. The home buyer might use that money to hire a carpenter, and the carpenter might put the dollar back into a bank account, and the same dollar might get lent out again. In economics this is called the \"\"multiplier effect.\"\" The full supply of money being used ends up becoming harder to calculate with this kind of debt and re-lending. Since money is something used and needed for conducting of transactions, the number of transactions being conducted (sometimes on credit) affects the \"\"supply\"\" of money. Demand and supply blur a bit when you consider people who hoard cash. If I fear the stock market, I might keep all my money in dollars. This takes cash away from companies who could invest it, takes the cash out of the pool of money being used for transactions, and leaves it waiting under my mattress. You could think of my hoarding as a type of demand for currency, or you could think of it as a reduction in the supply of currency available to conduct transactions. The full picture can be a bit more complicated, if you look at every way currencies are used globally, with swaps and various exchange contracts and futures, but this gives the basic story of where prices come from, that they are not set by some price fixer but are driven by market forces. The bank just facilitates transactions. If the last price (exchange rate) is 1.2 Dollars per Euro, and the bank gets more requests to buy USD for Euros than Euros for USD, it adjusts the rate downwards until the buying pressure is even. If the USD gets more expensive, at some point fewer people will want to buy it (or want to buy products from the US that cost USD). The bank maintains a spread (like buy for 1.19 and sell for 1.21) so it can take a profit. You should think of currency like any other commodity, and consider purchases for currency as a form of barter. The value of currency is merely a convention, but it works. The currency is needed in transactions, so it maintains value in this global market of bartering goods/services and other currencies. As supply and demand for this and other commodities/goods/services fluctuate, so does the quantity of any particular currency necessary to conduct any of these transactions. A official \"\"basket of goods\"\" and the price of those goods is used to determine consumer price indexes / inflation etc. The official price of this particular basket of goods is not a fundamental driver of exchange rates on a day to day basis.\"" }, { "docid": "462135", "title": "", "text": "\"Because more people bought it than sold it. That's really all one can say. You look for news stories related to the event, but you don't really know that's what drove people to buy or sell. We're still trying to figure out the cause of the recent flash crash, for example. For the most part, I feel journalism trying to describe why the markets moved is destined to fail. It's very complicated. Stocks can fall on above average earnings reports, and rise on dismal annual reports. I've heard a suggestion before that people \"\"buy on the rumor, sell on the news\"\". Which is just this side of insider trading.\"" }, { "docid": "449143", "title": "", "text": "This guy has been saying this for the last 6 years: &gt; 2011: 100% Chance of Crisis, Worse Than 2008: Jim Rogers 2012: Jim Rogers: It’s Going To Get Really “Bad After The Next Election” 2013: Jim Rogers Warns: “You Better Run for the Hills!” 2014: JIM ROGERS – Sell Everything &amp; Run For Your Lives 2015: Jim Rogers: “We’re Overdue” for a Stock Market Crash 2016: $68 TRILLION “BIBLICAL CRASH” Dead Ahead? Jim Rogers Issues a DIRE WARNING 2017: THE BOTTOM LINE: Legendary investor Jim Rogers expects the worst crash in our lifetime https://finance.yahoo.com/news/extreme-market-predictions-like-jim-rogers-provide-no-value-144747654.html He'll eventually be right. As they say, a broken clock is right two times a day." }, { "docid": "14989", "title": "", "text": "I know this is heresy but if you have funds for significantly more than 6 months of expenses (let's say 12 months), how risky would it be to put it all into stock index funds? Quite risky as if you do need to dip into it, how fast could you get the cash? Also, do you realize the tax implications when you do sell the shares should you have an emergency? In the worst-case scenario, let's say you have a financial emergency at the same time the stock market crashes and loses half its value. You could still liquidate the rest and have sufficient funds for 6 months. Am I underestimating the risks of this strategy? That's not worst case scenario though. Worst case scenario would be another 9/11 where the markets are closed for nearly a week and you need the money but can't get the funds converted to cash in the bank that you can use. This is in addition to the potential wait for a settlement in the case of using ETFs if you choose to go that way. In the case of money market funds, CDs and other near cash equivalents these can be accessed relatively easily which is part of the point. A staggered approach where some cash is kept in house, some in accounts that can easily accessed and some in other investments may make sense though the breakdown would differ depending on how much risk people are willing to take. If it truly is an emergency fund then the odds of needing it should be very slim, so why live with near zero return on that money? Something to consider is what is called an emergency here? For some people a sudden $1,000 bill to fix their car that just broke down is an emergency. For others, there could be emergency trips to visit family that may have gotten into accidents or gotten a diagnosis that they may pass away soon. Consider what do you want to call an emergency here as chances are you may not be considering all that people would think is an emergency. There is the question of what other sources of money do you have to cover should issues arise." }, { "docid": "542369", "title": "", "text": "\"P/E ratios for the whole market are rising to levels generally only seen after crashes in the market when low earnings push up the ratio. A lot of people in the market recognize the artificial effect of government easing and low interest rates have had on prices. Basically, there's more money sloshing around and there's nowhere else for it to go that earns a good return. I agree that outside of tech the rest of the economy is doing fairly well and will probably be resilient against any shock. But tech is a bigger part of the market than ever, and we could still see a big market correction and a small real world downturn on the back of it. &gt;There were people prior to 2008 sounding alarm bells about the real estate market. I haven't seen the equivalent today. You said it yourself: overvalued tech stocks that nobody can justify the high prices for. We have big IPOs on companies that don't actually make money. Huge market caps on \"\"disruptors\"\" that are only very niche parts of their industries (e.g. Tesla). Companies like Uber that still lose money but command huge valuations. Is that enough for a crash? Hell yes - that was what caused the 2001 dotcom crash and recession.\"" }, { "docid": "563798", "title": "", "text": "\"You got out in time, great, but how did you know when to get back in? The internet is littered with threads by people who got out (in advance, or during), then didn't get back in in time, because the recoveries didn't 'feel real'. Some people are still sitting out, just hoping against hope the market crashes - but it probably won't to those 2009 levels. I recommend looking at [Trinity Study](https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Safe_withdrawal_rates) results as a place to start getting a sense of portfolio longevity when totally out of the market. The reality is that all cash (which is basically a zero-duration bond) is a dangerous position, as is all stocks. A balanced portfolio gives you diversification, the only \"\"free lunch\"\" in investing. Better to not try and time your way in and out of the market, but rather glide within a range (Benjamin Graham recommends no more/less than 75/25, 25/75). If you want to skip the research headaches, stick with a 'total bond' or 'intermediate-term bond' fund (or Google around for 'lazy portfolios'). The real key is not to let emotions drive your decisions - it always 'feels different this time' until it isn't. Much better to set a target portfolio of stocks/bonds (rule of thumb: imagine you might lose half the stock portion in a downturn) then ride it out. That way you don't have to worry about being at one extreme or the other.\"" }, { "docid": "225522", "title": "", "text": "The biggest concern is how you get $250,000 in unsecured credit. It's unlikely that you will be loaned that amount at a percentage lower than what you expect to earn. Unsecured credit lines are rarely lower than 10% and usually approach 20%. On top of that, for a bank to approve you for that credit line, you have to have a high credit score and an income to support the payments on that credit line. But lets suspend disbelief and assume that you can get the money you want on loan. You would then be expected to pay back that 10%, but investments don't go up uniformly. Some years they go up 15-20% and other years they go down 10%. What do you do if you have to sell some of your investments in a down year? That money is no longer invested, and you can't recover it with the following up year because you had to take too much out to cover the loan payments. You'll be out of money long before the loan is repaid because you can expect there will be bad years in the stock market that will eat away at your investment. There were a lot of people who took their money out of the market after the crash of 2008. If they had left their money in through 2009, they would have made all that money back, but if you have a loan to pay you have to pull money out in the bad years as well as the good years. Unless you have a lucky streak of all good years, you're doomed." }, { "docid": "509819", "title": "", "text": "I am a believer in stocks for the long term, I sat on the S&P right though the last crash, and am 15% below the high before the crash. For individual stocks, you need to look more closely, and often ask yourself about its valuation. The trick is to buy right and not be afraid to sell when the stock appears to be too high for the underlying fundamentals. Before the dotcom bubble I bought Motorola at $40. Sold some at $80, $100, and out at $120. Coworkers who bought in were laughing as it went to $160. But soon after, the high tech bubble burst, and my sales at $100 looked good in hindsight. The stock you are looking at - would you buy more at today's price? If not, it may be time to sell at least some of that position." }, { "docid": "89947", "title": "", "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.\"" }, { "docid": "211447", "title": "", "text": "A falling $AUD would be beneficial to exporters, and thus overall good for the economy. If the economy improves and exporters start growing profits, that means they will start to employ more people and employment will increase - and with higher employment, employees will become more confident to make purchases, including purchasing property. I feel the falling $AUD will be beneficial for the economy and the housing market. However, what you should consider is that with an improving economy and a rising property market, it will only be a matter of time before interest rates start rising. With a lower $AUD the RBA will be more confident in starting to increase interest rates. And increasing interest rates will have a dampening effect on the housing market. You are looking to buy a property to live in - so how long do you intend to live in and hold the property? I would assume at least for the medium to long term. If this is your intention then why are you getting cold feet? What you should be concerned about is that you do not overstretch on your borrowings! Make sure you allow a buffer of 2% to 3% above current interest rates so that if rates do go up you can still afford the repayments. And if you get a fixed rate - then you should allow the buffer in case variable rates are higher when your fixed period is over. Regarding the doomsayers telling you that property prices are going to crash - well they were saying that in 2008, then again in 2010, then again in 2012. I don't know about you but I have seen no crash. Sure when interest rates have gone up property prices have levelled off and maybe gone down by 10% to 15% in some areas, but as soon as interest rates start falling again property prices start increasing again. It's all part of the property cycle. I actually find it is a better time to buy when interest rates are higher and you can negotiate a better bargain and lower price. Then when interest rates start falling you benefit from lower repayments and increasing property prices. The only way there will be a property crash in Australia is if there was a dramatic economic downturn and unemployment rates rose to 10% or higher. But with good economic conditions, an increasing population and low supplies of newly build housing in Australia, I see no dramatic crashes in the foreseeable future. Yes we may get periods of weakness when interest rates increase, with falls up to 15% in some areas, but no crash of 40% plus. As I said above, these periods of weakness actually provide opportunities to buy properties at a bit of a discount. EDIT In your comments you say you intend to buy with a monthly mortgage repayment of $2500 in place of your current monthly rent of $1800. That means your loan amount would be somewhere around $550k to $600K. You also mention you would be taking on a 5 year fixed rate, and look to sell in about 2 years time if you can break even (I assume that is break even on the price you bought at). In 2 years you would have paid $16,800 more on your mortgage than you would have in rent. So here are the facts: A better strategy:" }, { "docid": "235772", "title": "", "text": "Don't ever, ever, ever let someone else handle your money, unless you want somebody else have your money. Nobody can guarantee a return on stocks. That's utter bullshit. Stock go up and down according to market emotions. How can your guru predict the market's future emotions? Keep your head cool with stocks. Only buy when you are 'sure' you are not going to need the money in the next 10 years. Buy obligations before stocks, invest in 'defensive' stocks before investing in 'aggressive' stocks. Keep more money in obligations and defensive stock than in aggressive stocks. See how you can do by yourself. Before buying (or selling) anything, think about the risks, the market, the expert's opinion about this investment, etc. Set a target for selling (and adjust the target according to the performance of the stock). Before investing, try to learn about investing, really. I've made my mistakes, you'll make yours, let's hope they're not the same :)" }, { "docid": "263432", "title": "", "text": "However, is it a risk that they may withhold liquidity in a market panic crash to protect their own capital? Two cases exist here. One is if you access the direct market, then they cannot. Secondly if you are trading in the internal market created by them, yes they can do to save their behind, but that is open to question. They don't make money on your profit or loss, their money comes from you trading. So as long as you maintain the required margin in your accounts, you can go ahead. I had a mail exchange with IG Index regarding this and they categorically refuted on this point. Will their clients be unable to sell at a fair market price in a panic crash? No. Also, do CFD providers sometimes make an occasional downward spike to cream off their clients' cut-loss order? Need proof regarding this, not saying it cannot happen. They wouldn't antagonize the people bringing them business without any reason. They would be putting their money at risk. But you should know, their traders are also in the market. Which might look skimming your money, it would be their traders making money in the free market. After all Google, Facebook etc also sell your personal data for profit, why shouldn't the CFD firm also. Since they are market makers, what is to prevent them from attempting these tricks? Are these concerns also valid for forex brokers serving the retail public? What you consider as tricks are legitimate use of information to make money." }, { "docid": "166597", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "424511", "title": "", "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." } ]

[ { "docid": "6771", "title": "", "text": "Conceptually, yes, you need to worry about it. As a practical matter, it's less likely to be exercised until expiry or shortly prior. The way to think about paying a European option is: [Odds of paying out] = [odds that strike is in the money at expiry] Whereas the American option can be thought of as: [Odds of paying out] = [odds that strike price is in the money at expiry] + ( [odds that strike price is in the money prior to expiry] * [odds that other party will exercise early] ). This is just a heuristic, not a formal financial tool. But the point is that you need to consider the odds that it will go into the money early, for how long (maybe over multiple periods), and how likely the counterparty is to exercise early. Important considerations for whether they will exercise early are the strategy of the other side (long, straddle, quick turnaround), the length of time the option is in the money early, and the anticipated future movement. A quick buck strategy might exercise immediately before the stock turns around. But that could leave further gains on the table, so it's usually best to wait unless the expectation is that the stock will quickly reverse its movement. This sort of counter-market strategy is generally unlikely from someone who bought the option at a certain strike, and is equivalent to betting against their original purchase of the option. So most of these people will wait because they expect the possibility of a bigger payoff. A long strategy is usually in no hurry to exercise, and in fact they would prefer to wait until the end to hold the time value of the option (the choice to get out of the option, if it goes back to being unprofitable). So it usually makes little sense for these people to exercise early. The same goes for a straddle, if someone is buying an option for insurance or to economically exit a position. So you're really just concerned that people will exercise early and forgo the time value of the American option. That may include people who really want to close a position, take their money, and move on. In some cases, it may include people who have become overextended or need liquidity, so they close positions. But for the most part, it's less likely to happen until the expiration approaches because it leaves potential value on the table. The time value of an option dwindles at the end because the implicit option becomes less likely, especially if the option is fairly deep in the money (the implicit option is then fairly deep out of the money). So early exercise becomes more meaningful concern as the expiration approaches. Otherwise, it's usually less worrisome but more than a nonzero proposition." } ]

[ { "docid": "575662", "title": "", "text": "\"I can sell a PUT on it a bit out of the money, and I seemingly \"\"win\"\" either way: i.e. make money on selling the PUT, and either I get to pick up the stock cheaper if XYZ goes down, or the PUT expires worthless. In 2008, I see a bank stock (pick one) trading at $100. I buy that put from you, a $90 strike, and pay you $5 for the option. The bank blew up, and trades for a dollar. I then buy the $1 share and sell it to you for $90. You made $500 on the sale of the put, but lost $8900 when it went bad. You don't win either way, there is a chart you can construct (or a table) showing your profit or loss for every price of the underlying stock. When selling a put, you need to know what happens if the stock goes to zero since the odds of such an occurrence is non-trivial. A LEAP is already an option. With the new coding scheme for options, I'm not sure there's really any distinction between a LEAP and standard option, the LEAP just starts with a long-till-expiration time. There are no options on LEAPS that I am aware of, as they are options already.\"" }, { "docid": "275199", "title": "", "text": "I think George's answer explains fairly well why the brokerages don't allow this - it's not an exchange rule, it's just that the brokerage has to have the shares to lend, and normally those shares come from people's margin, which is impossible on a non-marginable stock. To address the question of what the alternatives are, on popular stocks like SIRI, a deep In-The-Money put is a fairly accurate emulation of an actual short interest. If you look at the options on SIRI you will see that a $3 (or higher) put has a delta of -$1, which is the same delta as an actual short share. You also don't have to worry about problems like margin calls when buying options. The only thing you have to worry about is the expiration date, which isn't generally a major issue if you're buying in-the-money options... unless you're very wrong about the direction of the stock, in which case you could lose everything, but that's always a risk with penny stocks no matter how you trade them. At least with a put option, the maximum amount you can lose is whatever you spent on the contract. With a short sale, a bull rush on the stock could potentially wipe out your entire margin. That's why, when betting on downward motion in a microcap or penny stock, I actually prefer to use options. Just be aware that option contracts can generally only move in increments of $0.05, and that your brokerage will probably impose a bid-ask spread of up to $0.10, so the share price has to move down at least 10 cents (or 10% on a roughly $1 stock like SIRI) for you to just break even; definitely don't attempt to use this as a day-trading tool and go for longer expirations if you can." }, { "docid": "480337", "title": "", "text": "\"So, if an out-of-the-money option (all time value) has a price P (say $3.00), and there are N days... The extrinsic value isn't solely determined by time value as your quote suggests. It's also based on volatility and demand. Here is a quote from http://www.tradingmarkets.com/options/trading-lessons/the-mystery-of-option-extrinsic-value-767484.html distinguishing between extrinsic time value and extrinsic non-time value: The time value of an option is entirely predictable. Time value premium declines at an accelerating rate, with most time decay occurring in the last one to two months before expiration. This occurs on a predictable curve. Intrinsic value is also predictable and easily followed. It is worth one point for every point the option is in the money. For example, a call with a strike of 30 has three points of intrinsic value when the current value of the underlying stock is $33 per share; and a 40 put has two points of intrinsic value when the underlying stock is worth $38. The third type of premium, extrinsic value, increases or decreases when the underlying stock changes and when the distance between current value of stock and strike of the option get closer together. As a symptom of volatility, extrinsic value may be greater for highly volatile underlying stock, and lower for less volatile stocks. Extrinsic value is the only classification of option premium that is unpredictable. The SPYs you point out probably had a volatility component affecting value. This portion is a factor of expectations or uncertainty. So an event expected to conclude prior to expiration, but of unknown outcome can cause theta to be higher than p/n. For example, a drug company is being sued and the outcome of a trial will determine whether that company pays out millions or not. The extrinsic will be higher than p/n prior to the outcome of the trial then drops after. Of course, the most common situation where this happens is earnings. After the announcement, it's not unusual to see a dramatic drop in the extrinsic portion of options. This is why sometimes a new option trader gets angry when buying calls prior to earnings. When 'surprise' good earnings are announced as hoped, the rise is stock price is largely offset by a fall in extrinsic value giving call holders little or no gain! As for the reverse situation where theta is lower than p/n would expect? Well you can actually have negative theta meaning the extrinsic portion rises over time. (this statement is a little confusing because theta is usually described as negative, but since you describe it as a positive number, negative here means the opposite of what you'd expect). This is a quote from \"\"Option Volatility & Pricing\"\". Keep in mind that they use 'positive' theta to mean the time value increases up over time: Is it ever possible for an option to have a positive theta such that if nothing changes the option will be worth more tomorrow than it is today? When futures options are subject to stock-type settlement, as they currently are in the United States, the carrying cost on a deeply in-the-money option, either a call or a put, can, under some circumstances, be greater than the volatility component. If this happens, and the option is European (no early exercise permitted), it will have a theoretical value less than parity (less than intrinsic value). As expiration approaches, the value of the option will slowly rise to parity. Hence, the option will have a positive theta. Sheldon Natenberg. Option Volatility & Pricing: Advanced Trading Strategies and Techniques (Kindle Locations 1521-1525). Kindle Edition.\"" }, { "docid": "95415", "title": "", "text": "\"You may look into covered calls. In short, selling the option instead of buying it ... playing the house. One can do this on the \"\"buying side\"\" too, e.g. let's say you like company XYZ. If you sell the put, and it goes up, you make money. If XYZ goes down by expiration, you still made the money on the put, and now own the stock - the one you like, at a lower price. Now, you can immediately sell calls on XYZ. If it doesn't go up, you make money. If it does goes up, you get called out, and you make even more money (probably selling the call a little above current price, or where it was \"\"put\"\" to you at). The greatest risk is very large declines, and so one needs to do some research on the company to see if they are decent -- e.g. have good earnings, not over-valued P/E, etc. For larger declines, one has to sell the call further out. Note there are now stocks that have weekly options as well as monthly options. You just have to calculate the rate of return you will get, realizing that underneath the first put, you need enough money available should the stock be \"\"put\"\" to you. An additional, associated strategy, is starting by selling the put at a higher than current market limit price. Then, over a couple days, generally lowering the limit, if it isn't reached in the stock's fluctuation. I.e. if the stock drops in the next few days, you might sell the put on a dip. Same deal if the stock finally is \"\"put\"\" to you. Then you can start by selling the call at a higher limit price, gradually bringing it down if you aren't successful -- i.e. the stock doesn't reach it on an upswing. My friend is highly successful with this strategy. Good luck\"" }, { "docid": "454892", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "492346", "title": "", "text": "\"This chart concerns an option contract, not a stock. The method of analysis is to assume that the price of an option contract is normally distributed around some mean which is presumably the current price of the underlying asset. As the date of expiration of the contract gets closer the variation around the mean in the possible end price for the contract will decrease. Undoubtedly the publisher has measured typical deviations from the mean as a function of time until expiration from historical data. Based on this data, the program that computes the probability has the following inputs: (1) the mean (current asset price) (2) the time until expiration (3) the expected standard deviation based on (2) With this information the probability distribution that you see is generated (the green hump). This is a \"\"normal\"\" or Gaussian distribution. For a normal distribution the probability of a particular event is equal to the area under the curve to the right of the value line (in the example above the value chosen is 122.49). This area can be computed with the formula: This formula is called the probability density for x, where x is the value (122.49 in the example above). Tau (T) is the reciprocal of the variance (which can be computed from the standard deviation). Mu (μ) is the mean. The main assumption such a calculation makes is that the price of the asset will not change between now and the time of expiration. Obviously that is not true in most cases because the prices of stocks and bonds constantly fluctuate. A secondary assumption is that the distribution of the option price around the mean will a normal (or Gaussian) distribution. This is obviously a crude assumption and common sense would suggest it is not the most accurate distribution. In fact, various studies have shown that the Burr Distribution is actually a more accurate model for the distribution of option contract prices.\"" }, { "docid": "112321", "title": "", "text": "\"Simple answer: Breakeven is when the security being traded reaches a price equal to the cost of the option plus the option's strike price, assuming you choose to exercise it. So for example, if you paid $1.00 for,say, a call option with a strike price of $19.00, breakeven would be when the security itself reaches $20.00. That being said, I can't imagine why you'd \"\"close out a position\"\" at the breakeven point. You wouldn't make or lose money doing that, so it wouldn't be rational. Now, as the option approaches expiration, you may make adjustments to the position to reflect shifts in momentum of the stock. So, if it looks as though the stock may not reach the option strike price, you could close out the position and take your lumps. But if the stock has momentum that will carry it past the strike price by expiration, you may choose to augment your position with additional contracts, although this would obviously mean the new contracts would be priced higher, which raises your dollar cost basis, and this may not make much sense. Another option in this scenario is that if the stock is going to surpass strike price, it might be a good opportunity to buy additional calls with either later expiration dates or with higher strike prices, depending on how much higher you speculate the stock will climb. I've managed to make some money doing this, buying options with strike prices just a dollar or two higher (or lower when playing puts), because the premiums were (in my opinion) underpriced to the potential peak of the stock by the expiration date. Sometimes the new options were actually slightly cheaper than my original positions, so my dollar cost basis overall dropped somewhat, improving my profit percentages.\"" }, { "docid": "526271", "title": "", "text": "Rather than rolling the 401(k) to a new employer's plan, you should roll it into a traditional IRA. You get more options for the money, there's no limit on how much you can roll over, and you have more control over the money. If you do a direct rollover, there's no taxes or penalties involved. I'd recommend against taking any money out of the 401(k). With the numbers you give above, it's like borrowing money at 31.5% interest, which is pretty high, and you're sacrificing your future retirement. If you leave that money alone to grow with compounding, you'll have a lot more when you retire. If you're not familiar with the concept of compound interest, it's worth reading up on - the numbers will blow you away. At the very least, if you desperately need to get $3000 out of it, take out just enough to net $3000 after taxes and penalties (not quite $4400 using the numbers you give) and do a rollover with the rest. At least that way, you're keeping more in the IRA (just over $8600, vs the $5000 in your proposed scenario). Overall, I really recommend you find a way to accomplish your goals without touching your retirement savings." }, { "docid": "138703", "title": "", "text": "This can be done, you can be prosecuted for some forms of it, in any case there are more riskless ways of doing what you suggested. First, buying call options from market makers results in market makers buying shares at the same delta as the call option. (100 SHARES X DELTA = How many shares MM's bought). You can time this with the volume and depth of the shares market to get a bigger resulting move caused by your options purchase to get bigger quote changes in your option. So on expiration day you can be trade near at the money options back and forth between being out the money and in the money. You would exit the position into liquidity at a profit. The risk here is that you can be sitting on a big options position, where the commissions costs get really big, but you can spread this out amongst several options contracts. Second, you can again take advantage of market maker inefficiencies by getting your primary position (whether in the share market or options market) placed, and then your other position being a very large buy order a few levels below the best bid. Many market makers and algorithms will jump in front of your, they think they are being smart, but it will raise the best bid and likely make a few higher prints for the mark, raising the price of your call option. And eventually remove your large buy order. Again, you exit into liquidity. This is called spoofing. There have been some regulatory actions against people in doing this in the last few years. As for consequences, you need to put things into perspective. US capital market regulators have the most nuanced regulations and enforcement actions of worldwide capital market regulators, and even then they get criticized for being unable or unwilling to curb these practices. With that perspective American laws are basically a blueprint on what to do in 100 other country's stock exchanges, where the legislature has never gotten around to defining the same laws, the securities regulator is even more underfunded and toothless, and the markets more inefficient. Not advice, just reality." }, { "docid": "477011", "title": "", "text": "When you can exercie your option depends on your trading style. In the american options trading style (the most popular) you're allowed to exercice your options and make profit (if any) whenever you want before the expiration date. Thus, the decision of exercising your option and make a profit out of it does not rely only on the asset price. The reason is, you already paid for the premium to get the option. So, if taken into account the underlying price AND your premium, your investment is profitable then you can exercice your contract anytime." }, { "docid": "234935", "title": "", "text": "I guess the opposite of being hedged is being unhedged. Typically, a hedge is an additional position that you would take on in order to mitigate the potential for losses on another position. I'll give an example: Say that I purchase 100 shares of stock XYZ at $10 per share because I believe its price will increase in the future. At that point, my full investment of $1000 is at risk, so the position is not hedged. If the price of XYZ decreases to $8, then I've lost $200. If the price of XYZ increases to $12, then I've gained $200; the profit/loss curve has a linear relationship to the future stock price. Suppose that I decide to hedge my XYZ position by purchasing a put option. I purchase a single option contract (corresponding to my 100 shares) with a strike price of $10 and an expiration date in January 2013 for a price of $0.50/share. This means that until the contract expires, I can always sell my XYZ shares for a minimum of $10. Therefore, if the price of XYZ decreases to $8, then I've only lost $50 (the price of the option contract), compared to the $200 that I would have lost if the position was unhedged. Likewise, however, if the price increases to $12, then I've only gained a net total of $150 due to the money I spent on the hedge. (the details of how much money you would actually lose in the hedged scenario are simplified out above; even out-of-the-money options retain some value before expiration, but pricing of options is outside of the scope of this post) So, as a more pointed answer to your question, I would say that the hedged/unhedged status of a position can be characterized by its potential for loss. If you don't have any other assets that will increase in value to offset losses on your position of interest, I would call it unhedged." }, { "docid": "132288", "title": "", "text": "I do this often and have never had a problem. My broker is TD Ameritrade and they sent several emails (and even called and left a message) the week of expiry to remind me I had in the money options that would be expiring soon. Their policy is to automatically exercise all options that are at least $.01 in the money. One email was vaguely worded, but it implied that they could liquidate other positions to raise money to exercise the options. I would have called to clarify but I had no intention of exercising and knew I would sell them before expiry. In general though, much like with margin calls, you should avoid being in the position where the broker needs to (or can do) anything with your account. As a quick aside: I can't think of a scenario where you wouldn't be able to sell your options, but you probably are aware of the huge spreads that exist for many illiquid options. You'll be able to sell them, but if you're desperate, you may have to sell at the bid price, which can be significantly (25%?) lower than the ask. I've found this to be common for options of even very liquid underlyings. So personally, I find myself adjusting my limit price quite often near expiry. If the quote is, say, 3.00-3.60, I'll try to sell with a limit of 3.40, and hope someone takes my offer. If the price is not moving up and nobody is biting, move down to 3.30, 3.20, etc. In general you should definitely talk to your broker, like others have suggested. You may be able to request that they sell the options and not attempt to exercise them at the expense of other positions you have." }, { "docid": "206756", "title": "", "text": "How would this trade behave IRL? I don't know how the simulation handles limit orders and bid/ask spreads to know it's feasible, but buying at 4.04 when the current ask is 8.00 seems unlikely. That would mean that all other sell orders between 8.00 and 4.04 were fulfilled, which means that there were very few sellers or that sell pressure spiked, both of which seem unlikely. In reality, it seems more likely that your order would have sat there until the ask dropped to $4.04 (if it ever did), and then you'd have to wait until the bid rose to $7.89 in order to sell them at that price. However, that kind of swing in option prices in not unrealistic. Options near at-the-money tend to move in price at about 50% of the change in the underlying, so if amazon suddenly dropped by $5, the option price could drop by $2.60 (from 6.66 to $4.04), and then rise back to $7.89 if the price rose $8 (which would be 1% swing and not unheard of intra-day). But it sounds like you got very lucky (or the simulation doesn't handle option trading realistically) - I've traded options in the past and have had some breaks similar to yours. I've also had bad breaks where I lost my entire investment (the options expire out-of-the money). So it should be a very limited part of your portfolio, and probably only used for risk management (e.g. buying put options to lock in some gains but keeping some upside potential)." }, { "docid": "420722", "title": "", "text": "\"Exercising an option early if you can't sell the underlying stock being purchased is generally not advisable. You're basically locking in the worst price you can possibly pay, plus you're losing the time value on your money (which is, admittedly fairly low right now, but still). Let's say you have a strike price of $50. I get that you believe the stock to be worth more than $50. Let's assume that that's probably, but not certainly right. Whether it's worth $51, $151, or $5,100 when your options are going to expire, you still get the profit of $1, $101, or $5,050 if you wait until expiration and exercise then. By exercising now, you're giving up two things: The interest on the money you pay to exercise from now until expiration. The guarantee that you can't lose anything. If you buy it now, you get all the upside above your strike, but have all the downside below it. If you buy it later (at expiration), you still have all the upside above your strike, but no downside - in the (assumed to be unlikely) event that it's worth less than the strike you can simply do nothing, instead of having something you bought at the strike that's worth less now and taking that loss. By exercising early, you take on that loss risk, and give up the interest (or \"\"carry\"\" on the money you spend to exercise) for no additional updside. It's possible that there are tax benefits, as other posters mention, but the odds that \"\"starting the clock\"\" for LTCG is worth as much as the \"\"optionality\"\", or loss protection, plus the \"\"carry\"\", or interest that you're giving up is fairly unlikely.\"" }, { "docid": "244448", "title": "", "text": "There's a key assumption made in the calculation of theta: that the future price movement of the underlying is a random walk. The amount of life left in the option times the volatility of the underlying creates a probability distribution of the price of the underlying at expiration. At any given price point, you can calculate the theta of the option. The at-the-money values are the most likely. The way-in-or-way-out-of-the-money values are much less likely. Theta is constructed mathematically to decay linearly over time. So the strikes with the most theta lose the most theta each day. If you are looking for a more intuitive answer, the OTM calls have less theta than the ATM calls because, while they are both 100% time value, the OTM calls cost much less. So it's 100% of a smaller number. Remember decay is linear." }, { "docid": "197863", "title": "", "text": "Focusing on options, many people and companies use them to mitigate risk(hedge) When used as a hedge the objective is not to win big, it is to create a more predictable outcome. Option traders win big by consistenly structuring trades with a high probability of success. In this way, they take 100 and turn it into 1000 with 100 small trades with a target profit of $10/trade. Although options are a 'zero sum' game, a general theory among options traders is the stock market only has a 54-56 probability of profit(PoP) - skewed from 50-50 win/loss because the market tends to go up over a long time frame. Using Option trading strategies strategically, you have more control over PoP and you can set yourself up to win whether the security goes up/down/sideways. A quick and dirty measure of PoP is an options' delta. If the delta on a call option is 19, there is roughly a 19% chance your option will be in the money at expiration - or a 19% chance of hitting a home run and multiplyimg your money. If the delta is 68, there is a 68% chance of a profitable trade or getting on base. There are more variables to this equation, but I hope this clearly explains the essence." }, { "docid": "41967", "title": "", "text": "For listed options in NYSE,CBOE, is it possible for an option holder to exercise an option even if it is not in the money? Abandonment of in-the-money options or the exercise of out-of-the-money options are referred as contrarian instructions. They are sometimes forbidden, e.g. see CME - Weekly & End-of-Month (EOM) Options on Standard & E-mini S&P 500 Futures (mirror): In addition to offering European-style alternatives (which by definition can only be exercised on expiration day), both the weekly and EOM options prohibit contrarian instructions (the abandonment of in-the-money options, or the exercise of out-of-the-money options). Thus, at expiration, all in-the-money options are automatically exercised, whereas all options not in-the-money are automatically abandoned." }, { "docid": "373585", "title": "", "text": "My understanding is that all ETF options are American style, meaning they can be exercised before expiration, and so you could do the staggered exercises as you described." }, { "docid": "340730", "title": "", "text": "When your options vest, you will have the option to buy your company's stock at a particular price (the strike price). A big part of the value of the option is the difference between the price that your company's stock is trading at, and the strike price of the option. If the price of the company stock in the market is lower than the strike price of the option, they are almost worthless. I say 'almost' because there is still the possibility that the stock price could go up before the options expire. If your company is big enough that their stock is not only listed on an exchange, but there is an active options market in your company's stock, you could get a feel for what they are worth by seeing what the market is willing to buy or sell similar exchange listed options. Once the options have vested, you now have the right to purchase your company's stock at the specified strike price until the options expire. When you use that right, you are exercising the option. You don't have to do that until you think it is worthwhile buying company stock at that price. If the company pays a dividend, it would probably be worth exercising the options sooner, (options don't receive a dividend). Ultimately you are buying your company's stock (albeit at a discount). You need to see if your company's stock is still a good investment. If you think your company has growth prospects, you might want to hold onto the stock. If you think you'd be better off putting your money elsewhere in the market, sell the stock you acquired at a discount and use the money to invest in something else. If there are any additional benefits to holding on to the stock for a period of time (e.g. selling part to fit within your capital gain allowance for that year) you should factor that into your investment decision, but it shouldn't force you to invest in, or remain invested in something you would otherwise view as too risky to invest in. A reminder of that fact is that some employees of Enron invested their entire retirement plans into Enron stock, so when Enron went bankrupt, these employees not only lost their job but their savings for retirement as well..." } ]

[ { "docid": "589970", "title": "", "text": "\"If you're really a part-time worker, then there are some simple considerations.... The remote working environment, choice of own hours, and non-guarantee of work availability point to your \"\"part-time\"\" situation being more like a consultancy, and that would normally double or triple the gross hourly rate. But if they're already offering or paying you a low hourly figure, they are unlikely to give you consultant rates.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "287694", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Sometimes that requires more time other times less. Oh bullshit. Once when I had little work I started doing few hours. After a couple weeks of this I was explicitly reprimanded and told to give 8 hours per day of butt-in-seat. I asked if my actual team leader had complained I wasn't working efficiently enough. Turns out he thought I was doing *just fine* for the workload he was giving me. Only as a salaried contractor working remotely did I end up being able to turn my ability to *get my shit done* into more free time." }, { "docid": "58937", "title": "", "text": "In general What does this mean? Assume 10 holidays and 2 weeks of vacation. So you will report to the office for 240 days (48 weeks * 5 days a week). If you are a w2 they will pay you for 260 days (52 weeks * 5 days a week). At $48 per hour you will be paid: 260*8*48 or $99,840. As a 1099 you will be paid 240*8*50 or 96,000. But you still have to cover insurance, the extra part of social security, and your retirement through an IRA. A rule of thumb I have seen with government contracting is that If the employee thinks that they make X,000 per year the company has to bill X/hour to pay for wages, benefits, overhead and profit. If the employee thinks they make x/hour the company has to bill at 2X/hour. When does a small spread make sense: The insurance is covered by another source, your spouse; or government/military retirement program. Still $2 per hour won't cover the 6.2% for social security. Let alone the other benefits. The IRS has a checklist to make sure that a 1099 is really a 1099, not just a way for the employer to shift the costs onto the individual." }, { "docid": "549759", "title": "", "text": "If you don't know how to fix your own car or have time to take car parts off of a car at a junk yard, the average amount of money per month you spend on repairing an old car will be greater than the amount of money you spend per month on a new car payment. This is because car repair shops are charging $85 per hour for labor for car repairs. Many parts that wear out on a car are difficult to replace because of their location on the engine. The classic example is piston rings." }, { "docid": "220794", "title": "", "text": "\"Look for jobs you can do PRN - pro re nada or \"\"as the need arises.\"\" Basically very part-time work, where you are free to decide whether or not you want to work given shift offered. It's pretty common in medicine and in education. If you want to work a whole week, you probably can! If you don't, they just call the next person on the list. Obviously you'll need some extra education, but I'm assuming that isn't a problem. Beyond that, as far as 'leisure' pursuits - try to write a book! Fiction, nonfiction, doesn't matter. You'll suck at that for long enough to take up a few years of your life :). You could get a pilot's license - also pretty time intensive, and could lead to some interesting part-time gigs as a charter pilot down the line. General kind of tour guide/leisure activity instructor work seems to be very rewarding. I'm active in my local motorcycling community, and I've never met an instructor who didn't love his job. MSF instructor is a 12 hour per week gig. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "547574", "title": "", "text": "Welcome to the real world. BTW, you have far too rosy a view of this if you think you're only paying 28.5% of your income in taxes. Remember that your employer theoretically pays half your FICA tax. But as far as they're concerned, that's part of the cost of having you as an employee. If FICA was abolished, supply and demand would quickly push salaries up by an amount equal to the FICA tax. So add another 7.65% to your taxes. Plus your employer has to pay unemployment tax (federal unemployment tax is $420 per employee per year, states vary) and workman's compensation tax (no idea how much that is) for the privilege of having you as an employee. You likely pay sales taxes on most everything you buy. I believe sales tax in Massachusetts is 6.25%. Assuming you pay that on only half of what you buy, add another 3% or so. Do you work for a corporation? Between when they sell the fruits of your labor and when they pay you, they have to pay corporate income tax. There are a lot of deductions so that gets complicated, but figure another few percent. Do you drive a car? You're paying gas tax -- 41.9 cents per gallon in MA. Do you smoke or drink alcohol? Extra taxes on those. Travel by plane or stay in a hotel? More special taxes. When you get around to buying a house, you'll pay property taxes on it every year, year after year. For me in Michigan that's another 3% of my income. I understand it's a lot more in Massachusetts. Etc, many other smaller taxes that add up." }, { "docid": "146023", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://reneweconomy.com.au/us-solar-plant-costs-fall-another-30-per-cent-just-one-year-49419/) reduced by 70%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System Cost Benchmark: Q1 2017 shows PV system prices falling roughly 30 per cent in only one year for utility-scale solar, to an average price of $1.03 per watt-DC for fixed-tilt systems and $1.11 per watt for systems with tracking. &gt; NREL has estimated that this translates to levelized costs of electricity from $50-66 per megawatt-hour for fixed tilt systems and $44-$61/MWh for tracking systems, excluding the effect of the U.S. federal Investment Tax Credit. &gt; NREL found that prices for commercial and industrial systems fell a still-impressive 15% over the last year to an average of $1.85 per watt-DC, while prices for residential systems fell only 6% to $2.80 per watt. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/717qx9/us_solar_plant_costs_fall_another_30_per_cent_in/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~213287 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*: **System**^#1 **price**^#2 **Cost**^#3 **solar**^#4 **U.S.**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "374200", "title": "", "text": "\"It isn't just Fox News. Even liberal leaning sources like the Washington Post, ABC and the Seattle Times are using titles like \"\"A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news for liberals\"\" and \"\"New study of Seattle's $15 minimum wage says it costs jobs\"\" Now here are some citations from the actual study (which you obviously didn't read or you wouldn't have made the asinine comment above) \"\"Importantly, the lost income associated with the hours reductions exceeds the gain associated with the net wage increase of 3.1%. Using data in Table 3, we compute that the average low-wage employee was paid $1,897 per month. The reduction in hours would cost the average employee $179 per month, while the wage increase would recoup only $54 of this loss, leaving a net loss of $125 per month (6.6%), which is sizable for a low-wage worker.\"\" \"\"Our preferred estimates suggest that the Seattle Minimum Wage Ordinance **caused hours worked by low-skilled workers (i.e., those earning under $19 per hour) to fall by 9.4%** during the three quarters when the minimum wage was $13 per hour, resulting in a loss of 3.5 million hours worked per calendar quarter. Alternative estimates show the number of low-wage jobs declined by 6.8%, which represents a loss of more than 5,000 jobs. These estimates are robust to cutoffs other than $19.45 **A 3.1% increase in wages in jobs that paid less than $19 coupled with a 9.4% loss in hours yields a labor demand elasticity of roughly -3.0**\"\" I understand if you won't respond. It is scary having your liberal narrative shattered.\"" }, { "docid": "188816", "title": "", "text": "I'll start with the bottom line. Below the line I'll address the specific issues. Becoming a US tax resident is a very serious decision, that has significant consequences for any non-American with >$0 in assets. When it involves cross-border business interests, it becomes even more significant. Especially if Switzerland is involved. The US has driven at least one iconic Swiss financial institution out of business for sheltering US tax residents from the IRS/FinCEN. So in a nutshell, you need to learn and be afraid of the following abbreviations: and many more. The best thing for you would be to find a good US tax adviser (there are several large US tax firms in the UK handling the US expats there, go to one of those) and get a proper assessment of all your risks and get a proper advice. You can get burnt really hard if you don't prepare and plan properly. Now here's that bottom line. Q) Will I have to submit the accounts for the Swiss Business even though Im not on the payroll - and the business makes hardly any profit each year. I can of course get our accounts each year - BUT - they will be in Swiss German! That's actually not a trivial question. Depending on the ownership structure and your legal status within the company, all the company's bank accounts may be reportable on FBAR (see link above). You may also be required to file form 5471. Q) Will I need to have this translated!? Is there any format/procedure to this!? Will it have to be translated by my Swiss accountants? - and if so - which parts of the documentation need to be translated!? All US forms are in English. If you're required to provide supporting documentation (during audit, or if the form instructions require it with filing) - you'll need to translate it, and have the translation certified. Depending on what you need, your accountant will guide you. I was told that if I sell the business (and property) after I aquire a greencard - that I will be liable to 15% tax of the profit I'd made. Q) Is this correct!? No. You will be liable to pay income tax. The rate of the tax depends on the kind of property and the period you held it for. It may be 15%, it may be 39%. Depends on a lot of factors. It may also be 0%, in some cases. I also understand that any tax paid (on selling) in Switzerland will be deducted from the 15%!? May be. May be not. What you're talking about is called Foreign Tax Credit. The rules for calculating the credit are not exactly trivial, and from my personal experience - you can most definitely end up being paying tax in both the US and Switzerland without the ability to utilize the credit in full. Again, talk to your tax adviser ahead of time to plan things in the most optimal way for you. I will effectively have ALL the paperwork for this - as we'll need to do the same in Switzerland. But again, it will be in Swiss German. Q) Would this be a problem if its presented in Swiss German!? Of course. If you need to present it (again, most likely only in case of audit), you'll have to have a translation. Translating stuff is not a problem, usually costs $5-$20 per page, depending on complexity. Unless a lot of money involved, I doubt you'll need to translate more than balance sheet/bank statement. I know this is a very unique set of questions, so if you can shed any light on the matter, it would be greatly appreciated. Not unique at all. You're not the first and not the last to emigrate to the US. However, you need to understand that the issue is very complex. Taxes are complex everywhere, but especially so in the US. I suggest you not do anything before talking to a US-licensed CPA/EA whose practice is to work with the EU/UK expats to the US or US expats to the UK/EU." }, { "docid": "59687", "title": "", "text": "\"For the person being hired this is a tricky situation. Specially with the new laws. There is no real magic number that can be applied as a lot will depend on what benefits you want, and what is actually available. This will really shift the spectrum quite a bit. Under the affordibal care act, everyone has to have insurance or pay a ?fine? (were really not sure what to call this yet) but there are two provisions that really mess with the numbers you look at as an employee. First, the cost of heath care has skyrocketed. So the same benefits that you had 5 years ago now cost maybe 10-15 times as much as they used to. This gets swept under the rug a bit because the \"\"main costs\"\" of insurance has only increased a tiny amount. What this actually comes down to is does your new ACA approved heath plan cover exactly the benefits you need, or does it cut corners. Sorry this is complicated, and I don't mean it to come off as a speech against the ACA so I will give an example. My wife has RA, she really has it under control with the help of her RA doctor. This is not something she ever wants to change. Because she has had RA from the age of 15, and because it's degenerative, she doesn't want to spend 5 years working with a new doctor to get to the same place she is with her current doctor. In addition, the main drugs she takes for RA are not covered under any ACA plan, nor are the \"\"substitutions\"\" that her doctor makes (we are trying to have kids so she has to be off the main meds, and a couple of the things this doctor has tried has been meds that reduce inflammation, are pregnancy safe, but are not for the treatment of RA) You now have to take into effect rather the cost of health insurance + the cost of the things now not covered by the heath insurance + the out of pocket expenses is worth the insurance. Second the ACA has set up provisions to straight up trick those people that have lower income and are not paying close attention. When shopping for insurance, they get quotes like \"\"$50 a month\"\" or \"\"$100 a month\"\". The truth is that the remainder of the actual cost is deducted from their tax returns. This takes consideration, because if you thing your paying $50 a month for insurance but your really paying $650 then you need to make sure your doing your math right. Finally, you need to understand how messed up things are right now in the US with heath care. Largely this goes unreported. I'm not really sure why. But in order to do this I will have to give examples. For my wife to see a specialist (her RA doctor) the co-pay is $75. So she goes to the doctor, he charges her $75 and bills the insurance $200. The insurance pays the doctor $50. With out insurance, the visit costs $50. At first you want to blame the doctor for cheating the system, but the doctor has to pay for hours of labor to get the $50 back from the insurance company. From the doctors perspective it's cheaper to take the $50 then it is to charge the insurance company. And by charging the insurance company he has no control over the cost of the co pay. He essentially has to charge more to make the same money and the patient gets the shaft in the process. Another example, I got strep throat last year. I went to the walk in clinic, paid $75, saw the doctor got my Z-Pack for $15, went home crawled in bed and got better. My wife (who still had separate insurance from before the marriage) got strep throat (imagen that) went to the same clinic, they charged her $200 for the visit ($50 co-pay) and $250 for the z-pack ($3 co-pay). The insurance paid the clinic $90 for the visit and $3 for the drugs. Again the patient is left out in this scenario. In this case it worked better for my wife, unless you account for the fact that to get that coverage she had to pay $650/month. My point is that when comparing costs of heathcare with insurance, and without out insurance, its often times much cheaper for the practices to have you self pay then it is for them to go through the loops of trying to insurance to make them whole. This creates two rates. Self pay rates and Insured rates. When your trying to figure out the cost of not having insurance then you need to use the self pay rates. These can be vastly different. So as an employee you need to figure out your cost of heath care with insurance, and your cost of heath care without insurance. Then user those numbers when your trying to negotiate a salary. The problem is that there is no magic number to use for this because the cost will very a lot. For us, it was cheaper to not have insurance. Even with a pre-existing condition that takes constant attention, it's just better if we set aside $500 a month then it is to try to pay $750 a month. That might not hold true for everyone. For some people or conditions it may be better to pay the $750 then to try to handle it themselves. So for my negotiations I would go with x+$6,000 without insurance or x+$4,500 with insurance. Now as an employer it's a lot simpler. Usually you have a \"\"group plan\"\" that offers you a pretty straight $x per year per person or $y per year per family. So you can offer exactly that. Salary - $x or Salary - $y. AS a starting point. However this is where negotiations start. If your offering me $50,500 and insurance, I would rather just have $57,000 and no insurance. Of course your real cost is only $55,000 cause you don't care about my heath care costs only about insurance costs. So you try to negotiate down towards $55,000 and no insurance. But that's not good enough for me. So I either go else where and you loose talent, or I accept $50,500 and insurance (or somewhere in between).\"" }, { "docid": "569224", "title": "", "text": "What most respondents are forgetting, is when a company allows its employees to purchase its shares at a discount with their salary, the employee is usually required to hold the stock for a number of years before they can sell them. The reason the company is allowing or promoting its employees to purchase its shares at a discount is to give the employees a sense of ownership of the company. Being a part owner in the company, the employee will want the company to succeed and will tend to be more productive. If employees were allowed to purchase the shares at a discount and sell them straight away, it would defeat this purpose. Your best option to decide whether or not to buy the shares is to work out if the investment is a good one as per any other investment you would undertake, i.e. determine how the company is currently performing and what its future prospects are likely to be. Regarding what percentage of pay to purchase the shares with, if you do decide to buy them, you need to work that out based on your current and future budgetary needs and your savings plan for the future." }, { "docid": "569145", "title": "", "text": "Depending on how much freelance work we're talking about you could set up a limited company, with you and your wife as directors. By invoicing all your work through the limited company (which could have many other benefits for you, an accountant/advisor would... well, advise...) it's the company earning the money, not you or her personally. You can then pay your wife up to £10,000 per year (as of writing this) without income tax kicking in. You would probably have to pay yourself a small amount to minimise exposure to HMRC's snooping, but possibly not... as far as I'm aware the rules do not state anything about working for free, for yourself - and I wouldn't worry about the ethics, you're already paying plenty into HMRC's bank account through your day job! Some good information here if you're interested: https://www.whitefieldtax.co.uk/web/psc-guide/pscguide-how-does-it-all-work-in-practice-salaries-and-dividends/" }, { "docid": "394768", "title": "", "text": "This is going to seem pretty far off the beaten path, but I hope when you finish reading it you'll see the point... Suppose someone offered you a part time job: Walk their dog once per day for at least 20 minutes, and once per week pick up the dog poo from their lawn. Your compensation is $300/month. Now suppose instead you are given two choices for a job: Your preference probably has more to do with your personality and interests than the finances involved." }, { "docid": "28254", "title": "", "text": "\"I did this 20 years ago. I wanted desperately to quit my job, but my wife wouldn't let me -- not because she thought it would fail, but just because she thought it would take longer than I thought. It took us 2 or 3 years to get to roughly half my previous salary as a software engineer. It's been my full time job for 15 years now. It's much better to not have enough time to finish X, Y, or Z on your startup than to have finished it and be waiting for someone to show up and pay. I agree with \"\"Don't quit your day job until you are very confident your startup can support you and is making money\"\". Validate your startup idea early. In the words of the Lean Startup movement, \"\"Fail Early\"\". This is absolutely critical. Starting a company requires extreme confidence. Succeeding requires extreme humility and a willingness to face your mistakes (because how else can you improve?). You've clearly got the confidence. Now you need to to be realistic and look at \"\"What could go wrong?\"\" and \"\"How will I know that this is working?\"\" There are some parts of a startup that require what I call \"\"Calendar Time\"\". It's just elapsed time for things like: You tweaked your landing page and you're A/B testing whether that improves things. And you wait for a week or two. You are waiting for a contractor to finish something on your website's Payment feature. Read The Lean Startup (and similar books) to get an idea of all the things you'll need to do. You'll need to:\"" }, { "docid": "492186", "title": "", "text": "An education. A new car. Houses are made bigger so that's not really fair. An article on here previously mentioned someone paying for a dependable car and a small apartment, along with school tuition working part time as a dishwasher. Tuition at my closest state school (in state cost) is just under $9k per year. If you could only work 20 hours per week, amortized the school loan, payed $250 a month for an apartment with a roommate, $100 a month for utilities, $150 a month for groceries (all very difficult to achive and be healthy), you would have to make $15.35 an hour after taxes to do it without debt. This is assuming you don't have a car." }, { "docid": "407218", "title": "", "text": "\"Lots of good answers here about budgeting and other ideas. Here's a couple more: Think about offense and defense. Offense is how much money you make. Are you making enough to survive on? Is there a way you could bring in more income? Defense is what you do with your money. Do you have expensive habits? Do you have problems with impulse spending? Do you live in an expensive area with a high cost-of-living? Think about some of these areas and pick one to attack first. If it is the defense side that is causing you problems (you did mention trying to live on less), consider reading Your Money or Your Life by Joe Dominguez and Vicki Robin. There's a really good summary of it on the authors' site. The basic idea of the mechanical part of the book is that you figure out how much you're truly making per hour, and then evaluate your expenses based on how many hours of your \"\"life energy\"\" you are using for that expense. Then you evaluate whether you think that's a fair trade or not. There's a lot more to it than that, but it's an interesting way to get a different perspective on your spending habits, and may be enough to entice you to change those habits.\"" }, { "docid": "290441", "title": "", "text": "\"Thank God you have your child back, it is so awesome that you finally found a medical treatment that worked. It must have been a truly trying time in your lives. That situation is an important template in personal finance. Through no fault of your own, a series of events occurred that caused you to spend far more money then you anticipated. Per your post this was complicated by lost income due to economic situations. What is to say that this does not happen again in the future? While we can all hope that our child does not get sick, there are other events that could also fit into this template. Because of this I hate all options you present. Per your post, you are pretty thin with free cash flow and have high income, and yet you are looking to borrow more. That is a recipe for disaster with it being made worse as you are considering putting your home at risk. The 20K per year per kid sounds like a live at the university state school; or, a close by private school. Your finances do not support either option. There are times when the word \"\"No\"\" is in order when answering questions. Doing a live at home community college to university will cost you a total of about 30K per kid rather than the 80K you are proposing. Doing this alone will greatly reduce the risk you are attempting to assume. Doing that and having your child work some, you could cash flow college. That is what I would recommend. Given that you are so thin, you will also have to put constraints on college attendance. No changing major three times, only majors with an employable skills, and studying before partying. It may be worth it to wait a year of two before attending if a decision cannot be made. I was in a similar situation when my son started college. High income, but broke. He worked and went to a community college and was able to pay for the bulk of it himself. From there he obtained a job with a healthy salary and completed his degree at the University. It took him a little longer, but he is debt free and has a fantastic work ethic.\"" }, { "docid": "526383", "title": "", "text": "First off, great job on your finances so far. You are off on the right foot and have some sense of planning for the future. Also, it is a great question. First, I agree with @littleadv. Take advantage of your employer match. Do not drop your 401(k) contributions below that. Also, good job on putting your contributions into the Roth account. Second, I would ask: Are you out of debt? If not, put all your extra income towards paying off debt, and then you can work your plan. Third, time to do some math. What will your business look like? How much capital would you need to get started? Are there things you can do now on a part-time basis to start this business or prepare you to start the business? Come up with a figure, find some mutual funds that have a low beta, and back out how much money you need to save per month, so you have around that total. Then you have a figure. e.g. Assume you need $20,000, and you find a fund that has done 8% over the past 20 years. Then, you would need to save about $110/month to be ready to go in 10 years, or $273/month to go in about 5 years. (It's a time value of money calculation.) The house is really a long way off, but you could do the same kind of calculation. I feel that you think your income, and possibly locale, will change dramatically over the next few years. It might not be bad to double what you are saving for the business, and designate one half for the house." }, { "docid": "317260", "title": "", "text": "10 years into my career. Here are my notes: 1. Don't work overtime as a salaried employee. If there's more work than people then management needs to hire more people. Sure, there are times when shit hits the fan and there's no other option, but that should be a 'once every two years' event, not a 'once every week' event. 2. Be a rockstar. If you're spending time 'looking busy' because you finished a 3 hour job in 1 hour ship the results to your manager and ask for more. Those results will be noticed and will move you from entry-level to mid-level to senior. 3. Skills pay the bills. Always work on learning new things to bring value to your employer. This is also required to move up the chain in your career, and leads into my #4. 4. Get paid what you're worth. Maintain an understanding of what similar skillsets are paying in your area and either maintain or exceed that. Your employer has an incentive to pay you as little as possible. Show them comparable salaries for the same position paying more and make them match it. If they won't match it find someone who will. 5. Don't correct your boss/salesperson when they are presenting to management/customers. Instead, let them know after the meeting. Your #2 points (both of them) are something that I struggled with when I was new in my career. It was incredibly frustrating to *know* something, but not have anyone listen due to the fact that I was a 'kid'. Unfortunately it's a part of life. If you can do #2 and #3 on my list for a couple of years people will start listening. It's a great feeling being a 24 year old kid in a room full of my boss's bosses, and my boss's boss's bosses and having them listen and consider my opinion, but it's not something that's given to everyone. You need to earn it." }, { "docid": "417728", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Okay but still three people at $12/hr is $16 more per hour than one person at $20/hr. You forgot the times 3 part. &gt;I still don't see how u/NEVERDOUBTED asserts that the three at $12/hr cost less. Cause they are wrong, but too hard headed to see that." } ]

[ { "docid": "263481", "title": "", "text": "Rule of thumb: Double your hourly rate to get a yearly salary (in thousands). Halve your yearly salary to get your hourly rate. (assuming a 40hr/week job). eg: $50k/year = $25/hr." } ]

[ { "docid": "559641", "title": "", "text": "&gt; Contingencies such as losing your job, being unemployed, or working for lower salary are excluded of course. Why? Lower education increases your likelihood of being unemployed for a prolonged period. Even during this Great Recession, [the unemployment rate for those with a bachelor's degree and older than 25 never exceeded 5%.](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4jIlyJ10uJU/TP1rTP2Me3I/AAAAAAAAKp0/JbKB1WQWVLE/s1600/UnemploymentEducationSept2010.jpg) Edit: &gt; 90% of the people will not reach 300-400K more in their lifetime. The difference of the median of those with a bachelor's compared to those with high school diploma in [2009 was 15K per year](http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=77) for full-time, full-year wage and salary workers ages 25–34. At 15K per year for the 40+ years of work from 22 or so to 65, it will be 600K. But the gap will widen as the employees age. Professionals will have career advancement with resulting increase is salary. For all ages, [the difference between median salary for a bachelor's degree holder compare to high school diploma is 19.5K \\($46,930 compared to $27,380\\)](http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_392.asp)" }, { "docid": "69042", "title": "", "text": "From a long-term planning point of view, is the bump in salary worth not having a 401(k)? In this case, absolutely. At $30k/year, the 4% company match comes to about $1,200 per year. To get that you need to save $1,200 yourself, so your gross pay after retirement contributions is about $28,800. Now you have an offer making $48,000. If you take the new job, you can put $2,400 in retirement (to get to an equivalent retirement rate), and now your gross pay after retirement contributions is $45,600. Now if the raise in salary were not as high, or you were getting a match that let you exceed the individual contribution max, the math might be different, but in this case you can effectively save the company match yourself and still be way ahead. Note that there are MANY other factors that may also be applicable as to whether to take this job or not (do you like the work? The company? The coworkers? The location? Is there upward mobility? Are the benefits equivalent?) but not taking a 67% raise just because you're losing a 4% 401(k) match is not a wise decision." }, { "docid": "347072", "title": "", "text": "\"Assuming you've got no significant prepayment penalty, I would think about getting a longer mortgage, but making payments like it was a shorter mortgage. This will get the mortgage paid off in a shorter time period - but if you run into financial difficulties and/or find a better use for your money, you can drop back to paying the minimum necessary to retire the loan in 30 years without needing to refinance. (If you need to reduce your payments because you're between jobs, you don't have a very good negotiating position). For the most part, there's nothing that says you can only make one payment per month, or that it must be in the amount printed on the statement. If you want to, you can make payments weekly (or biweekly, or every 4 weeks) which typically means that you'll pay more every year. If your mortgage payments are $1000/month, that's $12,000 per year. If you tell yourself that 1000/month = $250 weekly and make yourself send a payment every week (or 500 every 2 weeks), you'll end up paying 250 * 52 = $13,000 per year, without particularly feeling the difference, especially if you get paid on a weekly/biweekly schedule instead of monthly or semi-monthly. Also, by paying more often, you're borrowing a tiny bit less money over the course of the year (because the money didn't sit in your account waiting until the 1st of the month to make a payment) so you save a little in interest there, too. Think of \"\"30 years\"\" or \"\"10 years\"\" as the basis for a minimum payment schedule, not necessarily the length of time that you or the lender really intend to keep the loan.\"" }, { "docid": "59687", "title": "", "text": "\"For the person being hired this is a tricky situation. Specially with the new laws. There is no real magic number that can be applied as a lot will depend on what benefits you want, and what is actually available. This will really shift the spectrum quite a bit. Under the affordibal care act, everyone has to have insurance or pay a ?fine? (were really not sure what to call this yet) but there are two provisions that really mess with the numbers you look at as an employee. First, the cost of heath care has skyrocketed. So the same benefits that you had 5 years ago now cost maybe 10-15 times as much as they used to. This gets swept under the rug a bit because the \"\"main costs\"\" of insurance has only increased a tiny amount. What this actually comes down to is does your new ACA approved heath plan cover exactly the benefits you need, or does it cut corners. Sorry this is complicated, and I don't mean it to come off as a speech against the ACA so I will give an example. My wife has RA, she really has it under control with the help of her RA doctor. This is not something she ever wants to change. Because she has had RA from the age of 15, and because it's degenerative, she doesn't want to spend 5 years working with a new doctor to get to the same place she is with her current doctor. In addition, the main drugs she takes for RA are not covered under any ACA plan, nor are the \"\"substitutions\"\" that her doctor makes (we are trying to have kids so she has to be off the main meds, and a couple of the things this doctor has tried has been meds that reduce inflammation, are pregnancy safe, but are not for the treatment of RA) You now have to take into effect rather the cost of health insurance + the cost of the things now not covered by the heath insurance + the out of pocket expenses is worth the insurance. Second the ACA has set up provisions to straight up trick those people that have lower income and are not paying close attention. When shopping for insurance, they get quotes like \"\"$50 a month\"\" or \"\"$100 a month\"\". The truth is that the remainder of the actual cost is deducted from their tax returns. This takes consideration, because if you thing your paying $50 a month for insurance but your really paying $650 then you need to make sure your doing your math right. Finally, you need to understand how messed up things are right now in the US with heath care. Largely this goes unreported. I'm not really sure why. But in order to do this I will have to give examples. For my wife to see a specialist (her RA doctor) the co-pay is $75. So she goes to the doctor, he charges her $75 and bills the insurance $200. The insurance pays the doctor $50. With out insurance, the visit costs $50. At first you want to blame the doctor for cheating the system, but the doctor has to pay for hours of labor to get the $50 back from the insurance company. From the doctors perspective it's cheaper to take the $50 then it is to charge the insurance company. And by charging the insurance company he has no control over the cost of the co pay. He essentially has to charge more to make the same money and the patient gets the shaft in the process. Another example, I got strep throat last year. I went to the walk in clinic, paid $75, saw the doctor got my Z-Pack for $15, went home crawled in bed and got better. My wife (who still had separate insurance from before the marriage) got strep throat (imagen that) went to the same clinic, they charged her $200 for the visit ($50 co-pay) and $250 for the z-pack ($3 co-pay). The insurance paid the clinic $90 for the visit and $3 for the drugs. Again the patient is left out in this scenario. In this case it worked better for my wife, unless you account for the fact that to get that coverage she had to pay $650/month. My point is that when comparing costs of heathcare with insurance, and without out insurance, its often times much cheaper for the practices to have you self pay then it is for them to go through the loops of trying to insurance to make them whole. This creates two rates. Self pay rates and Insured rates. When your trying to figure out the cost of not having insurance then you need to use the self pay rates. These can be vastly different. So as an employee you need to figure out your cost of heath care with insurance, and your cost of heath care without insurance. Then user those numbers when your trying to negotiate a salary. The problem is that there is no magic number to use for this because the cost will very a lot. For us, it was cheaper to not have insurance. Even with a pre-existing condition that takes constant attention, it's just better if we set aside $500 a month then it is to try to pay $750 a month. That might not hold true for everyone. For some people or conditions it may be better to pay the $750 then to try to handle it themselves. So for my negotiations I would go with x+$6,000 without insurance or x+$4,500 with insurance. Now as an employer it's a lot simpler. Usually you have a \"\"group plan\"\" that offers you a pretty straight $x per year per person or $y per year per family. So you can offer exactly that. Salary - $x or Salary - $y. AS a starting point. However this is where negotiations start. If your offering me $50,500 and insurance, I would rather just have $57,000 and no insurance. Of course your real cost is only $55,000 cause you don't care about my heath care costs only about insurance costs. So you try to negotiate down towards $55,000 and no insurance. But that's not good enough for me. So I either go else where and you loose talent, or I accept $50,500 and insurance (or somewhere in between).\"" }, { "docid": "407218", "title": "", "text": "\"Lots of good answers here about budgeting and other ideas. Here's a couple more: Think about offense and defense. Offense is how much money you make. Are you making enough to survive on? Is there a way you could bring in more income? Defense is what you do with your money. Do you have expensive habits? Do you have problems with impulse spending? Do you live in an expensive area with a high cost-of-living? Think about some of these areas and pick one to attack first. If it is the defense side that is causing you problems (you did mention trying to live on less), consider reading Your Money or Your Life by Joe Dominguez and Vicki Robin. There's a really good summary of it on the authors' site. The basic idea of the mechanical part of the book is that you figure out how much you're truly making per hour, and then evaluate your expenses based on how many hours of your \"\"life energy\"\" you are using for that expense. Then you evaluate whether you think that's a fair trade or not. There's a lot more to it than that, but it's an interesting way to get a different perspective on your spending habits, and may be enough to entice you to change those habits.\"" }, { "docid": "317260", "title": "", "text": "10 years into my career. Here are my notes: 1. Don't work overtime as a salaried employee. If there's more work than people then management needs to hire more people. Sure, there are times when shit hits the fan and there's no other option, but that should be a 'once every two years' event, not a 'once every week' event. 2. Be a rockstar. If you're spending time 'looking busy' because you finished a 3 hour job in 1 hour ship the results to your manager and ask for more. Those results will be noticed and will move you from entry-level to mid-level to senior. 3. Skills pay the bills. Always work on learning new things to bring value to your employer. This is also required to move up the chain in your career, and leads into my #4. 4. Get paid what you're worth. Maintain an understanding of what similar skillsets are paying in your area and either maintain or exceed that. Your employer has an incentive to pay you as little as possible. Show them comparable salaries for the same position paying more and make them match it. If they won't match it find someone who will. 5. Don't correct your boss/salesperson when they are presenting to management/customers. Instead, let them know after the meeting. Your #2 points (both of them) are something that I struggled with when I was new in my career. It was incredibly frustrating to *know* something, but not have anyone listen due to the fact that I was a 'kid'. Unfortunately it's a part of life. If you can do #2 and #3 on my list for a couple of years people will start listening. It's a great feeling being a 24 year old kid in a room full of my boss's bosses, and my boss's boss's bosses and having them listen and consider my opinion, but it's not something that's given to everyone. You need to earn it." }, { "docid": "592780", "title": "", "text": "How realistic is it that I will be able to get a home within the 250,000 range in the next year or so? Very unlikely in the next year. The debt/income ratio isn't good enough, and your credit score needs to show at least a year of regular payments without late or default issues before you can start asking for mortgages in this range. You don't mention how long you've been employed at these incomes, this can also count against you if you haven't both been employed for a full year at these incomes. They will look even more unfavorably on the employment situation if they aren't both full time jobs, although if you have a full year's worth of paychecks showing the income is regular then that might mitigate the full time/part time issue. next year or so? If you pay down your high interest debt (car, credit cards), and maintain employment (keep your check stubs and tax returns, the loan officer will want copies), then there's a slight chance. And, from this quick snap shot of our finances, does it look like we would be able to qualify for a USDA loan? Probably not. Mostly for the same reasons - the only time a USDA loan helps is when you would be able to get a regular loan if you had the down payment. Even with an available down payment of 50k, you wouldn't be able to get a regular loan, therefore it's unlikely that you'd qualify for a USDA loan. If you are anxious to get into a house, choose something much smaller, in the 100k-150k range. It would improve your debt/loan ratio enough that you might then qualify for a USDA loan. However, I think you'd still have issues if you haven't both been employed at this rate of income for at least a year, and have made regular payments on all your debts for at least a year. I'll echo what others have suggested, though, strengthen your credit, eliminate as much of your high interest debt as you can (car, credit cards), and keep your jobs for a year or two. Start a savings plan so you can contribute a small down payment - at least 3-5% of the desired home price - when you are in a better position to buy. During this time keep track of your paycheck stubs, you may need them to prove income over the time period your loan officer will request. Note that even with a USDA loan you still have to pay closing costs, and those can run several thousand dollars, so don't expect to be able to come to the table with no cash. Lastly, there's good reason to be very conservative regarding house cost and size. If you can, consider buying the house as if you only had the 46k per year. Move the debt to the person making the lower income, and if you buy the house in the name of the person only making 46k per year, then the debt/loan ratio looks very positive. Further it may be that the credit history of that person is better, and the employment history is better. If one of you has better history in these ways, then you might have a better chance if only one of you buys the house. Banks can't tell you about this, but it does work. Keep in mind, though, that if you two part ways it could be very unhappy since one would be left with all the debt and the house would be in the other's name. Not a great situation to be in, so make sure that you both carefully consider the risks associated with the decisions made." }, { "docid": "463042", "title": "", "text": "If you enjoy driving 5 minutes out of the way to get gas (or mowing the lawn or whatever), then it is perfectly rational to do it. If not, the value of your time is how much you would value (not necessarily how much you would get paid) doing something else. MrChrister is right, the concept behind the comic is opportunity cost. In a nutshell, if driving an extra 5 minutes for gas is complete drudgery to you and you would only do it to save money, may as well get a part-time job at minimum wage instead. If you would rather, say, go watch TV instead of getting that part-time job, then you value TV-watching at greater than the minimum wage, and it is still irrational to drive 5 minutes for the gas. Basically, the answer to your question is to figure out what else you could be doing that offers similar overall pleasure/pain to the task at hand and see how much you would get paid to do that instead. It doesn't matter that you are on a fixed salary." }, { "docid": "143591", "title": "", "text": "There's a bit of working backwards that's required. This is a summary of a spreadsheet I wrote which helps to get to the answer. What you see here is that at age 25, one might have saved about a half year's salary, assuming they worked 5 years. The numbers grow exponentially to at 65, about 15 years salary saved. This will allow a withdrawal of about 60% final income each year using the 4% guideline. More will come from Social Security in the States to get closer to 100%. The sheet start with assumptions, a 10% per year rate of saving, and an 8% annual return. Salary is assumed to rise 3% per year. One can choose their age, enter their current numbers and their own assumptions. I had to include some numbers and at the time, 8% seemed reasonable. Not so sure today. What I do like is the concept of viewing savings in terms of 'years salary' as this leads to replacement rate. Will $1M be enough for you? Only you can answer that. But the goal of 80-100% replacement income is reasonable and this sheet can be used to understand the goals along the way. (note, the uploaded sheet had 15% saving rate, not the 10 I thought. I used 15 to show a 10% saving along with a 5% match to one's 401(k). Those interested are welcome to enter their own numbers. The one objection I've seen is the increase to salary. Increases tend to be higher in the first 20 than the second, or so I'm told.)" }, { "docid": "542651", "title": "", "text": "I've heard from friends in high paying companies that the norm is under 4 hours: you can upgrade yourself. Above 4 hours: business. Sounds reasonable to me. Usually people that fly business aren't flying one or two times a year. They're doing it a couple of days per week. And these people are usually in high demand. If someone doesn't offer this as the norm, they can probably get a job someplace that does." }, { "docid": "511977", "title": "", "text": "\"Inflation is a bad thing. It makes it much more difficult for people to compare prices and prosperity over a long period of time. This causes people to ignore the wisdom of their elders (who remember prices from a long time ago). Back in my day, you could get a burger and fries for 15 cents -- a dime for the burger, and a nickel for the fries. But the minimum wage was only a quarter an hour! That doesn't help me decide if things have gotten better or worse. How long is \"\"a long period of time\"\"? That depends on the inflation rate. At 1 percent per year, 50 or 100 years is \"\"a long time\"\". At 10 percent per year, 5 or 10 years. At 100 percent per year, a few months. Because of the Spanish conquests of gold and silver mines in Mexico and Peru, prices in the sixteenth century rose by a factor of 5.5 during the century. This inflation was recognized as causing lots of social and governmental problems. Note that this means an average inflation rate of 2 percent per year for a century is known to be a very bad thing. There are several reasons that most governments want some inflation:\"" }, { "docid": "145824", "title": "", "text": "\"The crazy thing about this is that $30 million in annual salary and compensation really isn't the end of the story for rich guys. I worked for a REIT a few years back and the guy that founded that REIT made a few million in salary a year. I thought the number seemed a bit low for his lifestyle. He had many properties in the US for his own personal use (around 6-8 BIG homes). He also had a garage that was insane. He had over 25 very expensive cars. My co-workers would say \"\"Nick is airing out his garage\"\" when he drove one to work every day for a month without driving the same vehicle twice in one month. It turns out he owned 30 million shares of stock that paid him $1.00 per share per year. So while his annual compensation was \"\"only\"\" a few million per year, his dividend income was many, many, times that. Think about that next time you see a CEO's annual income and you think that it really isn't as much as you expect.\"" }, { "docid": "394768", "title": "", "text": "This is going to seem pretty far off the beaten path, but I hope when you finish reading it you'll see the point... Suppose someone offered you a part time job: Walk their dog once per day for at least 20 minutes, and once per week pick up the dog poo from their lawn. Your compensation is $300/month. Now suppose instead you are given two choices for a job: Your preference probably has more to do with your personality and interests than the finances involved." }, { "docid": "35680", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "271266", "title": "", "text": "\"If you're single, the only solution I'm aware of, assuming you are truly getting a 1099-misc and not a W-2 (and don't have a W-2 option available, like TAing), is to save in a nondeductible account for now. Then, when you later do have a job, use that nondeductible account (in part) to fund your retirement accounts. Particularly the first few years (if you're a \"\"young\"\" grad student in particular), you'll probably be low enough on the income side that you can fit this in - in particular if you've got a 401k or 403b plan at work; make your from-salary contributions there, and make deductible IRA or Roth IRA contributions from your in-school savings. If you're not single, or even if you are single but have a child, you have a few other options. Spouses who don't have earned income, but have a spouse who does, can set up a Spousal IRA. You can then, combined, save up to your spouse's total earned income (or the usual per-person maximums). So if you are married and your wife/husband works, you can essentially count his/her earned income towards your earned income. Second, if you have a child, consider setting up a 529 plan for them. You're probably going to want to do this anyway, right? You can even do this for a niece or nephew, if you're feeling generous.\"" }, { "docid": "143534", "title": "", "text": "If you are careful, you don't need to spend much more than the cruise price. The cruises I've been on, they biggest extra was soda and alcohol (mainly wine with dinner). If you are fine drinking water or iced tea, there is no need for that. Food extras, like ice cream at the pool, may be an extra charge as well. The way it works is that your room key acts like a credit card, and gets charged to your room. Its easy to run up a big bill if you aren't paying attention, so you may want to keep track of it as you go along. You can also go to the pursers office at any time and find out your current account. Generally, the cruise automatically charges a certain amount per day for tips for your room steward and dining room attendants. You are expected to tip for spa services (another extra charge) and shore excursion guides. Shore excursions vary greatly depending on what you are doing. Maybe $50-$100 per person for a bus tour to much more than that for things like scuba diving, or fishing. You can also either book tours yourself, or just get off and wander around. It depends where you are going. Many times, the ships dock far away from anything you might want to see. There are generally taxis or shuttles to the tourist places, but that is another charge. Shipboard internet is generally charged by hour, and quite expensive (several dollars per hour). Part of the attraction for me is unplugging completely, so I generally don't bother. On older ships, you probably are limited to the internet lounge. Some of the newer ships have wi-fi in the state rooms as well. The drinks on board aren't cheap, but not outrageous either. Probably similar to an upscale club. They also have a daily drink special, which is cheaper. Technically, you aren't allowed to bring your own alcohol on board. If you buy something in a port, you need to check it with them. This policy may vary by cruise line, but has been true on the Princess and Costa cruises I've been on. That said, as long as you are low-key, they probably won't know or care." }, { "docid": "287694", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Sometimes that requires more time other times less. Oh bullshit. Once when I had little work I started doing few hours. After a couple weeks of this I was explicitly reprimanded and told to give 8 hours per day of butt-in-seat. I asked if my actual team leader had complained I wasn't working efficiently enough. Turns out he thought I was doing *just fine* for the workload he was giving me. Only as a salaried contractor working remotely did I end up being able to turn my ability to *get my shit done* into more free time." }, { "docid": "473809", "title": "", "text": "\"It depends on the role you take. If you go into front office investment banking, there's no avoiding horrible hours as an analyst (slightly less terrible as associate, less terrible still as VP, etc.). If you're doing corporate finance for for a F500 or otherwise large company, it doesn't have to be terrible -- from what I understand, you'll get busy periodically but for the most part your schedule is consistent and you have agency over your weekends. \"\"Finance\"\" is a broad term that encompasses many different roles at many different institutions. In general, the closer to the \"\"client\"\" you are, the less hours you can expect in general (simply because even large corporations' M&amp;A departments do far fewer transactions per month / year than do investment banking groups). But no, you don't have to expect 80-100 hour weeks by virtue of going into \"\"finance\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "207354", "title": "", "text": "I think that is the wrong approach. You certainly need to teach the value of work, but you cannot tie it to income levels as a hard and fast rule. If you do, how do you then explain athletes making millions per year and only 'working' half a year, at most. And, then comparing that person to a person working hard in a factory, 40-50 hours per week, 50 weeks per year, bringing home $50K per year? I've always taught my kids to work hard and with integrity. And, most importantly, you better enjoy the work you do because no matter how much money you make, if you dread getting up in the morning to go to work, your money won't make you happy. I've never focused on the amount of money they should be making." } ]

[ { "docid": "470289", "title": "", "text": "All things being equal, a $55,000/year job with 25% benefit load is about $68,750/year. That's a little more than $34/hr. Your rate really depends on the nature of the work. If it's strictly a part-time job where you are an employee, you're probably looking at a $28-38/hr range. If you're an independent contractor, the rate should be higher, as you're paying the taxes, doing other administrative stuff. How much higher depends on the industry... software/it rates are usually 1.5-2x, construction is driven by the union scale in many places, etc. Note that you need to meet criteria defined by the IRS to successfully maintain independent contractor status from a tax POV." } ]

[ { "docid": "406314", "title": "", "text": "Math time. 24 means 2 years out of college, or 6 years out of highschool, the latter being much more plausible given the poster's content quality. $100k / 6 = $16.7k/year 16.7k / 52 weeks = $321/week $321 / (11/hr * (1 - 15% taxes)) = 34 hours per week. So he worked 34 hours per week, without fail, for 6 years, with NO expenses of any kind whatsoever. OR, much more likely, he managed to save only $10k, not $100k in 6 years." }, { "docid": "319331", "title": "", "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))" }, { "docid": "235048", "title": "", "text": "\"30 minutes of driving times 5 days is 2.5 hours of driving. Average 40mph is 100 miles per week. Guess of 25mpg on your car is 4 gallons of gas. 4 times 3 bucks a gallon is 12 dollars. Say 3 hours per week of your time, times 9/10 dollars per hour is 27/30 dollars per week. 12 plus 27 is 39. So I'd say around 40 dollars per week seems fair. You could do 50 but it is playing with a doggy for a couple hours. Unless it's a giant (or tiny) pain in the ass, it's hardly \"\"work\"\" but that's just me. $40/week sounds fair. Hope you work it out pal.\"" }, { "docid": "360322", "title": "", "text": "If you want a career that gets you lots of money and you want to advance, you are going to be working more than 40 hours per week. I am at a 45 hour a week job, and its nice to have time off at home and all that, but I don't make enough money to really do too much in my free time. I'm looking for a new job currently, Its tough, because this is what you spend the majority of your week doing, and no one wants to be miserable doing it." }, { "docid": "58937", "title": "", "text": "In general What does this mean? Assume 10 holidays and 2 weeks of vacation. So you will report to the office for 240 days (48 weeks * 5 days a week). If you are a w2 they will pay you for 260 days (52 weeks * 5 days a week). At $48 per hour you will be paid: 260*8*48 or $99,840. As a 1099 you will be paid 240*8*50 or 96,000. But you still have to cover insurance, the extra part of social security, and your retirement through an IRA. A rule of thumb I have seen with government contracting is that If the employee thinks that they make X,000 per year the company has to bill X/hour to pay for wages, benefits, overhead and profit. If the employee thinks they make x/hour the company has to bill at 2X/hour. When does a small spread make sense: The insurance is covered by another source, your spouse; or government/military retirement program. Still $2 per hour won't cover the 6.2% for social security. Let alone the other benefits. The IRS has a checklist to make sure that a 1099 is really a 1099, not just a way for the employer to shift the costs onto the individual." }, { "docid": "35680", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "82024", "title": "", "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.\"" }, { "docid": "467044", "title": "", "text": "Yes, quite easily, in fact. You left a lot of numbers out, so lets start with some assumptions. If you are at the median of middle income families in the US that might mean $70,000/year. 15% of that is an investment of $875 per month. If you invest that amount monthly and assume a 6% return, then you will have a million dollars at approximately 57 years old. 6% is a very conservative number, and as Ben Miller points out, the S&P 500 has historically returned closer to 11%. If you assumed an aggressive 9% return, and continued with that $875/month for 40 years until you turn 65, that becomes $4 million. Start with a much more conservative $9/hr for $18,720 per year (40 hours * 52 weeks, no overtime). If that person saved 14% of his/her income or about $219 per month from 25 to 65 years old with the same 9%, they would still achieve $1 million for retirement. Is it much harder for a poor person? Certainly, but hopefully these numbers illustrate that it is better to save and invest even a small amount if that's all that can be done. High income earners have the most to gain if they save and the most to lose if they don't. Let's just assume an even $100,000/year salary and modest 401(k) match of 3%. Even married filing jointly a good portion of that salary is going to be taxed at the 25% rate. If single you'll be hitting the 28% income tax rate. If you can max out the $18,000 (2017) contribution limit and get an additional $3,000 from an employer match (for a total monthly contribution of $1750) 40 years of contributions would become $8.2 million with the 9% rate of return. If you withdrew that money at 4% per year you would have a residual income of $300k throughout your retirement." }, { "docid": "271266", "title": "", "text": "\"If you're single, the only solution I'm aware of, assuming you are truly getting a 1099-misc and not a W-2 (and don't have a W-2 option available, like TAing), is to save in a nondeductible account for now. Then, when you later do have a job, use that nondeductible account (in part) to fund your retirement accounts. Particularly the first few years (if you're a \"\"young\"\" grad student in particular), you'll probably be low enough on the income side that you can fit this in - in particular if you've got a 401k or 403b plan at work; make your from-salary contributions there, and make deductible IRA or Roth IRA contributions from your in-school savings. If you're not single, or even if you are single but have a child, you have a few other options. Spouses who don't have earned income, but have a spouse who does, can set up a Spousal IRA. You can then, combined, save up to your spouse's total earned income (or the usual per-person maximums). So if you are married and your wife/husband works, you can essentially count his/her earned income towards your earned income. Second, if you have a child, consider setting up a 529 plan for them. You're probably going to want to do this anyway, right? You can even do this for a niece or nephew, if you're feeling generous.\"" }, { "docid": "290782", "title": "", "text": "\"Zero? Ten grand? Somewhere in the middle? It depends. Your stated salary, in U.S. dollars, would be high five-figures (~$88k). You certainly should not be starving, but with decent contributions toward savings and retirement, money can indeed be tight month-to-month at that salary level, especially since even in Cardiff you're probably paying more per square foot for your home than in most U.S. markets (EDIT: actually, 3-bedroom apartments in Cardiff, according to Numbeo, range from £750-850, which is US$1200-$1300, and for that many bedrooms you'd be hard-pressed to find that kind of deal in a good infield neighborhood of the DFW Metro, and good luck getting anywhere close to downtown New York, LA, Miami, Chicago etc for that price. What job do you do, and how are you expected to dress for it? Depending on where you shop and what you buy, a quality dress shirt and dress slacks will cost between US$50-$75 each (assuming real costs are similar for the same brands between US and UK, that's £30-£50 per shirt and pair of pants for quality brands). I maintain about a weeks' wardrobe at this level of dress (my job allows me to wear much cheaper polos and khakis most days and I have about 2 weeks' wardrobe of those) and I typically have to replace due to wear or staining, on average, 2 of these outfits a year (I'm hard on clothes and my waistline is expanding). Adding in 3 \"\"business casual\"\" outfits each year, plus casual outfits, shoes, socks, unmentionables and miscellany, call it maybe $600(£400)/year in wardrobe. That doesn't generally get metered out as a monthly allowance (the monthly amount would barely buy a single dress shirt or pair of slacks), but if you're socking away a savings account and buying new clothes to replace old as you can afford them it's a good average. I generally splurge in months when the utilities companies give me a break and when I get \"\"extra\"\" paychecks (26/year means two months have 3 checks, effectively giving me a \"\"free\"\" check that neither pays the mortgage nor the other major bills). Now, that's just to maintain my own wardrobe at a level of dress that won't get me fired. My wife currently stays home, but when she worked she outspent me, and her work clothes were basic black. To outright replace all the clothes I wear regularly with brand-new stuff off the rack would easily cost a grand, and that's for the average U.S. software dev who doesn't go out and meet other business types on a daily basis. If I needed to show up for work in a suit and tie daily, I'd need a two-week rotation of them, plus dress shirts, and even at the low end of about $350 (£225) per suit, $400 (£275) with dress shirt and tie, for something you won't be embarrassed to wear, we're talking $4000 (£2600) to replace and $800 (£520) per year to update 2 a year, not counting what I wear underneath or on the weekends. And if I wore suits I'd probably have to update the styles more often than that, so just go ahead and double it and I turn over my wardrobe once every 5 years. None of this includes laundering costs, which increase sharply when you're taking suits to the cleaners weekly versus just throwing a bunch of cotton-poly in the washing machine. What hobbies or other entertainment interests do you and your wife have? A movie ticket in the U.S. varies between $7-$15 depending on the size of the screen and 2D vs 3D screenings. My wife and I currently average less than one theater visit a month, but if you took in a flick each weekend with your wife, with a decent $50 dinner out, that's between $260-$420 (£165-270) monthly in entertainment expenses. Not counting babysitting for the little one (the going rate in the US is between $10 and $20 an hour for at-home child-sitting depending on who you hire and for how long, how often). Worst-case, without babysitting that's less than 5% of your gross income, but possibly more than 10% of your take-home depending on UK effective income tax rates (your marginal rate is 40% according to the HMRC, unless you find a way to deduct about £30k of your income). That's just the traditional American date night, which is just one possible interest. Playing organized sports is more or less expensive depending on the sport. Soccer (sorry, football) just needs a well-kept field, two goals and and a ball. Golf, while not really needing much more when you say it that way, can cost thousands of dollars or pounds a month to play with the best equipment at the best courses. Hockey requires head-to-toe padding/armor, skates, sticks, and ice time. American football typically isn't an amateur sport for adults and has virtually no audience in Europe, but in the right places in the U.S., beginning in just a couple years you'd be kitting your son out head-to-toe not dissimilar to hockey (minus sticks) and at a similar cost, and would keep that up at least halfway through high school. I've played them all at varying amateur levels, and with the possible exception of soccer they all get expensive when you really get interested in them. How much do you eat, and of what?. My family of three's monthly grocery budget is about $300-$400 (£190-£260) depending on what we buy and how we buy it. Americans have big refrigerators (often more than one; there's three in my house of varying sizes), we buy in bulk as needed every week to two weeks, we refrigerate or freeze a lot of what we buy, and we eat and drink a lot of high-fructose corn-syrup-based crap that's excise-taxed into non-existence in most other countries. I don't have real-world experience living and grocery-shopping in Europe, but I do know that most shopping is done more often, in smaller quantities, and for more real food. You might expect to spend £325 ($500) or more monthly, in fits and starts every few days, but as I said you'd probably know better than me what you're buying and what it's costing. To educate myself, I went to mysupermarket.co.uk, which has what I assume are typical UK food prices (mostly from Tesco), and it's a real eye-opener. In the U.S., alcohol is much more expensive for equal volume than almost any other drink except designer coffee and energy drinks, and we refrigerate the heck out of everything anyway, so a low-budget food approach in the U.S. generally means nixing beer and wine in favor of milk, fruit juices, sodas and Kool-Aid (or just plain ol' tap water). A quick search on MySupermarkets shows that wine prices average a little cheaper, accounting for the exchange rate, as in the States (that varies widely even in the U.S., as local and state taxes for beer, wine and spirits all differ). Beer is similarly slightly cheaper across the board, especially for brands local to the British Isles (and even the Coors Lite crap we're apparently shipping over to you is more expensive here than there), but in contrast, milk by the gallon (4L) seems to be virtually unheard of in the UK, and your half-gallon/2-liter jugs are just a few pence cheaper than our going rate for a gallon (unless you buy \"\"organic\"\" in the US, which carries about a 100% markup). Juices are also about double the price depending on what you're buying (a quart of \"\"Innocent\"\" OJ, roughly equivalent in presentation to the U.S. brand \"\"Simply Orange\"\", is £3 while Simply Orange is about the same price in USD for 2 quarts), and U.S.-brand \"\"fizzy drinks\"\" are similarly at a premium (£1.98 - over $3 - for a 2-liter bottle of Coca-Cola). With the general preference for room-temperature alcohol in Europe giving a big advantage to the longer unrefrigerated shelf lives of beer and wine, I'm going to guess you guys drink more alcohol and water with dinner than Americans. Beef is cheaper in the U.S., depending on where you are and what you're buying; prices for store-brand ground beef (you guys call it \"\"minced\"\") of the grade we'd use for hamburgers and sauces is about £6 per kilo in the UK, which works out to about $4.20/lb, when we're paying closer to $3/lb in most cities. I actually can't remember the last time I bought fresh chicken on the bone, but the average price I'm seeing in the UK is £10/kg ($7/lb) which sounds pretty steep. Anyway, it sounds like shopping for American tastes in the UK would cost, on average, between 25-30% more than here in the US, so applying that to my own family's food budget, you could easily justify spending £335 a month on food.\"" }, { "docid": "181588", "title": "", "text": "Investment in public infrastructure is different than subsidy to private companies. Comparison to the interstate system here is irrelevant. The state of Wisconsin is giving a company $230k per worker per year in tax breaks for jobs that will pay the workers $53k per year. There is no tax rate that can earn that investment back for the state. In fact, that state income tax rate on these salaries is 6.27%. Even considering all of the additional jobs that will be created for construction and as an effect of having a large employer in the area, this investment will never pay for itself in terms of taxes generated." }, { "docid": "294602", "title": "", "text": "&gt; You can't find anyone else who would pay you more, or you would have left. That's a reflection of what you have to offer the world. Your comment was thoughtful, and this last bit in particular I feel is like something that I've been wrestling with for a while. It's a very libertarian view as you probably know. It makes a lot of sense to me, but I can't help to think of some possible flaws and wonder what you think: 1. Availability of work: If somebody has a choice between no job and being grossly underpaid, wouldn't the choice be between having no money and a little money at that point? Doesn't that run the risk of exploitation? Wouldn't exploitation be working for less than what you're worth? 2. Value: Unskilled pretty much means replaceable. They don't give a shit if you come or go, and vice versa. That's not a reflection of a job's worth to the company, nor is a real reflection of how difficult it is. There's no competition for wages. Eventually workers get sick of it and leave, not expecting improved wages elsewhere but a job they can deal with for 40 hours per week. But there are always more people in need to take their place, so the company has no incentive to raise wages. Like you said, it *is* a reflection of what you have to offer to the world, in a sense that your skills are not uncommon. However, is this everything? The world *needs* unskilled labor to run. Is there something wrong with being a cashier? A doorman? A guy who unpacks the trucks that carry the things we all use? No, the world *needs* these people...should people who are needed have jobs that don't allow for them to meet basic living standards? 3. Expectation: The only reason why most people won't work for less than 8 or 9 dollars/hr, expect reasonable flexibility to balance work and personal life, don't expect to be forced to work more than 8-9 hours per day, have weekends off, and those working 40 hrs/week demand holiday pay/sick days/access to insurance/vacation time, is because that's what people expect out of a job in this day and age. None of these things are law (i think). People used to be treated considerably worse by their employers, and likely there will be a time when people will think that the people of our day were stupid for settling for less. The labor movement has done much in this regard. &gt; Maybe, instead of bitching that you are paid shit wages, you should ask why you ever expected to earn more after failing to acquire any skill a teenager couldn't master in a week. 4. Everyone's solution?: Let's say everyone learns to do a skilled job, who will be left to do the unskilled jobs? Someone will have to do them. Some countries have hordes of college educated workers working unskilled jobs, because of the high % that go to college. Ok, so then leave it to merit. Does merit always work though? What about nepotism? Personality, when it doesn't matter for the job? Age, Race, Sex, Ethnicity...think these play any part in the hiring process? If all else fails, not everyone can be expected to be a successful entrepreneur. 5. Life: Life can throw you some curveballs, and people make mistakes. Some tend to pay for them more than others. Some have talent, others don't. Some are born with money, some not. Some have a large and caring family, others have no family at all. Again, I'm not saying these things necessarily invalidate your original point, but it's something to consider. Your thoughts?" }, { "docid": "29548", "title": "", "text": "Assumptions made for this answer, they may not be true for anybody: For the numbers part we will assume you are single and make 96,000 per year. Unknowns: how long you have to wait post accumulation to convince the bank you really do make $96,000 per year." }, { "docid": "374200", "title": "", "text": "\"It isn't just Fox News. Even liberal leaning sources like the Washington Post, ABC and the Seattle Times are using titles like \"\"A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news for liberals\"\" and \"\"New study of Seattle's $15 minimum wage says it costs jobs\"\" Now here are some citations from the actual study (which you obviously didn't read or you wouldn't have made the asinine comment above) \"\"Importantly, the lost income associated with the hours reductions exceeds the gain associated with the net wage increase of 3.1%. Using data in Table 3, we compute that the average low-wage employee was paid $1,897 per month. The reduction in hours would cost the average employee $179 per month, while the wage increase would recoup only $54 of this loss, leaving a net loss of $125 per month (6.6%), which is sizable for a low-wage worker.\"\" \"\"Our preferred estimates suggest that the Seattle Minimum Wage Ordinance **caused hours worked by low-skilled workers (i.e., those earning under $19 per hour) to fall by 9.4%** during the three quarters when the minimum wage was $13 per hour, resulting in a loss of 3.5 million hours worked per calendar quarter. Alternative estimates show the number of low-wage jobs declined by 6.8%, which represents a loss of more than 5,000 jobs. These estimates are robust to cutoffs other than $19.45 **A 3.1% increase in wages in jobs that paid less than $19 coupled with a 9.4% loss in hours yields a labor demand elasticity of roughly -3.0**\"\" I understand if you won't respond. It is scary having your liberal narrative shattered.\"" }, { "docid": "274722", "title": "", "text": "The fact that this is what’s being reported is horribly misleading. At the bottom of the same page of that report, there is data intended to show the difference between the pay rates in genders. This data accidently proves that individual incomes are still stagnant and that the reason for our increased household wages is that more people per household are working, and part timers are working longer hours. Following is how this conclusion is drawn: The section titled “Earnings of Full Time, Year-Round Workers,” can be used to find 2015’s average income per full time worker, and 2016’s average income per full time worker. The 2015 data shows that men made up 57.51% of the full time, year round working population (63,887/111,098) and earned $51,859.00. Women made up 42.49% of the full time, year round working population (47,211/111,098) and earned $41,257.00. This means that the average income for a full time, year round worker in 2015 was $47,353.69 (51,859 x .5751 + 41,257 x .4249). The 2016 data shows that men made up 57.34% of the full time, year round working population (64,953/113,281) and earned $51,640.00. Women made up 42.66% of the population (48,328/113,281) and earned $41,554.00. This means the average income for a full time, year round worker in 2016 was $47,337.11 (51,640 x .5734 + 41,554 x .4266). So while the news is reporting the increase in household income, the average income for a full time, year round worker actually fell by $16.58 in 2016." }, { "docid": "569145", "title": "", "text": "Depending on how much freelance work we're talking about you could set up a limited company, with you and your wife as directors. By invoicing all your work through the limited company (which could have many other benefits for you, an accountant/advisor would... well, advise...) it's the company earning the money, not you or her personally. You can then pay your wife up to £10,000 per year (as of writing this) without income tax kicking in. You would probably have to pay yourself a small amount to minimise exposure to HMRC's snooping, but possibly not... as far as I'm aware the rules do not state anything about working for free, for yourself - and I wouldn't worry about the ethics, you're already paying plenty into HMRC's bank account through your day job! Some good information here if you're interested: https://www.whitefieldtax.co.uk/web/psc-guide/pscguide-how-does-it-all-work-in-practice-salaries-and-dividends/" }, { "docid": "59687", "title": "", "text": "\"For the person being hired this is a tricky situation. Specially with the new laws. There is no real magic number that can be applied as a lot will depend on what benefits you want, and what is actually available. This will really shift the spectrum quite a bit. Under the affordibal care act, everyone has to have insurance or pay a ?fine? (were really not sure what to call this yet) but there are two provisions that really mess with the numbers you look at as an employee. First, the cost of heath care has skyrocketed. So the same benefits that you had 5 years ago now cost maybe 10-15 times as much as they used to. This gets swept under the rug a bit because the \"\"main costs\"\" of insurance has only increased a tiny amount. What this actually comes down to is does your new ACA approved heath plan cover exactly the benefits you need, or does it cut corners. Sorry this is complicated, and I don't mean it to come off as a speech against the ACA so I will give an example. My wife has RA, she really has it under control with the help of her RA doctor. This is not something she ever wants to change. Because she has had RA from the age of 15, and because it's degenerative, she doesn't want to spend 5 years working with a new doctor to get to the same place she is with her current doctor. In addition, the main drugs she takes for RA are not covered under any ACA plan, nor are the \"\"substitutions\"\" that her doctor makes (we are trying to have kids so she has to be off the main meds, and a couple of the things this doctor has tried has been meds that reduce inflammation, are pregnancy safe, but are not for the treatment of RA) You now have to take into effect rather the cost of health insurance + the cost of the things now not covered by the heath insurance + the out of pocket expenses is worth the insurance. Second the ACA has set up provisions to straight up trick those people that have lower income and are not paying close attention. When shopping for insurance, they get quotes like \"\"$50 a month\"\" or \"\"$100 a month\"\". The truth is that the remainder of the actual cost is deducted from their tax returns. This takes consideration, because if you thing your paying $50 a month for insurance but your really paying $650 then you need to make sure your doing your math right. Finally, you need to understand how messed up things are right now in the US with heath care. Largely this goes unreported. I'm not really sure why. But in order to do this I will have to give examples. For my wife to see a specialist (her RA doctor) the co-pay is $75. So she goes to the doctor, he charges her $75 and bills the insurance $200. The insurance pays the doctor $50. With out insurance, the visit costs $50. At first you want to blame the doctor for cheating the system, but the doctor has to pay for hours of labor to get the $50 back from the insurance company. From the doctors perspective it's cheaper to take the $50 then it is to charge the insurance company. And by charging the insurance company he has no control over the cost of the co pay. He essentially has to charge more to make the same money and the patient gets the shaft in the process. Another example, I got strep throat last year. I went to the walk in clinic, paid $75, saw the doctor got my Z-Pack for $15, went home crawled in bed and got better. My wife (who still had separate insurance from before the marriage) got strep throat (imagen that) went to the same clinic, they charged her $200 for the visit ($50 co-pay) and $250 for the z-pack ($3 co-pay). The insurance paid the clinic $90 for the visit and $3 for the drugs. Again the patient is left out in this scenario. In this case it worked better for my wife, unless you account for the fact that to get that coverage she had to pay $650/month. My point is that when comparing costs of heathcare with insurance, and without out insurance, its often times much cheaper for the practices to have you self pay then it is for them to go through the loops of trying to insurance to make them whole. This creates two rates. Self pay rates and Insured rates. When your trying to figure out the cost of not having insurance then you need to use the self pay rates. These can be vastly different. So as an employee you need to figure out your cost of heath care with insurance, and your cost of heath care without insurance. Then user those numbers when your trying to negotiate a salary. The problem is that there is no magic number to use for this because the cost will very a lot. For us, it was cheaper to not have insurance. Even with a pre-existing condition that takes constant attention, it's just better if we set aside $500 a month then it is to try to pay $750 a month. That might not hold true for everyone. For some people or conditions it may be better to pay the $750 then to try to handle it themselves. So for my negotiations I would go with x+$6,000 without insurance or x+$4,500 with insurance. Now as an employer it's a lot simpler. Usually you have a \"\"group plan\"\" that offers you a pretty straight $x per year per person or $y per year per family. So you can offer exactly that. Salary - $x or Salary - $y. AS a starting point. However this is where negotiations start. If your offering me $50,500 and insurance, I would rather just have $57,000 and no insurance. Of course your real cost is only $55,000 cause you don't care about my heath care costs only about insurance costs. So you try to negotiate down towards $55,000 and no insurance. But that's not good enough for me. So I either go else where and you loose talent, or I accept $50,500 and insurance (or somewhere in between).\"" }, { "docid": "569224", "title": "", "text": "What most respondents are forgetting, is when a company allows its employees to purchase its shares at a discount with their salary, the employee is usually required to hold the stock for a number of years before they can sell them. The reason the company is allowing or promoting its employees to purchase its shares at a discount is to give the employees a sense of ownership of the company. Being a part owner in the company, the employee will want the company to succeed and will tend to be more productive. If employees were allowed to purchase the shares at a discount and sell them straight away, it would defeat this purpose. Your best option to decide whether or not to buy the shares is to work out if the investment is a good one as per any other investment you would undertake, i.e. determine how the company is currently performing and what its future prospects are likely to be. Regarding what percentage of pay to purchase the shares with, if you do decide to buy them, you need to work that out based on your current and future budgetary needs and your savings plan for the future." }, { "docid": "542651", "title": "", "text": "I've heard from friends in high paying companies that the norm is under 4 hours: you can upgrade yourself. Above 4 hours: business. Sounds reasonable to me. Usually people that fly business aren't flying one or two times a year. They're doing it a couple of days per week. And these people are usually in high demand. If someone doesn't offer this as the norm, they can probably get a job someplace that does." } ]

[ { "docid": "225718", "title": "", "text": "There is no fixed formulae, its more of how much you can negotiate Vs how many others are willing to work at a lower cost. Typically in software industry the rates for part time work would be roughly in the range of 1.5 to 2 times that of the full time work for the same job. With the above premise roughly the company would be willing to pay $100,000 for 2000 hrs of Part time work(1), translating into around $50 per hour. How much you actually get would depend on if there is someone else who can work for less say at $30 at hour. (1) The company does not have 2000 hrs of work and hence its engaging part time worker instead of full time at lesser cost." } ]

[ { "docid": "235048", "title": "", "text": "\"30 minutes of driving times 5 days is 2.5 hours of driving. Average 40mph is 100 miles per week. Guess of 25mpg on your car is 4 gallons of gas. 4 times 3 bucks a gallon is 12 dollars. Say 3 hours per week of your time, times 9/10 dollars per hour is 27/30 dollars per week. 12 plus 27 is 39. So I'd say around 40 dollars per week seems fair. You could do 50 but it is playing with a doggy for a couple hours. Unless it's a giant (or tiny) pain in the ass, it's hardly \"\"work\"\" but that's just me. $40/week sounds fair. Hope you work it out pal.\"" }, { "docid": "317260", "title": "", "text": "10 years into my career. Here are my notes: 1. Don't work overtime as a salaried employee. If there's more work than people then management needs to hire more people. Sure, there are times when shit hits the fan and there's no other option, but that should be a 'once every two years' event, not a 'once every week' event. 2. Be a rockstar. If you're spending time 'looking busy' because you finished a 3 hour job in 1 hour ship the results to your manager and ask for more. Those results will be noticed and will move you from entry-level to mid-level to senior. 3. Skills pay the bills. Always work on learning new things to bring value to your employer. This is also required to move up the chain in your career, and leads into my #4. 4. Get paid what you're worth. Maintain an understanding of what similar skillsets are paying in your area and either maintain or exceed that. Your employer has an incentive to pay you as little as possible. Show them comparable salaries for the same position paying more and make them match it. If they won't match it find someone who will. 5. Don't correct your boss/salesperson when they are presenting to management/customers. Instead, let them know after the meeting. Your #2 points (both of them) are something that I struggled with when I was new in my career. It was incredibly frustrating to *know* something, but not have anyone listen due to the fact that I was a 'kid'. Unfortunately it's a part of life. If you can do #2 and #3 on my list for a couple of years people will start listening. It's a great feeling being a 24 year old kid in a room full of my boss's bosses, and my boss's boss's bosses and having them listen and consider my opinion, but it's not something that's given to everyone. You need to earn it." }, { "docid": "576008", "title": "", "text": "Buying the right shares gives higher return. Buying the wrong ones gives worse return, possibly negative. The usual recommendation, even if you have a pro advising you, is to diversify most of your investments to reduce the risk, even though that may reduce the possible gain. A mutual fund is diversification-in-a-can. It requires little to no active maintenance. Yes, you pay a management fee, but you aren't paying per-transaction fees every time you adjust your holdings, and the management costs can be quite reasonable if you pick the right funds; minimal in the case of computer-managed (index) funds. If you actively enjoy playing with stocks and bonds and are willing/able to accept your failures and less-than-great choices as part of the game, and if you can convince yourself that you will do better this way, go for it. For those of us who just want to deposit out money, watch it grow, and maybe rebalance once a year if that, index funds are a perfectly good choice. I spend at least 8 hours a day working for my money; the rest of the time, I want my money to work for me. Risk and reward tend to be proportional to each other; when they aren't, market prices tend to move to correct that. You need to decide how much risk you're comfortable with, and how much time and effort and money you're willing to spend managing that risk. Personally, I am perfectly happy with the better-than-market-rate-of-return I'm getting, and I don't have any conviction that I could do better if I was more involved. Your milage will vary. If folks didn't disagree, there wouldn't be a market." }, { "docid": "542651", "title": "", "text": "I've heard from friends in high paying companies that the norm is under 4 hours: you can upgrade yourself. Above 4 hours: business. Sounds reasonable to me. Usually people that fly business aren't flying one or two times a year. They're doing it a couple of days per week. And these people are usually in high demand. If someone doesn't offer this as the norm, they can probably get a job someplace that does." }, { "docid": "294602", "title": "", "text": "&gt; You can't find anyone else who would pay you more, or you would have left. That's a reflection of what you have to offer the world. Your comment was thoughtful, and this last bit in particular I feel is like something that I've been wrestling with for a while. It's a very libertarian view as you probably know. It makes a lot of sense to me, but I can't help to think of some possible flaws and wonder what you think: 1. Availability of work: If somebody has a choice between no job and being grossly underpaid, wouldn't the choice be between having no money and a little money at that point? Doesn't that run the risk of exploitation? Wouldn't exploitation be working for less than what you're worth? 2. Value: Unskilled pretty much means replaceable. They don't give a shit if you come or go, and vice versa. That's not a reflection of a job's worth to the company, nor is a real reflection of how difficult it is. There's no competition for wages. Eventually workers get sick of it and leave, not expecting improved wages elsewhere but a job they can deal with for 40 hours per week. But there are always more people in need to take their place, so the company has no incentive to raise wages. Like you said, it *is* a reflection of what you have to offer to the world, in a sense that your skills are not uncommon. However, is this everything? The world *needs* unskilled labor to run. Is there something wrong with being a cashier? A doorman? A guy who unpacks the trucks that carry the things we all use? No, the world *needs* these people...should people who are needed have jobs that don't allow for them to meet basic living standards? 3. Expectation: The only reason why most people won't work for less than 8 or 9 dollars/hr, expect reasonable flexibility to balance work and personal life, don't expect to be forced to work more than 8-9 hours per day, have weekends off, and those working 40 hrs/week demand holiday pay/sick days/access to insurance/vacation time, is because that's what people expect out of a job in this day and age. None of these things are law (i think). People used to be treated considerably worse by their employers, and likely there will be a time when people will think that the people of our day were stupid for settling for less. The labor movement has done much in this regard. &gt; Maybe, instead of bitching that you are paid shit wages, you should ask why you ever expected to earn more after failing to acquire any skill a teenager couldn't master in a week. 4. Everyone's solution?: Let's say everyone learns to do a skilled job, who will be left to do the unskilled jobs? Someone will have to do them. Some countries have hordes of college educated workers working unskilled jobs, because of the high % that go to college. Ok, so then leave it to merit. Does merit always work though? What about nepotism? Personality, when it doesn't matter for the job? Age, Race, Sex, Ethnicity...think these play any part in the hiring process? If all else fails, not everyone can be expected to be a successful entrepreneur. 5. Life: Life can throw you some curveballs, and people make mistakes. Some tend to pay for them more than others. Some have talent, others don't. Some are born with money, some not. Some have a large and caring family, others have no family at all. Again, I'm not saying these things necessarily invalidate your original point, but it's something to consider. Your thoughts?" }, { "docid": "290441", "title": "", "text": "\"Thank God you have your child back, it is so awesome that you finally found a medical treatment that worked. It must have been a truly trying time in your lives. That situation is an important template in personal finance. Through no fault of your own, a series of events occurred that caused you to spend far more money then you anticipated. Per your post this was complicated by lost income due to economic situations. What is to say that this does not happen again in the future? While we can all hope that our child does not get sick, there are other events that could also fit into this template. Because of this I hate all options you present. Per your post, you are pretty thin with free cash flow and have high income, and yet you are looking to borrow more. That is a recipe for disaster with it being made worse as you are considering putting your home at risk. The 20K per year per kid sounds like a live at the university state school; or, a close by private school. Your finances do not support either option. There are times when the word \"\"No\"\" is in order when answering questions. Doing a live at home community college to university will cost you a total of about 30K per kid rather than the 80K you are proposing. Doing this alone will greatly reduce the risk you are attempting to assume. Doing that and having your child work some, you could cash flow college. That is what I would recommend. Given that you are so thin, you will also have to put constraints on college attendance. No changing major three times, only majors with an employable skills, and studying before partying. It may be worth it to wait a year of two before attending if a decision cannot be made. I was in a similar situation when my son started college. High income, but broke. He worked and went to a community college and was able to pay for the bulk of it himself. From there he obtained a job with a healthy salary and completed his degree at the University. It took him a little longer, but he is debt free and has a fantastic work ethic.\"" }, { "docid": "417728", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Okay but still three people at $12/hr is $16 more per hour than one person at $20/hr. You forgot the times 3 part. &gt;I still don't see how u/NEVERDOUBTED asserts that the three at $12/hr cost less. Cause they are wrong, but too hard headed to see that." }, { "docid": "220198", "title": "", "text": "These comments are crazy in here with regards to earnings after 4 years of college. I'm an account exec(field tech support)with a Fortune 500 company and make a $110k per year, with no degree. In my same industry with no experience I was making 65k when I was 27 in an entry level sales job. We have mechanics that start out at $20 per hour and make $30-35 per hour after 5 years. My point is that you can make really good money without a college degree." }, { "docid": "556946", "title": "", "text": "\"As a self-employed Handyman I can tell you this. Any work that is done, be it professional, part-time, hobby or whatever else, has to answer to two primary criteria. As you asked, it has to be worthwhile in financial terms and more importantly in personal terms. In the long term, charging low rates will demoralize her. Not worth it. Someone once said; \"\"I have no quarrel with he who charges cheaply, because who better then he knows the value of his services\"\"? Obviously one has to remain reasonable. Then there is an ambush factor in working for yourself. I call it syphoning losses since they are extremely difficult to calculate as noted above here already. In the first place they are extremely difficult to detect anyway. Micro-management will not tell you the losses, you can only do it at the end of a period on a balance sheet. Then you have to calculate a fair price in terms of lessons given and monies received. The trick is to gain a fair assessment of worth to her without her needing to go into the books, just as a simple gut feel. She needs to really feel good about it to maintain motivation for the future. Otherwise, I did it, it does not work. The other consideration is that when money changes hands it places a benchmark on the tuition and the relationship. One. It locks her into delivering professional work as she already is one. Two. The students will be locked into giving fair and excellent commitment in being taught. A simple calculation goes like this; Use the time span of a month as it is easier to break down available time per week. Also remember that there will perforce be extra hours spent in consultation with parents, this is a syphoning cost, it has be calculated. Difficult at the start, but keep track of it. One other thing. I do not give discounts of extend favours, but I keep my prices reasonable. [[I was told I am some 25% more expensive than the latest quotes, but I kept on getting work with a high execution to quotation rate.]] Floating prices are impossible to track, manage and justify, people talk to each other, whether you like it or not. Do proper, reasonable calculations and be up front to all about how you work. In contract on paper. It just may be necessary to scale prices from beginner to advanced classes. OK, $50 seems a fair price, I don't live in the States, but about three/four Big Mac's would compare about right. You are NOT selling time, you ARE selling expertise. Decide how much she wants out of it per month. Forget retirement, you live now. This income will also cover other \"\"invisible\"\" extraneous work. Determine how much time will be spent in giving lessons. You can only charge for \"\"visible\"\" work done. Basic Hourly Rate = Monthly Income / Lesson Hours. Then there's a catch. Research has shown that owners of one man and small businesses spend about 55% of their time in getting new business. So,now. Charged Hourly Rate = Basic Hourly Rate DIVIDED by 45%. This could frighten you, but these are hard commercial facts. Things could appear to be extremely expensive. You will; however; have a solid base from which to decide as you go further. The accounting is a good place to start, but she, you both rather, have to feel good about the rewards and the counter performances. Great success to you both!\"" }, { "docid": "2325", "title": "", "text": "\"Economic hardship is just as misleading as \"\"economic slavery\"\". If you are working two jobs and can't afford rent... How can you better yourself? Sure, if you are exceptionally intelligent and/or charismatic and/or exceptionally great in some other way, you could find a way out of the hole. But if you are working two full-time jobs and are trying your best - that should be enough. I personally am against a $15 minimum wage - even on a local level, much less a state or federal level, but I very much support legislation that ensures someone who works 85 (or 60) hours a week (that's 12 hours a day for 85 hours per week) can get by. By \"\"getting by\"\" I mean can rent modest housing, can afford nutritious food, can afford decent health insurance, can buy clothes (maybe second-hand), can put a bit into savings, etc. Minimum wage jobs are done by young people just entering the job market and older people with few skills. Better to have legislation that takes that into account. High school and college kids won't be working 60-85+ hours a week. Save the subsidies for the people that really need them.\"" }, { "docid": "121621", "title": "", "text": "\"As a contractor, I have done this exact calculation many times so I can compare full time employment offers when they come. The answer varies greatly depending on your situation, but here's how to calculate it: So, subtracting the two and you get I've run many different scenarios with multiple plans and employers, and in my situation with a spouse and 1 child, the employer plans usually ended up saving me approximately $5k per year. So then, to answer your question: ...salary is \"\"100k\"\", \"\"with healthcare\"\", or then \"\"X\"\" \"\"with no healthcare\"\" - what do we reckon? I reckon I would want to be paid $5K more, or $105K. This is purely hypothetical though and assumes there are no other differences except for with or without health insurance. In reality, contractor vs employee will have quite a few other differences. But in general, the calculation varies by company and the more generous the employer's health benefits, the more you need to be compensated to make up for not having it. Note: the above numbers are very rough, and there are many other factors that come into play, some of which are: As a side note, many years ago, during salary talks with a company, I was able to negotiate $2K in additional yearly salary by agreeing not to take the health insurance since I had better insurance through my spouse. Health insurance in the US was much cheaper back then so I think closer to $5K today would be about right and is consistent with my above ballpark calculation. I always wondered what would have happened if I turned around and enrolled the following year. I suspect had I done that they could not have legally lowered my salary due to my breaking my promise, but I wouldn't be surprised if I didn't get a raise that year either.\"" }, { "docid": "306816", "title": "", "text": "Where did you get the impression that it is a $70k per year job? Not even the apple picker is going to pick apples all year long. The seasonal nature of the work means that you'll put in time during certain times of year, but often you won't be needed at all. We're talking hourly pay here because it is an hourly, not a yearly, job. If you bring some skills to the table, I know some farms that would jump at the chance to pay you $70k per year. But most people don't have those skills and those that do can make even more elsewhere. Source: The real world. I don't know how to link to that. Sorry." }, { "docid": "451457", "title": "", "text": "\"A major thing to consider when deciding whether to invest or pay off debt is cash flow. Specifically, how each choice affects your cash flow, and how your cash flow is affected by various events. Simply enough, your cash flow is the amount of money that passes through your finances during a given period (often a month or a year). Some of this is necessary payments, like staying current on loans, rent, etc., while other parts are not necessary, such as eating out. For example, you currently have $5,500 debt at 3% and another $2,500 at 5%. This means that every month, your cashflow effect of these loans is ($5,500 * 3% / 12) + ($2,500 * 5% / 12) = $24 interest (before any applicable tax effects), plus any required payments toward the principal which you don't state. To have the $8,000 paid off in 30 years, you'd be paying another $33 toward the principal, for a total of about $60 per month before tax effects in your case. If you take the full $7,000 you have available and use it to pay off the debt starting with the higher-interest loan, then your situation changes such that you now: Assuming that the repayment timeline remains the same, the cashflow effect of the above becomes $1,000 * 3% / 12 = $2.50/month interest plus $2.78/month toward the principal, again before tax effects. In one fell swoop, you just reduced your monthly payment from $60 to $5.25. Per year, this means $720 to $63, so on the $7,000 \"\"invested\"\" in repayment you get $657 in return every year for a 9.4% annual return on investment. It will take you about 11 years to use only this money to save another $7,000, as opposed to the 30 years original repayment schedule. If the extra payment goes toward knocking time off the existing repayment schedule but keeping the amount paid toward the principal per month the same, you are now paying $33 toward the principal plus $2.50 interest against the $1,000 loan, which means by paying $35.50/month you will be debt free in 30 months: two and a half years, instead of 30 years, an effective 92% reduction in repayment time. You immediately have another about $25/month in your budget, and in two and a half years you will have $60 per month that you wouldn't have if you stuck with the original repayment schedule. If instead the total amount paid remains the same, you are then paying about $57.50/month toward the principal and will be debt free in less than a year and a half. Not too shabby, if you ask me. Also, don't forget that this is a known, guaranteed return in that you know what you would be paying in interest if you didn't do this, and you know what you will be paying in interest if you do this. Even if the interest rate is variable, you can calculate this to a reasonable degree of certainty. The difference between those two is your return on investment. Compare this to the fact that while an investment in the S&P might have similar returns over long periods of time, the stock market is much more volatile in the shorter term (as the past two decades have so eloquently demonstrated). It doesn't do you much good if an investment returns 10% per year over 30 years, if when you need the money it's down 30% because you bought at a local peak and have held the investment for only a year. Also consider if you go back to school, are you going to feel better about a $5.25/month payment or a $60/month payment? (Even if the payments on old debt are deferred while you are studying, you will still have to pay the money, and it will likely be accruing interest in the meantime.) Now, I really don't advocate emptying your savings account entirely the way I did in the example above. Stuff happens all the time, and some stuff that happens costs money. Instead, you should be keeping some of that money easily available in a liquid, non-volatile form (which basically means a savings account without withdrawal penalties or a money market fund, not the stock market). How much depends on your necessary expenses; a buffer of three months' worth of expenses is an often recommended starting point for an emergency fund. The above should however help you evaluate how much to keep, how much to invest and how much to use to pay off loans early, respectively.\"" }, { "docid": "549759", "title": "", "text": "If you don't know how to fix your own car or have time to take car parts off of a car at a junk yard, the average amount of money per month you spend on repairing an old car will be greater than the amount of money you spend per month on a new car payment. This is because car repair shops are charging $85 per hour for labor for car repairs. Many parts that wear out on a car are difficult to replace because of their location on the engine. The classic example is piston rings." }, { "docid": "260959", "title": "", "text": "\"Money is a token that you can trade to other people for favors. Debt is a tool that allows you to ask for favors earlier than you might otherwise. What you have currently is: If the very worst were to happen, such as: You would owe $23,000 favors, and your \"\"salary\"\" wouldn't make a difference. What is a responsible amount to put toward a car? This is a tricky question to answer. Statistically speaking the very worst isn't worth your consideration. Only the \"\"very bad\"\", or \"\"kinda annoying\"\" circumstances are worth worrying about. The things that have a >5% chance of actually happening to you. Some of the \"\"very bad\"\" things that could happen (10k+ favors): Some of the \"\"kinda annoying\"\" things that could happen (~5k favors): So now that these issues are identified, we can settle on a time frame. This is very important. Your $30,000 in favors owed are not due in the next year. If your student loans have a typical 10-year payoff, then your risk management strategy only requires that you keep $3,000 in favors (approx) because that's how many are due in the next year. Except you have more than student loans for favors owed to others. You have rent. You eat food. You need to socialize. You need to meet your various needs. Each of these things will cost a certain number of favors in the next year. Add all of them up. Pretending that this data was correct (it obviously isn't) you'd owe $27,500 in favors if you made no money. Up until this point, I've been treating the data as though there's no income. So how does your income work with all of this? Simple, until you've saved 6-12 months of your expenses (not salary) in an FDIC or NCUSIF insured savings account, you have no free income. If you don't have savings to save yourself when bad things happen, you will start having more stress (what if something breaks? how will I survive till my next paycheck? etc.). Stress reduces your life expectancy. If you have no free income, and you need to buy a car, you need to buy the cheapest car that will meet your most basic needs. Consider carpooling. Consider walking or biking or public transit. You listed your salary at \"\"$95k\"\", but that isn't really $95k. It's more like $63k after taxes have been taken out. If you only needed to save ~$35k in favors, and the previous data was accurate (it isn't, do your own math): Per month you owe $2,875 in favors (34,500 / 12) Per month you gain $5,250 in favors (63,000 / 12) You have $7,000 in initial capital--I mean--favors You net $2,375 each month (5,250 - 2,875) To get $34,500 in favors will take you 12 months ( ⌈(34,500 - 7,000) / 2,375⌉ ) After 12 months you will have $2,375 in free income each month. You no longer need to save all of it (Although you may still need to save some of it. Be sure recalculate your expenses regularly to reevaluate if you need additional savings). What you do with your free income is up to you. You've got a safety net in saved earnings to get you through rough times, so if you want to buy a $100,000 sports car, all you have to do is account for it in your savings and expenses in all further calculations as you pay it off. To come up with a reasonable number, decide on how much you want to spend per month on a car. $500 is a nice round number that's less than $2,375. How many years do you want to save for the car? OR How many years do you want to pay off a car loan? 4 is a nice even number. $500 * 12 * 4 = $24,000 Now reduce that number 10% for taxes and fees $24,000 * 0.9 = $21,600 If you're getting a loan, deduct the cost of interest (using 5% as a ballpark here) $21,600 * 0.95 = $20,520 So according to my napkin math you can afford a car that costs ~$20k if you're willing to save/owe $500/month, but only after you've saved enough to be financially secure.\"" }, { "docid": "82024", "title": "", "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.\"" }, { "docid": "287694", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Sometimes that requires more time other times less. Oh bullshit. Once when I had little work I started doing few hours. After a couple weeks of this I was explicitly reprimanded and told to give 8 hours per day of butt-in-seat. I asked if my actual team leader had complained I wasn't working efficiently enough. Turns out he thought I was doing *just fine* for the workload he was giving me. Only as a salaried contractor working remotely did I end up being able to turn my ability to *get my shit done* into more free time." }, { "docid": "207354", "title": "", "text": "I think that is the wrong approach. You certainly need to teach the value of work, but you cannot tie it to income levels as a hard and fast rule. If you do, how do you then explain athletes making millions per year and only 'working' half a year, at most. And, then comparing that person to a person working hard in a factory, 40-50 hours per week, 50 weeks per year, bringing home $50K per year? I've always taught my kids to work hard and with integrity. And, most importantly, you better enjoy the work you do because no matter how much money you make, if you dread getting up in the morning to go to work, your money won't make you happy. I've never focused on the amount of money they should be making." }, { "docid": "569224", "title": "", "text": "What most respondents are forgetting, is when a company allows its employees to purchase its shares at a discount with their salary, the employee is usually required to hold the stock for a number of years before they can sell them. The reason the company is allowing or promoting its employees to purchase its shares at a discount is to give the employees a sense of ownership of the company. Being a part owner in the company, the employee will want the company to succeed and will tend to be more productive. If employees were allowed to purchase the shares at a discount and sell them straight away, it would defeat this purpose. Your best option to decide whether or not to buy the shares is to work out if the investment is a good one as per any other investment you would undertake, i.e. determine how the company is currently performing and what its future prospects are likely to be. Regarding what percentage of pay to purchase the shares with, if you do decide to buy them, you need to work that out based on your current and future budgetary needs and your savings plan for the future." } ]

[ { "docid": "426278", "title": "", "text": "\"As an easy and rough rule of thumb, a job for $55,000 per year is $55 per hour as a contractor. That's roughly twice the hourly rate. In return, the company gets the rate to vary your hours or cease your employment with less financial, legal or managerial overhead than a full time employee. You have less stability, less benefits, perhaps need to put some time into finding another job sooner. Of course the ultimate, though less helpful, answer is \"\"whatever the market will bear.\"\"\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "261900", "title": "", "text": "\"To answer the investment aspect takes a bit of math. First, solar insolation numbers: This represents the average sun-hours per day for a given area. You can see the range from 4 to 6, or 1460 hrs to about 2190 hrs of sun per year depending on location. I believe electricity also has a range of cost, but 15 cents per KWH is a good average. So, a 1KW panel will produce as much as $328 per year of electricity in a high sun-hrs area, but only $219 in a lower sun-hrs area. If we agree to ignore the government subsidies and look for the stable price unaffected by outside influence, an installed price of even $2500 would produce a return of 13% and a reasonable full payback over an 8 year period. I call this installed price a tipping point, the price where this purchase provides a decent return. Some would accept a lower return, and therefore a higher price. As duff points out, this should be treated as the post rebate/tax credit price. Those help to push the price below this point. At the price point where the energy cost per panel is below, the government intervention may be unnecessary. The power companies may find consumer owned panels are the cheapest way to clip the peak consumption which tends to be the most expensive power demand.) One can take the insolation numbers and cost of local power to produce a grid showing the return for a 1KW panel in $$/year. (At this point the cost of money kick in. The present value of $100/yr is far higher today than if short term rates were say, 8%) Once panels drop to where they are compelling for the higher return areas, I'd expect volume to drive continued improvements in cost and better economies of scale. Initially, the need for storage isn't there, as the infrastructure is in place to drive your meter backwards if you produce more than you use. The peek sun coincides with peek demand and the electric companies are happy to have your demand go negative during those times. Update - the conversation with Duff led me to research 'demand charge' a bit more. You see, the utility company has to have equipment to generate the peak demand, usually occurring in the early afternoon, say 12N-2PM as the sun is brightest and AC use in particular, highest. I found that Austin energy has a PDF describing the fee for this. Simply put, the last kW of demand will cost you $14.03 in summer months and $12.65 in winter. This adds to $160/yr that a 1kW panel might save the owner. Even if one does capture the full power at peak every month, $100 is still non-trivial. This factor alone justifies $1000 worth of panel cost, and as Duff points out, the government may find it cheaper to use this method to clip peak demand than by funding bigger power generators. To summarize, the question isn't so much \"\"are they worth it\"\" as \"\"what is a xKW panel worth?\"\" (A function of annual savings and time value of money.) The ever decreasing installed cost for a given system makes solar an inevitable part of the future power technology. I am not a green tree hugging guy, but I do like to breathe fresh air as much as anyone. I'm happy with whatever role solar plays in cutting down pollution.\"" }, { "docid": "559641", "title": "", "text": "&gt; Contingencies such as losing your job, being unemployed, or working for lower salary are excluded of course. Why? Lower education increases your likelihood of being unemployed for a prolonged period. Even during this Great Recession, [the unemployment rate for those with a bachelor's degree and older than 25 never exceeded 5%.](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4jIlyJ10uJU/TP1rTP2Me3I/AAAAAAAAKp0/JbKB1WQWVLE/s1600/UnemploymentEducationSept2010.jpg) Edit: &gt; 90% of the people will not reach 300-400K more in their lifetime. The difference of the median of those with a bachelor's compared to those with high school diploma in [2009 was 15K per year](http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=77) for full-time, full-year wage and salary workers ages 25–34. At 15K per year for the 40+ years of work from 22 or so to 65, it will be 600K. But the gap will widen as the employees age. Professionals will have career advancement with resulting increase is salary. For all ages, [the difference between median salary for a bachelor's degree holder compare to high school diploma is 19.5K \\($46,930 compared to $27,380\\)](http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_392.asp)" }, { "docid": "69042", "title": "", "text": "From a long-term planning point of view, is the bump in salary worth not having a 401(k)? In this case, absolutely. At $30k/year, the 4% company match comes to about $1,200 per year. To get that you need to save $1,200 yourself, so your gross pay after retirement contributions is about $28,800. Now you have an offer making $48,000. If you take the new job, you can put $2,400 in retirement (to get to an equivalent retirement rate), and now your gross pay after retirement contributions is $45,600. Now if the raise in salary were not as high, or you were getting a match that let you exceed the individual contribution max, the math might be different, but in this case you can effectively save the company match yourself and still be way ahead. Note that there are MANY other factors that may also be applicable as to whether to take this job or not (do you like the work? The company? The coworkers? The location? Is there upward mobility? Are the benefits equivalent?) but not taking a 67% raise just because you're losing a 4% 401(k) match is not a wise decision." }, { "docid": "526383", "title": "", "text": "First off, great job on your finances so far. You are off on the right foot and have some sense of planning for the future. Also, it is a great question. First, I agree with @littleadv. Take advantage of your employer match. Do not drop your 401(k) contributions below that. Also, good job on putting your contributions into the Roth account. Second, I would ask: Are you out of debt? If not, put all your extra income towards paying off debt, and then you can work your plan. Third, time to do some math. What will your business look like? How much capital would you need to get started? Are there things you can do now on a part-time basis to start this business or prepare you to start the business? Come up with a figure, find some mutual funds that have a low beta, and back out how much money you need to save per month, so you have around that total. Then you have a figure. e.g. Assume you need $20,000, and you find a fund that has done 8% over the past 20 years. Then, you would need to save about $110/month to be ready to go in 10 years, or $273/month to go in about 5 years. (It's a time value of money calculation.) The house is really a long way off, but you could do the same kind of calculation. I feel that you think your income, and possibly locale, will change dramatically over the next few years. It might not be bad to double what you are saving for the business, and designate one half for the house." }, { "docid": "306816", "title": "", "text": "Where did you get the impression that it is a $70k per year job? Not even the apple picker is going to pick apples all year long. The seasonal nature of the work means that you'll put in time during certain times of year, but often you won't be needed at all. We're talking hourly pay here because it is an hourly, not a yearly, job. If you bring some skills to the table, I know some farms that would jump at the chance to pay you $70k per year. But most people don't have those skills and those that do can make even more elsewhere. Source: The real world. I don't know how to link to that. Sorry." }, { "docid": "207354", "title": "", "text": "I think that is the wrong approach. You certainly need to teach the value of work, but you cannot tie it to income levels as a hard and fast rule. If you do, how do you then explain athletes making millions per year and only 'working' half a year, at most. And, then comparing that person to a person working hard in a factory, 40-50 hours per week, 50 weeks per year, bringing home $50K per year? I've always taught my kids to work hard and with integrity. And, most importantly, you better enjoy the work you do because no matter how much money you make, if you dread getting up in the morning to go to work, your money won't make you happy. I've never focused on the amount of money they should be making." }, { "docid": "451457", "title": "", "text": "\"A major thing to consider when deciding whether to invest or pay off debt is cash flow. Specifically, how each choice affects your cash flow, and how your cash flow is affected by various events. Simply enough, your cash flow is the amount of money that passes through your finances during a given period (often a month or a year). Some of this is necessary payments, like staying current on loans, rent, etc., while other parts are not necessary, such as eating out. For example, you currently have $5,500 debt at 3% and another $2,500 at 5%. This means that every month, your cashflow effect of these loans is ($5,500 * 3% / 12) + ($2,500 * 5% / 12) = $24 interest (before any applicable tax effects), plus any required payments toward the principal which you don't state. To have the $8,000 paid off in 30 years, you'd be paying another $33 toward the principal, for a total of about $60 per month before tax effects in your case. If you take the full $7,000 you have available and use it to pay off the debt starting with the higher-interest loan, then your situation changes such that you now: Assuming that the repayment timeline remains the same, the cashflow effect of the above becomes $1,000 * 3% / 12 = $2.50/month interest plus $2.78/month toward the principal, again before tax effects. In one fell swoop, you just reduced your monthly payment from $60 to $5.25. Per year, this means $720 to $63, so on the $7,000 \"\"invested\"\" in repayment you get $657 in return every year for a 9.4% annual return on investment. It will take you about 11 years to use only this money to save another $7,000, as opposed to the 30 years original repayment schedule. If the extra payment goes toward knocking time off the existing repayment schedule but keeping the amount paid toward the principal per month the same, you are now paying $33 toward the principal plus $2.50 interest against the $1,000 loan, which means by paying $35.50/month you will be debt free in 30 months: two and a half years, instead of 30 years, an effective 92% reduction in repayment time. You immediately have another about $25/month in your budget, and in two and a half years you will have $60 per month that you wouldn't have if you stuck with the original repayment schedule. If instead the total amount paid remains the same, you are then paying about $57.50/month toward the principal and will be debt free in less than a year and a half. Not too shabby, if you ask me. Also, don't forget that this is a known, guaranteed return in that you know what you would be paying in interest if you didn't do this, and you know what you will be paying in interest if you do this. Even if the interest rate is variable, you can calculate this to a reasonable degree of certainty. The difference between those two is your return on investment. Compare this to the fact that while an investment in the S&P might have similar returns over long periods of time, the stock market is much more volatile in the shorter term (as the past two decades have so eloquently demonstrated). It doesn't do you much good if an investment returns 10% per year over 30 years, if when you need the money it's down 30% because you bought at a local peak and have held the investment for only a year. Also consider if you go back to school, are you going to feel better about a $5.25/month payment or a $60/month payment? (Even if the payments on old debt are deferred while you are studying, you will still have to pay the money, and it will likely be accruing interest in the meantime.) Now, I really don't advocate emptying your savings account entirely the way I did in the example above. Stuff happens all the time, and some stuff that happens costs money. Instead, you should be keeping some of that money easily available in a liquid, non-volatile form (which basically means a savings account without withdrawal penalties or a money market fund, not the stock market). How much depends on your necessary expenses; a buffer of three months' worth of expenses is an often recommended starting point for an emergency fund. The above should however help you evaluate how much to keep, how much to invest and how much to use to pay off loans early, respectively.\"" }, { "docid": "15951", "title": "", "text": "\"House prices do not go up. Land prices in countries with growing economies tend to go up. The price of the house on the land generally depreciates as it wears out. Houses require money; they are called money pits for a reason. You have to replace HVAC periodically, roofs, repairs, rot, foundation problems, leaks, electrical repair; and all of that just reduces the rate at which the house (not the land) loses value. To maintain value (of the house proper), you need to regularly rebuild parts of the house. People expect different things in Kitchens, bathrooms, dining rooms, doors, bedrooms today than they do in the past, and wear on flooring and fixtures accumulate over time. The price of land and is going to be highly determined by the current interest rates. Interest rates are currently near zero; if they go up by even a few percent, we can expect land prices to stop growing and start shrinking, even if the economy continues to grow. So the assumption that land+house prices go up is predicated on the last 35 years of constant rigorous economic growth mixed with interest rate decreases. This is a common illusion, that people assume the recent economic past is somehow the way things are \"\"naturally\"\". But we cannot decrease interest rates further, and rigorous economic growth is far from guaranteed. This is because people price land based on their carrying cost; the cost you have to spend out of your income to have ownership of it. And that is a function of interest rates. Throw in no longer expecting land values to constantly grow and second-order effects that boost land value also go away. Depending on the juristiction, a mortgage is a hugely leveraged investment. It is akin to taking 10,000$, borrowing 40,000$ and buying stock. If the stock goes up, you make almost 5x as much money; if it goes down, you lose 5x as much. And you owe a constant stream of money to service the debt on top of that. If you want to be risk free, work out how you'd deal with the value of your house dropping by 50% together with losing your job, getting a job paying half as much after a period of 6 months unemployment. The new job requires a 1.5 hour commute from your house. Interest rates going up to 12% and your mortgage is up for renewal (in 15 years - they climbed gradually over the time, say), optionally. That is a medium-bad situation (not a great depression scale problem), but is a realistic \"\"bad luck\"\" event that could happen to you. Not likely, but possible. Can you weather it? If so, the risk is within your bounds. Note that going bankrupt may be a reasonable plan to such a bit of bad luck. However, note that had you not purchased the house, you wouldn't be bankrupt in that situation. It is reasonably likely that house prices will, after you spend ~3% of the construction cost of the house per year, pay the mortgage on the land+house, grow at a rate sufficient to offset the cost of renting and generate an economically reasonable level of profit. It is not a risk-free investment. If someone tries to sell you a risk-free investment, they are almost certainly wrong.\"" }, { "docid": "294150", "title": "", "text": "There is no right and wrong answer to this question. What you and your business partner perceive as Fair is the best way to split the ownership of the new venture. First, regarding the two issues you have raised: Capital Contributions: The fact that you are contributing 90% of initial capital does not necessarily translate to 90% of equity. In my opinion, what is fair is that you transform your contributions into a loan for the company. The securitization of your contribution into a loan will make it easier to calculate your fair contribution and also compensate you for your risk by choosing whatever combination of interest income and equity you see suitable. For example, you might decide to split the company in half and consider your contributions a loan with 20%, 50% or 200% annual interest. Salary: It is common that co-founders of start-ups forgo their wages at the start of the company. I do not recommend that this forgone salary be compensated through equity because it is impossible to determine the suitable amount of equity to be paid. I suggest the translation of forgone wages into loans or preferred stocks in similar fashion to capital contribution Also, consider the following in deciding the best way to allocate equity between both of you and your partner Whose idea was it? Talk with you business partner how both of you value the inventor of the concept. In general, execution is more important but talking about how you both feel about it is good. Full-time vs. part-time: A person who works full time at the new venture should have more equity than the partner who is only a part-time helper. Control: It is important to talk about control and decision making of the company. You can separate the control and decision making of important decisions from ownership. You can also check the following article about this topic at http://www.forbes.com/sites/dailymuse/2012/04/05/what-every-founder-needs-to-know-about-equity/#726842f3668a" }, { "docid": "569145", "title": "", "text": "Depending on how much freelance work we're talking about you could set up a limited company, with you and your wife as directors. By invoicing all your work through the limited company (which could have many other benefits for you, an accountant/advisor would... well, advise...) it's the company earning the money, not you or her personally. You can then pay your wife up to £10,000 per year (as of writing this) without income tax kicking in. You would probably have to pay yourself a small amount to minimise exposure to HMRC's snooping, but possibly not... as far as I'm aware the rules do not state anything about working for free, for yourself - and I wouldn't worry about the ethics, you're already paying plenty into HMRC's bank account through your day job! Some good information here if you're interested: https://www.whitefieldtax.co.uk/web/psc-guide/pscguide-how-does-it-all-work-in-practice-salaries-and-dividends/" }, { "docid": "121621", "title": "", "text": "\"As a contractor, I have done this exact calculation many times so I can compare full time employment offers when they come. The answer varies greatly depending on your situation, but here's how to calculate it: So, subtracting the two and you get I've run many different scenarios with multiple plans and employers, and in my situation with a spouse and 1 child, the employer plans usually ended up saving me approximately $5k per year. So then, to answer your question: ...salary is \"\"100k\"\", \"\"with healthcare\"\", or then \"\"X\"\" \"\"with no healthcare\"\" - what do we reckon? I reckon I would want to be paid $5K more, or $105K. This is purely hypothetical though and assumes there are no other differences except for with or without health insurance. In reality, contractor vs employee will have quite a few other differences. But in general, the calculation varies by company and the more generous the employer's health benefits, the more you need to be compensated to make up for not having it. Note: the above numbers are very rough, and there are many other factors that come into play, some of which are: As a side note, many years ago, during salary talks with a company, I was able to negotiate $2K in additional yearly salary by agreeing not to take the health insurance since I had better insurance through my spouse. Health insurance in the US was much cheaper back then so I think closer to $5K today would be about right and is consistent with my above ballpark calculation. I always wondered what would have happened if I turned around and enrolled the following year. I suspect had I done that they could not have legally lowered my salary due to my breaking my promise, but I wouldn't be surprised if I didn't get a raise that year either.\"" }, { "docid": "58937", "title": "", "text": "In general What does this mean? Assume 10 holidays and 2 weeks of vacation. So you will report to the office for 240 days (48 weeks * 5 days a week). If you are a w2 they will pay you for 260 days (52 weeks * 5 days a week). At $48 per hour you will be paid: 260*8*48 or $99,840. As a 1099 you will be paid 240*8*50 or 96,000. But you still have to cover insurance, the extra part of social security, and your retirement through an IRA. A rule of thumb I have seen with government contracting is that If the employee thinks that they make X,000 per year the company has to bill X/hour to pay for wages, benefits, overhead and profit. If the employee thinks they make x/hour the company has to bill at 2X/hour. When does a small spread make sense: The insurance is covered by another source, your spouse; or government/military retirement program. Still $2 per hour won't cover the 6.2% for social security. Let alone the other benefits. The IRS has a checklist to make sure that a 1099 is really a 1099, not just a way for the employer to shift the costs onto the individual." }, { "docid": "574654", "title": "", "text": "I would say that, for the most part, money should not be invested in the stock market or real estate. Mostly this money should be kept in savings: I feel like your emergency fund is light. You do not indicate what your expenses are per month, but unless you can live off of 1K/month, that is pretty low. I would bump that to about 15K, but that really depends upon your expenses. You may want to go higher when you consider your real estate investments. What happens if a water heater needs replacement? (41K left) EDIT: As stated you could reduce your expenses, in an emergency, to 2K. At the bare minimum your emergency fund should be 12K. I'd still be likely to have more as you don't have any money in sinking funds or designated savings and the real estate leaves you a bit exposed. In your shoes, I'd have 12K as a general emergency fund. Another 5K in a car fund (I don't mind driving a 5,000 car), 5k in a real estate/home repair fund, and save about 400 per month for yearly insurance and tax costs. Your first point is incorrect, you do have debt in the form of a car lease. That car needs to be replaced, and you might want to upgrade the other car. How much? Perhaps spend 12K on each and sell the existing car for 2K? (19K left). Congratulations on attempting to bootstrap a software company. What kind of cash do you anticipate needing? How about keeping 10K designated for that? (9K left) Assuming that medical school will run you about 50K per year for 4 years how do you propose to pay for it? Assuming that you put away 4K per month for 24 months and have 9K, you will come up about 95K short assuming some interests in your favor. The time frame is too short to invest it, so you are stuck with crappy bank rates." }, { "docid": "287694", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Sometimes that requires more time other times less. Oh bullshit. Once when I had little work I started doing few hours. After a couple weeks of this I was explicitly reprimanded and told to give 8 hours per day of butt-in-seat. I asked if my actual team leader had complained I wasn't working efficiently enough. Turns out he thought I was doing *just fine* for the workload he was giving me. Only as a salaried contractor working remotely did I end up being able to turn my ability to *get my shit done* into more free time." }, { "docid": "394649", "title": "", "text": "\"This is a poor argument. If I could make $500 an hour but could only work 1 hour per week, I'd be broke and still \"\"more successful\"\" given your example. Salary divided by hours worked (or even effort for that matter) ignores economies of scale. Just because you're efficient on a per unit basis doesn't mean you have the same potential as someone else that can \"\"sell\"\" more units than you.\"" }, { "docid": "243356", "title": "", "text": "\"You cannot deduct commute expenses. Regarding your specific example, something to consider is that if the standard of living is higher in San Francisco, presumably the wages are higher too. Therefore, you must make a choice to trade \"\"time and some money for commuting costs\"\" for \"\"even more money\"\" in the form of higher wages. For example, if you can make $50K working 2 hours away from SF, or $80K working in SF, and it costs you $5K extra per year in commute costs, you still come out ahead by $25K (minus taxes). If it ends up costing $20K more to live in SF (due to higher rent/mortgage/food/etc), some people choose to trade 4 extra hours of commuting time to put that extra $20K in their pocket. It's sort of like having an extra part time job, except you get paid to read/watch tv/sleep on the job (assuming you can take a train to work).\"" }, { "docid": "188816", "title": "", "text": "I'll start with the bottom line. Below the line I'll address the specific issues. Becoming a US tax resident is a very serious decision, that has significant consequences for any non-American with >$0 in assets. When it involves cross-border business interests, it becomes even more significant. Especially if Switzerland is involved. The US has driven at least one iconic Swiss financial institution out of business for sheltering US tax residents from the IRS/FinCEN. So in a nutshell, you need to learn and be afraid of the following abbreviations: and many more. The best thing for you would be to find a good US tax adviser (there are several large US tax firms in the UK handling the US expats there, go to one of those) and get a proper assessment of all your risks and get a proper advice. You can get burnt really hard if you don't prepare and plan properly. Now here's that bottom line. Q) Will I have to submit the accounts for the Swiss Business even though Im not on the payroll - and the business makes hardly any profit each year. I can of course get our accounts each year - BUT - they will be in Swiss German! That's actually not a trivial question. Depending on the ownership structure and your legal status within the company, all the company's bank accounts may be reportable on FBAR (see link above). You may also be required to file form 5471. Q) Will I need to have this translated!? Is there any format/procedure to this!? Will it have to be translated by my Swiss accountants? - and if so - which parts of the documentation need to be translated!? All US forms are in English. If you're required to provide supporting documentation (during audit, or if the form instructions require it with filing) - you'll need to translate it, and have the translation certified. Depending on what you need, your accountant will guide you. I was told that if I sell the business (and property) after I aquire a greencard - that I will be liable to 15% tax of the profit I'd made. Q) Is this correct!? No. You will be liable to pay income tax. The rate of the tax depends on the kind of property and the period you held it for. It may be 15%, it may be 39%. Depends on a lot of factors. It may also be 0%, in some cases. I also understand that any tax paid (on selling) in Switzerland will be deducted from the 15%!? May be. May be not. What you're talking about is called Foreign Tax Credit. The rules for calculating the credit are not exactly trivial, and from my personal experience - you can most definitely end up being paying tax in both the US and Switzerland without the ability to utilize the credit in full. Again, talk to your tax adviser ahead of time to plan things in the most optimal way for you. I will effectively have ALL the paperwork for this - as we'll need to do the same in Switzerland. But again, it will be in Swiss German. Q) Would this be a problem if its presented in Swiss German!? Of course. If you need to present it (again, most likely only in case of audit), you'll have to have a translation. Translating stuff is not a problem, usually costs $5-$20 per page, depending on complexity. Unless a lot of money involved, I doubt you'll need to translate more than balance sheet/bank statement. I know this is a very unique set of questions, so if you can shed any light on the matter, it would be greatly appreciated. Not unique at all. You're not the first and not the last to emigrate to the US. However, you need to understand that the issue is very complex. Taxes are complex everywhere, but especially so in the US. I suggest you not do anything before talking to a US-licensed CPA/EA whose practice is to work with the EU/UK expats to the US or US expats to the UK/EU." }, { "docid": "359303", "title": "", "text": "The nature of this question (finding a financial adviser) can make it a conundrum. Those who have little financial experience are often in the greatest need of a financial adviser and at the same time are the least qualified to select one. I'm not putting you or anyone in particular in this category. And of course it's a sliding scale: In general the more capable you are of running your own finances the more prepared you are to answer this question. With that said, I would recommend backing up half a step. Consider advisers other than strictly fee-only advisers. Perhaps you have already considered this decision. But perhaps others reading this have not. My (Ameriprise) adviser charges a monthly (~$50) fee, but also gets percentage-based portions of certain investments. Based on a $150/hr rate that amounts to four hours per year. Does he spend four hours per year on my account? Well so far he does (~2 yrs). But that is determined primarily by how much interaction I choose to have with him. (I suppose I could spend more time asking him questions and less time on this forum. :P) I have never fully understood the gravitation towards fee-based advisers on principle. I guess the theory is they are not making biased decisions about your investments because they don't have as much of a stake in how well your investments to do. I don't necessarily see that as an advantage. It seems they would have less of an incentive to ensure the growth of your investments. Although if you're nearing retirement then growth isn't your biggest concern. Perhaps a fee-based adviser makes more sense in that scenario. Whatever pay structure your adviser uses, it would seem to make sense to consider a successful adviser with a good client base. This implies that the adviser knows what he/she is doing. (But it could also just be a sign that they are good at marketing themselves.) If your adviser has a good base of wealthy clients then choosing a strictly-fee based adviser would mitigate the risk of your adviser having less incentive to consider your portfolio vs that of more wealthy clients. To more directly answer your question I suggest asking several of your adviser candidates for advice on choosing an adviser. I suspect you will get some good advice as well as good insight on the integrity and honesty of the adviser." }, { "docid": "106817", "title": "", "text": "1. It is difficult. There is no formal process outside of undergrad and MBA programs to easily gain access to interviews. At your level, its mostly about connections. If willing to start near bottom, go to your business school and start applying to bank associate programs. Sounds like you would like sales and trading more than M&amp;A, so focus there. 2. If you got in at associate level, you would do 1-3 months of training and then get assigned a desk. Finance going through a tough time right now, so trajectory isn't what it used to be. Expect to be a VP after 2-4 years, then its all dependent on luck and skill. 3. If you land a job at a top 15 bank, you should be making total comp of 150k or more after the first year. Salaries not quite at 150k, but most VPS make over 150k salary, not to mention bigger bonus's. 4. If you did M&amp;A you would be working very serious hours. If you go into Sales and Trading your hours will be anywhere from 40 to 60 hours a week depending on the desk. Trading hours tend to be the shortest. 5. Boston isn't a hot bed for i-banking finance. NYC, London, Sing, Hong Kong tend to be the places to be. I know nobody in Boston that could help." } ]

[ { "docid": "62882", "title": "", "text": "It's difficult to quantify the intangible benefits, so I would recommend that you begin by quantifying the financials and then determine whether the difference between the pay of the two jobs justifies the value of the intangible benefits to you. Some Explainations You are making $55,000 per year, but your employer is also paying for a number of benefits that do not come free as a contractor. Begin by writing down everything they are providing you that you would like to continue to have. This may include: You also need to account for the FICA tax that you need to pay completely as a part time employee (normally a company pays half of it for you). This usually amounts to 7.8% of your income. Quantification Start by researching the cost for providing each item in the list above to yourself. For health insurance get quotes from providers. For bonuses average your yearly bonuses for your work history with the company. Items like stock options you need to make your best guess on. Calculations Now lets call your original salary S. Add up all of the costs of the list items mentioned above and call them B. This formula will tell you your real current annual compensation (RAC): Now you want to break your part time job into hours per year, not hours per month, as months have differing numbers of working days. Assuming no vacations that is 52 weeks per year multiplied by 20 hours, or 1040 hours (780 if working 15 hours per week). So to earn the same at the new job as the old you would need to earn an hourly wage of: The full equation for 20 hours per week works out to be: Assumptions DO NOT TAKE THIS SECTION AS REPRESENTATIVE OF YOUR SITUATION; ONLY A BALLPARK ESTIMATE You must do the math yourself. I recommend a little spreadsheet to simplify things and play what-if scenarios. However, we can ballpark your situation and show how the math works with a few assumptions. When I got quoted for health insurance for myself and my partner it was $700 per month, or $8400 per year. If we assume the same for you, then add 3% 401k matching that we'll assume you're taking advantage of ($1650), the equation becomes: Other Considerations Keep in mind that there are other considerations that could offset these calculations. Variable hours are a big risk, as is your status as a 'temporary' employee. Though on the flip side you don't need to pay taxes out of each check, allowing you to invest that money throughout the year until taxes are due. Also, if you are considered a private contractor you can write off many expenses that you cannot as a full time employee." } ]

[ { "docid": "549759", "title": "", "text": "If you don't know how to fix your own car or have time to take car parts off of a car at a junk yard, the average amount of money per month you spend on repairing an old car will be greater than the amount of money you spend per month on a new car payment. This is because car repair shops are charging $85 per hour for labor for car repairs. Many parts that wear out on a car are difficult to replace because of their location on the engine. The classic example is piston rings." }, { "docid": "319331", "title": "", "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))" }, { "docid": "233385", "title": "", "text": "Kinda. I'd be interested in seeing broader studies because minimum wage also influences other pay as well. I work in the medical field and most insurances base their rates off of what Medicare/Medicaid pay in each geographic area. By artificially setting the min wage too high you're going to influence the jobs that require marginally more skills and experience than min wage jobs. Obviously this influence has less effect the higher skilled and experience the position is but nonetheless influences them. Moreover there are other things that minimum wage influences such as here in California the government thought it was a bright idea to require servers be paid the regular minimum wage plus tips instead of the lower federally legal server min wage. This has had the effect that there are significantly more servers than low to mid skilled workers in CA because you can easily earn $20-30 or more per hour. Not to mention they get OT for every minute over 8 hours they work. Not to mention IIRC Cali requires that salaried employees must be paid twice min wage. So yeah while it doesn't directly affect a lot of people but it indirectly affects a lot. But ask me if I think raising the min wage is a good idea . . . Fuck no." }, { "docid": "157728", "title": "", "text": "A common rule of thumb is the 28/36 ratio. It's described here. In your case, with a gross (?) salary of £50,000, that means that you should spend no more than 28% of it, or £1,167 per month on housing. You may be able to swing a bit more because you have no debts and a modest amount in your savings. The 36% part comes in as the amount you can spend servicing all your debt, including mortgage. In your case, based on a gross (?) salary of £50,000, that'd be £1,500 per month. Again, that is to cover your housing costs and any additional debt you are servicing. So, you need to figure out how much you could bring in through rent to make up the rest. As at least one other person has commented, the rule of thumb is that your mortgage should be no more than 2.5 - 3 times your income. I personally think you are not a good candidate for a mortgage of the size you are discussing. That said, I no longer live in England. If you could feel fairly secure getting someone to pay you enough in rent to bring down your total mortgage and loan repayment amounts to £1,500 or so a month, you may want to consider it. Remember, though, that it may not always be easy to find renters." }, { "docid": "181588", "title": "", "text": "Investment in public infrastructure is different than subsidy to private companies. Comparison to the interstate system here is irrelevant. The state of Wisconsin is giving a company $230k per worker per year in tax breaks for jobs that will pay the workers $53k per year. There is no tax rate that can earn that investment back for the state. In fact, that state income tax rate on these salaries is 6.27%. Even considering all of the additional jobs that will be created for construction and as an effect of having a large employer in the area, this investment will never pay for itself in terms of taxes generated." }, { "docid": "208261", "title": "", "text": "\"What makes a \"\"standard\"\" raise depends on how well the economy is doing, how well your particular industry is doing, and how well your employer is doing. All these things change constantly, so anyone who says, \"\"a good raise is 5%\"\" or whatever number is being simplistic. Even if true when he said it, it won't necessarily be true next year, or this year in a different industry, etc. The thing to do is to look for salary surveys that are reasonably current and applicable. If today, in your industry, the average annual raise is 3% -- again, just making up a number -- then that's what you should think of as \"\"standard\"\". If you want a number, okay: In general, as a first-draft number, I look for a raise that's 2% or so above the current inflation rate. Yes, of course I'd LIKE to get a 20% raise every year, but that's not going to happen in real life. On the other hand if a company gives me raises that don't keep pace with inflation, than barring special circumstances I'm going to be looking for another job. But there are all sorts of special circumstances. If the economy is in a depression and unemployment in my field is 50%, I'll probably figure I'm lucky to have a job at all and not be too worried about raises. If the economy is booming and all my friends are getting 10% and 20% raises, then I'll want that too. As others have said, in the United States at least, the best way to get a pay raise is to change jobs. I think most American companies are absolutely stupid about this. They don't want to give current employees big raises, so they let them quit, and then hire replacements at a much higher salary than they were paying the guy they just drove to quit. And the replacement doesn't know the company and may have a lot to learn before he is fully productive. And then they congratulate themselves that they kept raises this year to only 3% -- even though total salaries paid went up by 10% because the new hires demanded higher salaries. They actively punish employees for staying with the company. (Reminds me of an article I read in a business magazine by an executive of a cell phone company. He bemoaned the fact that in the cell phone industry it is very hard to keep customers: they are constantly switching to other vendors. And I thought, Duh, maybe it's because you offer big discounts for the first year or two, and after that you jack your prices up through the roof. You actively punish your customers for staying with you more than 2 years, and then you wonder why customers leave after 2 years.) Oh, if you do change jobs: Absolutely do not buy a line of \"\"we'll start you off with this lower salary but don't worry because you'll get a big raise in a year\"\". When you're looking for a job, it's very easy to turn down a poor offer. Once you have taken a job, leaving to get another job is a big decision and a lot of work. So you have way more bargaining power on starting salary than on raises. And the company knows it and is trying to take advantage of it. Also consider not just percentage increase but what you're making now versus what other people with similar experience are making. If people comparable to you are making $50k and you're making $30k, you're more likely to get a big raise than if you're already making $80k. If the company says, \"\"We just don't have the budget to give you a raise\"\", the key question is, \"\"Is that true?\"\" If the company is tottering on the edge of bankruptcy and trying to cut costs everywhere, then even if they know you're a good and productive employee, they may really just not have the money to give you a good raise. But if business is booming, this could just be an excuse. It might be an excuse for \"\"we're trying to bleed employees white so the CEO can get another million dollar bonus this year\"\". Or it might be a euphemism for \"\"you're really not a very useful employee and we're seriously thinking of firing you, no way we're going to give you a raise for the little bit of work you do when you bother to show up\"\". My final word: Be realistic. What matters isn't what you want or think you need, but what you are worth to the company, and what other people with similar skills are willing to work for. If you are doing work that brings in $20k per year for the company, there is no way they are going to pay you more than $20k for very long. You can go on and on about how expensive it is these days to pay the mortgage and pay medical bills and feed your 10 children and support your cocaine addiction, but none of that is relevant to what you are worth to the company. Likewise if there are millions of people out there who would love to have your job for $20k, if you demand a lot more than that they're going to fire you and hire one of them. Conversely, if you're bringing in $100k a year for the company, they'll be willing to pay you a substantial percentage of that.\"" }, { "docid": "569224", "title": "", "text": "What most respondents are forgetting, is when a company allows its employees to purchase its shares at a discount with their salary, the employee is usually required to hold the stock for a number of years before they can sell them. The reason the company is allowing or promoting its employees to purchase its shares at a discount is to give the employees a sense of ownership of the company. Being a part owner in the company, the employee will want the company to succeed and will tend to be more productive. If employees were allowed to purchase the shares at a discount and sell them straight away, it would defeat this purpose. Your best option to decide whether or not to buy the shares is to work out if the investment is a good one as per any other investment you would undertake, i.e. determine how the company is currently performing and what its future prospects are likely to be. Regarding what percentage of pay to purchase the shares with, if you do decide to buy them, you need to work that out based on your current and future budgetary needs and your savings plan for the future." }, { "docid": "58937", "title": "", "text": "In general What does this mean? Assume 10 holidays and 2 weeks of vacation. So you will report to the office for 240 days (48 weeks * 5 days a week). If you are a w2 they will pay you for 260 days (52 weeks * 5 days a week). At $48 per hour you will be paid: 260*8*48 or $99,840. As a 1099 you will be paid 240*8*50 or 96,000. But you still have to cover insurance, the extra part of social security, and your retirement through an IRA. A rule of thumb I have seen with government contracting is that If the employee thinks that they make X,000 per year the company has to bill X/hour to pay for wages, benefits, overhead and profit. If the employee thinks they make x/hour the company has to bill at 2X/hour. When does a small spread make sense: The insurance is covered by another source, your spouse; or government/military retirement program. Still $2 per hour won't cover the 6.2% for social security. Let alone the other benefits. The IRS has a checklist to make sure that a 1099 is really a 1099, not just a way for the employer to shift the costs onto the individual." }, { "docid": "2325", "title": "", "text": "\"Economic hardship is just as misleading as \"\"economic slavery\"\". If you are working two jobs and can't afford rent... How can you better yourself? Sure, if you are exceptionally intelligent and/or charismatic and/or exceptionally great in some other way, you could find a way out of the hole. But if you are working two full-time jobs and are trying your best - that should be enough. I personally am against a $15 minimum wage - even on a local level, much less a state or federal level, but I very much support legislation that ensures someone who works 85 (or 60) hours a week (that's 12 hours a day for 85 hours per week) can get by. By \"\"getting by\"\" I mean can rent modest housing, can afford nutritious food, can afford decent health insurance, can buy clothes (maybe second-hand), can put a bit into savings, etc. Minimum wage jobs are done by young people just entering the job market and older people with few skills. Better to have legislation that takes that into account. High school and college kids won't be working 60-85+ hours a week. Save the subsidies for the people that really need them.\"" }, { "docid": "274722", "title": "", "text": "The fact that this is what’s being reported is horribly misleading. At the bottom of the same page of that report, there is data intended to show the difference between the pay rates in genders. This data accidently proves that individual incomes are still stagnant and that the reason for our increased household wages is that more people per household are working, and part timers are working longer hours. Following is how this conclusion is drawn: The section titled “Earnings of Full Time, Year-Round Workers,” can be used to find 2015’s average income per full time worker, and 2016’s average income per full time worker. The 2015 data shows that men made up 57.51% of the full time, year round working population (63,887/111,098) and earned $51,859.00. Women made up 42.49% of the full time, year round working population (47,211/111,098) and earned $41,257.00. This means that the average income for a full time, year round worker in 2015 was $47,353.69 (51,859 x .5751 + 41,257 x .4249). The 2016 data shows that men made up 57.34% of the full time, year round working population (64,953/113,281) and earned $51,640.00. Women made up 42.66% of the population (48,328/113,281) and earned $41,554.00. This means the average income for a full time, year round worker in 2016 was $47,337.11 (51,640 x .5734 + 41,554 x .4266). So while the news is reporting the increase in household income, the average income for a full time, year round worker actually fell by $16.58 in 2016." }, { "docid": "35680", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "463042", "title": "", "text": "If you enjoy driving 5 minutes out of the way to get gas (or mowing the lawn or whatever), then it is perfectly rational to do it. If not, the value of your time is how much you would value (not necessarily how much you would get paid) doing something else. MrChrister is right, the concept behind the comic is opportunity cost. In a nutshell, if driving an extra 5 minutes for gas is complete drudgery to you and you would only do it to save money, may as well get a part-time job at minimum wage instead. If you would rather, say, go watch TV instead of getting that part-time job, then you value TV-watching at greater than the minimum wage, and it is still irrational to drive 5 minutes for the gas. Basically, the answer to your question is to figure out what else you could be doing that offers similar overall pleasure/pain to the task at hand and see how much you would get paid to do that instead. It doesn't matter that you are on a fixed salary." }, { "docid": "462609", "title": "", "text": "If the 6 credits per semester working part time schedule includes no loans, consider this. Yes, it may take you twice as long to finish, BUT, you'll have a lot of working experience, AND zero student loans when you're done. Compare this to someone who graduates in four years and has 20k in student loans. If they set up a 20 year repayment for the loans, they'll still have 16-18k left to pay and 4 years of job experience. You'll have 8 years of half time job experience and zero debt. The key would be to find a job in your area of interest. More ideal would be one that pays for classes as a benefit. Then you might increase your class load and decrease the total time to graduate, AND have relevant job experience when you graduate." }, { "docid": "59687", "title": "", "text": "\"For the person being hired this is a tricky situation. Specially with the new laws. There is no real magic number that can be applied as a lot will depend on what benefits you want, and what is actually available. This will really shift the spectrum quite a bit. Under the affordibal care act, everyone has to have insurance or pay a ?fine? (were really not sure what to call this yet) but there are two provisions that really mess with the numbers you look at as an employee. First, the cost of heath care has skyrocketed. So the same benefits that you had 5 years ago now cost maybe 10-15 times as much as they used to. This gets swept under the rug a bit because the \"\"main costs\"\" of insurance has only increased a tiny amount. What this actually comes down to is does your new ACA approved heath plan cover exactly the benefits you need, or does it cut corners. Sorry this is complicated, and I don't mean it to come off as a speech against the ACA so I will give an example. My wife has RA, she really has it under control with the help of her RA doctor. This is not something she ever wants to change. Because she has had RA from the age of 15, and because it's degenerative, she doesn't want to spend 5 years working with a new doctor to get to the same place she is with her current doctor. In addition, the main drugs she takes for RA are not covered under any ACA plan, nor are the \"\"substitutions\"\" that her doctor makes (we are trying to have kids so she has to be off the main meds, and a couple of the things this doctor has tried has been meds that reduce inflammation, are pregnancy safe, but are not for the treatment of RA) You now have to take into effect rather the cost of health insurance + the cost of the things now not covered by the heath insurance + the out of pocket expenses is worth the insurance. Second the ACA has set up provisions to straight up trick those people that have lower income and are not paying close attention. When shopping for insurance, they get quotes like \"\"$50 a month\"\" or \"\"$100 a month\"\". The truth is that the remainder of the actual cost is deducted from their tax returns. This takes consideration, because if you thing your paying $50 a month for insurance but your really paying $650 then you need to make sure your doing your math right. Finally, you need to understand how messed up things are right now in the US with heath care. Largely this goes unreported. I'm not really sure why. But in order to do this I will have to give examples. For my wife to see a specialist (her RA doctor) the co-pay is $75. So she goes to the doctor, he charges her $75 and bills the insurance $200. The insurance pays the doctor $50. With out insurance, the visit costs $50. At first you want to blame the doctor for cheating the system, but the doctor has to pay for hours of labor to get the $50 back from the insurance company. From the doctors perspective it's cheaper to take the $50 then it is to charge the insurance company. And by charging the insurance company he has no control over the cost of the co pay. He essentially has to charge more to make the same money and the patient gets the shaft in the process. Another example, I got strep throat last year. I went to the walk in clinic, paid $75, saw the doctor got my Z-Pack for $15, went home crawled in bed and got better. My wife (who still had separate insurance from before the marriage) got strep throat (imagen that) went to the same clinic, they charged her $200 for the visit ($50 co-pay) and $250 for the z-pack ($3 co-pay). The insurance paid the clinic $90 for the visit and $3 for the drugs. Again the patient is left out in this scenario. In this case it worked better for my wife, unless you account for the fact that to get that coverage she had to pay $650/month. My point is that when comparing costs of heathcare with insurance, and without out insurance, its often times much cheaper for the practices to have you self pay then it is for them to go through the loops of trying to insurance to make them whole. This creates two rates. Self pay rates and Insured rates. When your trying to figure out the cost of not having insurance then you need to use the self pay rates. These can be vastly different. So as an employee you need to figure out your cost of heath care with insurance, and your cost of heath care without insurance. Then user those numbers when your trying to negotiate a salary. The problem is that there is no magic number to use for this because the cost will very a lot. For us, it was cheaper to not have insurance. Even with a pre-existing condition that takes constant attention, it's just better if we set aside $500 a month then it is to try to pay $750 a month. That might not hold true for everyone. For some people or conditions it may be better to pay the $750 then to try to handle it themselves. So for my negotiations I would go with x+$6,000 without insurance or x+$4,500 with insurance. Now as an employer it's a lot simpler. Usually you have a \"\"group plan\"\" that offers you a pretty straight $x per year per person or $y per year per family. So you can offer exactly that. Salary - $x or Salary - $y. AS a starting point. However this is where negotiations start. If your offering me $50,500 and insurance, I would rather just have $57,000 and no insurance. Of course your real cost is only $55,000 cause you don't care about my heath care costs only about insurance costs. So you try to negotiate down towards $55,000 and no insurance. But that's not good enough for me. So I either go else where and you loose talent, or I accept $50,500 and insurance (or somewhere in between).\"" }, { "docid": "7404", "title": "", "text": "\"Do you know if you were approached by a carrier or a tower vendor? Edit/addendum: As someone in the telecommunications industry, I will say that you should NOT lease to a vendor who will sublease the space to the phone companies for a profit. Depending on the availability of space, the population of the area, and the value of the location, and the amount and size of hardware to be installed, the rental pricing can vary wildly. A cell site on a choice tall building in Chicago, NYC, Boston, LA, etc., can go for over $25000 per year (more in the case of rental of inside equipment room). On the other hand, renting space on a church steeple in the middle of a low population rural town, with the equipment installed in a gated paddock at ground level, may only net around $1500 per month. A \"\"small cell\"\" site, which is actually small enough to put on a lamp post or utility pole, can go for around $250-750 per month. A turf contractor/tower vendor actually leasing a chunk of land to build a structure whose space will be leased out to telecoms should be expected to pay between $2500 and 8000 per month depending on the value of your site. This value is determined by land form details like elevation, nearby tall forests (can the tower \"\"see\"\" over the tree line), terrain contours, and need (local population/tourist/traveler numbers). Carriers prefer to lease from vendors rather than building their own structures, but roof top sites are a different story. Carriers are generally more than happy to work with you to lease a portion of your tall building's roof. FYI... If they offer to compensate you for the electrical requirements if they cannot get their own meter in, don't worry. A cell site uses less than 1000 watts, which translates to about $.10-15 per hour in most locations.\"" }, { "docid": "15951", "title": "", "text": "\"House prices do not go up. Land prices in countries with growing economies tend to go up. The price of the house on the land generally depreciates as it wears out. Houses require money; they are called money pits for a reason. You have to replace HVAC periodically, roofs, repairs, rot, foundation problems, leaks, electrical repair; and all of that just reduces the rate at which the house (not the land) loses value. To maintain value (of the house proper), you need to regularly rebuild parts of the house. People expect different things in Kitchens, bathrooms, dining rooms, doors, bedrooms today than they do in the past, and wear on flooring and fixtures accumulate over time. The price of land and is going to be highly determined by the current interest rates. Interest rates are currently near zero; if they go up by even a few percent, we can expect land prices to stop growing and start shrinking, even if the economy continues to grow. So the assumption that land+house prices go up is predicated on the last 35 years of constant rigorous economic growth mixed with interest rate decreases. This is a common illusion, that people assume the recent economic past is somehow the way things are \"\"naturally\"\". But we cannot decrease interest rates further, and rigorous economic growth is far from guaranteed. This is because people price land based on their carrying cost; the cost you have to spend out of your income to have ownership of it. And that is a function of interest rates. Throw in no longer expecting land values to constantly grow and second-order effects that boost land value also go away. Depending on the juristiction, a mortgage is a hugely leveraged investment. It is akin to taking 10,000$, borrowing 40,000$ and buying stock. If the stock goes up, you make almost 5x as much money; if it goes down, you lose 5x as much. And you owe a constant stream of money to service the debt on top of that. If you want to be risk free, work out how you'd deal with the value of your house dropping by 50% together with losing your job, getting a job paying half as much after a period of 6 months unemployment. The new job requires a 1.5 hour commute from your house. Interest rates going up to 12% and your mortgage is up for renewal (in 15 years - they climbed gradually over the time, say), optionally. That is a medium-bad situation (not a great depression scale problem), but is a realistic \"\"bad luck\"\" event that could happen to you. Not likely, but possible. Can you weather it? If so, the risk is within your bounds. Note that going bankrupt may be a reasonable plan to such a bit of bad luck. However, note that had you not purchased the house, you wouldn't be bankrupt in that situation. It is reasonably likely that house prices will, after you spend ~3% of the construction cost of the house per year, pay the mortgage on the land+house, grow at a rate sufficient to offset the cost of renting and generate an economically reasonable level of profit. It is not a risk-free investment. If someone tries to sell you a risk-free investment, they are almost certainly wrong.\"" }, { "docid": "569145", "title": "", "text": "Depending on how much freelance work we're talking about you could set up a limited company, with you and your wife as directors. By invoicing all your work through the limited company (which could have many other benefits for you, an accountant/advisor would... well, advise...) it's the company earning the money, not you or her personally. You can then pay your wife up to £10,000 per year (as of writing this) without income tax kicking in. You would probably have to pay yourself a small amount to minimise exposure to HMRC's snooping, but possibly not... as far as I'm aware the rules do not state anything about working for free, for yourself - and I wouldn't worry about the ethics, you're already paying plenty into HMRC's bank account through your day job! Some good information here if you're interested: https://www.whitefieldtax.co.uk/web/psc-guide/pscguide-how-does-it-all-work-in-practice-salaries-and-dividends/" }, { "docid": "290782", "title": "", "text": "\"Zero? Ten grand? Somewhere in the middle? It depends. Your stated salary, in U.S. dollars, would be high five-figures (~$88k). You certainly should not be starving, but with decent contributions toward savings and retirement, money can indeed be tight month-to-month at that salary level, especially since even in Cardiff you're probably paying more per square foot for your home than in most U.S. markets (EDIT: actually, 3-bedroom apartments in Cardiff, according to Numbeo, range from £750-850, which is US$1200-$1300, and for that many bedrooms you'd be hard-pressed to find that kind of deal in a good infield neighborhood of the DFW Metro, and good luck getting anywhere close to downtown New York, LA, Miami, Chicago etc for that price. What job do you do, and how are you expected to dress for it? Depending on where you shop and what you buy, a quality dress shirt and dress slacks will cost between US$50-$75 each (assuming real costs are similar for the same brands between US and UK, that's £30-£50 per shirt and pair of pants for quality brands). I maintain about a weeks' wardrobe at this level of dress (my job allows me to wear much cheaper polos and khakis most days and I have about 2 weeks' wardrobe of those) and I typically have to replace due to wear or staining, on average, 2 of these outfits a year (I'm hard on clothes and my waistline is expanding). Adding in 3 \"\"business casual\"\" outfits each year, plus casual outfits, shoes, socks, unmentionables and miscellany, call it maybe $600(£400)/year in wardrobe. That doesn't generally get metered out as a monthly allowance (the monthly amount would barely buy a single dress shirt or pair of slacks), but if you're socking away a savings account and buying new clothes to replace old as you can afford them it's a good average. I generally splurge in months when the utilities companies give me a break and when I get \"\"extra\"\" paychecks (26/year means two months have 3 checks, effectively giving me a \"\"free\"\" check that neither pays the mortgage nor the other major bills). Now, that's just to maintain my own wardrobe at a level of dress that won't get me fired. My wife currently stays home, but when she worked she outspent me, and her work clothes were basic black. To outright replace all the clothes I wear regularly with brand-new stuff off the rack would easily cost a grand, and that's for the average U.S. software dev who doesn't go out and meet other business types on a daily basis. If I needed to show up for work in a suit and tie daily, I'd need a two-week rotation of them, plus dress shirts, and even at the low end of about $350 (£225) per suit, $400 (£275) with dress shirt and tie, for something you won't be embarrassed to wear, we're talking $4000 (£2600) to replace and $800 (£520) per year to update 2 a year, not counting what I wear underneath or on the weekends. And if I wore suits I'd probably have to update the styles more often than that, so just go ahead and double it and I turn over my wardrobe once every 5 years. None of this includes laundering costs, which increase sharply when you're taking suits to the cleaners weekly versus just throwing a bunch of cotton-poly in the washing machine. What hobbies or other entertainment interests do you and your wife have? A movie ticket in the U.S. varies between $7-$15 depending on the size of the screen and 2D vs 3D screenings. My wife and I currently average less than one theater visit a month, but if you took in a flick each weekend with your wife, with a decent $50 dinner out, that's between $260-$420 (£165-270) monthly in entertainment expenses. Not counting babysitting for the little one (the going rate in the US is between $10 and $20 an hour for at-home child-sitting depending on who you hire and for how long, how often). Worst-case, without babysitting that's less than 5% of your gross income, but possibly more than 10% of your take-home depending on UK effective income tax rates (your marginal rate is 40% according to the HMRC, unless you find a way to deduct about £30k of your income). That's just the traditional American date night, which is just one possible interest. Playing organized sports is more or less expensive depending on the sport. Soccer (sorry, football) just needs a well-kept field, two goals and and a ball. Golf, while not really needing much more when you say it that way, can cost thousands of dollars or pounds a month to play with the best equipment at the best courses. Hockey requires head-to-toe padding/armor, skates, sticks, and ice time. American football typically isn't an amateur sport for adults and has virtually no audience in Europe, but in the right places in the U.S., beginning in just a couple years you'd be kitting your son out head-to-toe not dissimilar to hockey (minus sticks) and at a similar cost, and would keep that up at least halfway through high school. I've played them all at varying amateur levels, and with the possible exception of soccer they all get expensive when you really get interested in them. How much do you eat, and of what?. My family of three's monthly grocery budget is about $300-$400 (£190-£260) depending on what we buy and how we buy it. Americans have big refrigerators (often more than one; there's three in my house of varying sizes), we buy in bulk as needed every week to two weeks, we refrigerate or freeze a lot of what we buy, and we eat and drink a lot of high-fructose corn-syrup-based crap that's excise-taxed into non-existence in most other countries. I don't have real-world experience living and grocery-shopping in Europe, but I do know that most shopping is done more often, in smaller quantities, and for more real food. You might expect to spend £325 ($500) or more monthly, in fits and starts every few days, but as I said you'd probably know better than me what you're buying and what it's costing. To educate myself, I went to mysupermarket.co.uk, which has what I assume are typical UK food prices (mostly from Tesco), and it's a real eye-opener. In the U.S., alcohol is much more expensive for equal volume than almost any other drink except designer coffee and energy drinks, and we refrigerate the heck out of everything anyway, so a low-budget food approach in the U.S. generally means nixing beer and wine in favor of milk, fruit juices, sodas and Kool-Aid (or just plain ol' tap water). A quick search on MySupermarkets shows that wine prices average a little cheaper, accounting for the exchange rate, as in the States (that varies widely even in the U.S., as local and state taxes for beer, wine and spirits all differ). Beer is similarly slightly cheaper across the board, especially for brands local to the British Isles (and even the Coors Lite crap we're apparently shipping over to you is more expensive here than there), but in contrast, milk by the gallon (4L) seems to be virtually unheard of in the UK, and your half-gallon/2-liter jugs are just a few pence cheaper than our going rate for a gallon (unless you buy \"\"organic\"\" in the US, which carries about a 100% markup). Juices are also about double the price depending on what you're buying (a quart of \"\"Innocent\"\" OJ, roughly equivalent in presentation to the U.S. brand \"\"Simply Orange\"\", is £3 while Simply Orange is about the same price in USD for 2 quarts), and U.S.-brand \"\"fizzy drinks\"\" are similarly at a premium (£1.98 - over $3 - for a 2-liter bottle of Coca-Cola). With the general preference for room-temperature alcohol in Europe giving a big advantage to the longer unrefrigerated shelf lives of beer and wine, I'm going to guess you guys drink more alcohol and water with dinner than Americans. Beef is cheaper in the U.S., depending on where you are and what you're buying; prices for store-brand ground beef (you guys call it \"\"minced\"\") of the grade we'd use for hamburgers and sauces is about £6 per kilo in the UK, which works out to about $4.20/lb, when we're paying closer to $3/lb in most cities. I actually can't remember the last time I bought fresh chicken on the bone, but the average price I'm seeing in the UK is £10/kg ($7/lb) which sounds pretty steep. Anyway, it sounds like shopping for American tastes in the UK would cost, on average, between 25-30% more than here in the US, so applying that to my own family's food budget, you could easily justify spending £335 a month on food.\"" }, { "docid": "556946", "title": "", "text": "\"As a self-employed Handyman I can tell you this. Any work that is done, be it professional, part-time, hobby or whatever else, has to answer to two primary criteria. As you asked, it has to be worthwhile in financial terms and more importantly in personal terms. In the long term, charging low rates will demoralize her. Not worth it. Someone once said; \"\"I have no quarrel with he who charges cheaply, because who better then he knows the value of his services\"\"? Obviously one has to remain reasonable. Then there is an ambush factor in working for yourself. I call it syphoning losses since they are extremely difficult to calculate as noted above here already. In the first place they are extremely difficult to detect anyway. Micro-management will not tell you the losses, you can only do it at the end of a period on a balance sheet. Then you have to calculate a fair price in terms of lessons given and monies received. The trick is to gain a fair assessment of worth to her without her needing to go into the books, just as a simple gut feel. She needs to really feel good about it to maintain motivation for the future. Otherwise, I did it, it does not work. The other consideration is that when money changes hands it places a benchmark on the tuition and the relationship. One. It locks her into delivering professional work as she already is one. Two. The students will be locked into giving fair and excellent commitment in being taught. A simple calculation goes like this; Use the time span of a month as it is easier to break down available time per week. Also remember that there will perforce be extra hours spent in consultation with parents, this is a syphoning cost, it has be calculated. Difficult at the start, but keep track of it. One other thing. I do not give discounts of extend favours, but I keep my prices reasonable. [[I was told I am some 25% more expensive than the latest quotes, but I kept on getting work with a high execution to quotation rate.]] Floating prices are impossible to track, manage and justify, people talk to each other, whether you like it or not. Do proper, reasonable calculations and be up front to all about how you work. In contract on paper. It just may be necessary to scale prices from beginner to advanced classes. OK, $50 seems a fair price, I don't live in the States, but about three/four Big Mac's would compare about right. You are NOT selling time, you ARE selling expertise. Decide how much she wants out of it per month. Forget retirement, you live now. This income will also cover other \"\"invisible\"\" extraneous work. Determine how much time will be spent in giving lessons. You can only charge for \"\"visible\"\" work done. Basic Hourly Rate = Monthly Income / Lesson Hours. Then there's a catch. Research has shown that owners of one man and small businesses spend about 55% of their time in getting new business. So,now. Charged Hourly Rate = Basic Hourly Rate DIVIDED by 45%. This could frighten you, but these are hard commercial facts. Things could appear to be extremely expensive. You will; however; have a solid base from which to decide as you go further. The accounting is a good place to start, but she, you both rather, have to feel good about the rewards and the counter performances. Great success to you both!\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "195044", "title": "", "text": "Set your xirr formula to a very tall column, leaving lots of empty rows for future additions. In column C, instead of hardcoding the value, use a formula that tests if it's the current bottom entry, like this: =IF(ISBLANK(A7),-C6, C6) If the next row has no date entered (yet), then this is the latest value, and make it negative. Now, to digress a bit, there are several ways to measure returns. I feel XIRR is good for individual positions, like holding a stock, maybe buying more via DRIP, etc. For the whole portfolio it stinks. XIRR is greatly affected by timing of cash flows. Steady deposits and no withdrawals dramatically skew the return lower. And the opposite is true for steady withdrawals. I prefer to use TWRR (aka TWIRR). Time Weighted Rate of Return. The word 'time' is confusing, because it's the opposite. TWRR is agnostic to timing of cashflows. I have a sample Excel spreadsheet that you're welcome to steal from: http://moosiefinance.com/static/models/spreadsheets.html (it's the top entry in the list). Some people prefer XIRR. TWRR allows an apples-to-apples comparison with indexes and funds. Imagine twin brothers. They both invest in the exact same ideas, but the amount of cash deployed into these ideas is different, solely because one brother gets his salary bonus annually, in January, and the other brother gets no bonus, but has a higher bi-weekly salary to compensate. With TWRR, their percent returns will be identical. With XIRR they will be very different. TWRR separates out investing acumen from the happenstance timing of when you get your money to deposit, and when you retire, when you choose to take withdrawals. Something to think about, if you like. You might find this website interesting, too: http://www.dailyvest.com/" } ]

[ { "docid": "245648", "title": "", "text": "It's not compound interest. It is internal rate of return. If you have access to Excel look up the XIRR built-in function." }, { "docid": "494808", "title": "", "text": "Interesting. When you say DIY you mean pencil and paper. For most of us the choice came down to using a professional vs using the software. Your second bullet really hits the point. The tax return is a giant spreadsheet with multiple cells depending on each other. Short of building my own spreadsheet to perform the task, I found the software, at $30-$50, to be the happy medium between the full DIY and the Pro at $400+. With a single W2, and no other items, the form is likely just a 1040-EZ, and there shouldn't be any recalculating so long as you have the data you need. Pencil/paper is fine. There's no exact time to say go with the software, except, perhaps, when you realize there are enough fields to fill out where the recalculating might be cumbersome, or the need to see the exact tax bracket has value for you. You are clearly in the category that can fill out the one form. At some point, you might have investment income (Schedule D) enough mortgage interest to itemize deductions (Schedule A) etc. You'll know when it's time to go the software route. Keep in mind, there are free online choices from each of the tax software providers. Good for simple returns up to a certain level. Thanks to Phil for noting this in comments. I'll offer an anecdote exemplifying the distinction between using the software as a tool vs having a high knowledge of taxes. I wrote an article The Phantom Tax Zone, in which I explained how the process of taxing Social Security benefits at a certain level created what I called a Phantom Tax Rate. I knew that $1000 more in income could cause $850 of the benefit to be taxed as well, but with a number of factors to consider, I wanted to create a chart to show the tax at each incremental $1000 of income added. Using the software, I simply added $1000, noted the tax due, and repeated. Doing this by hand would have taken a day, not 30 minutes. For you, the anecdote may have no value, Social Security is too far off. For others, who in March are doing their return, the process may hold value. Many people are deciding whether to make their IRA deposit be pre-tax or the Post tax Roth IRA. The software can help them quickly see the effect of +/- $1000 in income and choose the mix that's ideal for them." }, { "docid": "569206", "title": "", "text": "\"I would let them get their hands dirty, learn by practicing. Below you can find a simple program to generate your own efficient frontier, just 29 lines' python. Depending on the age, adult could help in the activity but I would not make it too lecturing. With child-parent relationship, I would make it a challenge, no easy money anymore -- let-your-money work-for-you -attitude, create the efficient portfolio! If there are many children, I would do a competition over years' time-span or make many small competitions. Winner is the one whose portfolio is closest to some efficient portfolio such as lowest-variance-portfolio, I have the code to calculate things like that but it is trivial so build on the code below. Because the efficient frontier is a good way to let participants to investigate different returns and risk between assets classes like stocks, bonds and money, I would make the thing more serious. The winner could get his/her designed portfolio (to keep it fair in your budget, you could limit choices to index funds starting with 1EUR investment or to ask bottle-price-participation-fee, bring me a bottle and you are in. No money issue.). Since they probably don't have much money, I would choose free software. Have fun! Step-by-step instructions for your own Efficient Frontier Copy and run the Python script with $ python simple.py > .datSimple Plot the data with $ gnuplot -e \"\"set ylabel 'Return'; set xlabel 'Risk'; set terminal png; set output 'yourEffFrontier.png'; plot '.datSimple'\"\" or any spreadsheet program. Your first \"\"assets\"\" could well be low-risk candies and some easy-to-stale products like bananas -- but beware, notice the PS. Simple Efficient-frontier generator P.s. do not stagnate with collectibles, such as candies and toys, and retailer products, such as mangos, because they are not really good \"\"investments\"\" per se, a bit more like speculation. The retailer gets a huge percentage, for further information consult Bogleheads.org like here about collectible items.\"" }, { "docid": "435932", "title": "", "text": "\"I wrote Retirement Savings Ratio some time ago and 15% seemed the sweet spot. The 15% is 10% saved and 5% match, in my mind. The reason I link is to show a spreadsheet that shares my approach to the analysis. You list a huge number of things to think about, all great. I'm near Duff's view although I shoot for 20X final income so 4% of that is an 80% replacement. There's nothing magic about 80. If social security exists, it actually drops the required 80 from you to the 60 or so Duff lists, so we align. The 'problems' with my sheet - no one gets exact 3% raises for 43 years, so one can go in and change that, maybe higher early on, then slow it down. Returns are 8% every year, so one must go to the sheet or their own plan and reassess how they are doing each year. Disclosure - we are now at 14X our income with a goal of 25 to replace 100%. So we need a cumulative 80% growth (as in S&P at 2500) or the years of deposits to get there. I am nearing 50. Let me pick one of your questions - \"\"Your expenses go down at retirement, stay the same, or go up?\"\" - this is the $64K question. the 80% is an average guess. The general assumption is in this range. If we downsized right after the kid goes to college, we could retire on far less. So, to wrap up, online calculators and spreadsheets only go so far. Your questions are dead on. A planner should ask every one of these questions before assuming any ratio. Edit - on re-read I am blown away by the list of questions you have here. It's great. And it shows how there's risk no matter what.\"" }, { "docid": "450808", "title": "", "text": "\"One way to do these sorts of calculations is to use the spreadsheet version of IRS form 1040 available here. This is provided by a private individual and is not an official IRS tool, but in practice it is usually accurate enough for these purposes. You may have to spend some time figuring out where to enter the info. However, if you enter your self-employment income on Schedule C, this spreadsheet will calculate the self-employment tax as well as the income tax. An advantage is that it is the full 1040, so you can also select the standard deduction and the number of exemptions you are entitled to, enter ordinary W-2 income, even capital gains, etc. Of course you can also make use of other tax software to do this, but in my experience the \"\"Excel 1040\"\" is more convenient, as most websites and tax-prep software tend to be structured in a linear fashion and are more cumbersome to update in an ad-hoc way for purposes like tax estimation. You can do whatever works for you, but I would recommend taking a look at the Excel 1040. It is a surprisingly useful tool.\"" }, { "docid": "372782", "title": "", "text": "\"You'd have to check the terms of your contract. On most installment loans, I think, they calculate interest monthly, not daily. That is, if you make 3 payments of $96 over the course of the month instead of one payment of $288 at the end of the month (but before the due date), it makes absolutely zero difference to their interest calculation. They just total up your payments for the month. That's how my mortgage works and how some past loans I've had worked. All you'd accomplish is to cost yourself some time, postage if you're mailing payments, and waste the bank's time processing multiple payments. If the loan allows you to make pre-payments -- which I think most loans today do -- then what DOES work is to make an extra payment or an overpayment. If you have a few hundred extra dollars, make an extra payment. This reduces your principle and reduces the amount of interest you pay every month for the remainder of the loan. And if you're paying $1 less in interest, then that extra dollar goes against principle, which further reduces the amount you pay in interest the next month. This snowballs and can save you a lot in the long run. Better still, instead of paying $288 each month, pay, say, $300. Then every month you're nibbling away at the principle faster and faster. For example, I calculate that if you're paying $288 per month, you'll pay the loan off in 72 months and pay a total of $6062 in interest. Pay $300 per month and you'll pay it off in 67 months with a total of $6031 interest. Okay, not a huge deal. Pay $350 per month and you pay it off in 55 months with $5449 interest. (I just did quick calculations with a spreadsheet, not accurate to the penny, but close enough for comparison.) PS This is different from \"\"revolving credit\"\", like credit cards, where interest is calculated on the \"\"average daily balance\"\". With a credit card, making multiple payments would indeed reduce your interest. But not by much. If you pay $100 every 10 days instead of $300 at the end, then you're saving the interest on 20 days x $100 + 10 days x $100, so 12.5% = 0.03% per day, so 0.03% x ($2000+$1000) = 90 cents. If you're mailing your payments, the postage is 49 cents x 2 extra payments = 98 cents. You're losing 8 cents per month by doing this.\"" }, { "docid": "580168", "title": "", "text": "\"Trying to figure out how much money you have available each day sounds like you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. Unless you're extremely tight and you're trying to squeeze by day by day, asking \"\"do I have enough cash to buy food for today?\"\" and so on, you're doing too much work. Here's what I do. I make a list of all my bills. Some are a fixed amount every month, like the mortgage and insurance premiums. Others are variable, like electric and heating bills, but still pretty predictable. Most bills are monthly, but I have a few that come less frequently, like water bills in my area come every 3 months and I have to pay property taxes twice a year. For these you have to calculate how much they cost each month. Like for the water bill, it's once every 3 months so I divide a typical bill by 3. Always round up or estimate a little high to be safe. Groceries are a little tricky because I don't buy groceries on any regular schedule, and sometimes I buy a whole bunch at once and other times just a few things. When groceries were a bigger share of my income, I kept track of what I spent for a couple of months to figure out an average per month. (Today I'm a little richer and I just think of groceries as coming from my spending money.) I allocate a percentage of my income for contributions to church and charities and count this just like bills. It's a good idea to put aside something for savings and/or paying down any outstanding loans every month. Then I add these up to say okay, here's how much I need each month to pay the bills. Subtract that from my monthly income and that's what I have for spending money. I get paid twice a month so I generally pay bills when I get paid. For most bills the due date is far enough ahead that I can wait the maximum half a month to pay it. (Worst case the bill comes the day after I pay the bills from this paycheck.) Then I keep enough money in my checking account to, (a) Cover any bills until the next paycheck and allow for the particularly large bills; and (b) provide some cushion in case I make a mistake -- forget to record a check or make an arithmetic error or whatever; and (c) provide some cushion for short-term unexpected expenses. To be safe, (a) should be the total of your bills for a month, or as close to that as you can manage. (b) should be a couple of hundred dollars if you can manage it, more if you make a lot of mistakes. If you've calculated your expenses properly and only spend the difference, keeping enough money in the bank should fall out naturally. I think it's a lot easier to try to manage your money on a monthly basis than on a daily basis. Most of us don't spend money every day, and we spend wildly different amounts from day to day. Most days I probably spend zero, but then one day I'll buy a new TV or computer and spend hundreds. Update in response to question What I do in real life is this: To calculate my available cash to spend, I simply take the balance in my checking account -- assuming that all checks and electronic payments have cleared. My mortgage is deducted from my checking every month so I post that to my checking a month in advance. I pay a lot of things with automatic charges to a credit card these days, so my credit card bills are large and can't be ignored. So subtract my credit card balances. Subtract my reserve amount. What's left is how much I can afford to spend. So for example: Say I look at the balance in my checkbook today and it's, say, $3000. That's the balance after any checks and other transactions have cleared, and after subtracting my next mortgage payment. Then I subtract what I owe on credit cards. Let's say that was $1,200. So that leaves $1,800. I try to keep a reserve of $1,500. That's plenty to pay my routine monthly bills and leave a healthy reserve. So subtract another $1,500 leaves $300. That's how much I can spend. I could keep track of this with a spreadsheet or a database but what would that gain? The amount in my checking account is actual money. Any spreadsheet could accumulate errors and get farther and farther from accurate values. I use a spreadsheet to figure out how much spending money I should have each month, but that's just to use as a guideline. If it came to, say, $100, I wouldn't make grandiose plans about buying a new Mercedes. If it came to $5,000 a month than buying a fancy new car might be realistic. It also tells me how much I can spend without having to carefully check balances and add it up. These days I have a fair amount of spending money so when, for example, I recently decided I wanted to buy some software that cost $100 I just bought it with barely a second thought. When my spending money was more like $100 a month, lunch at a fast food place was a big event that I planned weeks in advance. (Obviously, I hope, don't get stupid about \"\"small amounts\"\". If you can easily afford $100 for an impulse purchase, that doesn't mean that you can afford $100 five times a day every day.) Two caveats: 1. It helps to have a limited number of credit cards so you can keep the balances under control. I have two credit cards I use for almost everything, so I only have two balances to keep track of. I used to have more and it got confusing, it was easy to lose track of how much I really owed, which is a set up for getting in trouble.\"" }, { "docid": "275422", "title": "", "text": "\"Not to state the obvious, but whenever an investment is being made, the \"\"nuts and bolts\"\" is your return on investment. Analyzing the rate of return on an investment is the primary factor in any decision. Ideally, once the actual mechanics of investment and side \"\"benefits\"\" are factored out, the goal is to be able to analyze the pure financial return. Usually the biggest problem faced in analyzing various investments is comparing the Present Value of an investment to a series of payments that may be made or received in the future. When considering the purchase of a large equity, for example, you might be looking at what series of payments are required to purchase the asset. You can also reverse this and ask, \"\"What amount of money is equivalent to this series of payments?\"\" Ultimately, the Present Value of an Annuity is the way to make these comparisons equal. Fundamentally, the Present Value of an annuity is an amount of money that should, in theory, be equivalent to a series of payments. There is, for example, technically no difference between $1064.94 today and $100 a month for a year, at an interest rate of 1% per month. Grant you, most people would be happier with the money now, but that is what interest does - it compensates you for waiting on your money. You can fire up a spreadsheet and calculate the Present Value as long as you have the monthly payment, interest rate, and number of periods. Alternatively, you can calculate any one of those missing four variables - and the key is usually to understand what that rate would be in order to compare the investments. Finally, the taxable implication is really just an adjustment to the rate of return. Imagine the following three scenarios: (Obviously the rates are fictional - the goal is to show they are the same). Scenarios 1 & 2 are really just two sides of the same coin. Using the Future Value formula in Excel = FV(0.5%, 12, -100), you get $1233.56. In scenario 1, you would have $1233.56 in your bank account. In scenario 2, your bank would have $1233.56 from you, and you would have $100 less debt per month. They are equivalent transactions. Scenario 3 is really just a variation on scenario 2, localized to the United States. Because the interest is tax deductible, however, the rate of 6% isn't really accurate. Assuming you had a 25% tax bracket, you'd actually be getting back one quarter of your interest. Put another way, 7.5% mortgage interest costs you as much as 6% credit card debt. This is how you compare apples and organges - just turn everything into an annuity or a lump sum, using Present Value calculations. Finally, quick rule of thumb - if you owe taxes in both Canada and the US, your Canadian taxes are probably higher than your American ones. As such, any tax incentives will be concomitantly higher. If you only can only use Canadian tax incentives, then look to those incentives, other things being equal.\"" }, { "docid": "281361", "title": "", "text": "You can fairly simply make a spreadsheet in your favorite spreadsheet application (or in Google Docs if you want portability). I like to make an overview page that shows how much I take in per month and what fixed bills come out of that, then break the remaining total into four to get a weekly budget. Then, I make one page per month with four columns (one per week), with each row being a category. Sum the categories at the bottom, and subtract from your weekly total: voila, a quick reference of how much you can spend that week without going over budget. I then make a page for each month that lists what I bought and how much I spent on it, so I can trace where my money's gone; the category total is just a summation of the items from that page that belong in that category. Once you have a system, stop checking your bank balance except to ensure your paycheck is going in alright. Use the spreadsheet to determine how much you can spend at any time. Then make sure you pay off everything on the card before the end of the month so you don't incur interest." }, { "docid": "511984", "title": "", "text": "IRR is the acronym for internal rate of return. And it appears that you do understand how it works. It's not the phrase most investors use for their own returns. I'd typically talk about my own return last year, or over the last decade, etc, as well as what the S&P did during that time, and might even use the term CAGR, compound annual growth rate, although I wouldn't pronounce it 'kegger' or anything like that. Aside from discussing company investments in some MBA class, the only time I'd use IRR is in an excel spreadsheet to calculate the return over time of a series of my own investments. The nothing magic about this, it's a function of an initial dollar investment, time passing, and the final value. All else is addition complexity based on multiple deposits/withdrawals, etc. If I deposit $100 and get back $200 in a year, it's a 100% IRR. Disclosure - I am no fan of Investopedia or re-explaining its wording on these topics. I've caught multiple errors in their articles, and unlike the times I've emailed my friends at the IRS who quickly fix typos and mistakes I've caught, Investopedia authors are no better than bloggers (which I am) who take offense at any criticism (which I do not)." }, { "docid": "39781", "title": "", "text": "I’ve spent roughly $70,000 at Amazon the past 3 years (calculated using their spreadsheet data of spending in the account section). What these businesses don’t understand is that the products are all the same and the pricing varies minimally; customer service is and always will be my number one determining factor in where I do business. It takes me 30 seconds to get an Amazon agent on the line and 20 minutes for a Best Buy agent, plus Amz’s return policies beat the shit out of B.B’s." }, { "docid": "485972", "title": "", "text": "\"There are many ways to trade. Rules based trading is practiced by professionals. You can indeed create a rule set to make buy and sell decisions based on the price action of your chosen security. I will direct you to a good website to further your study: I have found that systemtradersuccess.com is a well written blog, informative and not just a big sales pitch. You will see how to develop and evaluate trading systems. If you decide to venture down this path, a good book to read is Charles Wright's \"\"Trading As A Business.\"\" It will get a little technical, as it discusses how to develop trading systems using the Tradestation trading platform, which is a very powerful tool for advanced traders and comes with a significant monthly usage fee (~$99/mo). But you don't have to have tradestation to understand these concepts and with an intermediate level of spreadsheet skills, you can run your own backtests. Here is a trading system example, Larry Connors' \"\"2 period RSI system\"\", see how it is evaluated: http://systemtradersuccess.com/connors-2-period-rsi-update-2014/, and this video teaches a bit more about this particular trading system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_h9P8dqN4Y IMPORTANT: This is not a recommendation to use this or any specific trading system, nor is it a suggestion that using these tools or websites is a path to guaranteed profits. Trading is a very risky endeavor. You can easily lose huge sums of money. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "371210", "title": "", "text": "The Money Chimp site lets you choose two points in time to see the return. i.e. you give it the time (two dates) and it tells you the return. One can create a spreadsheet to look at multiple time periods and answer your question that way, but I've not seen it laid out that way in advance. For what it's worth, I am halfway to my retirement number. I can tell you, for example that at X%, I hit my number in Y years. 8.73% gets me 8/25/17 (kid off to college) 3.68% gets me 8/25/21 (kid graduates), so in a sense, we're after the same type of info. With the long term return being in the 10% range, you're going to get 3 years or so as average, but with a skewed bellish curve when run over time." }, { "docid": "83587", "title": "", "text": "You are calculating using different methods. For example, to obtain 6.45% 6.44647 This is effectively the same as the money-weighted return calculation. In arriving at 6.06% you have calculated the true time-weighted return. Both answers are right, but they are different measures. To use time-weighted returns you need to know the value of the investment at the time of every cash flow. Modified Dietz uses a simple approximation to avoid that requirement. Money-weighted return gives results that are more accurate for back calculating than Modified Dietz, (also without requiring interim valuations), but the calculation is more complex. See How to Calculate your Portfolio's Rate of Return for a decent reference." }, { "docid": "309037", "title": "", "text": "You are comparing a risk-free cost with a risky return. If you can tolerate that level of risk (the ups and downs of the investment) for the chance that you'll come out ahead in the long-run, then sure, you could do that. So the parameters to your equation would be: If you assume that the risky returns are normally distributed, then you can use normal probability tables to determine what risk level you can tolerate. To put some real numbers to it, take the average S&P 500 return of 10% and standard deviation of 18%. Using standard normal functions, we can calculate the probability that you earn more than various interest rates: so even with a low 3% interest rate, there's roughly a 1 in 3 chance that you'll actually be worse off (the gains on your investments will be less than the interest you pay). In any case there's a 3 in 10 chance that your investments will lose money." }, { "docid": "395128", "title": "", "text": "\"To calculate the balance (not just principal) remaining, type into your favorite spreadsheet program: It is important that the periods for \"\"Periods\"\" and \"\"Rate\"\" match up. If you use your annual rate with quarterly periods, you will get a horribly wrong answer. So, if you invest $1000 today, expect 6% interest per year (0.5% interest per month), withdraw $10 at the end of each month, and want to know what your investment balance will be 2 years (24 months) from now, you would type: And you would get a result of $872.84. Or, to compute it manually, use the formula found here by poster uart: This is often taught in high-school here as a application of geomentric series. The derivation goes like this. Using the notation : r = 1 + interest_rate_per_term_as_decimal p = present value a = payment per term eot1 denotes the FV at end of term 1 etc. eot1: rp + a eot2: r(rp + a) + a = r^2p + ra + a eot3: r(r^2p + ra + a) + a = r^3p + r^2a + ra + a ... eotn: r^np + (r^(n-1) + r^(n-2) + ... 1)a = p r^n + a (r^n - 1)/(r-1) That is, FV = p r^n + a (r^n - 1)/(r-1). This is precisely what exel [sic] computes for the case of payments made at the end of each term (payment type = 0). It's easy enough to repeat the calculations as above for the case of payments made at the beginning of each term. This won't work for changing interest rates or changing withdrawal amounts. For something like that, it would be better for you (if you don't want online calculators) to set up a table in a spreadsheet so you can adjust different periods manually.\"" }, { "docid": "190603", "title": "", "text": "You can use google docs to create a spreadsheet. In field A2, I put Google will load the prices into the sheet. At that point, I add the following into C12, then copy that line all the way down to the botton of column C. You can find my spreadsheet here. It calculates the moving 10 day standard deviation as a percentage of average price for that time period." }, { "docid": "175951", "title": "", "text": "Unfortunately, the tax system in the U.S. is probably more complicated than it looks to you right now. First, you need to understand that there will be taxes withheld from your paycheck, but the amount that they withhold is simply a guess. You might pay too much or too little tax during the year. After the year is over, you'll send in a tax return form that calculates the correct tax amount. If you have paid too little over the year, you'll have to send in the rest, but if you've paid too much, you'll get a refund. There are complicated formulas on how much tax the employer withholds from your paycheck, but in general, if you don't have extra income elsewhere that you need to pay tax on, you'll probably be close to breaking even at tax time. When you get your paycheck, the first thing that will be taken off is FICA, also called Social Security, Medicare, or the Payroll tax. This is a fixed 7.65% that is taken off the gross salary. It is not refundable and is not affected by any allowances or deductions, and does not come in to play at all on your tax return form. There are optional employee benefits that you might need to pay a portion of if you are going to take advantage of them, such as health insurance or retirement savings. Some of these deductions are paid with before-tax money, and some are paid with after tax money. The employer will calculate how much money they are supposed to withhold for federal and state taxes (yes, California has an income tax), and the rest is yours. At tax time, the employer will give you a form W-2, which shows you the amount of your gross income after all the before-tax deductions are taken out (which is what you use to calculate your tax). The form also shows you how much tax you have paid during the year. Form 1040 is the tax return that you use to calculate your correct tax for the year. You start with the gross income amount from the W-2, and the first thing you do is add in any income that you didn't get a W-2 for (such as interest or investment income) and subtract any deductions that you might have that are not taxable, but were not paid through your paycheck (such as moving expenses, student loan interest, tuition, etc.) The result is called your adjusted gross income. Next, you take off the deductions not covered in the above section (property tax, home mortgage interest, charitable giving, etc.). You can either take the standard deduction ($6,300 if you are single), or if you have more deductions in this category than that, you can itemize your deductions and declare the correct amount. After that, you subtract more for exemptions. You can claim yourself as an exemption unless you are considered a dependent of someone else and they are claiming you as a dependent. If you claim yourself, you take off another $4,000 from your income. What you are left with is your taxable income for the year. This is the amount you would use to calculate your tax based on the bracket table you found. California has an income tax, and just like the federal tax, some state taxes will be deducted from your paycheck, and you'll need to fill out a state tax return form after the year is over to calculate the correct state tax and either request a refund or pay the remainder of the tax. I don't have any experience with the California income tax, but there are details on the rates on this page from the State of California." }, { "docid": "368872", "title": "", "text": "I think you are trying to figure out what will be a break-even rental rate for you, so that then you can decide whether renting at current market rates is worth it for you. This is tricky to determine because future valuations are uncertain. You can make rough estimates though. The most uncertain component is likely to be capital appreciation or depreciation (increase or decrease in the value of your property). This is usually a relatively large number (significant to the calculation). The value is uncertain because it depends on predictions of the housing market. Future interest rates or economic conditions will likely play a major role in dictating the future value of your home. Obviously there are numerous other costs to consider such as maintenance, tax and insurance some of which may be via escrow and included in your mortgage payment. Largest uncertainty in terms of income are the level of rent and occupancy rate. The former is reasonably predictable, the latter less so. Would advise you make a spreadsheet and list them all out with margins of error to get some idea. The absolute amount you are paying on the mortgage is a red herring similar to when car dealers ask you what payment you can afford. That's not what's relevant. What's relevant is the Net Present Value of ALL the payments in relation to what you are getting in return. Note that one issue with assessing your cost of capital is, what's your opportunity cost. ie. if you didn't have the money tied up in real estate, what could you be earning with it elsewhere? This is not really part of the cost of capital, but it's something to consider. Also note that the total monthly payment for the mortgage is not useful to your calculations because a significant chunk of the payment will likely be to pay down principal and as such represents no real cost to you (its really just a transfer - reducing your bank balance but increasing your equity in the home). The interest portion is a real cost to you." } ]

[ { "docid": "374956", "title": "", "text": "\"I could not figure out a good way to make XIRR work since it does not support arrays. However, I think the following should work for you: Insert a column at D and call it \"\"ratio\"\" (to be used to calculate your answer in column E). Use the following equation for D3: =1+(C3-B3-C2)/C2 Drag that down to fill in the column. Set E3 to: =(PRODUCT(D$3:D3)-1)*365/(A3-A$2) Drag that down to fill in the column. Column E is now your annual rate of return.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "194017", "title": "", "text": "To get the factors you want, start with a complete amortization calculator and a tax deduction calculator, filling in values for your down payment, purchase price, tax rates, and mortgage rate. If you are talking about a specific property, you should be able to get taxes for the current year, and perhaps using historical values estimate taxes going out. Some calculators will include PMI (which you should avoid like the plague in an actual purchase). Given some preliminary data, you can calculate your insurance. So once you have your PITI (principal, interest, tax, and insurance) monthly payment and tax deduction, you can calculate how much you spend a month on the house minus the deduction. To estimate maintenance costs, you could either figure out about what you'd need to replace in the given time you plan to stay put and use a rough estimate on what it is. You can also use some rough estimates like this (1% of the property value yearly!) or this (moving the number up to a whopping 2%). Don't forget closing costs as a buyer and seller. You can find estimates for these as well, and they are a function of the purchase price (usually around 2%). So to figure out how much it costs you to live in a house for X months, you can do So your total cost is Total Return Is: You can adjust that total return for inflation using this calculator to get your total return adjusted for inflation. If projecting into the future, you can try a formula found here. To figure out the return on your investment, use So to figure out the total return adjusted you need for a given ROI, find" }, { "docid": "404840", "title": "", "text": "Profit after tax can have multiple interpretations, but a common one is the EPS (Earnings Per Share). This is frequently reported as a TTM number (Trailing Twelve Months), or in the UK as a fiscal year number. Coincidentally, it is relatively easy to find the total amount of dividends paid out in that same time frame. That means calculating div cover is as simple as: EPS divided by total dividend. (EPS / Div). It's relatively easy to build a Google Docs spreadsheet that pulls both values from the cloud using the GOOGLEFINANCE() function. I suspect the same is true of most spreadsheet apps. With a proper setup, you can just fill down along a column of tickers to get the div cover for a number of companies at once." }, { "docid": "217222", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "278678", "title": "", "text": "\"I opened several free checking accounts at a local credit union. One is a \"\"Deposit\"\" account where all of my new money goes. I get paid every two weeks. Every other Sunday we have our \"\"Money Day\"\" where we allocate the money from our Deposit account into our other checking accounts. I have one designated as a Bills account where all of my bills get paid automatically via bill pay or auto-pay. I created a spreadsheet that calculates how much to save each Money Day for all of my upcoming bills. This makes it so the amount I save for my bills is essentially equal. Then I allocate the rest of my deposit money into my other checking accounts. I have a Grocery, Household, and Main checking accounts but you could use any combination that you want. When we're at the store we check our balances (how much we have left to spend) on our mobile app. We can't overspend this way. The key is to make sure you're using your PIN when you use your debit card. This way it shows up in real-time with your credit union and you've got an accurate balance. This has worked really well to coordinate spending between me and my wife. It sounds like it's a lot of work but it's actually really automated. The best part is that I don't have to do any accounting which means my budget doesn't fail if I'm not entering my transactions or categorizing them. I'm happy to share my spreadsheet if you'd like.\"" }, { "docid": "406409", "title": "", "text": "\"The definition I use for financial independence is 99% confidence that, at a specific estimated spending rate per year (allowing for estimated inflation, and budgeting for likely medical emergencies, and taxes on taxable investments), the money will outlast me. This translates to needing an average annual return on investment which covers the average yearly spending. For my purposes, that works out to my relying on being able to draw only a 4% income from the money each year, which should give me good odds of the money not just being sufficient but being able to deliver that rate \"\"forever\"\". (Historically, average US stock market rate if return is around 8%.) That is overkill, if course, I could plan on the money just barely lasting past my 120th birthday or something of that sort, but the goal us to be pretty sure not only that I won't run out but that I will have some cash unexpected needs. Which in turn means that I estimate I need investments 1/.04 times the yearly spending estimate to declare the \"\"forever\"\" independence/retirement, or 25x the yearly. From that, I can calculate how much longer, at a given savings rate and rate of return, it'll take for me to reach that target. Obviously you need to adjust all these numbers to reflect your opinions/understanding if the market, your own needs, your priorities and expected maximum age, and the phase of Saturn's moons. But that's the basic rationale. Or you can pay a financial planner to give you this number, and a strategy for getting there, based on the numbers you give him or her plus some statistical analysis of the market's overall history.\"" }, { "docid": "365262", "title": "", "text": "Add a few more cells to your header that list the interest paid in in the next 3 to 4 years on your current mortgage. Use the cumulative interest function from your spreadsheet program. In the main body of your spreadsheet, add columns that summarize the total cost over 3-4 years for each loan. Add columns that list the interest cost, total cost of interest + refi cost, and the difference between that approach and the interest costs from your current loan. Add 6 columns total: a set for 3 years and a set for 4. Something like this: Repeat that 3 year block off to the right and plug in the 4 year numbers. You requested that we factor in a 3.5% penalty against the money that goes to the discount fee. You could do that by adding a column that calculates this, like Joe described in his answer. Add that 3.5% accrual into the total calculation above, which in turn will knock down the amount of savings for each refi loan. PS: How are you going to earn 3.5% over 48 months?" }, { "docid": "190603", "title": "", "text": "You can use google docs to create a spreadsheet. In field A2, I put Google will load the prices into the sheet. At that point, I add the following into C12, then copy that line all the way down to the botton of column C. You can find my spreadsheet here. It calculates the moving 10 day standard deviation as a percentage of average price for that time period." }, { "docid": "545902", "title": "", "text": "The key to understanding a mortgage is to look at an amortization schedule. Put in 100k, 4.5% interest, 30 years, 360 monthly payments and look at the results. You should get roughly 507 monthly P&I payment. Amortization is only the loan portion, escrow for taxes and insurance and additional payments for PMI are extra. You'll get a list of all the payments to match the numbers you enter. These won't exactly match what you really get in a mortgage, but they're close enough to demonstrate the way amortization works, and to plan a budget. For those terms, with equal monthly payments, you'll start paying 74% interest from the first payment. Each payment thereafter, that percentage drops. The way this is all calculated is through the time value of money equations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money. Read slowly, understand how the equations work, then look at the formula for Repeating Payment and Present Value. That is used to find the monthly payment. You can validate that the formula works by using their answer and making a spreadsheet that has these columns: Previous balance, payment, interest, new balance. Each line represents a month. Calculate interest as previous balance * APR/12. Calculate new balance as previous balance minus payment plus interest. Work through all this for a 1 year loan and you will understand a lot better." }, { "docid": "450808", "title": "", "text": "\"One way to do these sorts of calculations is to use the spreadsheet version of IRS form 1040 available here. This is provided by a private individual and is not an official IRS tool, but in practice it is usually accurate enough for these purposes. You may have to spend some time figuring out where to enter the info. However, if you enter your self-employment income on Schedule C, this spreadsheet will calculate the self-employment tax as well as the income tax. An advantage is that it is the full 1040, so you can also select the standard deduction and the number of exemptions you are entitled to, enter ordinary W-2 income, even capital gains, etc. Of course you can also make use of other tax software to do this, but in my experience the \"\"Excel 1040\"\" is more convenient, as most websites and tax-prep software tend to be structured in a linear fashion and are more cumbersome to update in an ad-hoc way for purposes like tax estimation. You can do whatever works for you, but I would recommend taking a look at the Excel 1040. It is a surprisingly useful tool.\"" }, { "docid": "257168", "title": "", "text": "\"A tax return is a document you sign and file with the government to self-report your tax obligations. A tax refund is the payment you receive from the government if your payments into the tax system exceeded your obligations. As others have mentioned, if an extra $2K in income generated $5K in taxes, chances are your return was prepared incorrectly. The selection of an appropriate entity type for your business depends a lot on what you expect to see over the next several years in terms of income and expenses, and the extent to which you want or need to pay for fringe benefits or make pretax retirement contributions from your business income. There are four basic flavors of entity which are available to you: Sole proprietorship. This is the simplest option in terms of tax reporting and paperwork required for ongoing operations. Your net (gross minus expenses) income is added to your wage income and you'll pay tax on the total. If your wage income is less than approximately $100K, you'll also owe self-employment tax of approximately 15% in addition to income tax on your business income. If your business runs at a loss, you can deduct the loss from your other income in calculating your taxable income, though you won't be able to run at a loss indefinitely. You are liable for all of the debts and obligations of the business to the extent of all of your personal assets. Partnership. You will need at least two participants (humans or entities) to form a partnership. Individual items of income and expense are identified on a partnership tax return, and each partner's proportionate share is then reported on the individual partners' tax returns. General partners (who actively participate in the business) also must pay self-employment tax on their earnings below approximately $100K. Each general partner is responsible for all of the debts and obligations of the business to the extent of their personal assets. A general partnership can be created informally or with an oral agreement although that's not a good idea. Corporation. Business entities can be taxed as \"\"S\"\" or \"\"C\"\" corporations. Either way, the corporation is created by filing articles of incorporation with a state government (doesn't have to be the state where you live) and corporations are typically required to file yearly entity statements with the state where they were formed as well as all states where they do business. Shareholders are only liable for the debts and obligations of the corporation to the extent of their investment in the corporation. An \"\"S\"\" corporation files an information-only return similar to a partnership which reports items of income and expense, but those items are actually taken into account on the individual tax returns of the shareholders. If an \"\"S\"\" corporation runs at a loss, the losses are deductible against the shareholders' other income. A \"\"C\"\" corporation files a tax return more similar to an individual's. A C corporation calculates and pays its own tax at the corporate level. Payments from the C corporation to individuals are typically taxable as wages (from a tax point of view, it's the same as having a second job) or as dividends, depending on how and why the payments are made. (If they're in exchange for effort and work, they're probably wages - if they're payments of business profits to the business owners, they're probably dividends.) If a C corporation runs at a loss, the loss is not deductible against the shareholders' other income. Fringe benefits such as health insurance for business owners are not deductible as business expenses on the business returns for S corps, partnerships, or sole proprietorships. C corporations can deduct expenses for providing fringe benefits. LLCs don't have a predefined tax treatment - the members or managers of the LLC choose, when the LLC is formed, if they would like to be taxed as a partnership, an S corporation, or as a C corporation. If an LLC is owned by a single person, it can be considered a \"\"disregarded entity\"\" and treated for tax purposes as a sole proprietorship. This option is not available if the LLC has multiple owners. The asset protection provided by the use of an entity depends quite a bit on the source of the claim. If a creditor/plaintiff has a claim based on a contract signed on behalf of the entity, then they likely will not be able to \"\"pierce the veil\"\" and collect the entity's debts from the individual owners. On the other hand, if a creditor/plaintiff has a claim based on negligence or another tort-like action (such as sexual harassment), then it's very likely that the individual(s) involved will also be sued as individuals, which takes away a lot of the effectiveness of the purported asset protection. The entity-based asset protection is also often unavailable even for contract claims because sophisticated creditors (like banks and landlords) will often insist the the business owners sign a personal guarantee putting their own assets at risk in the event that the business fails to honor its obligations. There's no particular type of entity which will allow you to entirely avoid tax. Most tax planning revolves around characterizing income and expense items in the most favorable ways possible, or around controlling the timing of the appearance of those items on the tax return.\"" }, { "docid": "153348", "title": "", "text": "You can try paper trading to sharpen your investing skills(identifying stocks to invest, how much money to allocate and stuff) but nothing compares to getting beaten black and blue in the real world. When virtual money is involved you mayn't care, because you don't loose anything, but when your hard earned money disappears or grows, no paper trading can incite those feelings in you. So there is no guarantee that doing paper trading will make you a better investor, but can help you a lot in terms of learning. Secondly educate yourself on the ways of investing. It is hard work and realize that there is no substitute for hard work. India is a growing economy and your friends maybe safe in the short term but take it from any INVESTOR, not in the long run. And moreover as all economies are recovering from the recession there are ample opportunities to invest money in India both good and bad. Calculate your returns and compare it with your friends maybe a year or two down the lane to compare the returns generated from both sides. Maybe they would come trumps but remember selecting a good investment from a bad investment will surely pay out in the long run. Not sure what you do not understand what Buffet says. It cannot get more simpler than that. If you can drill those rules into your blood, you mayn't become a billionaire but surely you will make a killing, but in the long run. Read and read as much as you can. Buy books, browse the net. This might help. One more guy like you." }, { "docid": "235592", "title": "", "text": "R has really good package that lets you calculate the return of rebalanced portfolios. The package is called: PerformanceAnalytics (see: http://www.inside-r.org/packages/cran/PerformanceAnalytics/docs/Return.portfolio). I quickly wrote a small script for you that lets you do exactly what you want. Code: By default the portfolio is rebalanced to an equally weighted portfolio. It is also possible to rebalance your portfolio using custom weights. See the documentation on how to do this. In order for this code to work you need to have your data already in return terms. You can do this easily in Excel. Make sure your data in excel looks like this: Than export your data to a CSV file. Note: before you run the code make sure you have installed the package PerformanceAnalytics. You can do this as follows: Let me know if you have any questions regarding the above." }, { "docid": "189006", "title": "", "text": "\"First, a clarification. No assets are immune to inflation, apart from inflation-indexed securities like TIPS or inflation-indexed gilts (well, if held to maturity, these are at least close). Inflation causes a decline in the future purchasing power of a given dollar1 amount, and it certainly doesn't just affect government bonds, either. Regardless of whether you hold equity, bonds, derivatives, etc., the real value of those assets is declining because of inflation, all else being equal. For example, if I invest $100 in an asset that pays a 10% rate of return over the next year, and I sell my entire position at the end of the year, I have $110 in nominal terms. Inflation affects the real value of this asset regardless of its asset class because those $110 aren't worth as much in a year as they are today, assuming inflation is positive. An easy way to incorporate inflation into your calculations of rate of return is to simply subtract the rate of inflation from your rate of return. Using the previous example with inflation of 3%, you could estimate that although the nominal value of your investment at the end of one year is $110, the real value is $100*(1 + 10% - 3%) = $107. In other words, you only gained $7 of purchasing power, even though you gained $10 in nominal terms. This back-of-the-envelope calculation works for securities that don't pay fixed returns as well. Consider an example retirement portfolio. Say I make a one-time investment of $50,000 today in a portfolio that pays, on average, 8% annually. I plan to retire in 30 years, without making any further contributions (yes, this is an over-simplified example). I calculate that my portfolio will have a value of 50000 * (1 + 0.08)^30, or $503,132. That looks like a nice amount, but how much is it really worth? I don't care how many dollars I have; I care about what I can buy with those dollars. If I use the same rough estimate of the effect of inflation and use a 8% - 3% = 5% rate of return instead, I get an estimate of what I'll have at retirement, in today's dollars. That allows me to make an easy comparison to my current standard of living, and see if my portfolio is up to scratch. Repeating the calculation with 5% instead of 8% yields 50000 * (1 + 0.05)^30, or $21,6097. As you can see, the amount is significantly different. If I'm accustomed to living off $50,000 a year now, my calculation that doesn't take inflation into account tells me that I'll have over 10 years of living expenses at retirement. The new calculation tells me I'll only have a little over 4 years. Now that I've clarified the basics of inflation, I'll respond to the rest of the answer. I want to know if I need to be making sure my investments span multiple currencies to protect against a single country's currency failing. As others have pointed out, currency doesn't inflate; prices denominated in that currency inflate. Also, a currency failing is significantly different from a prices denominated in a currency inflating. If you're worried about prices inflating and decreasing the purchasing power of your dollars (which usually occurs in modern economies) then it's a good idea to look for investments and asset allocations that, over time, have outpaced the rate of inflation and that even with the effects of inflation, still give you a high enough rate of return to meet your investment goals in real, inflation-adjusted terms. If you have legitimate reason to worry about your currency failing, perhaps because your country doesn't maintain stable monetary or fiscal policies, there are a few things you can do. First, define what you mean by \"\"failing.\"\" Do you mean ceasing to exist, or simply falling in unit purchasing power because of inflation? If it's the latter, see the previous paragraph. If the former, investing in other currencies abroad may be a good idea. Questions about currencies actually failing are quite general, however, and (in my opinion) require significant economic analysis before deciding on a course of action/hedging. I would ask the same question about my home's value against an inflated currency as well. Would it keep the same real value. Your home may or may not keep the same real value over time. In some time periods, average home prices have risen at rates significantly higher than the rate of inflation, in which case on paper, their real value has increased. However, if you need to make substantial investments in your home to keep its price rising at the same rate as inflation, you may actually be losing money because your total investment is higher than what you paid for the house initially. Of course, if you own your home and don't have plans to move, you may not be concerned if its value isn't keeping up with inflation at all times. You're deriving additional satisfaction/utility from it, mainly because it's a place for you to live, and you spend money maintaining it in order to maintain your physical standard of living, not just its price at some future sale date. 1) I use dollars as an example. This applies to all currencies.\"" }, { "docid": "331295", "title": "", "text": "\"Let's start by saying that of all the things to solve in a mortgage equation, the rate is the toughest. It's the least friendly to solving with pencil and paper. While I never tire of expressing my love for my Texas Instruments BA-35 financial calculator, it's no longer in production, and most folk won't have access, but Excel is right there. The financial function pops up for you with RATE as a choice for solving. I filled in the cells to show the numbers. The -665.30 is a typical convention for money flows as it's a payment from you not a credit for interest you earn. Note, some mortgage calculators leave this entry as positive. It takes a second to see how one's calculation or spreadsheet does this. Last, you can see the software wants a \"\"guess.\"\" This is because the software has a loop, guessing and getting closer to the solution. I entered .005 to guess 6% per year. The correct solution is .006 or 7.2% per year. Class dismissed.\"" }, { "docid": "550642", "title": "", "text": "If annualized rate of return is what you are looking for, using a tool would make it a lot easier. In the post I've also explained how to use the spreadsheet. Hope this helps." }, { "docid": "39781", "title": "", "text": "I’ve spent roughly $70,000 at Amazon the past 3 years (calculated using their spreadsheet data of spending in the account section). What these businesses don’t understand is that the products are all the same and the pricing varies minimally; customer service is and always will be my number one determining factor in where I do business. It takes me 30 seconds to get an Amazon agent on the line and 20 minutes for a Best Buy agent, plus Amz’s return policies beat the shit out of B.B’s." }, { "docid": "158520", "title": "", "text": "There are different perspectives from which to calculate the gain, but the way I think it should be done is with respect to the risk you've assumed in the original position, which the simplistic calculation doesn't factor in. There's a good explanation about calculating the return from a short sale at Investopedia. Here's the part that I consider most relevant: [...] When calculating the return of a short sale, you need to compare the amount the trader gets to keep to the initial amount of the liability. Had the trade in our example turned against you, you (as the short seller) would owe not only the initial proceeds amount but also the excess amount, and this would come out of your pocket. [...] Refer to the source link for the full explanation. Update: As you can see from the other answers and comments, it is a more complex a Q&A than it may first appear. I subsequently found this interesting paper which discusses the difficulty of rate of return with respect to short sales and other atypical trades: Excerpt: [...] The problem causing this almost uniform omission of a percentage return on short sales, options (especially writing), and futures, it may be speculated, is that the nigh-well universal and conventional definition of rate of return involving an initial cash outflow followed by a later cash inflow does not appear to fit these investment situations. None of the investment finance texts nor general finance texts, undergraduate or graduate, have formally or explicitly shown how to resolve this predicament or how to justify the calculations they actually use. [...]" }, { "docid": "281361", "title": "", "text": "You can fairly simply make a spreadsheet in your favorite spreadsheet application (or in Google Docs if you want portability). I like to make an overview page that shows how much I take in per month and what fixed bills come out of that, then break the remaining total into four to get a weekly budget. Then, I make one page per month with four columns (one per week), with each row being a category. Sum the categories at the bottom, and subtract from your weekly total: voila, a quick reference of how much you can spend that week without going over budget. I then make a page for each month that lists what I bought and how much I spent on it, so I can trace where my money's gone; the category total is just a summation of the items from that page that belong in that category. Once you have a system, stop checking your bank balance except to ensure your paycheck is going in alright. Use the spreadsheet to determine how much you can spend at any time. Then make sure you pay off everything on the card before the end of the month so you don't incur interest." }, { "docid": "317399", "title": "", "text": "The major drawback to borrowing to invest (i.e. using leverage) is that your return on investment must be high enough to overcome the cost of finance. The average return on the S&P 500 is about 9.8% (from CNBC) a typical unsecured personal loan will have an interest rate of around 18-36% APR (from NerdWallet). This means that on average you will be paying more interest than you are receiving in returns so are losing money on the margin investment. Sometimes the S&P falls and over those periods you would be paying out interest having lost money so will have a negative return! You may have better credit and so be able to get a lower rate but I don't know your loan terms currently. Secured loans, such as remortgaging your house, will have lower costs but come with more life changing risks. The above assumes that you are getting financing by directly borrowing money, however, it is also possible to trade on margin. This is where you post a proportion of the value that you wish to trade with as collateral against a loan to buy the security. This form of finance is normally used by day traders and other short term holders of stocks. Although the financing costs here are low (I am not charged an interest rate on intraday margin trading) there are very high costs if you exceed the term of the loan. An example is that I am charged a fee if I hold a position overnight and my profits and losses are crystallised at that time. If I am in a losing position at that time the crystallisation process and fee can result in not having enough margin to recover the position and the loss of a potentially profit making position. Additionally if the amount of collateral cash (margin) posted is insufficient to cover the expected losses as calculated by your broker they will initiate a margin call asking for more collateral money. If you do not (or cannot) post this extra margin your losing position will be cashed out and you will take as a loss the total loss at that time. Since the market can change very rapidly, such as in a flash crash, this can result in your losing more money than you had in the first place. As this is essentially a loan you can be bankrupted by this. Overall using leverage to invest magnifies your potential profits but it also magnifies your potential losses. In many cases this magnification could be sufficient to lose you more money than you had originally invested. In addition to magnification you need to consider the cost of finance and that your return over the course of the loan needs to be higher than your cost of finance as well as inflation and other opportunity costs of capital. The S&P 500 is a relatively low volatility market in general so is unlikely to return losses in any given period that will mean that leverage of 1.25 times will take you into losses beyond your own capital investment but it is not impossible. The low level of risk automatically means that your returns are lower and so your cost of capital is likely to be a large proportion of your returns and your returns may not completely cover the cost of capital even when you are making money. The key thing if you are going to trade or invest on leverage is to understand the terms and costs of your leverage and discount them from any returns that you receive before declaring to yourself that you are profitable. It is even more important than usual to know how your positions are doing and whether you are covering your cost of capital when using leverage. It is also very important to know the terms of your leverage in detail, especially what will happen when and if your credit runs out for whatever reason be it the end of the financing period (the length of the loan) or your leverage ratio gets too high. You should also be aware of the costs of closing out the loan early should you need to do so and how to factor that into your investing decisions." } ]

[ { "docid": "28291", "title": "", "text": "\"If you want a ~12% rate of return on your investments.... too bad. For returns which even begin to approach that, you need to be looking at some of the riskiest stuff. Think \"\"emerging markets\"\". Even funds like Vanguard Emerging Markets (ETF: VWO, mutual fund, VEIEX) or Fidelity Advisor Emerging Markets Income Trust (FAEMX) seem to have yields which only push 11% or so. (But inflation is about nil, so if you're used to normal 2% inflation or so, these yields are like 13% or so. And there's no tax on that last 2%! Yay.) Remember that these investments are very risky. They go up lots because they can go down lots too. Don't put any money in there unless you can afford to have it go missing, because sooner or later you're likely to lose something half your money, and it might not come back for a decade (or ever). Investments like these should only be a small part of your overall portfolio. So, that said... Sites which make investing in these risky markets easy? There are a good number, but you should probably just go with vanguard.com. Their funds have low fees which won't erode your returns. (You can actually get lower expense ratios by using their brokerage account to trade the ETF versions of their funds commission-free, though you'll have to worry more about the actual number of shares you want to buy, instead of just plopping in and out dollar amounts). You can also trade Vanguard ETFs and other ETFs at almost any brokerage, just like stocks, and most brokerages will also offer you access to a variety of mutual funds as well (though often for a hefty fee of $20-$50, which you should avoid). Or you can sign up for another fund providers' account, but remember that the fund fees add up quickly. And the better plan? Just stuff most of your money in something like VTI (Vanguard Total Stock Market Index) instead.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "163353", "title": "", "text": "\"What are the options available for safe, short-term parking of funds? Savings accounts are the go-to option for safely depositing funds in a way that they remain accessible in the short-term. There are many options available, and any recommendations on a specific account from a specific institution depend greatly on the current state of banks. As you're in the US, If you choose to save funds in a savings account, it's important that you verify that the account (or accounts) you use are FDIC insured. Also be aware that the insurance limit is $250,000, so for larger volumes of money you may need to either break up your savings into multiple accounts, or consult a Accredited Investment Fiduciary (AIF) rather than random strangers on the internet. I received an inheritance check... Money is a token we exchange for favors from other people. As their last act, someone decided to give you a portion of their unused favors. You should feel honored that they held you in such esteem. I have no debt at all and aside from a few deferred expenses You're wise to bring up debt. As a general answer not geared toward your specific circumstances: Paying down debt is a good choice, if you have any. Investment accounts have an unknown interest rate, whereas reducing debt is guaranteed to earn you the interest rate that you would have otherwise paid. Creating new debt is a bad choice. It's common for people who receive large windfalls to spend so much that they put themselves in financial trouble. Lottery winners tend to go bankrupt. The best way to double your money is to fold it in half and put it back in your pocket. I am not at all savvy about finances... The vast majority of people are not savvy about finances. It's a good sign that you acknowledge your inability and are willing to defer to others. ...and have had a few bad experiences when trying to hire someone to help me Find an AIF, preferably one from a largish investment firm. You don't want to be their most important client. You just want them to treat you with courtesy and give you simple, and sound investment advice. Don't be afraid to shop around a bit. I am interested in options for safe, short \"\"parking\"\" of these funds until I figure out what I want to do. Apart from savings accounts, some money market accounts and mutual funds may be appropriate for parking funds before investing elsewhere. They come with their own tradeoffs and are quite likely higher risk than you're willing to take while you're just deciding what to do with the funds. My personal recommendation* for your specific circumstances at this specific time is to put your money in an Aspiration Summit Account purely because it has 1% APY (which is the highest interest rate I'm currently aware of) and is FDIC insured. I am not affiliated with Aspiration. I would then suggest talking to someone at Vanguard or Fidelity about your investment options. Be clear about your expectations and don't be afraid to simply walk away if you don't like the advice you receive. I am not affiliated with Vanguard or Fidelity. * I am not a lawyer, fiduciary, or even a person with a degree in finances. For all you know I'm a dog on the internet.\"" }, { "docid": "532179", "title": "", "text": "A CDIC-insured high-interest savings bank account is both safe and liquid (i.e. you can withdraw your money at any time.) At present time, you could earn interest of ~1.35% per year, if you shop around. If you are willing to truly lock in for 2 years minimum, rates go up slightly, but perhaps not enough to warrant loss of liquidity. Look at GIC rates to get an idea. Any other investments – such as mutual funds, stocks, index funds, ETFs, etc. – are generally not consistent with your stated risk objective and time frame. Better returns are generally only possible if you accept the risk of loss of capital, or lock in for longer time periods." }, { "docid": "483777", "title": "", "text": "If I were in your shoes (I would be extremely happy), here's what I would do: Get on a detailed budget, if you aren't doing one already. (I read the comments and you seemed unsure about certain things.) Once you know where your money is going, you can do a much better job of saving it. Retirement Savings: Contribute up to the employer match on the 401(k)s, if it's greater than the 5% you are already contributing. Open a Roth IRA account for each of you and make the max contribution (around $5k each). I would also suggest finding a financial adviser (w/ the heart of a teacher) to recommend/direct your mutual fund investing in those Roth IRAs and in your regular mutual fund investments. Emergency Fund With the $85k savings, take it down to a six month emergency fund. To calculate your emergency fund, look at what your necessary expenses are for a month, then multiply it by six. You could place that six month emergency fund in ING Direct as littleadv suggested. That's where we have our emergency funds and long term savings. This is a bare-minimum type budget, and is based on something like losing your job - in which case, you don't need to go to starbucks 5 times a week (I don't know if you do or not, but that is an easy example for me to use). You should have something left over, unless your basic expenses are above $7083/mo. Non-retirement Investing: Whatever is left over from the $85k, start investing with it. (I suggest you look into mutual funds) it. Some may say buy stocks, but individual stocks are very risky and you could lose your shirt if you don't know what you're doing. Mutual funds typically are comprised of many stocks, and you earn based on their collective performance. You have done very well, and I'm very excited for you. Child's College Savings: If you guys decide to expand your family with a child, you'll want to fund what's typically called a 529 plan to fund his or her college education. The money grows tax free and is only taxed when used for non-education expenses. You would fund this for the max contribution each year as well (currently $2k; but that could change depending on how the Bush Tax cuts are handled at the end of this year). Other resources to check out: The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey and the Dave Ramsey Show podcast." }, { "docid": "250294", "title": "", "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.\"" }, { "docid": "434734", "title": "", "text": "I assume that with both companies you can buy stock mutual funds, bonds mutual funds, ETFs and money market accounts. They should both offer all of these as IRAs, Roth IRAs, and non-retirement accounts. You need to make sure they offer the types of investments you want. Most 401K or 403b plans only offer a handful of options, but for non-company sponsored plans you want to have many more choices. To look at the costs see how much they charge you when you buy or sell shares. Also look at the annual expenses for those funds. Each company website should show you all the fees for each fund. Take a few funds that you are likely to invest in, and have a match in the other fund family, and compare. The benefit of the retirement accounts is that if you make a less than perfect choice now, it is easy to move the money within the family of funds or even to another family of funds later. The roll over or transfer doesn't involve taxes." }, { "docid": "457989", "title": "", "text": "\"In answering your question as it's written: I don't think you're really \"\"missing\"\" something. Different banks offer different rates. Online banks, or eBanking solutions, such as CapitalOne, Ally, Barclays, etc., typically offer higher interest rates on basic savings accounts. There are differences between Money Market accounts and Standard Savings accounts, but primarily it comes down to how you can access your cash. This may vary based on bank, but Ally has a decent blurb about it: Regular savings accounts are easy to open and, when you choose an online bank like Ally Bank, you tend to get interest rates that are more competitive than brick-and-mortar counterparts, according to Bankrate.com. Additionally, as a member of the FDIC, Ally Bank gives you peace of mind knowing that the money in your Ally Bank Online Savings Account is insured to the maximum allowed by the law. Money market accounts are easy to open, too. And again, online banks may offer better rates than traditional banks. Generally, you have a bit more flexibility of access with a money market account than you do with a savings account. You can access funds in your Ally Bank Money Market Account through electronic fund transfers, checks, debit cards and ATM withdrawals. With savings accounts, your access is limited to electronic funds transfers or telephone withdrawals (and in-person withdrawals at traditional banks). Both types of accounts are subject to federal transaction limits. Here's a bit more information about a Money Market Account and why the rate might be a little bit higher (from thesimpledollar.com): A money market deposit account is a bit different. The restrictions on what a bank can do with that money are somewhat looser – they can often invest that money in things such as treasury notes, certificates of deposit, municipal bonds, and so on in addition to the tight restrictions of a normal savings accounts. In other words, the bank can take your money and invest it in other investments that are very safe. Now outside of your question, if you have $100K that you want to earn interest on, I'd suggest looking at options with higher rates of return rather than a basic savings account which will top out around 1% or so. What you do with that money is dependent on how quickly you need access to it, and there are a lot of Q&A's on this site that cover suggestions.\"" }, { "docid": "370244", "title": "", "text": "Behind the scenes, mutual funds and ETFs are very similar. Both can vary widely in purpose and policies, which is why understanding the prospectus before investing is so important. Since both mutual funds and ETFs cover a wide range of choices, any discussion of management, assets, or expenses when discussing the differences between the two is inaccurate. Mutual funds and ETFs can both be either managed or index-based, high expense or low expense, stock or commodity backed. Method of investing When you invest in a mutual fund, you typically set up an account with the mutual fund company and send your money directly to them. There is often a minimum initial investment required to open your mutual fund account. Mutual funds sometimes, but not always, have a load, which is a fee that you pay either when you put money in or take money out. An ETF is a mutual fund that is traded like a stock. To invest, you need a brokerage account that can buy and sell stocks. When you invest, you pay a transaction fee, just as you would if you purchase a stock. There isn't really a minimum investment required as there is with a traditional mutual fund, but you usually need to purchase whole shares of the ETF. There is inherently no load with ETFs. Tax treatment Mutual funds and ETFs are usually taxed the same. However, capital gain distributions, which are taxable events that occur while you are holding the investment, are more common with mutual funds than they are with ETFs, due to the way that ETFs are structured. (See Fidelity: ETF versus mutual funds: Tax efficiency for more details.) That having been said, in an index fund, capital gain distributions are rare anyway, due to the low turnover of the fund. Conclusion When comparing a mutual fund and ETF with similar objectives and expenses and deciding which to choose, it more often comes down to convenience. If you already have a brokerage account and you are planning on making a one-time investment, an ETF could be more convenient. If, on the other hand, you have more than the minimum initial investment required and you also plan on making additional regular monthly investments, a traditional no-load mutual fund account could be more convenient and less expensive." }, { "docid": "549654", "title": "", "text": "Overall I think it sounds like it's worth it. It's hard to find that high of a rate on a checking account these days. It looks like you're looking at this bank, and I can see they have a few more requirements that seem a little tedious: If you don't do these things every month, then you lose the great interest rate. If you can think of an easy way to jump through these hoops and not forget, then it's probably worth it. For example, if you routinely eat out for lunch or buy a morning coffee, you can use that card to pay for it. Set yourself a recurring reminder in your calendar or smartphone to remind you to login to the online banking site. Ultimately, since this is an emergency fund, it's a good idea to keep it nice and liquid in a checking account. You're not likely going to find many other options that will give you a better (and safe) return and still keep your funds available for when you need them. In summary, it sounds like a good idea to me so long as you think you can reliably jump through their hoops." }, { "docid": "387722", "title": "", "text": "\"The mortgage has a higher interest rate, how can it make sense to pay off the HELOC first?? As for the mutual fund, it comes down to what returns you are expecting. If the after-tax return is higher than the mortgage rate then invest, otherwise \"\"invest\"\" in paying down the mortgage. Note that paying down debt is usually the best investment you have.\"" }, { "docid": "339716", "title": "", "text": "\"You need to track all of your expenses first, inventarize all of your assets and liabilities, and set financial goals. For example, you need to know your average monthly expenses and exactly what percentages interest each loan charges, and you need to know what to save for (your children, retirement, large purchases, etc). Then you create an emergency fund: keep between 4 to 6 months worth of your monthly expenses in a savings account that you can readily access. Base the size of your emergency fund on your expenses rather than your salary. This also means its size changes over time, for example, it must increase once you have children. You then pay off your loans, starting with the loan charging the highest interest. You do this because e.g. paying off $X of a 7% loan is equivalent to investing $X and getting a guaranteed 7% return. The stock market does generally does not provide guarantees. Starting with the highest interest first is mathematically the most rewarding strategy in the long run. It is not a priori clear whether you should pay off all loans as fast as possible, particularly those with low interest rates, and the mortgage. You need to read up on the subject in order to make an informed decision, this would be too personal advice for us to give. After you've created that emergency fund, and paid of all high interest loans, you can consider investing in vessels that achieve your set financial goals. For example, since you are thinking of having children within five years, you might wish to save for college education. That implies immediately that you should pick an investment vessels that is available after 20 year or so and does not carry too much risk (e.g. perhaps bonds or deposits). These are a few basic advices, and I would recommend to look further on the internet and perhaps read a book on the topic of \"\"personal finance\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "585269", "title": "", "text": "\"(Since you used the dollar sign without any qualification, I assume you're in the United States and talking about US dollars.) You have a few options here. I won't make a specific recommendation, but will present some options and hopefully useful information. Here's the short story: To buy individual stocks, you need to go through a broker. These brokers charge a fee for every transaction, usually in the neighborhood of $7. Since you probably won't want to just buy and hold a single stock for 15 years, the fees are probably unreasonable for you. If you want the educational experience of picking stocks and managing a portfolio, I suggest not using real money. Most mutual funds have minimum investments on the order of a few thousand dollars. If you shop around, there are mutual funds that may work for you. In general, look for a fund that: An example of a fund that meets these requirements is SWPPX from Charles Schwabb, which tracks the S&P 500. Buy the product directly from the mutual fund company: if you go through a broker or financial manager they'll try to rip you off. The main advantage of such a mutual fund is that it will probably make your daughter significantly more money over the next 15 years than the safer options. The tradeoff is that you have to be prepared to accept the volatility of the stock market and the possibility that your daughter might lose money. Your daughter can buy savings bonds through the US Treasury's TreasuryDirect website. There are two relevant varieties: You and your daughter seem to be the intended customers of these products: they are available in low denominations and they guarantee a rate for up to 30 years. The Series I bonds are the only product I know of that's guaranteed to keep pace with inflation until redeemed at an unknown time many years in the future. It is probably not a big concern for your daughter in these amounts, but the interest on these bonds is exempt from state taxes in all cases, and is exempt from Federal taxes if you use them for education expenses. The main weakness of these bonds is probably that they're too safe. You can get better returns by taking some risk, and some risk is probably acceptable in your situation. Savings accounts, including so-called \"\"money market accounts\"\" from banks are a possibility. They are very convenient, but you might have to shop around for one that: I don't have any particular insight into whether these are likely to outperform or be outperformed by treasury bonds. Remember, however, that the interest rates are not guaranteed over the long run, and that money lost to inflation is significant over 15 years. Certificates of deposit are what a bank wants you to do in your situation: you hand your money to the bank, and they guarantee a rate for some number of months or years. You pay a penalty if you want the money sooner. The longest terms I've typically seen are 5 years, but there may be longer terms available if you shop around. You can probably get better rates on CDs than you can through a savings account. The rates are not guaranteed in the long run, since the terms won't last 15 years and you'll have to get new CDs as your old ones mature. Again, I don't have any particular insight on whether these are likely to keep up with inflation or how performance will compare to treasury bonds. Watch out for the same things that affect savings accounts, in particular fees and reduced rates for balances of your size.\"" }, { "docid": "322806", "title": "", "text": "\"Diversification is the only real free lunch in finance (reduction in risk without any reduction in expected returns), so clearly every good answer to your question will be \"\"yes.\"\" Diversification is good.\"\" Let's talk about many details your question solicits. Many funds are already pretty diversified. If you buy a mutual fund, you are generally already getting a large portion of the gains from diversification. There is a very large difference between the unnecessary risk in your portfolio if you only hold a couple of stocks and if you hold a mutual fund. Should you be diversified across mutual funds as well? It depends on what your funds are. Many funds, such as target-date funds, are intended to be your sole investment. If you have funds covering every major asset class, then there may not be any additional benefit to buying other funds. You probably could not have picked your \"\"favorite fund\"\" early on. As humans, we have cognitive biases that make us think we knew things early on that we did not. I'm sure at some point at the very beginning you had a positive feeling toward that fund. Today you regret not acting on it and putting all your money there. But the number of such feelings is very large and if you acted on all those, you would do a lot of crazy and harmful things. You didn't know early on which fund would do well. You could just as well have had a good feeling about a fund that subsequently did much worse than your diversified portfolio did. The advice you have had about your portfolio probably isn't based on sound finance theory. You say you have always kept your investments in line with your age. This implies that you believe the guidelines given you by your broker or financial advisor are based in finance theory. Generally speaking, they are not. They are rules of thumb that seemed good to someone but are not rigorously proven either in theory or empirics. For example the notion that you should slowly shift your investments from speculative to conservative as you age is not based on sound finance theory. It just seems good to the people who give advice on such things. Nothing particularly wrong with it, I guess, but it's not remotely on par with the general concept of being well-diversified. The latter is extremely well established and verified, both in theory and in practice. Don't confuse the concept of diversification with the specific advice you have received from your advisor. A fund averaging very good returns is not an anomaly--at least going forward it will not be. There are many thousand funds and a large distribution in their historical performance. Just by random chance, some funds will have a truly outstanding track record. Perhaps the manager really was skilled. However, very careful empirical testing has shown the following: (1) You, me, and people whose profession it is to select outperforming mutual funds are unable to reliably detect which ones will outperform, except in hindsight (2) A fund that has outperformed, even over a long horizon, is not more likely to outperform in the future. No one is stopping you from putting all your money in that fund. Depending on its investment objective, you may even have decent diversification if you do so. However, please be aware that if you move your money based on historical outperformance, you will be acting on the same cognitive bias that makes gamblers believe they are on a \"\"hot streak\"\" and \"\"can't lose.\"\" They can, and so can you. ======== Edit to answer a more specific line of questions =========== One of your questions is whether it makes sense to buy a number of mutual funds as part of your diversification strategy. This is a slightly more subtle question and I will indicate where there is uncertainty in my answer. Diversifying across asset classes. Most of the gains from diversification are available in a single fund. There is a lot of idiosyncratic risk in one or two stocks and much less in a collection of hundreds of stocks, which is what any mutual fund will hold. Still,you will probably want at least a couple of funds in your portfolio. I will list them from most important to least and I will assume the bulk of your portfolio is in a total US equity fund (or S&P500-style fund) so that you are almost completely diversified already. Risky Bonds. These are corporate, municipal, sovereign debt, and long-term treasury debt funds. There is almost certainly a good deal to be gained by having a portion of your portfolio in bonds, and normally a total market fund will not include bond exposure. Bonds fund returns are closely related to interest rate and inflation changes. They are also exposed to some market risk but it's more efficient to get that from equity. The bond market is very large, so if you did market weights you would have more in bonds than in equity. Normally people do not do this, though. Instead you can get the exposure to interest rates by holding a lesser amount in longer-term bonds, rather than more in shorter-term bonds. I don't believe in shifting your weights toward nor away from this type of bond (as opposed to equity) as you age so if you are getting that advice, know that it is not well-founded in theory. Whatever your relative weight in risky bonds when you are young is should also be your weight when you are older. International. There are probably some gains from having some exposure to international markets, although these have decreased over time as economies have become more integrated. If we followed market weights, you would actually put half your equity weight in an international fund. Because international funds are taxed differently (gains are always taxed at the short-term capital gains rate) and because they have higher management fees, most people make only a small investment to international funds, if any at all. Emerging markets International funds often ignore emerging markets in order to maintain liquidity and low fees. You can get some exposure to these markets through emerging markets funds. However, the value of public equity in emerging markets is small when compared with that of developed markets, so according to finance theory, your investment in them should be small as well. That's a theoretical, not an empirical result. Emerging market funds charge high fees as well, so this one is kind of up to your taste. I can't say whether it will work out in the future. Real estate. You may want to get exposure to real estate by buying a real-estate fund (REIT). Though, if you own a house you are already exposed to the real estate market, perhaps more than you want to be. REITs often invest in commercial real estate, which is a little different from the residential market. Small Cap. Although total market funds invest in all capitalization levels, the market is so skewed toward large firms that many total market funds don't have any significant small cap exposure. It's common for individuals to hold a small cap fund to compensate for this, but it's not actually required by investment theory. In principle, the most diversified portfolio should be market-cap weighted, so small cap should have negligible weight in your portfolio. Many people hold small cap because historically it has outperformed large cap firms of equal risk, but this trend is uncertain. Many researchers feel that the small cap \"\"premium\"\" may have been a short-term artifact in the data. Given these facts and the fact that small-cap funds charge higher fees, it may make sense to pass on this asset class. Depends on your opinion and beliefs. Value (or Growth) Funds. Half the market can be classed as \"\"value\"\", while the other half is \"\"growth.\"\" Your total market fund should have equal representation in both so there is no diversification reason to buy a special value or growth fund. Historically, value funds have outperformed over long horizons and many researchers think this will continue, but it's not exactly mandated by the theory. If you choose to skew your portfolio by buying one of these, it should be a value fund. Sector funds. There is, in general, no diversification reason to buy funds that invest in a particular sector. If you are trying to hedge your income (like trying to avoid investing in the tech sector because you work in that sector) or your costs (buying energy because you buy use a disproportionate amount of energy) I could imagine you buying one of these funds. Risk-free bonds. Funds specializing in short-term treasuries or short-term high-quality bonds of other types are basically a substitute for a savings account, CD, money market fund, or other cash equivalent. Use as appropriate but there is little diversification here per se. In short, there is some value in diversifying across asset classes, and it is open to opinion how much you should do. Less well-justified is diversifying across managers within the same asset class. There's very little if any advantage to doing that.\"" }, { "docid": "402523", "title": "", "text": "HSAs are very similar to IRAs. Any investment returns grow tax-deferred and once you reach age 59 1/2 65, you can withdraw the funds for any purpose (subject to ordinary income tax), just like a traditional IRA. If you can afford to do so, I would recommend you to pay medical expenses out-of-pocket and let the funds in your HSA accumulate and grow. In general, the best way to allocate your funds is in the following order: Contribute to a 401(k) if your employer matches funds at a substantial rate Pay off high-interest debt (8% of more in current environment in 2011) Contribute to an IRA (traditional or Roth) Contribute to an HSA Contribute to a 401(k) without the benefit of employer matching One advantage of HSAs versus IRAs is that you don't have to have earned income (salary or self-employment income) in order to contribute. If you derive income solely from rents, interest or dividends, you can contribute the maximum amount ($3,050 for individuals in 2011) and get a full deduction from your income (Of course, you will need to maintain a high-deductible health plan in order to qualify). One downside of HSAs is the lack of competitively priced providers. Wells Fargo offers HSAs for free, but only allows you to keep your funds in cash, earning a very measly interest rate, or invest them in rather mediocre and expensive Wells Fargo mutual funds. Vanguard, known for its low-fee investment options, provides HSAs through a partner company, but the account maintenance charges are still quite high. Overall, HSAs are a worthwhile option as part of your investment plan." }, { "docid": "587768", "title": "", "text": "4.7 is a pretty low rate, especially if you are deducting that from your taxes. If you reduce the number by your marginal tax rate to get the real cost of the money you end up with a number that isn't far off from inflation, and also represents a pretty low 'yield' in terms of paying off the loan early. (e.g. if your marginal tax rate is 28%, then the net you are paying in interest after the tax deduction is 4.7 * .72 = 3.384) While I'm all for paying off loans with higher rates (since it's in effect the same as making that much risk free on the money) it doesn't make a lot of sense when you are down at 3.4 unless there is a strong 'security factor' (which really makes a difference to some folks) to be had that really helps you sleep at night. (to be realistic, for some folks close to retirement, there can be a lot to be said for the security of not having to worry about house payments, although you don't seem to be in that situation yet) As others have said, first make sure you have enough liquid 'emergency money' in something like a money market account, or a ladder of short term CD's If you are sure that the sprouts will be going to college, then there's a lot to be said for kicking a decent amount into a 529, Coverdell ESA (Educational Savings Account), uniform gift to minors account, or some combination of those. I'm not sure if any of those plans can be used for a kid that has not been born yet however. I'd recommend http://www.savingforcollege.com as a good starting point to get more information on your various options. As with retirement savings, money put in earlier has a lot more 'power' over the final balance due to compounding interest, so there's a lot to be said for starting early, although depending on what it takes to qualify for the plans there could be such a thing as too early ;-) ). There's nothing wrong with Managed mutual funds as long as the fund objective and investing style is in alignment with your objectives and risk tolerance; The fund is giving you a good return relative to the market as a whole; You are not paying high fees or load charges; You are not losing a lot to taxes. I would always look at the return after expenses when comparing to other options, and if the money is not in a tax deferred account, also look at what sort of tax burden you will be faced with. A fund that trades a lot will generate more short term gains which means more taxes than compared to a more passive fund. Anything lost to taxes is money lost to you so needs to come out of the total return when you calculate that. Sometimes such funds are better off as a choice inside an IRA or 401K, and you can instead use more tax efficient vehicles for money where you have to pay the taxes every year on the gains. The reason a lot of folks like index funds better is that: Given your described age, it's not appropriate now, but in the long run as you get closer to retirement, you may want to start looking at building up some investments that are geared more towards generating income, such as bonds, or depending on taxes where you live, Municipal bonds. In any case, the more money you can set aside for retirement now, both inside and outside of tax deferred accounts, the sooner you will get to the point of the 'critical mass' you need to retire, at that point you can work because you want to, not because you have to." }, { "docid": "434279", "title": "", "text": "\"Here is the \"\"investing for retirement\"\" theoretical background you should have. You should base your investment decisions not simply on the historical return of the fund, but on its potential for future returns and its risk. Past performance does not indicate future results: the past performance is frequently at its best the moment before the bubble pops. While no one knows the specifics of future returns, there are a few types of assets that it's (relatively) safe to make blanket statements about: The future returns of your portfolio will primarily be determined by your asset allocation . The general rules look like: There are a variety of guides out there to help decide your asset allocation and tell you specifically what to do. The other thing that you should consider is the cost of your funds. While it's easy to get lucky enough to make a mutual fund outperform the market in the short term, it's very hard to keep that up for decades on end. Moreover, chasing performance is risky, and expensive. So look at your fund information and locate the expense ratio. If the fund's expense ratio is 1%, that's super-expensive (the stock market's annualized real rate of return is about 4%, so that could be a quarter of your returns). All else being equal, choose the cheap index fund (with an expense ratio closer to 0.1%). Many 401(k) providers only have expensive mutual funds. This is because you're trapped and can't switch to a cheaper fund, so they're free to take lots of your money. If this is the case, deal with it in the short term for the tax benefits, then open a specific type of account called a \"\"rollover IRA\"\" when you change jobs, and move your assets there. Or, if your savings are small enough, just open an IRA (a \"\"traditional IRA\"\" or \"\"Roth IRA\"\") and use those instead. (Or, yell at your HR department, in the event that you think that'll actually accomplish anything.)\"" }, { "docid": "17823", "title": "", "text": "\"I'd suggest you start by looking at the mutual fund and/or ETF options available via your bank, and see if they have any low-cost funds that invest in high-risk sectors. You can increase your risk (and potential returns) by allocating your assets to riskier sectors rather than by picking individual stocks, and you'll be less likely to make an avoidable mistake. It is possible to do as you suggest and pick individual stocks, but by doing so you may be taking on more risk than you suspect, even unnecessary risk. For instance, if you decide to buy stock in Company A, you know you're taking a risk by investing in just one company. However, without a lot of work and financial expertise, you may not be able to assess how much risk you're taking by investing in Company A specifically, as opposed to Company B. Even if you know that investing in individual stocks is risky, it can be very hard to know how risky those particular individual stocks are, compared to other alternatives. This is doubly true if the investment involves actions more exotic than simply buying and holding an asset like a stock. For instance, you could definitely get plenty of risk by investing in commercial real estate development or complicated options contracts; but a certain amount of work and expertise is required to even understand how to do that, and there is a greater likelihood that you will slip up and make a costly mistake that negates any extra gain, even if the investment itself might have been sound for someone with experience in that area. In other words, you want your risk to really be the risk of the investment, not the \"\"personal\"\" risk that you'll make a mistake in a complicated scheme and lose money because you didn't know what you were doing. (If you do have some expertise in more exotic investments, then maybe you could go this route, but I think most people -- including me -- don't.) On the other hand, you can find mutual funds or ETFs that invest in large economic sectors that are high-risk, but because the investment is diversified within that sector, you need only compare the risk of the sectors. For instance, emerging markets are usually considered one of the highest-risk sectors. But if you restrict your choice to low-cost emerging-market index funds, they are unlikely to differ drastically in risk (at any rate, far less than individual companies). This eliminates the problem mentioned above: when you choose to invest in Emerging Markets Index Fund A, you don't need to worry as much about whether Emerging Markets Index Fund B might have been less risky; most of the risk is in the choice to invest in the emerging markets sector in the first place, and differences between comparable funds in that sector are small by comparison. You could do the same with other targeted sectors that can produce high returns; for instance, there are mutual funds and ETFs that invest specifically in technology stocks. So you could begin by exploring the mutual funds and ETFs available via your existing investment bank, or poke around on Morningstar. Fees will still matter no matter what sector you're in, so pay attention to those. But you can probably find a way to take an aggressive risk position without getting bogged down in the details of individual companies. Also, this will be less work than trying something more exotic, so you're less likely to make a costly mistake due to not understanding the complexities of what you're investing in.\"" }, { "docid": "341699", "title": "", "text": "If we knew for sure that euros are only going to be more expensive in the future, then the answer would be easy: Buy them all at one time, so that we are getting them at the best price. Of course, we can't assume that to be the case, they could get cheaper, so the answer gets more complicated. Focusing strictly on monetary considerations, there are two factors to examine: Using answers to this Travel Stack Exchange question as a reference, you see that the cost of currency conversion can be as low as 1%-2% if you make the transaction with a debit card, but can be as high as 15%. So, buying 1000 euros a month would cost between 20 and 150 euros. Examining a two year chart of the Euro-Canadian Dollar exchange rate gives us an idea of how much the currency fluctuates. Over the past two years, a euro has cost has much as $1.54 CAD and as little as $1.26 CAD, a 22% spread. Looking at it on a month-to month basis, we see that monthly changes have been as high as .05 to .07 (4-5%). As such, buying 1000 euros a month could cost 50 CAD more (or less) on a monthly basis due to variance in the exchange rate. If we anticipate our overhead cost of currency conversion to be more than 5%, it doesn't make sense to do multiple transactions; the costs are likely to outweigh the benefits. If we can keep them under that amount, then multiple transactions are advantageous when the euro is cheaper. The problem is somewhat analagous to that of someone who wants to make an annual investment in a mutual fund and is unsure of whether to make the purchase all at once, or to divide it over multiple purchases. One can't know for sure which way the mutual fund price is going to move over the time period Dollar cost averaging, spreading the purchase over regular intervals, is the generally accepted solution to this problem. As such, so long as we can keep the overhead cost of currency transactions low (<5%), doing transactions on a regular basis positions ourselves to take advantage of possible drops in the price of euros and reduces the risk of buying euros when they are most expensive. If we can't keep the cost low, then currency fees would be greater than potential price drops and we would be better off doing a single transaction." }, { "docid": "575241", "title": "", "text": "Part 1 Quite a few [or rather most] countries allow USD account. So there is no conversion. Just to illustrare; In India its allowed to have a USD account. The funds can be transfered as USD and withdrawn as USD, the interest is in USD. There no conversion at any point in time. Typically the rates for CD on USD account was Central Bank regulated rate of 5%, recently this was deregulated, and some banks offer around 7% interest. Why is the rate high on USD in India? - There is a trade deficit which means India gets less USD and has to pay More USD to buy stuff [Oil and other essential items]. - The balance is typically borrowed say from IMF or other countries etc. - Allowing Banks to offer high interest rate is one way to attract more USD into the country in short term. [because somepoint in time they may take back the USD out of India] So why isn't everyone jumping and making USD investiments in India? - The Non-Residents who eventually plan to come back have invested in USD in India. - There is a risk of regulation changes, ie if the Central Bank / Country comes up pressure for Forex Reserves, they may make it difficut to take back the USD. IE they may impose charges / taxes or force conversion on such accounts. - The KYC norms make it difficult for Indian Bank to attract US citizens [except Non Resident Indians] - Certain countries would have explicit regulations to prevent Other Nationals from investing in such products as they may lead to volatility [ie all of them suddenly pull out the funds] - There would be no insurance to foreign nationals. Part 2 The FDIC insurance is not the reason for lower rates. Most countires have similar insurance for Bank deposits for account holdes. The reason for lower interst rate is all the Goverments [China etc] park the excess funds in US Treasuries because; 1. It is safe 2. It is required for any international purchase 3. It is very liquid. Now if the US Fed started giving higher interest rates to tresaury bonds say 5%, it essentially paying more to other countries ... so its keeping the interest rates low even at 1% there are enough people [institutions / governemnts] who would keep the money with US Treasury. So the US Treasury has to make some revenue from the funds kept at it ... it lends at lower interest rates to Bank ... who in turn lend it to borrowers [both corporate and retail]. Now if they can borrow cheaply from Fed, why would they pay more to Individual Retail on CD?, they will pay less; because the lending rates are low as well. Part 3 Check out the regulations" }, { "docid": "219910", "title": "", "text": "I was active in Prosper when it started up. It was very easy to get attracted to the high risk loans with big interest rates and I lost about 14% after all my loans ran their course. (There's 10 still active, but it won't change the figure by much). Prosper has wider standards than Lending club, so more borrowers with worse credit scores could ask for loans. Lenders could also set interest rates far lower, so they could end up having loans with rates lower than the risk implied. This was set up with the idea of a free market where anyone could ask to borrow and anyone could loan money at whatever interest rate they wanted, It turns out a lot of lenders were not as smart as they thought they were. (Aside: it's funny how people will clamor for a free market, but when they lose money will suddenly be against the free market they said they wanted, this seems to apply to both individual p2p lenders up to massive multinational banks.). Since then Prosper has tightened their standards on who can borrow and the interest rates are now fixed. So I expect going forward it will be less easy to lose a bunch of money. The key is that one bad loan will erase the return of many good ones. So it's best to examine the loans carefully and stick with the high quality. Simplified Example If you have 10 1 yr loans of $100 each paying 10% interest/year, you get 10% return at the end of the year, so $100 (10% of $1000.). BUT if one loan goes bad at the start, you have lost money. So a 90% success rate in picking borrowers leads to a loss. You want to diversity over quite a few loans and you want to fund quality loans. I think really enjoyed investing through Prosper, because it gave me an insight into lending and loss ratios that I had not had before. It also caused me to look at the banks with even more incredulity when the case of the no-doc loans and neg-am loans came to light." } ]

[ { "docid": "487052", "title": "", "text": "Any investment company or online brokerage makes investing in their products easy. The hard part is choosing which fund(s) will earn you 12% and up." } ]

[ { "docid": "80797", "title": "", "text": "My equities portfolio breaks down like this: (I'm 26 years old, so it is quite aggressive) Additionally, I have a portfolio of direct real estate investments I have made over the past 4 years. I invested very aggressively into real estate due to the financial crisis. As a result of my aggressive investing & strong growth in real estate, my overall asset breakdown is quite out of balance. (~80% Real Estate, ~20% Equities) I will be bringing this into a more sensible balance over the next few years as I unwind some of my real estate investments & reinvest the proceeds into other asset classes. As for the alternative asset groups you mentioned, I looked quite seriously at Peer to Peer lending a few years back. (Lending Club) However, interest rates were quite low & I felt that Real Estate was a better asset class to be in at the time. Furthermore, I was borrowing heavily to fund real estate purchases at the time, and I felt it didn't make much sense to be lending cash & borrowing at the same time. I needed every dime I could get a hold of. :) I will give it another look once rates come back up. I've shied away from investing in things like actively managed mutual funds, hedge funds, etc ... not because I don't think good managers can get superior returns ... rather, in my humble opinion, if they DO get above average returns then they simply charge higher management fees to reflect their good performance. Hope this helps!" }, { "docid": "61575", "title": "", "text": "\"Thanks for the info, things are starting to make more sense now. For some reason I've always neglected learning about investments, now that Im in a position to invest (and am still fairly young) I'm motivated to start learning. As for help with TD Ameritrade, I was looking into Index Funds (as another commenter mentioned that I should) on their site and am a little overwhelmed with the options. First, I'm looking at Mutual Funds, going to symbol lookup and using type = \"\"indeces\"\". I'm assuming that's the same thing as an \"\"Index Fund\"\" but since the language is slightly different I'm not 100% sure. However, at that point I need some kind of search for a symbol in order to see any results (makes sense, but I dont know where to start looking for \"\"good\"\" index funds). So my first question is: If I FIND a good mutual fund, is it correct to simply go to \"\"Buy Mutual Funds\"\" and find it from there? and if so, my second question is: How do I find a good mutual fund? My goal is to have my money in something that will likely grow faster than a savings account. I don't mind a little volatility, I can afford to lose my investment, I'd plan on leaving my money in the fund for a several years at least. My last question is: When investing in these types of funds (or please point me in another direction if you think Index Funds aren't the place for me to start) should I be reinvesting in the funds, or having them pay out dividends? I would assume that reinvesting is the smart choice, but I can imagine situations that might change that in order to mitigate risk...and as I've said a few times in this thread including the title, I'm a complete amateur so my assumptions aren't necessarily worth that much. Thanks for the help, I really appreciate all the info so far.\"" }, { "docid": "518402", "title": "", "text": "Yes you should take in the expenses being incurred by the mutual fund. This lists down the fees charged by the mutual fund and where expenses can be found in the annual statement of the fund. To calculate fees and expenses. As you might expect, fees and expenses vary from fund to fund. A fund with high costs must perform better than a low-cost fund to generate the same returns for you. Even small differences in fees can translate into large differences in returns over time. You don't pay expenses, so the money is taken from the assets of the fund. So you pay it indirectly. If the expenses are huge, that may point to something i.e. fund managers are enjoying at your expense, money is being used somewhere else rather than being paid as dividends. If the expenses are used in the growth of the fund, that is a positive sign. Else you can expect the fund to be downgraded or upgraded by the credit rating agencies, depending on how the credit rating agencies see the expenses of the fund and other factors. Generally comparison should be done with funds invested in the same sectors, same distribution of assets so that you have a homogeneous comparison to make. Else it would be unwise to compare between a fund invested in oil companies and other in computers. Yes the economy is inter twined, but that is not how a comparison should be done." }, { "docid": "387722", "title": "", "text": "\"The mortgage has a higher interest rate, how can it make sense to pay off the HELOC first?? As for the mutual fund, it comes down to what returns you are expecting. If the after-tax return is higher than the mortgage rate then invest, otherwise \"\"invest\"\" in paying down the mortgage. Note that paying down debt is usually the best investment you have.\"" }, { "docid": "75270", "title": "", "text": "Risk. Volatility. Liquidity. Etc. All exist on a spectrum, these are all comparative measures. To the general question, is a mutual fund a good alternative to a savings account? No, but that doesn't mean it is a bad idea for your to allocate some of your assets in to one right now. Mutual funds, even low volatility stock/bond blended mutual funds with low fees still experience some volatility which is infinitely more volatility than a savings account. The point of a savings account is knowing for certain that your money will be there. Certainty lets you plan. Very simplistically, you want to set yourself up with a checking account, a savings account, then investments. This is really about near term planning. You need to buy lunch today, you need to pay your electricity bill today etc, that's checking account activity. You want to sock away money for a vacation, you have an unexpected car repair, these are savings account activities. This is your foundation. How much of a foundation you need will scale with your income and spending. Beyond your basic financial foundation you invest. What you invest in will depend on your willingness to pay attention and learn, and your general risk tolerance. Sure, in this day and age, it is easy to get money back out of an investment account, but you don't want to get in the habit of taping investments for every little thing. Checking: No volatility, completely liquid, no risk Savings: No volatility, very liquid, no principal risk Investments: (Pick your poison) The point is you carefully arrange your near term foundation so you can push up the risk and volatility in your investment endeavors. Your savings account might be spread between a vanilla savings account and some CDs or a money market fund, but never stock (including ETF/Mutual Funds and blended Stock/Bond funds). Should you move your savings account to this mutual fund, no. Should you maybe look at your finances and allocate some of your assets to this mutual fund, sure. Just look at where you stand once a year and adjust your checking and savings to your existing spending. Savings accounts aren't sexy and the yields are awful at the moment but that doesn't mean you go chasing yield. The idea is you want to insulate your investing from your day to day life so you can make unemotional deliberate investment decisions." }, { "docid": "341699", "title": "", "text": "If we knew for sure that euros are only going to be more expensive in the future, then the answer would be easy: Buy them all at one time, so that we are getting them at the best price. Of course, we can't assume that to be the case, they could get cheaper, so the answer gets more complicated. Focusing strictly on monetary considerations, there are two factors to examine: Using answers to this Travel Stack Exchange question as a reference, you see that the cost of currency conversion can be as low as 1%-2% if you make the transaction with a debit card, but can be as high as 15%. So, buying 1000 euros a month would cost between 20 and 150 euros. Examining a two year chart of the Euro-Canadian Dollar exchange rate gives us an idea of how much the currency fluctuates. Over the past two years, a euro has cost has much as $1.54 CAD and as little as $1.26 CAD, a 22% spread. Looking at it on a month-to month basis, we see that monthly changes have been as high as .05 to .07 (4-5%). As such, buying 1000 euros a month could cost 50 CAD more (or less) on a monthly basis due to variance in the exchange rate. If we anticipate our overhead cost of currency conversion to be more than 5%, it doesn't make sense to do multiple transactions; the costs are likely to outweigh the benefits. If we can keep them under that amount, then multiple transactions are advantageous when the euro is cheaper. The problem is somewhat analagous to that of someone who wants to make an annual investment in a mutual fund and is unsure of whether to make the purchase all at once, or to divide it over multiple purchases. One can't know for sure which way the mutual fund price is going to move over the time period Dollar cost averaging, spreading the purchase over regular intervals, is the generally accepted solution to this problem. As such, so long as we can keep the overhead cost of currency transactions low (<5%), doing transactions on a regular basis positions ourselves to take advantage of possible drops in the price of euros and reduces the risk of buying euros when they are most expensive. If we can't keep the cost low, then currency fees would be greater than potential price drops and we would be better off doing a single transaction." }, { "docid": "281865", "title": "", "text": "On reading couple of articles & some research over internet, I got to know about diversified investment where one should invest 70% in equity related & rest 30% in debt related funds Yes that is about right. Although the recommendation keeps varying a bit. However your first investment should not aim for diversification. Putting small amounts in multiple mutual funds may create paper work and tracking issues. My suggestion would be to start with an Index EFT or Large cap. Then move to balanced funds and mid caps etc. On this site we don't advise on specific funds. You can refer to moneycontrol.com or economictimes or quite a few other personal finance advisory sites to understand the top funds in the segments and decide on funds accordingly. PS: Rather than buying paper, buy it electronic, better you can now buy it as Demat. If you already have an Demat account it would be best to buy through it." }, { "docid": "445782", "title": "", "text": "The 20%+ returns you have observed in the mutual funds are not free money. They are compensation for the risk associated with owning those funds. Given the extraordinarily high returns you are seeing I would expect extremely high risk. This means there is a good possibility of extreme losses at some point. By putting a lot of money in those mutual funds you are taking a gamble that may or may not pay off. Assuming what your friend is paying you for rent is fair, you are not losing money on your house relative to the market. You are earning less because you are invested in a less risky asset. If you want a higher return, you should borrow some money (or sell your house) and invest in the market. You may make more money that way. But if you do that, you will have a larger chance of losing a lot of money at some point. That's the way risk works. No one can promise a 20% return on a risky asset, they can only hint that it may do in the future what it did in the past. A reasonable approach to investment is to get invested in lots of different things: stocks, bonds, real estate. If you are afraid of risk and willing to earn less, keep more money in safe assets. If you are willing to take big risks in exchange for the possibility of high returns, move more assets into risky stuff. If you want extreme returns and are willing to take extreme risk, borrow and use the money to invest in risky assets. As you look over investment options, remember that anything that pays high returns most likely has high risk as well." }, { "docid": "135176", "title": "", "text": "\"It can be pretty hard to compute the right number. What you need to know for your actual return is called the dollar-weighted return. This is the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rate_of_return computed for your actual cash flows. So if you add $100 per month or whatever, that has to be factored in. If you have a separate account then hopefully your investment manager is computing this. If you just have mutual funds at a brokerage or fund company, computing it may be a bunch of manual labor, unless the brokerage does it for you. A site like Morningstar will show a couple of return numbers on say an S&P500 index fund. The first is \"\"time weighted\"\" and is just the raw return if you invested all money at time A and took it all out at time B. They also show \"\"investor return\"\" which is the average dollar-weighted return for everyone who invested in the fund; so if people sold the fund during a market crash, that would lower the investor return. This investor return shows actual returns for the average person, which makes it more relevant in one way (these were returns people actually received) but less relevant in another (the return is often lower because people are on average doing dumb stuff, such as selling at market bottoms). You could compare yourself to the time-weighted return to see how you did vs. if you'd bought and held with a big lump sum. And you can compare yourself to the investor return to see how you did vs. actual irrational people. .02, it isn't clear that either comparison matters so much; after all, the idea is to make adequate returns to meet your goals with minimum risk of not meeting your goals. You can't spend \"\"beating the market\"\" (or \"\"matching the market\"\" or anything else benchmarked to the market) in retirement, you can only spend cash. So beating a terrible market return won't make you feel better, and beating a great market return isn't necessary. I think it's bad that many investment books and advisors frame things in terms of a market benchmark. (Market benchmarks have their uses, such as exposing index-hugging active managers that aren't earning their fees, but to me it's easy to get mixed up and think the market benchmark is \"\"the point\"\" - I feel \"\"the point\"\" is to achieve your financial goals.)\"" }, { "docid": "312591", "title": "", "text": "\"Funds - especially index funds - are a safe way for beginning investors to get a diversified investment across a lot of the stock market. They are not the perfect investment, but they are better than the majority of mutual funds, and you do not spend a lot of money in fees. Compared to the alternative - buying individual stocks based on what a friend tells you or buying a \"\"hot\"\" mutual fund - it's a great choice for a lot of people. If you are willing to do some study, you can do better - quite a bit better - with common stocks. As an individual investor, you have some structural advantages; you can take significant (to you) positions in small-cap companies, while this is not practical for large institutional investors or mutual fund managers. However, you can also lose a lot of money quickly in individual stocks. It pays to go slow and to your homework, however, and make sure that you are investing, not speculating. I like fool.com as a good place to start, and subscribe to a couple of their newsletters. I will note that investing is not for the faint of heart; to do well, you may need to do the opposite of what everybody else is doing; buying when the market is down and selling when the market is high. A few people mentioned the efficient market hypothesis. There is ample evidence that the market is not efficient; the existence of the .com and mortgage bubbles makes it pretty obvious that the market is often not rationally valued, and a couple of hedge funds profited in the billions from this.\"" }, { "docid": "549364", "title": "", "text": "\"As you alluded to in your question, there is not one answer that will be true for all mutual funds. In fact, I would argue the question is not specific to mutual funds but can be applied to almost anyone who must make an investment decision: a mutual fund manager, hedge fund manager, or an individual investor. Even though money going into a company 401(k) retirement savings plan is typically automatically allocated to different funds as we have specified, this is generally not the case for other investment accounts. For example, I also have a Roth IRA in which I have some money from each paycheck direct deposited and it's up to me to decide whether to leave that money in cash or to invest it somewhere else. Every time you invest more money into a mutual fund, the fund manager has the same decision to make. There are two commonly used mutual fund figures that relate to your question: turnover rate, and cash reserves. Turnover rate measures the percent of a fund's portfolio that changes every year. For example, a turnover rate of 100% indicates that a fund replaces every asset it held at the beginning of the year with something else at the end of the year – funds with turnover rates greater than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of less than one year, and funds with turnover rates less than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of more than one year. Cash reserves simply measure the amount of money funds choose to keep as cash instead of investing in other assets. Another important distinction to make is between actively managed funds and passively managed funds. Passively managed funds are often referred to as \"\"index funds\"\" and have as their goal only to match the returns of a given index or some other benchmark. Actively managed funds on the other hand try to beat the market by exploiting so-called market inefficiencies; e.g. buying undervalued assets, selling overvalued assets, \"\"timing\"\" the market, etc. To answer your question for a specific fund, I would encourage you to look at the fund's prospectus. I take as one example of a passively managed fund the Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFINX), a mutual fund that was created to track the S&P 500. In its prospectus, the fund states that, \"\"to track its target index as closely as possible, the Fund attempts to remain fully invested in stocks\"\". Furthermore, the prospectus states that \"\"the fund's daily cash balance may be invested in one or more Vanguard CMT Funds, which are very low-cost money market funds.\"\" Therefore, we would expect both this fund's turnover rate and cash reserves to be extremely low. When we look at its portfolio composition, we see this is true – it is currently at a 4.8% turnover rate and holds 0.0% in short term reserves. Therefore, we can assume this fund is regularly purchasing shares (similar to a dollar cost averaging strategy) instead of holding on to cash and purchasing shares together at a specific time. For actively managed funds, the picture will tend to look a little different. For example, if we look at the Magellan Fund's portfolio composition, we can see it has a turnover rate of 42%, and holds around .95% in cash/short term reserves. In this case, we can safely guess that trading activity may not be as regular as a passively managed fund, as an active manager attempts to time the market. You may find mutual funds that have much higher cash reserves – perhaps 10% or even more. Granted, it is impossible to know the exact trading strategy of a mutual fund, and for good reason – if we knew for example, that a fund purchases shares every day at 2:30PM in order to realign with the S&P 500, then sellers of S&P components could up the prices at that time to exploit the mutual fund's trade strategy. Large traders are constantly trying to find ways to conceal their actual trading activity in order to avoid these exact problems. Finally, I feel obligated to note that it is important to keep in mind that trade frequency is linked to transactions costs – in general, the more frequently an investment manager (whether it be you or a mutual fund manager) executes trades, the more that manager will lose in transactions costs.\"" }, { "docid": "31581", "title": "", "text": "When interest rates rise, the price of bonds fall because bonds have a fixed coupon rate, and since the interest rate has risen, the bond's rate is now lower than what you can get on the market, so it's price falls because it's now less valuable. Bonds diversify your portfolio as they are considered safer than stocks and less volatile. However, they also provide less potential for gains. Although diversification is a good idea, for the individual investor it is far too complicated and incurs too much transaction costs, not to mention that rebalancing would have to be done on a regular basis. In your case where you have mutual funds already, it is probably a good idea to keep investing in mutual funds with a theme which you understand the industry's role in the economy today rather than investing in some special bonds which you cannot relate to. The benefit of having a mutual fund is to have a professional manage your money, and that includes diversification as well so that you don't have to do that." }, { "docid": "494148", "title": "", "text": "My figuring (and I'm not an expert here, but I think this is basic math) is: Let's say you had a windfall of $1000 extra dollars today that you could either: a. Use to pay down your mortgage b. Put into some kind of equity mutual fund Maybe you have 20 years left on your mortgage. So your return on investment with choice A is whatever your mortgage interest rate is, compounded monthly or daily. Interest rates are low now, but who knows what they'll be in the future. On the other hand, you should get more return out of an equity mutual fund investment, so I'd say B is your better choice, except: But that's also the other reason why I favour B over A. Let's say you lose your job a year from now. Your bank won't be too lenient with you paying your mortgage, even if you paid it off quicker than originally agreed. But if that money is in mutual funds, you have access to it, and it buys you time when you really need it. People might say that you can always get a second mortgage to get the equity out of it, but try getting a second mortgage when you've just lost your job." }, { "docid": "210939", "title": "", "text": "\"When we talk about compounding, we usually think about interest payments. If you have a deposit in a savings account that is earning compound interest, then each time an interest payment is made to your account, your deposit gets larger, and the amount of your next interest payment is larger than the last. There are compound interest formulas that you can use to calculate your future earnings using the interest rate and the compounding interval. However, your mutual fund is not earning interest, so you have to think of it differently. When you own a stock (and your mutual fund is simply a collection of stocks), the value of the stock (hopefully) grows. Let's say, for example, that you have $1000 invested, and the value goes up 10% the first year. The total value of your investment has increased by $100, and your total investment is worth $1100. If it grows by another 10% the following year, your investment is then $1210, having gained $110. In this way, your investment grows in a similar way to compound interest. As your investment pays off, it causes the value of the investment to grow, allowing for even higher earnings in the future. So in that sense, it is compounding. However, because it is not earning a fixed, predictable amount of interest as a savings account would, you can't use the compound interest formula to calculate precisely how much you will have in the future, as there is no fixed compounding interval. If you want to use the formula to estimate how much you might have in the future, you have to make an assumption on the growth of your investment, and that growth assumption will have a time period associated with it. For example, you might assume a growth rate of 10% per year. Or you might assume a growth rate of 1% per month. This is what you could use in a compound interest formula for your mutual fund investment. By reinvesting your dividends and capital gains (and not taking them out in cash), you are maximizing your \"\"compounding\"\" by allowing those earnings to cause your investment to grow.\"" }, { "docid": "4153", "title": "", "text": "Congratulations on being in such good financial state. You have a few investment choices. If you want very low risk, you are talking bonds or CDs. With the prime rate so low, nobody is paying anything useful for very low risk investments. However, my opinion is that given your finances, you should consider taking on a little more risk. A good step is a index fund, which is designed to mirror the performance of a stock index such as the S&P 500. That may be volatile in the short-term, but is likely to be a good investment in the longer term. I am not a fan of non-index mutual funds; in general the management charge makes them a less attractive investment. The next step up is investing in individual stocks, which can provide very big gains or very big losses. The Motley fool site (www.fool.com) has a lot of information about investing overall." }, { "docid": "24846", "title": "", "text": "\"If you are like most people, your timing is kind of awful. What I mean by most, is all. Psychologically we have strong tendencies to buy when the market is high and avoid buying when it is low. One of the easiest to implement strategies to avoid this is Dollar Cost Averaging. In most cases you are far better off making small investments regularly. Having said that, you may need to \"\"save\"\" a bit in order to make subsequent investments because of minimums. For me there is also a positive psychological effect of putting money to work sooner and more often. I find it enjoyable to purchase shares of a mutual fund or stock and the days that I do so are a bit better than the others. An added benefit to doing regular investing is to have them be automated. Many wealthy people describe this as a key to success as they can focused on the business of earning money in their chosen profession as opposed to investing money they have already earned. Additionally the author of I will Teach You to be Rich cites this as a easy, free, and key step in building wealth.\"" }, { "docid": "475580", "title": "", "text": "\"Money market accounts, insured in the same way as other deposits, are strange hybrids of traditional bank deposits and bond mutual funds. Because of the high inflation of the 1970s, banks were starved of deposits and could not produce loans at sufficient rates. For this reason, they desired a way to fund loans, and Congress enacted the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act which permitted a new form of account that retained the functionality of a deposit account, such as checking and now electronic transfers, yet transferred the risk to the account thus most of the profit. This allowed banks to fund each others' new loans through packaging them into asset backed securities to be held in these special accounts. As an added \"\"protection\"\", they are not permitted to carry a market value less than what's owed to depositors and are forcibly liquidated and paid in such event. This is a rare occurrence because of the nature of the assets held: credit assets such as commercial paper, mortgages, and corporate bonds. This is the opposite case of deposits because so long as a bank can maintain payments on its liabilities and satisfy a few other regulatory requirements, non-regulation satisfying assets could theoretically carry a zero balance, meaning that a bank could owe depositors more than what could be paid by liquidating all assets. Money market accounts will typically pay a higher rate because of their structure. While inflation is low and immediate term interest rates set by the central bank are also low, the net figure will not appear high, but the ratio will be fantastic, usually something like 3x. The one downside to money market accounts is that withdrawals are restricted by frequency. This is not such a problem as before since brokerages are now issuing debit cards tied to brokerage accounts, and excess money can be \"\"swept\"\" into money market accounts, bypassing the regulatory restriction. In short, money market accounts are currently a far better choice than traditional checking accounts but pay less than savings accounts.\"" }, { "docid": "345954", "title": "", "text": "Generally value funds (particularly large value funds) will be the ones to pay dividends. You don't specifically need a High Dividend Yield fund in order to get a fund that pays dividends. Site likes vanguards can show you the dividends paid for mutual funds in the past to get an idea of what a fund would pay. Growth funds on the other hand don't generally pay dividends (or at least that's not their purpose). Instead, the company grows and become worth more. You earn money here because the company (or fund) you invested in is now worth more. If you're saying you want a fund that pays dividends but is also a growth fund I'm sure there are some funds like that out there, you just have to look around" }, { "docid": "370244", "title": "", "text": "Behind the scenes, mutual funds and ETFs are very similar. Both can vary widely in purpose and policies, which is why understanding the prospectus before investing is so important. Since both mutual funds and ETFs cover a wide range of choices, any discussion of management, assets, or expenses when discussing the differences between the two is inaccurate. Mutual funds and ETFs can both be either managed or index-based, high expense or low expense, stock or commodity backed. Method of investing When you invest in a mutual fund, you typically set up an account with the mutual fund company and send your money directly to them. There is often a minimum initial investment required to open your mutual fund account. Mutual funds sometimes, but not always, have a load, which is a fee that you pay either when you put money in or take money out. An ETF is a mutual fund that is traded like a stock. To invest, you need a brokerage account that can buy and sell stocks. When you invest, you pay a transaction fee, just as you would if you purchase a stock. There isn't really a minimum investment required as there is with a traditional mutual fund, but you usually need to purchase whole shares of the ETF. There is inherently no load with ETFs. Tax treatment Mutual funds and ETFs are usually taxed the same. However, capital gain distributions, which are taxable events that occur while you are holding the investment, are more common with mutual funds than they are with ETFs, due to the way that ETFs are structured. (See Fidelity: ETF versus mutual funds: Tax efficiency for more details.) That having been said, in an index fund, capital gain distributions are rare anyway, due to the low turnover of the fund. Conclusion When comparing a mutual fund and ETF with similar objectives and expenses and deciding which to choose, it more often comes down to convenience. If you already have a brokerage account and you are planning on making a one-time investment, an ETF could be more convenient. If, on the other hand, you have more than the minimum initial investment required and you also plan on making additional regular monthly investments, a traditional no-load mutual fund account could be more convenient and less expensive." } ]

[ { "docid": "484599", "title": "", "text": "Are you looking for something like Morningstar.com? They provide information about lots of mutual funds so you can search based on many factors and find good candidate mutual funds. Use their fund screener to pick funds with long track records of beating the S&P500." } ]

[ { "docid": "75270", "title": "", "text": "Risk. Volatility. Liquidity. Etc. All exist on a spectrum, these are all comparative measures. To the general question, is a mutual fund a good alternative to a savings account? No, but that doesn't mean it is a bad idea for your to allocate some of your assets in to one right now. Mutual funds, even low volatility stock/bond blended mutual funds with low fees still experience some volatility which is infinitely more volatility than a savings account. The point of a savings account is knowing for certain that your money will be there. Certainty lets you plan. Very simplistically, you want to set yourself up with a checking account, a savings account, then investments. This is really about near term planning. You need to buy lunch today, you need to pay your electricity bill today etc, that's checking account activity. You want to sock away money for a vacation, you have an unexpected car repair, these are savings account activities. This is your foundation. How much of a foundation you need will scale with your income and spending. Beyond your basic financial foundation you invest. What you invest in will depend on your willingness to pay attention and learn, and your general risk tolerance. Sure, in this day and age, it is easy to get money back out of an investment account, but you don't want to get in the habit of taping investments for every little thing. Checking: No volatility, completely liquid, no risk Savings: No volatility, very liquid, no principal risk Investments: (Pick your poison) The point is you carefully arrange your near term foundation so you can push up the risk and volatility in your investment endeavors. Your savings account might be spread between a vanilla savings account and some CDs or a money market fund, but never stock (including ETF/Mutual Funds and blended Stock/Bond funds). Should you move your savings account to this mutual fund, no. Should you maybe look at your finances and allocate some of your assets to this mutual fund, sure. Just look at where you stand once a year and adjust your checking and savings to your existing spending. Savings accounts aren't sexy and the yields are awful at the moment but that doesn't mean you go chasing yield. The idea is you want to insulate your investing from your day to day life so you can make unemotional deliberate investment decisions." }, { "docid": "323228", "title": "", "text": "In general, the higher the return (such as interest), the higher the risk. If there were a high-return no-risk investment, enough people would buy it to drive the price up and make it a low-return no-risk investment. Interest rates are low now, but so is inflation. They generally go up and down together. So, as a low risk (almost no-risk) investment, the savings account is not at all useless. There are relatively safe investments that will get a better return, but they will have a little more risk. One common way to spread the risk is to diversify. For example, put some of your money in a savings account, some in a bond mutual fund, and some in a stock index fund. A stock index fund such as SPY has the benefit of very low overhead, in addition to spreading the risk among 500 large companies. Mutual funds with a purchase or sale fee, or with a higher management fee do NOT perform any better, on average, and should generally be avoided. If you put a little money in different places regularly, you'll be fairly safe and are likely get a better return. (If you trade back and forth frequently, trying to outguess the market, you're likely to be worse off than the savings account.)" }, { "docid": "460402", "title": "", "text": "This is literally the worst article ever. First dividends are not guaranteed, and the higher the yield the higher the risk for a dividend paying stock. When buying a stock that pays dividends make sure they have the cash flows to cover it long term. Utility stocks are interest rate sensitive. If we head into a period of high interest rates, utility stocks are going to underperform, if not get killed. Exchange traded funds can be extremely risky, and some have much higher fees than mutual funds. Variable Annuities should never be purchased unless you have exhausted all other tax deferred strategies, and then probably still to be avoided because of high fees. Money markets and CDs aren't really investments. They're a cash alternatives that May not keep up with inflation." }, { "docid": "406711", "title": "", "text": "No, SPDR ETFs are not a good fit for a novice investor with a low level of financial literacy. In fact, there is no investment that is safe for an absolute beginner, not even a savings account. (An absolute beginner could easily overdraw his savings account, leading to fees and collections.) I would say that an investment becomes a good fit for an investor as soon as said investor understands how the investment works. A savings account at a bank or credit union is fairly easy to understand and is therefore a suitable place to hold money after a few hours to a day of research. (Even after 0 hours of research, however, a savings account is still better than a sock drawer.) Money market accounts (through a bank), certificates of deposit (through a bank), and money market mutual funds (through a mutual fund provider) are probably the next easiest thing to understand. This could take a few hours to a few weeks of research depending on the learner. Equities, corporate bonds, and government bonds are another step up in complexity, and could take weeks or months of schooling to understand well enough to try. Equity or bond mutual funds -- or the ETF versions of those, which is what you asked about -- are another level after that. Also important to understand along the way are the financial institutions and market infrastructure that exist to provide these products: banks, credit unions, public corporations, brokerages, stock exchanges, bond exchanges, mutual fund providers, ETF providers, etc." }, { "docid": "532179", "title": "", "text": "A CDIC-insured high-interest savings bank account is both safe and liquid (i.e. you can withdraw your money at any time.) At present time, you could earn interest of ~1.35% per year, if you shop around. If you are willing to truly lock in for 2 years minimum, rates go up slightly, but perhaps not enough to warrant loss of liquidity. Look at GIC rates to get an idea. Any other investments – such as mutual funds, stocks, index funds, ETFs, etc. – are generally not consistent with your stated risk objective and time frame. Better returns are generally only possible if you accept the risk of loss of capital, or lock in for longer time periods." }, { "docid": "65567", "title": "", "text": "If you have just started an IRA (presumably with a contribution for 2012), you likely have $5000 in it, or $10,000 if you made a full contribution for 2013 as well. At this time, I would recommend putting it all in a single low-cost mutual fund. Typically, mutual funds that track an index such as the S&P 500 Index have lower costs (annual expense fees) than actively managed funds, and most investment companies offer such mutual funds, with Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab, to name a few, having very low expenses even among index funds. Later, when you have more money in the account, you can consider diversifying into more funds, buying stocks and bonds, investing in ETFs, etc. Incidentally, if you are just starting out and your Roth IRA is essentially your first investment experience, be aware that you do not need a brokerage account for your Roth IRA until you have more money in the account to invest and specifically want to buy individual stocks and bonds instead of just mutual funds. If you opened a brokerage account for your Roth IRA, close it and transfer the Roth IRA to your choice of mutual fund company; else you will be paying annual fees to the brokerage for maintaining your account, inactivity fees since you won't be doing any trading, etc. The easiest way to do this is to go to the mutual fund company web site and tell them that you want to transfer your IRA to them (not roll over your IRA to them) and they will take care of all the paper work and collecting your money from the brokerage (ditto if your Roth IRA is with a bank or another mutual fund company). Then close your brokerage account." }, { "docid": "66034", "title": "", "text": "\"shouldn't withdraw stock investments for at least 5 years would be better re-phrased as: \"\"don't invest money in stocks if you (really) need it within next few years\"\". The underlying principle is: stocks are one of the higher-risk investment classes out there. While that's exactly what you want over a long time horizon (longer than the ebb and flow of the broader economy); if you know you'll definitely have to withdraw $50k (or any large chunk) of it within just a few years, it's possible that a great long-term vehicle like stocks, could actually rob you of money on a shorter time horizon. So if you want to start a business 2 years from now, you'll probably want to retain some of that $300k initial pile in lower-risk investment vehicles (e.g. bonds, CDs, certain ETFs and mutual funds aimed at \"\"capital preservation\"\", etc). That said, interest rates are so low, that if you're flexible with how much money you'll need to start that business, I'd probably keep as much as you can stomach in diversified stocks (per your original plan).\"" }, { "docid": "312591", "title": "", "text": "\"Funds - especially index funds - are a safe way for beginning investors to get a diversified investment across a lot of the stock market. They are not the perfect investment, but they are better than the majority of mutual funds, and you do not spend a lot of money in fees. Compared to the alternative - buying individual stocks based on what a friend tells you or buying a \"\"hot\"\" mutual fund - it's a great choice for a lot of people. If you are willing to do some study, you can do better - quite a bit better - with common stocks. As an individual investor, you have some structural advantages; you can take significant (to you) positions in small-cap companies, while this is not practical for large institutional investors or mutual fund managers. However, you can also lose a lot of money quickly in individual stocks. It pays to go slow and to your homework, however, and make sure that you are investing, not speculating. I like fool.com as a good place to start, and subscribe to a couple of their newsletters. I will note that investing is not for the faint of heart; to do well, you may need to do the opposite of what everybody else is doing; buying when the market is down and selling when the market is high. A few people mentioned the efficient market hypothesis. There is ample evidence that the market is not efficient; the existence of the .com and mortgage bubbles makes it pretty obvious that the market is often not rationally valued, and a couple of hedge funds profited in the billions from this.\"" }, { "docid": "585269", "title": "", "text": "\"(Since you used the dollar sign without any qualification, I assume you're in the United States and talking about US dollars.) You have a few options here. I won't make a specific recommendation, but will present some options and hopefully useful information. Here's the short story: To buy individual stocks, you need to go through a broker. These brokers charge a fee for every transaction, usually in the neighborhood of $7. Since you probably won't want to just buy and hold a single stock for 15 years, the fees are probably unreasonable for you. If you want the educational experience of picking stocks and managing a portfolio, I suggest not using real money. Most mutual funds have minimum investments on the order of a few thousand dollars. If you shop around, there are mutual funds that may work for you. In general, look for a fund that: An example of a fund that meets these requirements is SWPPX from Charles Schwabb, which tracks the S&P 500. Buy the product directly from the mutual fund company: if you go through a broker or financial manager they'll try to rip you off. The main advantage of such a mutual fund is that it will probably make your daughter significantly more money over the next 15 years than the safer options. The tradeoff is that you have to be prepared to accept the volatility of the stock market and the possibility that your daughter might lose money. Your daughter can buy savings bonds through the US Treasury's TreasuryDirect website. There are two relevant varieties: You and your daughter seem to be the intended customers of these products: they are available in low denominations and they guarantee a rate for up to 30 years. The Series I bonds are the only product I know of that's guaranteed to keep pace with inflation until redeemed at an unknown time many years in the future. It is probably not a big concern for your daughter in these amounts, but the interest on these bonds is exempt from state taxes in all cases, and is exempt from Federal taxes if you use them for education expenses. The main weakness of these bonds is probably that they're too safe. You can get better returns by taking some risk, and some risk is probably acceptable in your situation. Savings accounts, including so-called \"\"money market accounts\"\" from banks are a possibility. They are very convenient, but you might have to shop around for one that: I don't have any particular insight into whether these are likely to outperform or be outperformed by treasury bonds. Remember, however, that the interest rates are not guaranteed over the long run, and that money lost to inflation is significant over 15 years. Certificates of deposit are what a bank wants you to do in your situation: you hand your money to the bank, and they guarantee a rate for some number of months or years. You pay a penalty if you want the money sooner. The longest terms I've typically seen are 5 years, but there may be longer terms available if you shop around. You can probably get better rates on CDs than you can through a savings account. The rates are not guaranteed in the long run, since the terms won't last 15 years and you'll have to get new CDs as your old ones mature. Again, I don't have any particular insight on whether these are likely to keep up with inflation or how performance will compare to treasury bonds. Watch out for the same things that affect savings accounts, in particular fees and reduced rates for balances of your size.\"" }, { "docid": "266457", "title": "", "text": "TL; DR version of my answer: In view of your age and the fact that you have just opened a Roth IRA account with Vanguard, choose the Reinvest Dividend and Capital Gains distributions option. If Vanguard is offering an option of having earnings put into a money market settlement account, it might be that you have opened your Roth IRA account with Vanguard's brokerage firm. Are you doing things like investing your Roth money into CDs or bonds (including zero-coupon or STRIP bonds) or individual stocks? If so, then the money market settlement account (might be VMMXX, the Vanguard Prime Money Market Fund) within the Roth IRA account is where all the money earned as interest on the CDs or bonds, dividends from the stocks, and the proceeds (including any resulting capital gains) from the sales of any of these will go. You can then decide where to invest that money (all within the Roth IRA). Leaving the money in the settlement account for a long time is not a good idea even if you are just accumulating the money so as to be able to buy 100 shares of APPL or GOOG at some time in the future. Put it into a CD in your Roth IRA brokerage account while you wait. If your Roth IRA is invested only in Vanguard's mutual funds and is likely to remain so in the foreseeable future, then you don't really need an account with their brokerage. You can still use a money market settlement fund to transfer money between various mutual fund investments within the Roth IRA account, but it really is adding an extra layer of money movement where it is not really necessary. You can sell one Vanguard mutual fund and invest the proceeds into another Vanguard mutual fund or even into several Vanguard funds without needing to have the funds transit through a money market account. Vanguard calls such a transaction an Exchange on their site. And, of course, you can just choose to reinvest all the dividends and capital gains distributions made by a mutual fund into the fund itself. Mutual funds allow purchases of fractional shares (down to three or even four decimal places) instead of insisting on integer numbers of shares let alone round lots of 100 shares. All this, of course, within the Roth IRA." }, { "docid": "173967", "title": "", "text": "The S&P500 is an index, not an investment by itself. The index lists a large number of stocks, and the value of the index is the price of all the stocks added together. If you want to make an investment that tracks the S&P500, you could buy some shares of each stock in the index, in the same proportions as the index. This, however, is impractical for just about everyone. Index mutual funds provide an easy way to make this investment. SPY is an ETF (exchange-traded mutual fund) that does the same thing. An index CFD (contract for difference) is not the same as an index mutual fund. There are a number of differences between investing in a security fund and investing in a CFD, and CFDs are not available everywhere." }, { "docid": "341699", "title": "", "text": "If we knew for sure that euros are only going to be more expensive in the future, then the answer would be easy: Buy them all at one time, so that we are getting them at the best price. Of course, we can't assume that to be the case, they could get cheaper, so the answer gets more complicated. Focusing strictly on monetary considerations, there are two factors to examine: Using answers to this Travel Stack Exchange question as a reference, you see that the cost of currency conversion can be as low as 1%-2% if you make the transaction with a debit card, but can be as high as 15%. So, buying 1000 euros a month would cost between 20 and 150 euros. Examining a two year chart of the Euro-Canadian Dollar exchange rate gives us an idea of how much the currency fluctuates. Over the past two years, a euro has cost has much as $1.54 CAD and as little as $1.26 CAD, a 22% spread. Looking at it on a month-to month basis, we see that monthly changes have been as high as .05 to .07 (4-5%). As such, buying 1000 euros a month could cost 50 CAD more (or less) on a monthly basis due to variance in the exchange rate. If we anticipate our overhead cost of currency conversion to be more than 5%, it doesn't make sense to do multiple transactions; the costs are likely to outweigh the benefits. If we can keep them under that amount, then multiple transactions are advantageous when the euro is cheaper. The problem is somewhat analagous to that of someone who wants to make an annual investment in a mutual fund and is unsure of whether to make the purchase all at once, or to divide it over multiple purchases. One can't know for sure which way the mutual fund price is going to move over the time period Dollar cost averaging, spreading the purchase over regular intervals, is the generally accepted solution to this problem. As such, so long as we can keep the overhead cost of currency transactions low (<5%), doing transactions on a regular basis positions ourselves to take advantage of possible drops in the price of euros and reduces the risk of buying euros when they are most expensive. If we can't keep the cost low, then currency fees would be greater than potential price drops and we would be better off doing a single transaction." }, { "docid": "483777", "title": "", "text": "If I were in your shoes (I would be extremely happy), here's what I would do: Get on a detailed budget, if you aren't doing one already. (I read the comments and you seemed unsure about certain things.) Once you know where your money is going, you can do a much better job of saving it. Retirement Savings: Contribute up to the employer match on the 401(k)s, if it's greater than the 5% you are already contributing. Open a Roth IRA account for each of you and make the max contribution (around $5k each). I would also suggest finding a financial adviser (w/ the heart of a teacher) to recommend/direct your mutual fund investing in those Roth IRAs and in your regular mutual fund investments. Emergency Fund With the $85k savings, take it down to a six month emergency fund. To calculate your emergency fund, look at what your necessary expenses are for a month, then multiply it by six. You could place that six month emergency fund in ING Direct as littleadv suggested. That's where we have our emergency funds and long term savings. This is a bare-minimum type budget, and is based on something like losing your job - in which case, you don't need to go to starbucks 5 times a week (I don't know if you do or not, but that is an easy example for me to use). You should have something left over, unless your basic expenses are above $7083/mo. Non-retirement Investing: Whatever is left over from the $85k, start investing with it. (I suggest you look into mutual funds) it. Some may say buy stocks, but individual stocks are very risky and you could lose your shirt if you don't know what you're doing. Mutual funds typically are comprised of many stocks, and you earn based on their collective performance. You have done very well, and I'm very excited for you. Child's College Savings: If you guys decide to expand your family with a child, you'll want to fund what's typically called a 529 plan to fund his or her college education. The money grows tax free and is only taxed when used for non-education expenses. You would fund this for the max contribution each year as well (currently $2k; but that could change depending on how the Bush Tax cuts are handled at the end of this year). Other resources to check out: The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey and the Dave Ramsey Show podcast." }, { "docid": "171189", "title": "", "text": "\"Say you have $15,000 of capital to invest. You want to put the majority of your capital into low risk investments that will yield positive gains over the course of your working career. $5,000: Government bonds and mutual funds, split how you want. $9,500: Low risk, trusted companies with positive historical growth. If the stock market is very unfamiliar for you, I recommend Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, and Zack's to learn about smart investments you can make. You can also research the investments that hedge fund managers and top investors are making. Google \"\"Warren Buffett or Carl Icahn portfolio\"\", and this will give you an idea of stocks you can put your money into. Do not leave your money into a certain company for more than 25 years. Rebalance your portfolio and take the gains when you feel you need them. You have no idea when to take your profits now, but 5 years from now, you will be a smart and experienced investor. A safe investment strategy to start is to put your money into an ETF that mimics the S&P 500. Over the past 20 years, the S&P 500 has yielded gains of about 270%. During the financial crisis a few years back, the S&P 500 had lost over 50% of its value when it reached its low point. However, from when it hit rock bottom in 2009, it has had as high percentage gains in six years as it did in 12 years from 1995 to 2007, which about 200%. The market is very strong and will treat your money well if you invest wisely. $500: Medium - High risk Speculative Stocks There is a reason this category accounts for only approximately 3% of your portfolio. This may take some research on the weekend, but the returns that may result can be extraordinary. Speculative companies are often innovative, low priced stocks that see high volatility, gains or losses of more than 10% over a single month. The likelihood of your $500 investment being completely evaporated is very slim, but if you lose $300 here, the thousands invested in the S&P 500, low risk stocks, government bonds, and mutual funds will more than recuperate the losses. If your pick is a winner, however, expect that the $500 investment could easily double, triple, or gain even more in a single year or over the course of just a few, perhaps, 2-4 years will see a very large return. I hope this advice helps and happy investing! Sending your money to smart investments is the key to financial security, freedom, and later, a comfortable retirement. Good luck, Matt McLaughlin\"" }, { "docid": "574327", "title": "", "text": "\"First, what structure does your index fund have? If it is an open-end mutual fund, there are no bid/ask spread as the structure of this security is that it is priced once a day and transactions are done with that price. If it is an exchange-traded fund, then the question becomes how well are authorized participants taking advantage of the spread to make the fund track the index well? This is where you have to get into the Creation and Redemption unit construct of the exchange-traded fund where there are \"\"in-kind\"\" transactions done to either create new shares of the fund or redeem out shares of the fund. In either case, you are making some serious assumptions about the structure of the fund that don't make sense given how these are built. Index funds have lower expense ratios and are thus cheaper than other mutual funds that may take on more costs. If you want suggested reading on this, look at the investing books of John C. Bogle who studied some of this rather extensively, in addition to being one of the first to create an index fund that became known as \"\"Bogle's Folly,\"\" where a couple of key ones would be \"\"Common Sense on Mutual Funds: New Imperatives for the Intelligent Investor\"\" and \"\"Bogle on Mutual Funds: New Perspectives for the Intelligent Investor.\"\" In the case of an open-end fund, there has to be a portion of the fund in cash to handle transaction costs of running the fund as there are management fees to come from running the fund in addition to dividends from the stocks that have to be carefully re-invested and other matters that make this quite easy to note. Vanguard 500 Index Investor portfolio(VFINX) has .38% in cash as an example here where you could look at any open-end mutual fund's portfolio and notice that there may well be some in cash as part of how the fund is managed. It’s the Execution, Stupid would be one of a few articles that looks at the idea of \"\"tracking error\"\" or how well does an index fund actually track the index where it can be noted that in some cases, there can be a little bit of active management in the fund. Just as a minor side note, when I lived in the US I did invest in index funds and found them to be a good investment. I'd still recommend them though I'd argue that while some want to see these as really simple investments, there can be details that make them quite interesting to my mind. How is its price set then? The price is computed by taking the sum value of all the assets of the fund minus the liabilities and divided by the number of outstanding shares. The price of the assets would include the closing price on the stock rather than a bid or ask, similar pricing for bonds held by the fund, derivatives and cash equivalents. Similarly, the liabilities would be costs a fund has to pay that may not have been paid yet such as management fees, brokerage costs, etc. Is it a weighted average of all the underlying stock spreads, or does it stand on its own and stems from the usual supply & demand laws ? There isn't any spread used in determining the \"\"Net Asset Value\"\" for the fund. The fund prices are determined after the market is closed and so a closing price can be used for stocks. The liabilities could include the costs to run the fund as part of the accounting in the fund, that most items have to come down to either being an asset, something with a positive value, or a liability, something with a negative value. Something to consider also is the size of the fund. With over $7,000,000,000 in assets, a .01% amount is still $700,000 which is quite a large amount in some ways.\"" }, { "docid": "368938", "title": "", "text": "\"Answers: 1: No, Sections 1291-1298 of the IRC were passed in the Reagan adminstration. 2: Not only can a foreign company like a chocolate company fall afoul of the definition of PFIC because of the \"\"asset test\"\", which you cite, but it can also be called a PFIC because of the \"\"income test\"\". For example, I have shares in a development-stage Canadian biotech which is considered a PFIC because it has no income at all, except for a minor amount of bank interest on its working capital. This company is by no means \"\"passive\"\" (it has run 31 clinical trials in over 1100 human research subjects, burning $250M of investor's money in the process) nor is it an \"\"investment company\"\", but the stupid IRS considers it to be a \"\"passive foreign investment company\"\"! The IRS looks at it and sees only the bank account, and assumes it is a foreign shell corporation set up to shield the bank interest from them. 3: Yes, a foreign mutual fund is EXACTLY what congress intended to be a PFIC when passed IRC 1291-1298. (Biotechs, candy factories, ect got nailed as innocent bystanders.) Note that if you hold a US mutual fund then every year you'll get a form 1099 in the mail. The 1099 will report your share of the mutual fund's own income and capital gains, which you must report on your taxes. (You can also have capital gains from selling your shares of the mutual fund, but that's a different thing.) Now suppose that there was no PFIC law. Then the US investors in the mutual fund would do better if the mutual fund were in a foreign country, for two reasons: a) The fund would no longer distribute 1099's. That means the shareholders wouldn't have to pay tax every year on their proportions of the fund's own income/gains. The money that would have sooner gone to the IRS can sit around for years earning interest. b) The fund could return profits to shareholders exclusively through capital gains rather than dividends, thus ensuring that all of the investors' income on the fund would be taxed at <15%-20% rather than up to 39%. The fund could do this by returning cash to shareholders exclusively through buybacks. However, the US mutual fund industry doesn't want to move the industry to Canada, and it only takes a few newspaper articles about a foreign loophole to make congress spring to action. 4) It depends. If you have a PEDIGREED QEF election in place (as I do for my biotech shares) then form 8621 takes a few minutes by hand. However, this requires both the company and the investor to fully cooperate with congress's vision for PFICs. The company cooperates by providing a so-called \"\"PFIC annual information sheet\"\", which replaces the 1099 form for a US mutual fund. The investor cooperates by having a \"\"QEF election\"\" in place for EACH AND EVERY TAX YEAR in which he held the stock and by reporting the numbers from the PFIC annual information sheet on his return. (Note that the QEF election persists once made, until revoked. There are subtleties here that I am glossing over, since \"\"deemed sale\"\" elections and other means may be used to modify a share's holding period to come into compliance.) Note that there is software coming out to handle PFICs, and that the software makers will already run their software to make your form 8621 for $75 or so. I should also warn you that the blogs of tax accountants and tax lawyers all contradict each other on the basic issue of whether you can take capital losses on PFICs for which you have no form 8621 elections. (See section 2.3 of my notes http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr for commentary on this mess.) I do not know if the software people will tell you which elections are best made on form 8621, though, or advise you if it's time to simply dump your investment. The professional software is at 8621.com, and the individual 8621 preparation is at http://expattaxtools.com/?page_id=242. BTW, in case you're interested, I wrote up a very careful analysis of how to deal with the PFIC situation for the small biotech I invested in in certain cases. It is posted http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr. (For tax reasons it was quite fortunate that the share price dipped to near an all-time low on Jan 1, 2015, making the (next) 2015 tax year ripe for a so-called \"\"deemed sale\"\" election. This was only possible because the company provides the necessary \"\"PFIC annual information statements\"\", which your chocolate factory may or may not do.)\"" }, { "docid": "135176", "title": "", "text": "\"It can be pretty hard to compute the right number. What you need to know for your actual return is called the dollar-weighted return. This is the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rate_of_return computed for your actual cash flows. So if you add $100 per month or whatever, that has to be factored in. If you have a separate account then hopefully your investment manager is computing this. If you just have mutual funds at a brokerage or fund company, computing it may be a bunch of manual labor, unless the brokerage does it for you. A site like Morningstar will show a couple of return numbers on say an S&P500 index fund. The first is \"\"time weighted\"\" and is just the raw return if you invested all money at time A and took it all out at time B. They also show \"\"investor return\"\" which is the average dollar-weighted return for everyone who invested in the fund; so if people sold the fund during a market crash, that would lower the investor return. This investor return shows actual returns for the average person, which makes it more relevant in one way (these were returns people actually received) but less relevant in another (the return is often lower because people are on average doing dumb stuff, such as selling at market bottoms). You could compare yourself to the time-weighted return to see how you did vs. if you'd bought and held with a big lump sum. And you can compare yourself to the investor return to see how you did vs. actual irrational people. .02, it isn't clear that either comparison matters so much; after all, the idea is to make adequate returns to meet your goals with minimum risk of not meeting your goals. You can't spend \"\"beating the market\"\" (or \"\"matching the market\"\" or anything else benchmarked to the market) in retirement, you can only spend cash. So beating a terrible market return won't make you feel better, and beating a great market return isn't necessary. I think it's bad that many investment books and advisors frame things in terms of a market benchmark. (Market benchmarks have their uses, such as exposing index-hugging active managers that aren't earning their fees, but to me it's easy to get mixed up and think the market benchmark is \"\"the point\"\" - I feel \"\"the point\"\" is to achieve your financial goals.)\"" }, { "docid": "84368", "title": "", "text": "\"If you are buying and selling mutual funds in the same family of funds (e.g. Vanguard), then you can set up an on-line account on the Vanguard website (www.vanguard.com) and it is easy: Vanguard offers a \"\"Transaction\"\" service that allows you to sell shares of VFINX, say, and buy shares of VBTLX, say, from the proceeds of the sale all in one swell foop. But, if you are holding the VFINX shares through your on-line account with, say, eTrade, then it depends on what services eTrade provides to you. Will it allow doing all that in one transaction, or will it wait for the cash to come from Vanguard, and then send the money back to Vanguard to invest in VBTLX? In any case, selling VFINX shares and investing the proceeds in PRWCX shares, say, cannot be done on the Vanguard site only; Vanguard will send the proceeds of the sale of the VFINX shares only to your bank account, not anywhere else. You then need to tell T. Rowe Price (where you presumably have an account already) that you want to invest $X in PRWCX shares and to withdraw the cash from your bank account. If you are doing it all through eTrade, then the money from the sale of VFINX goes from Vanguard to eTrade (into something called a sweep account, or maybe your cash account at eTrade) and you invest it in PRWCX after appropriate delays in receiving the money from Vanguard into eTrade, etc. If your cash account (bank or eTrade) has enough of a balance, you could sell VFINX and buy PRWCX on the same day. where the purchase is made from the money in the cash account and replaced a few days later by the proceeds from Vanguard. Bouncing of checks (or inability to act on a hot tip to invest in something) in the interim is your problem; not the bank's or eTrade's.\"" }, { "docid": "593475", "title": "", "text": "There are more than a few ideas here. Assuming you are in the U.S., here are a few approaches: First, DRIPs: Dividend Reinvestment Plans. DRIP Investing: How To Actually Invest Only A Hundred Dollars Per Month notes: I have received many requests from readers that want to invest in individual stocks, but only have the available funds to put aside $50 to $100 into a particular company. For these investors, keeping costs to a minimum is absolutely crucial. I have often made allusions and references to DRIP Investing, but I have never offered an explanation as to how to logistically set up DRIP accounts. Today, I will attempt to do that. A second option, Sharebuilder, is a broker that will allow for fractional shares. A third option are mutual funds. Though, these often will have minimums but may be waived in some cases if you sign up with an automatic investment plan. List of mutual fund companies to research. Something else to consider here is what kind of account do you want to have? There can be accounts for specific purposes like education, e.g. a college or university fund, or a retirement plan. 529 Plans exist for college savings that may be worth noting so be aware of which kinds of accounts may make sense for what you want here." } ]

[ { "docid": "103362", "title": "", "text": "Levarge in simple terms is how of your own money to how much of borrowed money. So in 2008 Typical leverage ratios were Investment Banks 30:1 means that for every 1 Unit of Banks money [shareholders capital/ long term debts] there was 30 Units of borrowed money [from deposits/for other institutions/etc]. This is a very unstable situation as typically say you lent out 31 to someone else, half way through repayments, the depositors and other lends are asking you 30 back. You are sunk. Now lets say if you lent 31 to some one, but 30 was your moeny and 1 was from deposits/etc. Then you can anytime more easily pay back the 1 to the depositor. In day trading, usually one squares away the position the same day or within a short period. Hence say you want to buy something worth 1000 in the morning and are selling it say the same day. You are expecting the price to by 1005 and a gain 5. Now when you buy via your broker/trader, you may not be required to pay 1000. Normally one just needs to pay a margin money, typically 10% [varies from market to market, country to country]. So in the first case if you put 1000 and get by 5, you made a profit of 0.5%. However if you were to pay only 10 as margin money [rest 990 is assumed loan from your broker]. You sell at 1005, the broker deducts his 990, and you get 15. So technically on 10 you have made 5 more, ie 50% returns. So this is leveraging of 10:1. If say your broker allowed only 5% margin money, then you just need to pay 5 for the 1000 trade, get back 5. You have made a 100% profit, but the leveraging is 20:1. Now lets say at this high leveraging when you are selling you get only 990. So you still owe the broker 5, if you can't pay-up and if lot of other such people can't pay-up, then the broker will also go bankrupt and there is a huge risk. Hence although leveraging helps in quite a few cases, there is always an associated risk when things go wrong badly." } ]

[ { "docid": "499331", "title": "", "text": "This essentially depends on how you prefer to measure your performance. I will just give a few simple examples to start. Let me know if you're looking for something more. If you just want to achieve maximum $ return, then you should always use maximum margin, so long as your expected return (%) is higher than your cost to borrow. For example, suppose you can use margin to double your investment, and the cost to borrow is 7%. If you're investing in some security that expects to return 10%, then your annual return on an account opened with $100 is: (2 * $100 * 10% - $100 * 7%) / $100 = 13% So, you see the expected return, amount of leverage, and cost to borrow will all factor in to your return. Suppose you want to also account for the additional risk you're incurring. Then you could use the Sharpe Ratio. For example, suppose the same security has volatility of 20%, and the risk free rate is 5%. Then the Sharpe Ratio without leverage is: (10% - 5%) / 20% = 0.25 The Sharpe Ratio using maximum margin is then: (13% - 5%) / (2 * 20%) = 0.2, where the 13% comes from the above formula. So on a risk-adjusted basis, it's better not to utilize margin in this particular example." }, { "docid": "127894", "title": "", "text": "Disregarding leverage and things alike, I would like to know what's the difference between opening a position in Forex on a pair through a broker, for example, and effectively buy some currency in a traditional bank-to-bank transition The forex account may pay or charge you interest whereas converting your currency directly will not. Disregarding leverage, the difference would be interest." }, { "docid": "58690", "title": "", "text": "\"The problem with daily-rebalanced \"\"inverse\"\" or \"\"leveraged\"\" ETFs is that since they rebalance every day, you can lose money even if your guess as to the market's direction is correct. Quoting from FINRA'S guide as to why these are a bad idea: How can this apparent breakdown between longer term index returns and ETF returns happen? Here’s a hypothetical example: let’s say that on Day 1, an index starts with a value of 100 and a leveraged ETF that seeks to double the return of the index starts at $100. If the index drops by 10 points on Day 1, it has a 10 percent loss and a resulting value of 90. Assuming it achieved its stated objective, the leveraged ETF would therefore drop 20 percent on that day and have an ending value of $80. On Day 2, if the index rises 10 percent, the index value increases to 99. For the ETF, its value for Day 2 would rise by 20 percent, which means the ETF would have a value of $96. On both days, the leveraged ETF did exactly what it was supposed to do—it produced daily returns that were two times the daily index returns. But let’s look at the results over the 2 day period: the index lost 1 percent (it fell from 100 to 99) while the 2x leveraged ETF lost 4 percent (it fell from $100 to $96). That means that over the two day period, the ETF's negative returns were 4 times as much as the two-day return of the index instead of 2 times the return. That example is for \"\"just\"\" leveraging 2x in the same direction. Inverse funds have the same kind of issue. An example from Bogleheads Wiki page on these kinds of funds says that over 12/31/2007 to 12/31/2010, The funds do exactly what they say on any given day. But any losses get \"\"locked in\"\" each day. While normally a 50% loss needs a 100% gain to get back to a starting point, a fund like this needs more than a 100% gain to get back to its starting point. The result of these funds across multiple days doesn't match the index it's matching over those several days, and you won't make money over the long term. Do look at the further examples at the links I've referenced above, or do your own research into the performance of these funds during time periods both when the market is going up and going down. Also refer to these related and/or duplicate questions:\"" }, { "docid": "103528", "title": "", "text": "\"If you're looking to leverage your capital more efficiently, at the money options offer the best balance. Options deep in the money will have little time premium remaining on them, but don't allow for greater leverage. On the other hand deep out of the money options may be thinly traded, or might not offer the \"\"mirroring\"\" you'd like of the underlying. By purchasing ATM you will likely be buying some time premium, but still be leveraging your capital, potentially several times over.\"" }, { "docid": "435716", "title": "", "text": "People just love becoming more well-off than they currently are, and one of the ways they do it is with leverage. Leverage requires credit. That desire is not exclusive to people who are not already well-off. For a well-off person who wants to become more well-off by expanding their real estate ventures, paying cash for property is a terrible way to go about it. The same goes for other types of business or market investment. Credit benefits the well-off even more greatly than it benefits the poor or the middle-class." }, { "docid": "345294", "title": "", "text": "There are two obvious cases in which your return is lower with a heavily leveraged investment. If a $100,000 investment of your own cash yields $1000 that's a 1% return. If you put in $50,000 of your own money and borrow $50,000 at 2%, you get a 0% return (After factoring in the interest as above.) If you buy an investment for $100,000 and it loses $1000, that's a -1% return. If you borrow $100,000 and buy two investments, and they both lose $1000, that's a -2% return." }, { "docid": "570285", "title": "", "text": "It's based on potential. Things like market share, market size, competitive analysis and growth opportunity. Ex: being as big as reddit is + the fact they are a large player = how they could leverage this to drive even more value than they currently have in the future Also everything is inflated right now and the value factors in how much someone might (over) pay to acquire them." }, { "docid": "214281", "title": "", "text": "NO. All the leveraged ETFs are designed to multiply the performance of the underlying asset FOR THAT DAY, read the prospectus. Their price is adjusted at the end of the day to reflect what is called a NAV unit. Basically, they know that their price is subject to fluctuations due to supply and demand throughout the day - simply because they trade in a quote driven system. But the price is automatically corrected at the end of the day regardless. In practice though, all sorts of crazy things happen with leveraged ETFs that will simply make them more and more unfavorable to hold long term, the longer you look at it." }, { "docid": "181239", "title": "", "text": "These spots could easily be filled by MSFT, but they're going to do whatever they can to make you think they can't be... The problem with the programming and computer engineering industry is that anyone smart enough to be good at their craft can probably put food on their table on their own (subcontracting, developing their own software, consulting, etc.). In other words, they have plenty of leverage in salary negotiations. Foreigners are a different story. I've worked with plenty, and most are great at what they do. But, the biggest barrier they have that keeps them from going into business in the Western market themselves is often their communication ability, or the fact that they are so specialized in their knowledge that they aren't very business savvy (and xenophobic ignorance by many Westerner's, to be honest). Put those two factors together, and I'm more than willing to bet that MSFT gets a fat discount during negotiations, that saves them way more than the 10g's that the Visa's would cost." }, { "docid": "165659", "title": "", "text": "ETF's are great products for investing in GOLD. Depending on where you are there are also leveraged products such as CFD's (Contracts For Difference) which may be more suitable for your budget. I would stick with the big CFD providers as they offer very liquid products with tight spreads. Some CFD providers are MarketMakers whilst others provide DMA products. Futures contracts are great leveraged products but can be very volatile and like any leveraged product (such as some ETF's and most CFD's), you must be aware of the risks involved in controlling such a large position for such a small outlay. There also ETN's (Exchange Traded Notes) which are debt products issued by banks (or an underwriter), but these are subject to fees when the note matures. You will also find pooled (unallocated to physical bullion) certificates sold through many gold institutions although you will often pay a small premium for their services (some are very attractive, others have a markup worse than the example of your gold coin). (Note from JoeT - CFDs are not authorized for trading in the US)" }, { "docid": "461379", "title": "", "text": "Well, I didn't know those existed. Author might not either. I'm also not aware of the trading requirements in Europe. Could be different than US. In any event, I think most who are concerned are (1) doomsayers who've predicted 30 of the last 1 recessions, (2) don't understand the point of leverage and are irrationally scared of it, or (3) understand leverage can be good but think this will be used in a bad way." }, { "docid": "297764", "title": "", "text": "\"Leverage means you can make more investments with the same amount of money. In the case of rental properties, it means you can own more properties and generate more rents. You exchange a higher cost of doing business (higher interest fees) and a higher risk of total failure, for a larger number of rents and thus higher potential earnings. As with any investment advice, whenever someone tells you \"\"Do X and you are guaranteed to make more money\"\", unless you are a printer of money that is not entirely true. In this case, taking more leverage exposes you to more risk, while giving you more potential gain. That risk is not only on the selling front; in fact, for most small property owners, the risk is primarily that you will have periods of time of higher expense or lower income. These can come in several ways: If you weather these and similar problems, then you will stand to make more money using higher leverage, assuming you make more money from each property than your additional interest costs. As long as you're making any money on your properties this is likely (as interest rates are very low right now), but making any money at all (above and beyond the sale value) may be challenging early on. These sorts of risks are magnified for your first few years, until you've built up a significant reserve to keep your business afloat in downturns. And of course, any money in a reserve is money you're not leveraging for new property acquisition - the very same trade-off. And while you may be able to sell one or more properties if you did end up in a temporarily bad situation, you also may run into 2008 again and be unable to do so.\"" }, { "docid": "163641", "title": "", "text": "Leverage comes in many forms. You'll learn about things like operational leverage, financial leverage, and total leverage throughout school. In the real world, tier 1 capital ratio has become the most commonly scrutinized because it is essentially a ratio of the core equity capital of a firm divided by the risk weighted assets (assets multiplied by a credit weighting which for most banks now a days is using the standard of Basel 2.5 and moving towards Basel III). The multiples you talked about were references to the reciprocal of this formula. You could reciprocate the T1C ratio and get a whole number that is the multiplier. This multiplier would show for every 1$ in core capital, how much the firm held in risk weighted assets. The 30x number would have represented a tier 1 cap of 3.33%. The concept behind it being, a 10% growth in risk weighted assets with a 3.33% T1CR would result in a 300% growth in core equity capital value. As proven in 2008, it is a double edge blade and works the same way in both directions." }, { "docid": "325787", "title": "", "text": "If you don't need leverage, then it's a better idea to just buy the underlying sock itself. This will net you the following benefits: Leverage is for speculating. If you don' want to be leveraged, then invest long term." }, { "docid": "237215", "title": "", "text": "It depends on how you define trading. If you're looking at day-trading, where you're probably going to be in a highly-leveraged position for minutes or hours, the automated traders are probably going to kill you. But, if you have a handful (less than a dozen) equities, and spend about an hour or so every week conducting research, you have a good chance of doing pretty well. You need to understand the market, listen to the earnings calls, and understand the factors that contribute to the bottom line of your investments. You should not be trading for the sake of trading, you're trading to try to achieve the best returns. Beware of dogmatists and people selling products that align with their dogma. Warren Buffet invests in companies for an extremely long investment window. Mr. Buffet also expends significant resources to gain a deep understanding of the fundamentals of the businesses that he invests in and the factors affecting those fundamentals. Buffet does not buy an S&P 500 index fund and whistle dixie." }, { "docid": "375302", "title": "", "text": "Generally not, however some brokers may allow it. My previous CFD Broker - CMC Markets, used to allow you to adjust the leverage from the maximum allowed for that stock (say 5%) to 100% of your own money before you place a trade. So obviously if you set it at 100% you pay no interest on holding open long positions overnight. If you can't find a broker that allows this (as I don't think there would be too many around), you can always trade within your account size. For example, if you have an account size of $20,000 then you only take out trades that have a face value up to the $20,000. When you become more experienced and confident you can increase this to 2 or 3 time your account size. Maybe, if you are just starting out, you should first open a virtual account to test your strategies out and get used to using leverage. You should put together a trading plan with position sizing and risk management before starting real trading, and you can test these in your virtual trading before putting real money on the table. Also, if you want to avoid leverage when first starting out, you could always start trading the underlying without any leverage, but you should still have a trading plan in place first." }, { "docid": "244303", "title": "", "text": "\"I made an investing mistake many (eight?) years ago. Specifically, I invested a very large sum of money in a certain triple leveraged ETF (the asset has not yet been sold, but the value has decreased to maybe one 8th or 5th of the original amount). I thought the risk involved was the volatility--I didn't realize that due to the nature of the asset the value would be constantly decreasing towards zero! Anyhow, my question is what to do next? I would advise you to sell it ASAP. You didn't mention what ETF it is, but chances are you will continue to lose money. The complicating factor is that I have since moved out of the United States and am living abroad (i.e. Japan). I am permanent resident of my host country, I have a steady salary that is paid by a company incorporated in my host country, and pay taxes to the host government. I file a tax return to the U.S. Government each year, but all my income is excluded so I do not pay any taxes. In this way, I do not think that I can write anything off on my U.S. tax return. Also, I have absolutely no idea if I would be able to write off any losses on my Japanese tax return (I've entrusted all the family tax issues to my wife). Would this be possible? I can't answer this question but you seem to be looking for information on \"\"cross-border tax harvesting\"\". If Google doesn't yield useful results, I'd suggest you talk to an accountant who is familiar with the relevant tax codes. Are there any other available options (that would not involve having to tell my wife about the loss, which would be inevitable if I were to go the tax write-off route in Japan)? This is off topic but you should probably have an honest conversation with your wife regardless. If I continue to hold onto this asset the value will decrease lower and lower. Any suggestions as to what to do? See above: close your position ASAP For more information on the pitfalls of leveraged ETFs (FINRA) What happens if I hold longer than one trading day? While there may be trading and hedging strategies that justify holding these investments longer than a day, buy-and-hold investors with an intermediate or long-term time horizon should carefully consider whether these ETFs are appropriate for their portfolio. As discussed above, because leveraged and inverse ETFs reset each day, their performance can quickly diverge from the performance of the underlying index or benchmark. In other words, it is possible that you could suffer significant losses even if the long-term performance of the index showed a gain.\"" }, { "docid": "528052", "title": "", "text": "\"Your question indicates that you might have a little confusion about put options and/or leveraging. There's no sense I'm aware of in which purchasing a put levers a position. Purchasing a put will cost you money up front. Leveraging typically means entering a transaction that gives you extra money now that you can use to buy other things. If you meant to sell a put, that will make money up front but there is no possibility of making money later. Best case scenario the put is not exercised. The other use of the term \"\"leverage\"\" refers to purchasing an asset that, proportionally, goes up faster than the value of the underlying. For example, a call option. If you purchase a put, you are buying downside protection, which is kind of the opposite of leverage. Notice that for an American put you will most likely be better off selling the put when the price of the underlying falls than exercising it. That way you make the money you would have made by exercising plus whatever optional value the put still contains. That is true unless the time value of money is greater than the optional (insurance) value. Since the time value of money is currently exceptionally low, this is unlikely. Anyway, if you sell the option instead of exercising, you don't need to own any shares at all. Even if you do exercise, you can just buy them on the market and sell right away so I wouldn't worry about what you happen to be holding. The rules for what you can trade with a cash instead of a margin account vary by broker, I think. You can usually buy puts and calls in a cash account, but more advanced strategies, such as writing options, are prohibited. Ask your broker or check their help pages to see what you have available to you.\"" }, { "docid": "150867", "title": "", "text": "I agree with a lot of what you said, and I know a great many esteemed economists are trying to point the big finger of blame at the rating agencies who could have and should have scrutinized what they were evaluating as opposed to capitulating because of cash. However, you did not mention leveraging. Leveraging, when left unchecked becomes very dangerous. Although you have an opportunity to make far more than the initial investment would supply without the added leverage, any loss becomes exponentially more devastating, and quickly your loss from this one transaction is more than your initial investment. Not to mention when everyone finds out, and nobody wants to buy the bullshit funds you were peddling, and you can't repay the person who gave you leverage.......then kabbboooom" } ]

[ { "docid": "286141", "title": "", "text": "This would clear out a lot more. 1) Leverage is the act of taking on debt in lieu of the equity you hold. Not always related to firms, it applies to personal situations too. When you take a loan, you get a certain %age of the loan, the bank establishes your equity by looking at your past financial records and then decides the amount it is going to lend, deciding on the safest leverage. In the current action leverage is the whole act of borrowing yen and profiting from it. The leverage factor mentions the amount of leverage happening. 10000 yen being borrowed with an equity of 1000 yen. 2) Commercial banks: 10 to 1 -> They don't deal in complicated investments, derivatives except for hedging, and are under stricter controls of the government. They have to have certain amount of liquidity and can loan out the rest for business. Investment banks: 30 to 1 -> Their main idea is making money and trade heavily. Their deposits are limited by the amount clients have deposited. And as their main motive is to get maximum returns from the available amount, they trade heavily. Derivatives, one of the instruments, are structured on underlyings and sometimes in multiple layers which build up quite a bit of leverage. And all of the trades happen on margins. You don't invest $10k to buy $10k of a traded stock. You put in, maybe $500 to take up the position and borrow the rest of the amount per se. It improves liquidity in the markets and increases efficiency. Else you could do only with what you have. So these margins add up to the leverage the bank is taking on." } ]

[ { "docid": "570285", "title": "", "text": "It's based on potential. Things like market share, market size, competitive analysis and growth opportunity. Ex: being as big as reddit is + the fact they are a large player = how they could leverage this to drive even more value than they currently have in the future Also everything is inflated right now and the value factors in how much someone might (over) pay to acquire them." }, { "docid": "329923", "title": "", "text": "What I meant by leverage was not borrowing money in order to buy more. What I am getting at is the purchasing power your dollar has in relation to the number of dollars you have (which may mean using leverage, but not per se)." }, { "docid": "469125", "title": "", "text": "Leverage increase returns, but also risks, ie, the least you can pay, the greater the opportunity to profit, but also the greater the chance you will be underwater. Leverage is given by the value of your asset (the house) over the equity you put down. So, for example, if the house is worth 100k and you put down 20k, then the leverage is 5 (another way to look at it is to see that the leverage is the inverse of the margin - or percentage down payment - so 1/0.20 = 5). The return on your investment will be magnified by the amount of your leverage. Suppose the value of your house goes up by 10%. Had you paid your house in full, your return would be 10%, or 10k/100k. However, if you had borrowed 80 dollars and your leverage was 5, as above, a 10% increase in the value of your house means you made a profit of 10k on a 20k investment, a return of 50%, or 10k/20k*100. As I said, your return was magnified by the amount of your leverage, that is, 10% return on the asset times your leverage of 5 = 50%. This is because all the profit of the house price appreciation goes to you, as the value of your debt does not depend on the value of the house. What you borrowed from the bank remains the same, regardless of whether the price of the house changed. The problem is that the amplification mechanism also works in reverse. If the price of the house falls by 10%, it means now you only have 10k equity. If the price falls enough your equity is wiped out and you are underwater, giving you an incentive to default on your loan. In summary, borrowing tends to be a really good deal: heads you win, tails the bank loses (or as happened in the US, the taxpayer loses)." }, { "docid": "55022", "title": "", "text": "The most obvious use of a collateral is as a risk buffer. Just as when you borrow money to buy a house and the bank uses the house as a collateral, so when people borrow money to loan financial instruments (or as is more accurate, gain leverage) the lender keeps a percentage of that (or an equivalent instrument) as a collateral. In the event that the borrower falls short of margin requirements, brokers (in most cases) have the right to sell that collateral and mitigate the risk. Derivatives contracts, like any other financial instrument, come with their risks. And depending on their nature they may sometimes be much more riskier than their underlying instruments. For example, while a common stock's main risk comes from the movements in its price (which may itself result from many other macro/micro-economic factors), an option in that common stock faces risks from those factors plus the volatility of the stock's price. To cover this risk, lenders apply much higher haircuts when lending against these derivatives. In many cases, depending upon the notional exposure of the derivative, that actual dollar amount of the collateral may be more than the face value or the market value of the derivatives contract. Usually, this collateral is deposited not as the derivatives contract itself but rather as the underlying financial instrument (an equity in case of an option, a bond in case of a CDS, and so on). This allows the lender to offset the risk by executing a trade on that collateral itself." }, { "docid": "450178", "title": "", "text": "\"how can I get started knowing that my strategy opportunities are limited and that my capital is low, but the success rate is relatively high? A margin account can help you \"\"leverage\"\" a small amount of capital to make decent profits. Beware, it can also wipe out your capital very quickly. Forex trading is already high-risk. Leveraged Forex trading can be downright speculative. I'm curious how you arrived at the 96% success ratio. As Jason R has pointed out, 1-2 trades a year for 7 years would only give you 7-14 trades. In order to get a success rate of 96% you would have had to successful exploit this \"\"irregularity\"\" at 24 out of 25 times. I recommend you proceed cautiously. Make the transition from a paper trader to a profit-seeking trader slowly. Use a low leverage ratio until you can make several more successful trades and then slowly increase your leverage as you gain confidence. Again, be very careful with leverage: it can either greatly increase or decrease the relatively small amount of capital you have.\"" }, { "docid": "542998", "title": "", "text": "What you describe there is the textbook definition of a proxy fight: buy a 5-10% stake (we're talking $10-$15 billion here for major money center banks), work with other shareholders, try to replace the directors, change business practices, etc. It's a strategy that works in many cases, but the sheer amount of stock you'd have to buy to effect a traditional proxy fight makes this strategy neither probable nor plausible. Like I said, the only believable way to do this is a proxy fight via the press: buy a small number of shares, table resolutions at the annual meetings, and leverage those resolutions with the press." }, { "docid": "58690", "title": "", "text": "\"The problem with daily-rebalanced \"\"inverse\"\" or \"\"leveraged\"\" ETFs is that since they rebalance every day, you can lose money even if your guess as to the market's direction is correct. Quoting from FINRA'S guide as to why these are a bad idea: How can this apparent breakdown between longer term index returns and ETF returns happen? Here’s a hypothetical example: let’s say that on Day 1, an index starts with a value of 100 and a leveraged ETF that seeks to double the return of the index starts at $100. If the index drops by 10 points on Day 1, it has a 10 percent loss and a resulting value of 90. Assuming it achieved its stated objective, the leveraged ETF would therefore drop 20 percent on that day and have an ending value of $80. On Day 2, if the index rises 10 percent, the index value increases to 99. For the ETF, its value for Day 2 would rise by 20 percent, which means the ETF would have a value of $96. On both days, the leveraged ETF did exactly what it was supposed to do—it produced daily returns that were two times the daily index returns. But let’s look at the results over the 2 day period: the index lost 1 percent (it fell from 100 to 99) while the 2x leveraged ETF lost 4 percent (it fell from $100 to $96). That means that over the two day period, the ETF's negative returns were 4 times as much as the two-day return of the index instead of 2 times the return. That example is for \"\"just\"\" leveraging 2x in the same direction. Inverse funds have the same kind of issue. An example from Bogleheads Wiki page on these kinds of funds says that over 12/31/2007 to 12/31/2010, The funds do exactly what they say on any given day. But any losses get \"\"locked in\"\" each day. While normally a 50% loss needs a 100% gain to get back to a starting point, a fund like this needs more than a 100% gain to get back to its starting point. The result of these funds across multiple days doesn't match the index it's matching over those several days, and you won't make money over the long term. Do look at the further examples at the links I've referenced above, or do your own research into the performance of these funds during time periods both when the market is going up and going down. Also refer to these related and/or duplicate questions:\"" }, { "docid": "475199", "title": "", "text": "Degree of Operating Leverage (DOL) measures the percent change in EBIT given a 1% change in Revenue. In other words, if DOL is 1.5, then increasing Revenue by 1% will increase EBIT by 1.5%. Degree of Financial Leverage (DFL) measures the percent change in NI given a 1% change in EBIT. Degree of Total Leverage (DTL) cuts EBIT out and measures the percent change in NI given a 1% change in Revenue. What all three of these numbers measure is “elasticity.” The elasticity between two variables is always the percentage change effect on one due to a 1% change in the other. Before we talk about why you would multiply elasticities, let’s first just look at absolute changes between a change of three variables, X Y and Z. Lets say X impacts Y (X-&gt;Y) and Y impacts Z (Y-&gt;Z). To make it even more concrete, let’s imagine a classroom where every student is required to have 2 books and every book has 100 pages. So X = # students, Y = # of books, and Z = # of pages. If we add one student to the class, we need to add 2 books. If we add 1 book to the class, we have added 100 pages. With absolute changes like this it is obvious that we don’t add, we multiply. In other words, to directly see the impact of a new student on the number of pages (X -&gt; Z), we would say 1 student -&gt; 2 books -&gt; 200 pages. To say 102 pages would obviously be silly. For percent changes, this looks pretty similar. To make it easy say the class has 100 students. So adding 1 student is a 1% change. Then we go from 200 books to 202 books, a 1% change. So the degree of Student to Book Leverage is 1 (which make sense there are no “fixed pages”). We go from 20,000 pages to 20,200 pages, also a 1% change so the degree of Book to Page leverage is also 1. Thus, the Student to Page leverage is also just a flat 1. Let’s add fixed amounts. The teacher has a single 2,000 page book on how to teach. We’ll assume the class has 20 students. So we start with 20*2 + 1 = 41 books and 40*100 + 2,000 = 6,000 pages. Let’s add a student. We have a 21/20 -1 = 4% increase in students. 43/41 -1 = 4.89% increase in books. 6,200/6,000 – 1 = 3.33% increase in pages. So the Degree of Student to Book Leverage is 4.00/4.89 = 0.818 and the Degree of Book to Page Leverage is 4.89/3.33 = 1.47. And the direct Student to Page Leverage is 4.00/3.33 = 1.20. Again, note that here it would be silly to add the degrees of leverage, and when we do multiply them we get 0.82*1.47 = 1.2, the right answer. From here the application to EBIT [= Sales - Fixed Cost - Variable Cost = (Gross Margin * Sales) - Fixed Cost] and the application to EPS [= EBIT - Interest – Taxes = (1 – tax rate)*(EBIT – Interest)] should be obvious. I can supply the full proof mathematically, however, if you would like." }, { "docid": "357583", "title": "", "text": "Short-term, the game is supply/demand and how the various participants react to it at various prices. On longer term, prices start to better reflect the fundamentals. Within something like week to some month or two, if there has not been any unique value affecting news, then interest, options, market maker(s), swing traders and such play bigger part. With intraday, the effects of available liquidity become very pronounced. The market makers have algos that try to guess what type of client they have and they prefer to give high price to large buyer and low price to small buyer. As intraday trader has spreads and commissions big part of their expenses and leverage magnifies those, instead of being able to take advantage of the lower prices, they prefer to stop out after small move against them. In practise this means that when they buy low, that low will soon be the midpoint of the day and tomorrows high etc if they are still holding on. Buy and sell are similar to long call or long put options position. And options are like insurance, they cost you. Also the longer the position is held the more likely it is to end up with someone with ability to test your margin if you're highly leveraged and constantly making your wins from the same source. Risk management is also issue. The leveraged pros trade through a company. Not sure if they're able to open another such company and still open accounts after the inevitable." }, { "docid": "214281", "title": "", "text": "NO. All the leveraged ETFs are designed to multiply the performance of the underlying asset FOR THAT DAY, read the prospectus. Their price is adjusted at the end of the day to reflect what is called a NAV unit. Basically, they know that their price is subject to fluctuations due to supply and demand throughout the day - simply because they trade in a quote driven system. But the price is automatically corrected at the end of the day regardless. In practice though, all sorts of crazy things happen with leveraged ETFs that will simply make them more and more unfavorable to hold long term, the longer you look at it." }, { "docid": "193463", "title": "", "text": "\"Of course. \"\"Best\"\" is a subjective term. However relying on the resources of the larger institutions by pooling with them will definitely reduce your own burden with regards to the research and keeping track. So yes, investing in mutual funds and ETFs is a very sound strategy. It would be better to diversify, and not to invest all your money in one fund, or in one industry/area. That said, there are more than enough individuals who do their own research and stock picking and invest, with various degrees of success, in individual securities. Some also employe more advanced strategies such as leveraging, options, futures, margins, etc. These advance strategies come at a greater risk, but may bring a greater rewards as well. So the answer to the question in the subject line is YES. For all the rest - there's no one right or wrong answer, it depends greatly on your abilities, time, risk tolerance, cash available to invest, etc etc.\"" }, { "docid": "255102", "title": "", "text": "You miss the step where the return being doubled is daily. Consider you invested $100 today, went up 10%, and tomorrow you went down 10%. Third day market went up 1.01% and without leverage - got even. Here's the calculation for you: day - start - end 1 $100 $120 - +10% doubled 2 $120 $96 - -10% doubled 3 $96 $97.94 - +1.01% doubled So in fact you're in $2.06 loss, while without leveraging you would break even. That means that if the trend is generally positive, but volatile - you'll end up barely breaking even while the non-leveraged investment would make profits. That's what the quote means. edit to summarize the long and fruitless discussion in the comments: The reason that the leveraged ETF's are very good for day-trading is exactly the same reason why they are bad for continuous investment. You should buy them when there's a reasonable expectation for the market to immediately go in the direction you expect. If for whatever reason you believe the markets will plunge, or soar, tomorrow - you should buy a leveraged ETF, ride the plunge, and sell it in the end of the day. But you asked the question about volatile markets, not markets going in one direction. There - you lose." }, { "docid": "86909", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "127894", "title": "", "text": "Disregarding leverage and things alike, I would like to know what's the difference between opening a position in Forex on a pair through a broker, for example, and effectively buy some currency in a traditional bank-to-bank transition The forex account may pay or charge you interest whereas converting your currency directly will not. Disregarding leverage, the difference would be interest." }, { "docid": "497901", "title": "", "text": "\"A \"\"leveraged/trade program\"\"? What exactly is that? So let me get this straight. You put just 10% of the total amount of what you're trading into an account with Citi (Citi's going to give you 10-1 leverage on your money...why?), and then in 90 days they'll give you your money back and a loan for ten times the amount? Either the heat has gotten to me or this is the craziest thing I've read today. You didn't specify what it is you'd be \"\"trading\"\", and if your \"\"acquaintance\"\" didn't share that with you either then it sounds beyond suspect -- it sounds like total fraud. I couldn't imagine a scenario whereby Citi would be involved in a scheme like this, whatever \"\"it\"\" is. I suspect that your \"\"friend\"\" has you opening an account at Citi because it makes the whole scam sound more legitimate by tying to a big bank name. It might be worth your time to actually call Citi (I looked up their number for you. It's 1-800-685-0935) and ask them about this particular idea. When they get done snickering, they'll tell you the same thing everyone else is -- RUN from this. You're very right to suspect that you can't leverage money without encumbering it. What would be the point for someone to essentially give you credit on a 10-to-1 basis and then not encumber the collateral? If you don't know anything about trading and how leverage works then it would be highly inadvisable for you to jump into something that you don't understand. Your \"\"acquaintance\"\" may have been sucked into investing their own money, and now they think they're doing you a \"\"favor\"\" by telling you about this \"\"incredible opportunity\"\". It's how most scams work. They get the suckers to sign up friends and relatives, because they're playing on the trust between those people. Stick to what you know or what someone can give you a clear and reasonable explanation of. And have someone you really know and trust (preferably a friend or family member who is reasonably successful in managing their own finances) to act as a sounding board when things like this come along to help keep you from doing something stupid that you'll really regret. Hope this helps. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "558466", "title": "", "text": "Well, let me take your question for baremetal, and aknowledge you did not asked about the difference between daytrading and investing which is obviously leverage. I would not consider daytrading more risky as long as you keep leverageout of the equation. Daytrading can be turbolent and confusing, where things unfold in a very short amount of time, (let trade nfp payroll or some breaking event, yay), eventually the risk is more overseeable in long term trading, as soon as you put leverage into the equation things look vary different, indeed." }, { "docid": "507284", "title": "", "text": "Very likely this refers to trading/speculating on leverage, not investing. Of course, as soon as you put leverage into the equation this perfectly makes sense. 2007-2009 for example, if one bought the $SPX at its highs in 2007 at ~$1560.00 - to the lows from 2009 at ~$683.00 - implicating that with only 2:1 leverage a $1560.00 account would have received a margin call. At least here in Europe I can trade index CFD's and other leveraged products. If i trade lets say >50:1 leverage it doesn’t take much to get a margin call and/or position closed by the broker. No doubt, depending on which investments you choose there’s always risk, but currency is a position too. TO answer the question, I find it very unlikely that >90% of investors (referring to stocks) lose money / purchasing power. Anyway, I would not deny that where speculators (not investors) use leverage or try to trade swings, news etc. have a very high risk of losing money (purchasing power)." }, { "docid": "346188", "title": "", "text": "\"If there's one thing the futures markets don't lack, it's leverage. It's more than even most of the most aggressive investors use. Trading options might make more sense for some investors, but I can't think of how this would be \"\"a safer way\"\" compared to owning actual futures contracts, even at relatively high leverage.\"" }, { "docid": "244303", "title": "", "text": "\"I made an investing mistake many (eight?) years ago. Specifically, I invested a very large sum of money in a certain triple leveraged ETF (the asset has not yet been sold, but the value has decreased to maybe one 8th or 5th of the original amount). I thought the risk involved was the volatility--I didn't realize that due to the nature of the asset the value would be constantly decreasing towards zero! Anyhow, my question is what to do next? I would advise you to sell it ASAP. You didn't mention what ETF it is, but chances are you will continue to lose money. The complicating factor is that I have since moved out of the United States and am living abroad (i.e. Japan). I am permanent resident of my host country, I have a steady salary that is paid by a company incorporated in my host country, and pay taxes to the host government. I file a tax return to the U.S. Government each year, but all my income is excluded so I do not pay any taxes. In this way, I do not think that I can write anything off on my U.S. tax return. Also, I have absolutely no idea if I would be able to write off any losses on my Japanese tax return (I've entrusted all the family tax issues to my wife). Would this be possible? I can't answer this question but you seem to be looking for information on \"\"cross-border tax harvesting\"\". If Google doesn't yield useful results, I'd suggest you talk to an accountant who is familiar with the relevant tax codes. Are there any other available options (that would not involve having to tell my wife about the loss, which would be inevitable if I were to go the tax write-off route in Japan)? This is off topic but you should probably have an honest conversation with your wife regardless. If I continue to hold onto this asset the value will decrease lower and lower. Any suggestions as to what to do? See above: close your position ASAP For more information on the pitfalls of leveraged ETFs (FINRA) What happens if I hold longer than one trading day? While there may be trading and hedging strategies that justify holding these investments longer than a day, buy-and-hold investors with an intermediate or long-term time horizon should carefully consider whether these ETFs are appropriate for their portfolio. As discussed above, because leveraged and inverse ETFs reset each day, their performance can quickly diverge from the performance of the underlying index or benchmark. In other words, it is possible that you could suffer significant losses even if the long-term performance of the index showed a gain.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "242524", "title": "", "text": "Your original example is a little confusing because just shorting for 1k and buying for 1k is 100% leveraged or an infinitive leverage ratio. (and not allowed) Brokerage houses would require you to invest some capital in the trade. One example might be requiring you to hold $100 in the brokerage. This is where the 10:1 ratio comes from. (1000/10) Thus a return of 4.5% on the 1000k bond and no movement on the short position would net you $45 and voila a 45% return on your $100 investment. A 40 to 1 leverage ratio would mean that you would only have to invest $25 to make this trade. Something that no individual investor are allowed to do, but for some reason some financial firms have been able to." } ]

[ { "docid": "179103", "title": "", "text": "If you are looking for money to speculate in the capital markets, then your brokers will already lend to you at a MUCH more favorable rate than an outside party will. For instance, with $4,000 you could EASILY control $40,000 with many brokers, at a 1% interest rate. This is 10:1 leverage, much like how US banks operate... every dollar that you deposit with them, they speculate with 10x as much. Interactive Brokers will do this for you with your current credit score. They are very reputable and clear through Goldman Sachs, so although reputable is subjective in the investment banking world, you won't have to worry the federal government raiding them or anything. If you are investing in currencies than you can easily do 50:1 leverage as an American, or 100:1 as anyone else. This means with only $400 dollars you can control $40,000 account. If you are investing in the futures market, then there are many many ways to double and triple and quadruple your leverage at the lowest interests rates. Any contract you enter into is a loan from the market. You have to understand, that if you did happen to have $40,000 of your own money, then you could get $4,000,000 account size for speculating, at 1% interest. Again, these are QUICK ways to lose your money and owe a lot more! So I'd really advise against it. A margin call in the futures market can destroy you. I advise you to just think more efficiently until you come up with a way to earn that much money initially, and then speculate." }, { "docid": "272649", "title": "", "text": "There's really no general rule of thumb. There are a lot of factors that go into that decision. It highly depends on the type of business, your financials and business strategy. It's a double edged sword because retained earnings lose the potential to provide a higher return. While being cash poor can easily kill a company. It sounds like you're experiencing significant growth. If there is high market potential and expansion prospects, a safe bet is to keep about 3 months of operating costs accessible while leveraging a bank loan to fund the growth. That's the best answer I can provide without having any information." }, { "docid": "255102", "title": "", "text": "You miss the step where the return being doubled is daily. Consider you invested $100 today, went up 10%, and tomorrow you went down 10%. Third day market went up 1.01% and without leverage - got even. Here's the calculation for you: day - start - end 1 $100 $120 - +10% doubled 2 $120 $96 - -10% doubled 3 $96 $97.94 - +1.01% doubled So in fact you're in $2.06 loss, while without leveraging you would break even. That means that if the trend is generally positive, but volatile - you'll end up barely breaking even while the non-leveraged investment would make profits. That's what the quote means. edit to summarize the long and fruitless discussion in the comments: The reason that the leveraged ETF's are very good for day-trading is exactly the same reason why they are bad for continuous investment. You should buy them when there's a reasonable expectation for the market to immediately go in the direction you expect. If for whatever reason you believe the markets will plunge, or soar, tomorrow - you should buy a leveraged ETF, ride the plunge, and sell it in the end of the day. But you asked the question about volatile markets, not markets going in one direction. There - you lose." }, { "docid": "410061", "title": "", "text": "You do not hold leveraged ETF for longer than a few days. You have UGAZ and DGAZ, both 3x leveraged, one longs one shorts. What happens if you buy both? You don't get 0% return. In fact, you get -10% return if you hold both for 3 months. No matter what happens, they both go down in long term. Call it Leverage Decay, Beta Slippage, Contango, Rollover, etc. If you want to gamble that NG goes up within 3 days, go ahead. Just be prepared for the worst cases like losing 15% in 3 days. If you want to speculate the NG will recover in a year, buy Natural Gas industry ETF http://www.ftportfolios.com/retail/etf/etfsummary.aspx?Ticker=FCG" }, { "docid": "571234", "title": "", "text": "P/E ratio is useful but limited as others have said. Another problem is that it doesn't show leverage. Two companies in the same industry could have the same P/E but be differently leveraged. In that case I would buy the company with more equity and less debt as it should be a less risky investment. To compare companies and take leverage/debt into account you could use the EV/EBIT ratio instead. Its slightly more complicated to calculate and isn't presented by as many data sources though. Enterprise Value (EV) can be said to represent the value of the company if someone would buy it today and then pay off all its (interest bearing) debt. EV is essentially calculated like this: (Market Capitalization plus cash & cash equivalents) minus interest-bearing debt. This is then divided by EBIT (Earnings before interest and tax) to get the ratio. One drawback of this ratio though is that it can't be used for financials since their balance sheet pretty much consists of debt and the Enterprise Value therefore doesn't tell us very much. Also, like the P/E ratio it is dependent on fresh numbers. A balance sheet is just a glimpse of the companys financial situation on ONE DAY, and this could (and probably will, although not drastically for bigger companies) change to the next day." }, { "docid": "35414", "title": "", "text": "My favorite part: Any bank with a leverage ratio greater than 10% can elect to be exempt from: &gt;(1) Any Federal law, rule, or regulation addressing capital or liquidity requirements or standards. &gt;(2) Any Federal law, rule, or regulation that permits an appropriate Federal banking agency to object to a capital distribution. &gt;(3) Any consideration by an appropriate Federal banking agency of the following: &gt;(A) Any risk the qualifying banking organization may pose to “the stability of the financial system of the United States”, under section 5(c)(2) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. &gt;(B) The “extent to which a proposed acquisition, merger, or consolidation would result in greater or more concentrated risks to the stability of the United States banking or financial system”, under section 3(c)(7) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, so long as the banking organization, after such proposed acquisition, merger, or consolidation, would maintain a quarterly leverage ratio of at least 10 percent. &gt;(C) Whether the performance of an activity by the banking organization could possibly pose a “risk to the stability of the United States banking or financial system”, under section 4(j)(2)(A) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. &gt;(D) Whether the acquisition of control of shares of a company engaged in an activity described in section 4(j)(1)(A) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 could possibly pose a “risk to the stability of the United States banking or financial system”, under section 4(j)(2)(A) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, so long as the banking organization, after acquiring control of such company, would maintain a quarterly leverage ratio of at least 10 percent. &gt;(E) Whether a merger would pose a “risk to the stability of the United States banking or financial system”, under section 18(c)(5) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, so long as the banking organization, after such proposed merger, would maintain a quarterly leverage ratio of at least 10 percent. &gt;(F) Any risk the qualifying banking organization may pose to “the stability of the financial system of the United States”, under section 10(b)(4) of the Home Owners' Loan Act. &gt;(4) Subsections (i)(8) and (k)(6)(B)(ii) of section 4 and section 14 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. &gt;(5) Section 18(c)(13) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. &gt;(6) Section 163 of the Financial Stability Act of 2010. &gt;(7) Section 10(e)(2)(E) of the Home Owners’ Loan Act. &gt;(8) Any Federal law, rule, or regulation implementing standards of the type provided for in subsections (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), (i), and (j) of section 165 of the Financial Stability Act of 2010. &gt;(9) Any Federal law, rule, or regulation providing limitations on mergers, consolidations, or acquisitions of assets or control, to the extent such limitations relate to capital or liquidity standards or concentrations of deposits or assets, so long as the banking organization, after such proposed merger, consolidation, or acquisition, would maintain a quarterly leverage ratio of at least 10 percent. yeah, what could go wrong?" }, { "docid": "558466", "title": "", "text": "Well, let me take your question for baremetal, and aknowledge you did not asked about the difference between daytrading and investing which is obviously leverage. I would not consider daytrading more risky as long as you keep leverageout of the equation. Daytrading can be turbolent and confusing, where things unfold in a very short amount of time, (let trade nfp payroll or some breaking event, yay), eventually the risk is more overseeable in long term trading, as soon as you put leverage into the equation things look vary different, indeed." }, { "docid": "410887", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll answer this question: \"\"Why do intraday traders close their position at then end of day while most gains can be done overnight (buy just before the market close and sell just after it opens). Is this observation true for other companies or is it specific to apple ?\"\" Intraday traders often trade shares of a company using intraday leverage provided by their firm. For every $5000 dollars they actually have, they may be trading with $100,000, 20:1 leverage as an example. Since a stock can also decrease in value, substantially, while the markets are closed, intraday traders are not allowed to keep their highly leveraged positions opened. Probabilities fail in a random walk scenario, and only one failure can bankrupt you and the firm.\"" }, { "docid": "197056", "title": "", "text": "&gt; one of the most highly leveraged Not even close. In general joint retail-investment banking institutions are less leveraged than primary IB's. BOA is sitting at a T1CR under Basel III of 8.1%. JPM 9.18% DB 7.2 MS 8.5% GS 7.3% UBS 8.8% This is all as of Q2 reports." }, { "docid": "171208", "title": "", "text": "Except automation produces an increase in productivity through better leveraging of capital. In the past, increases in productivity were often seen through better leveraging of the workforce. When it's better leveraging of the workforce that drives the increased productivity, you pay the workforce better. When it's better leveraging of capital, you pay the capital (investors) and the managers of that capital better. Also, it's hard to say that the middle class has been in decline. The wealth gap between the middle class and the upper class has been growing, but overall the middle class is better off now than at past points in history. The same can be said of the bottom rungs. Access to health care, good food, information, air conditioning, etc is better now than at any point in the past." }, { "docid": "556574", "title": "", "text": "Agreed, unfortunately what is right seldom matters when it comes to these kinds of decisions. If you don't have any leverage then you won't matter. While it may suck, it is how the world works so you'd better try finding some leverage." }, { "docid": "7712", "title": "", "text": "Here is a simple example of how daily leverage fails, when applied over periods longer than a day. It is specifically adjusted to be more extreme than the actual market so you can see the effects more readily. You buy a daily leveraged fund and the index is at 1000. Suddenly the market goes crazy, and goes up to 2000 - a 100% gain! Because you have a 2x ETF, you will find your return to be somewhere near 200% (if the ETF did its job). Then tomorrow it goes back to normal and falls back down to 1000. This is a fall of 50%. If your ETF did its job, you should find your loss is somewhere near twice that: 100%. You have wiped out all your money. Forever. You lose. :) The stock market does not, in practice, make jumps that huge in a single day. But it does go up and down, not just up, and if you're doing a daily leveraged ETF, your money will be gradually eroded. It doesn't matter whether it's 2x leveraged or 8x leveraged or inverse (-1x) or anything else. Do the math, get some historical data, run some simulations. You're right that it is possible to beat the market using a 2x ETF, in the short run. But the longer you hold the stock, the more ups and downs you experience along the way, and the more opportunity your money has to decay. If you really want to double your exposure to the market over the intermediate term, borrow the money yourself. This is why they invented the margin account: Your broker will essentially give you a loan using your existing portfolio as collateral. You can then invest the borrowed money, increasing your exposure even more. Alternatively, if you have existing assets like, say, a house, you can take out a mortgage on it and invest the proceeds. (This isn't necessarily a good idea, but it's not really worse than a margin account; investing with borrowed money is investing with borrowed money, and you might get a better interest rate. Actually, a lot of rich people who could pay off their mortgages don't, and invest the money instead, and keep the tax deduction for mortgage interest. But I digress.) Remember that assets shrink; liabilities (loans) never shrink. If you really want to double your return over the long term, invest twice as much money." }, { "docid": "497901", "title": "", "text": "\"A \"\"leveraged/trade program\"\"? What exactly is that? So let me get this straight. You put just 10% of the total amount of what you're trading into an account with Citi (Citi's going to give you 10-1 leverage on your money...why?), and then in 90 days they'll give you your money back and a loan for ten times the amount? Either the heat has gotten to me or this is the craziest thing I've read today. You didn't specify what it is you'd be \"\"trading\"\", and if your \"\"acquaintance\"\" didn't share that with you either then it sounds beyond suspect -- it sounds like total fraud. I couldn't imagine a scenario whereby Citi would be involved in a scheme like this, whatever \"\"it\"\" is. I suspect that your \"\"friend\"\" has you opening an account at Citi because it makes the whole scam sound more legitimate by tying to a big bank name. It might be worth your time to actually call Citi (I looked up their number for you. It's 1-800-685-0935) and ask them about this particular idea. When they get done snickering, they'll tell you the same thing everyone else is -- RUN from this. You're very right to suspect that you can't leverage money without encumbering it. What would be the point for someone to essentially give you credit on a 10-to-1 basis and then not encumber the collateral? If you don't know anything about trading and how leverage works then it would be highly inadvisable for you to jump into something that you don't understand. Your \"\"acquaintance\"\" may have been sucked into investing their own money, and now they think they're doing you a \"\"favor\"\" by telling you about this \"\"incredible opportunity\"\". It's how most scams work. They get the suckers to sign up friends and relatives, because they're playing on the trust between those people. Stick to what you know or what someone can give you a clear and reasonable explanation of. And have someone you really know and trust (preferably a friend or family member who is reasonably successful in managing their own finances) to act as a sounding board when things like this come along to help keep you from doing something stupid that you'll really regret. Hope this helps. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "360621", "title": "", "text": "\"QUICK ANSWER When it comes to fixed income assets, whether rental real estate or government bonds, it's unusual for highly-leveraged assets to yield less than the same asset unleveraged or lowly-leveraged. This is especially so in countries where interest costs are tax deductible. If we exclude capital losses (i.e. the property sells in future at a price less than it was purchased) or net rental income that doesn't keep up with maintenance, regulatory, taxation, inflation and / or other costs, there is one primary scenario where higher leverage results in lower yields compared to lower leverage, even if rental income keeps up with non-funding costs. This occurs when variable rate financing is used and rates substantially increase. EXPLANATION Borrowers and lenders in different countries have different mortgage rate customs. Some are more likely to have long-term fixed rates; some prefer variable rates; and others are a hybrid, i.e. fixed for a few years and then become variable. If variable rates are used for a mortgage and the reference rates increase substantially, as they did in the US during the 1970s, the borrower can easily become \"\"upside-down,\"\" i.e. owe more on the mortgage than the property is then worth, and have mortgage service costs that exceed the net rental income. Some of those costs aren't easy to pass along to renters, even when there are periodic lease renewals or base rent increases referencing inflation rates. Central banks set policies for what would be the lowest short-term rates in a country that has such a bank. Private sector rates are established broadly by supply and demand for credit and can thus diverge markedly from central bank rates. Over time, the higher finance-carrying-cost-to-net-rental-income ratio should abate as (1) rental market prices change to reflect the costs and (2) the landlord can reinvest his net rental income at a higher rate. In the short-term though, this can result in the landlord having to \"\"eat\"\" the costs making his yield on his leveraged fixed income asset less than what he would have without leverage, even if the property was later sold at same price regardless of financing method. ========== Interestingly, and on the flip side, this is one of the quirks in finance where an accounting liability can become, at least in part, an economic asset. If a landlord borrows at a high loan-to-value ratio for a fixed interest rate for the life of the mortgage and rates, variable and fixed, were to increase substantially, the difference between his original rate and the present rates accrues to him. If he's able to sell the property with the loan attached (which is not uncommon for commercial, industrial and sometimes municipal real estate), the buyer will be assuming a liability with a lower carrying cost than his present alternatives and will hence pay a higher price for the property than if it were unleveraged. With long-term rates in many economically advanced countries at historic lows, if a borrower today were to take a long-term fixed rate loan and rates shortly after increased substantially, he may have an instant profit in this scenario even if his property hasn't increased in value.\"" }, { "docid": "445887", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm a little confused on the use of the property today. Is this place going to be a personal residence for you for now and become a rental later (after the mortgage is paid off)? It does make a difference. If you can buy the house and a 100% LTV loan would cost less than 125% of comparable rent ... then buy the house, put as little of your own cash into it as possible and stretch the terms as long as possible. Scott W is correct on a number of counts. The \"\"cost\"\" of the mortgage is the after tax cost of the payments and when that money is put to work in a well-managed portfolio, it should do better over the long haul. Don't try for big gains because doing so adds to the risk that you'll end up worse off. If you borrow money at an after-tax cost of 4% and make 6% after taxes ... you end up ahead and build wealth. A vast majority of the wealthiest people use this arbitrage to continue to build wealth. They have plenty of money to pay off mortgages, but choose not to. $200,000 at 2% is an extra $4000 per year. Compounded at a 7% rate ... it adds up to $180k after 20 years ... not exactly chump change. Money in an investment account is accessible when you need it. Money in home equity is not, has a zero rate of return (before inflation) and is not accessible except through another loan at the bank's whim. If you lose your job and your home is close to paid off but isn't yet, you could have a serious liquidity issue. NOW ... if a 100% mortgage would cost MORE than 125% of comparable rent, then there should be no deal. You are looking at a crappy investment. It is cheaper and better just to rent. I don't care if prices are going up right now. Prices move around. Just because Canada hasn't seen the value drops like in the US so far doesn't mean it can't happen in the future. If comparable rents don't validate the price with a good margin for profit for an investor, then prices are frothy and cannot be trusted and you should lower your monthly costs by renting rather than buying. That $350 per month you could save in \"\"rent\"\" adds up just as much as the $4000 per year in arbitrage. For rentals, you should only pull the trigger when you can do the purchase without leverage and STILL get a 10% CAP rate or higher (rate of return after taxes, insurance and other fixed costs). That way if the rental rates drop (and again that is quite possible), you would lose some of your profit but not all of it. If you leverage the property, there is a high probability that you could wind up losing money as rents fall and you have to cover the mortgage out of nonexistent cash flow. I know somebody is going to say, \"\"But John, 10% CAP on rental real estate? That's just not possible around here.\"\" That may be the case. It IS possible somewhere. I have clients buying property in Arizona, New Mexico, Alberta, Michigan and even California who are finding 10% CAP rate properties. They do exist. They just aren't everywhere. If you want to add leverage to the rental picture to improve the return, then do so understanding the risks. He who lives by the leverage sword, dies by the leverage sword. Down here in the US, the real estate market is littered with corpses of people who thought they could handle that leverage sword. It is a gory, ugly mess.\"" }, { "docid": "552089", "title": "", "text": "Doomsayers can just buy the 5x Short ETFs instead of the 5x long, see where it leaves them. People who don't understand leverage shouldn't be writing articles about them. 3 seems to be a valid point to some degree, but why should there be a cap at 3x for ETFs when you can get way more leverage with other instruments. I feel like these are the people who blame anything that qualifies as a derivative for 2008." }, { "docid": "102618", "title": "", "text": "Highest possible is meaningless. Ex: Use 17x Leverage on E-mini S&P 500 Futures, perfectly long before an uptick and short before a downtick every minute. Goes to the moon in a day of 1,440 minutes. You are supposed to use a Buy-and-Hold SPY, with leverage that makes the Standard Deviation of SPY same as your Portfolio/Algorithm, as benchmark." }, { "docid": "461379", "title": "", "text": "Well, I didn't know those existed. Author might not either. I'm also not aware of the trading requirements in Europe. Could be different than US. In any event, I think most who are concerned are (1) doomsayers who've predicted 30 of the last 1 recessions, (2) don't understand the point of leverage and are irrationally scared of it, or (3) understand leverage can be good but think this will be used in a bad way." }, { "docid": "103528", "title": "", "text": "\"If you're looking to leverage your capital more efficiently, at the money options offer the best balance. Options deep in the money will have little time premium remaining on them, but don't allow for greater leverage. On the other hand deep out of the money options may be thinly traded, or might not offer the \"\"mirroring\"\" you'd like of the underlying. By purchasing ATM you will likely be buying some time premium, but still be leveraging your capital, potentially several times over.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "451935", "title": "", "text": "\"When you say \"\"set aside,\"\" you mean you saved to pay the tax due in April? That's underpaying. It's a rare exception the IRS makes for this penalty, hopefully it wasn't too large, and you now know how much to withhold through payroll deductions. Problem is, this wasn't unusual, it was an oversight. You have no legitimate grounds to dispute. Sorry.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "283374", "title": "", "text": "The W4 specifies withholding for income taxes, FICA taxes are not impacted. The tax withholding is do that you do not need to make estimated tax payments. Failing to make sufficient quarterly estimated tax payments or withholding a sufficient amount could result in you being hit with under payment penalties but nothing more. The under payment penalties will be figured out as part of you income tax return. What you should have done when you discovered this was use the extra withholding line on the W4 to further increase your withholding. The nice thing about withholding is that you back load it and the IRS does not care. The company has no liability here. It is your responsibility to update them when your personal circumstances change. You will be fully responsible for the tax bill. There is no company paid portion of your income tax so they are not impacted. The company only pays an employer share of FICA and that is not impacted by how you fill out the W4. First thing to do is figure out how much you owe the IRS. Then determine if you can pay it or if you need to investigate an installment option. In any case make sure to file your return on time." }, { "docid": "300254", "title": "", "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" }, { "docid": "583321", "title": "", "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.\"" }, { "docid": "55954", "title": "", "text": "(Note: The OP does not state whether the employer-sponsored retirement savings are pre-tax or post-tax (such as a Roth 401(k)). The following answer assumes the more common case of a pre-tax plan.) This is a bad idea, IMHO. IRS Pub 970 lists exceptions to the 10% early withdrawal penalty for educational expenses. This doesn't include, as far as I can tell, student loan payments. So withdrawing from your retirement account would incur both income tax and penalties. Even if there were an exception, you'd still have to pay income taxes, which, depending on the amount and your income, could be at a higher marginal rate than you are currently paying. If you really want the debt gone as soon as possible, why not reduce the amount you contribute to the retirement plan (but not below the amount that gets you the maximum employer match) and use that money to increase your monthly payments to the student loan? Note that, if you do this, you will pay taxes on income that would have been tax-deferred in order to save money on interest, so there's still a trade-off. (One more thing: rather than rolling over to your new company's plan, you could roll over to a self-directed Traditional IRA.)" }, { "docid": "123531", "title": "", "text": "To be fair, Inland Revenue has options here. They don't have to accept this transfer pricing scheme Starbucks has come up with to funnel their profits to, almost certainly, some overseas tax haven. I work with the Treasury team at a large British multinational pharma company in Japan. There are constant disputes between Inland Revenue and the IRS and the Japanese NTA and the British, Japanese and U.S. companies over what is an appropriate or inappropriate level of royalty for patents and trademarks owned by the three and licensed back and forth." }, { "docid": "87987", "title": "", "text": "\"The 2 months extension is automatic, you just need to tell them that you're using it by attaching a statement to the return, as Pete Becker mentioned in the comments. From the IRS pub 54: How to get the extension. To use this automatic 2-month extension, you must attach a statement to your return explaining which of the two situations listed earlier qualified you for the extension. The \"\"regular\"\" 6 months extension though is granted automatically, upon request, so if you cannot make it by June deadline you should file the form 4868 to request a further extension. Automatic 6-month extension. If you are not able to file your return by the due date, you generally can get an automatic 6-month extension of time to file (but not of time to pay). To get this automatic extension, you must file a paper Form 4868 or use IRS e-file (electronic filing). For more information about filing electronically, see E-file options , later. Keep in mind that the due date is still April 15th (18th this year), so the 6-month extension pushes it back to October. Previous 2-month extension. If you cannot file your return within the automatic 2-month extension period, you generally can get an additional 4 months to file your return, for a total of 6 months. The 2-month period and the 6-month period start at the same time. You have to request the additional 4 months by the new due date allowed by the 2-month extension. You can ask an additional 2 months extension (this is no longer automatic) to push it further to December. See the publication. These are extension to file, not to pay. With the form 4868 you're also expected to submit a payment that will cover your tax liability (at least in the ballpark). The interest is pretty low (less than 1% right now), but there's also a penalty which may be pretty substantial if you don't pay enough by the due date. See the IRS tax topic 301. There are \"\"safe harbor\"\" rules to avoid the penalty.\"" }, { "docid": "469601", "title": "", "text": "Here's an answer received elsewhere. Yes, it looks like you have a pretty good understanding the concept and the process. Your wife's income will be so low - why? If she is a full-time student in any of those months, you may attribute $250 x 2 children worth of income for each of those months. Incidentally, even if you do end up paying taxes on the extra $3000, you won't be paying the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare (7.65%) or state disability on those funds. So you still end up saving some tax money. No doubt, there's no need to remind you to be sure that you submit all the valid receipts to the administrator in time to get reimbursed. And a must-have disclaimer: Please be advised that, based on current IRS rules and standards, any advice contained herein is not intended to be used, nor can it be used, for the avoidance of any tax penalty that the IRS may assess related to this matter. Any information contained in this email, whether viewed or subsequently printed, cannot be relied upon as qualified tax and accounting advice. ... Any information contained in this email does not fall under the guidelines of IRS Circular 230." }, { "docid": "76530", "title": "", "text": "\"All transactions within an IRA are irrelevant as far as the taxation of the distributions from the IRA are concerned. You can only take cash from an IRA, and a (cash) distribution from a Traditional IRA is taxable as ordinary income (same as interest from a bank, say) without the advantage of any of the special tax rates for long-term capital gains or qualified dividends even if that cash was generated within the IRA from sales of stock etc. In short, just as with what is alleged to occur with respect to Las Vegas, what happens within the IRA stays within the IRA. Note: some IRA custodians are willing to make a distribution of stock or mutual fund shares to you, so that ownership of the 100 shares of GE, say, that you hold within your IRA is transferred to you in your personal (non-IRA) brokerage account. But, as far as the IRS is concerned, your IRA custodian sold the stock as the closing price on the day of the distribution, gave you the cash, and you promptly bought the 100 shares (at the closing price) in your personal brokerage account with the cash that you received from the IRA. It is just that your custodian saved the transaction fees involved in selling 100 shares of GE stock inside the IRA and you saved the transaction fee for buying 100 shares of GE stock in your personal brokerage account. Your basis in the 100 shares of GE stock is the \"\"cash_ that you imputedly received as a distribution from the IRA, so that when you sell the shares at some future time, your capital gains (or losses) will be with respect to this basis. The capital gains that occurred within the IRA when the shares were imputedly sold by your IRA custodian remain within the IRA, and you don't get to pay taxes on that at capital gains rates. That being said, I would like to add to what NathanL told you in his answer. Your mother passed away in 2011 and you are now 60 years old (so 54 or 55 in 2011?). It is likely that your mother was over 70.5 years old when she passed away, and so she likely had started taking Required Minimum Distributions from her IRA before her death. So, You should have been taking RMDs from the Inherited IRA starting with Year 2012. (The RMD for 2011, if not taken already by your mother before she passed away, should have been taken by her estate, and distributed to her heirs in accordance with her will, or, if she died intestate, in accordance with state law and/or probate court directives). There would not have been any 10% penalty tax due on the RMDs taken by you on the grounds that you were not 59.5 years old as yet; that rule applies to owners (your mom in this case) and not to beneficiaries (you in this case). So, have you taken the RMDs for 2012-2016? Or were you waiting to turn 59.5 before taking distributions in the mistaken belief that you would have to pay a 10% penalty for early wthdrawal? The penalty for not taking a RMD is 50% of the amount not distributed; yes, 50%. If you didn't take RMDs from the Inherited IRA for years 2012-2016, I recommend that you consult a CPA with expertise in tax law. Ask the CPA if he/she is an Enrolled Agent with the IRS: Enrolled Agents have to pass an exam administered by the IRS to show that they really understand tax law and are not just blowing smoke, and can represent you in front of the IRS in cases of audit etc,\"" }, { "docid": "388713", "title": "", "text": "As a new (very!) small business, the IRS has lots of advice and information for you. Start at https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed and be sure you have several pots of coffee or other appropriate aid against somnolence. By default a single-member LLC is 'disregarded' for tax purposes (at least for Federal, and generally states follow Federal although I don't know Mass. specifically), although it does have other effects. If you go this route you simply include the business income and expenses on Schedule C as part of your individual return on 1040, and the net SE income is included along with your other income (if any) in computing your tax. TurboTax or similar software should handle this for you, although you may need a premium version that costs a little more. You can 'elect' to have the LLC taxed as a corporation by filing form 8832, see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/limited-liability-company-llc . In principle you are supposed to do this when the entity is 'formed', but in practice AIUI if you do it by the end of the year they won't care at all, and if you do it after the end of the year but before or with your first affected return you qualify for automatic 'relief'. However, deciding how to divide the business income/profits into 'reasonable pay' to yourself versus 'dividends' is more complicated, and filling out corporation tax returns in addition to your individual return (which is still required) is more work, in addition to the work and cost of filing and reporting the LLC itself to your state of choice. Unless/until you make something like $50k-100k a year this probably isn't worth it. 1099 Reporting. Stripe qualifies as a 'payment network' and under a recent law payment networks must annually report to IRS (and copy to you) on form 1099-K if your account exceeds certain thresholds; see https://support.stripe.com/questions/will-i-receive-a-1099-k-and-what-do-i-do-with-it . Note you are still legally required to report and pay tax on your SE income even if you aren't covered by 1099-K (or other) reporting. Self-employment tax. As a self-employed person (if the LLC is disregarded) you have to pay 'SE' tax that is effectively equivalent to the 'FICA' taxes that would be paid by your employer and you as an employee combined. This is 12.4% for Social Security unless/until your total earned income exceeds a cap (for 2017 $127,200, adjusted yearly for inflation), and 2.9% for Medicare with no limit (plus 'Additional Medicare' tax if you exceed a higher threshold and it isn't 'repealed and replaced'). If the LLC elects corporation status it has to pay you reasonable wages for your services, and withhold+pay FICA on those wages like any other employer. Estimated payments. You are required to pay most of your individual income tax, and SE tax if applicable, during the year (generally 90% of your tax or your tax minus $1,000 whichever is less). Most wage-earners don't notice this because it happens automatically through payroll withholding, but as self-employed you are responsible for making sufficient and timely estimated payments, and will owe a penalty if you don't. However, since this is your first year you may have a 'safe harbor'; if you also have income from an employer (reported on W-2, with withholding) and that withholding is sufficent to pay last year's tax, then you are exempt from the 'underpayment' penalty for this year. If you elect corporation status then the corporation (which is really just you) must always make timely payments of withheld amounts, according to one of several different schedules that may apply depending on the amounts; I believe it also must make estimated payments for its own liability, if any, but I'm not familiar with that part." }, { "docid": "536849", "title": "", "text": "\"I've done various side work over the years -- computer consulting, writing, and I briefly had a video game company -- so I've gone through most of this. Disclaimer: I have never been audited, which may mean that everything I put on my tax forms looked plausible to the IRS and so is probably at least generally right, but it also means that the IRS has never put their stamp of approval on my tax forms. So that said ... 1: You do not need to form an LLC to be able to claim business expenses. Whether you have any expenses or not, you will have to complete a schedule C. On this form are places for expenses in various categories. Note that the categories are the most common type of expenses, there's an \"\"other\"\" space if you have something different. If you have any property that is used both for the business and also for personal use, you must calculate a business use percentage. For example if you bought a new printer and 60% of the time you use it for the business and 40% of the time you use it for personal stuff, then 60% of the cost is tax deductible. In general the IRS expects you to calculate the percentage based on amount of time used for business versus personal, though you are allowed to use other allocation formulas. Like for a printer I think you'd get away with number of pages printed for each. But if the business use is not 100%, you must keep records to justify the percentage. You can't just say, \"\"Oh, I think business use must have been about 3/4 of the time.\"\" You have to have a log where you write down every time you use it and whether it was business or personal. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of business use of cars and computers, because these are things that are readily used for personal purposes. If you own a copper mine and you buy a mine-boring machine, odds are you aren't going to take that home to dig shafts in your backyard. But a computer can easily be used to play video games or send emails to friends and relatives and lots of things that have nothing to do with a business. So if you're going to claim a computer or a car, be prepared to justify it. You can claim office use of your home if you have one or more rooms or designated parts of a room that are used \"\"regularly and exclusively\"\" for business purposes. That is, if you turn the family room into an office, you can claim home office expenses. But if, like me, you sit on the couch to work but at other times you sit on the couch to watch TV, then the space is not used \"\"exclusively\"\" for business purposes. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of home office deductions. I've never tried to claim it. It's legal, just make sure you have all your ducks in a row if you claim it. Skip 2 for the moment. 3: Yes, you must pay taxes on your business income. If you have not created an LLC or a corporation, then your business income is added to your wage income to calculate your taxes. That is, if you made, say, $50,000 salary working for somebody else and $10,000 on your side business, then your total income is $60,000 and that's what you pay taxes on. The total amount you pay in income taxes will be the same regardless of whether 90% came from salary and 10% from the side business or the other way around. The rates are the same, it's just one total number. If the withholding on your regular paycheck is not enough to cover the total taxes that you will have to pay, then you are required by law to pay estimated taxes quarterly to make up the difference. If you don't, you will be required to pay penalties, so you don't want to skip on this. Basically you are supposed to be withholding from yourself and sending this in to the government. It's POSSIBLE that this won't be an issue. If you're used to getting a big refund, and the refund is more than what the tax on your side business will come to, then you might end up still getting a refund, just a smaller one. But you don't want to guess about this. Get the tax forms and figure out the numbers. I think -- and please don't rely on this, check on it -- that the law says that you don't pay a penalty if the total tax that was withheld from your paycheck plus the amount you paid in estimated payments is more than the tax you owed last year. So like lets say that this year -- just to make up some numbers -- your employer withheld $4,000 from your paychecks. At the end of the year you did your taxes and they came to $3,000, so you got a $1,000 refund. This year your employer again withholds $4,000 and you paid $0 in estimated payments. Your total tax on your salary plus your side business comes to $4,500. You owe $500, but you won't have to pay a penalty, because the $4,000 withheld is more than the $3,000 that you owed last year. But if next year you again don't make estimated payment, so you again have $4,000 withheld plus $0 estimated and then you owe $5,000 in taxes, you will have to pay a penalty, because your withholding was less than what you owed last year. To you had paid $500 in estimated payments, you'd be okay. You'd still owe $500, but you wouldn't owe a penalty, because your total payments were more than the previous year's liability. Clear as mud? Don't forget that you probably will also owe state income tax. If you have a local income tax, you'll owe that too. Scott-McP mentioned self-employment tax. You'll owe that, too. Note that self-employment tax is different from income tax. Self employment tax is just social security tax on self-employed people. You're probably used to seeing the 7-whatever-percent it is these days withheld from your paycheck. That's really only half your social security tax, the other half is not shown on your pay stub because it is not subtracted from your salary. If you're self-employed, you have to pay both halves, or about 15%. You file a form SE with your income taxes to declare it. 4: If you pay your quarterly estimated taxes, well the point of \"\"estimated\"\" taxes is that it's supposed to be close to the amount that you will actually owe next April 15. So if you get it at least close, then you shouldn't owe a lot of money in April. (I usually try to arrange my taxes so that I get a modest refund -- don't loan the government a lot of money, but don't owe anything April 15 either.) Once you take care of any business expenses and taxes, what you do with the rest of the money is up to you, right? Though if you're unsure of how to spend it, let me know and I'll send you the address of my kids' colleges and you can donate it to their tuition fund. I think this would be a very worthy and productive use of your money. :-) Back to #2. I just recently acquired a financial advisor. I can't say what a good process for finding one is. This guy is someone who goes to my church and who hijacked me after Bible study one day to make his sales pitch. But I did talk to him about his fees, and what he told me was this: If I have enough money in an investment account, then he gets a commission from the investment company for bringing the business to them, and that's the total compensation he gets from me. That commission comes out of the management fees they charge, and those management fees are in the same ballpark as the fees I was paying for private investment accounts, so basically he is not costing me anything. He's getting his money from the kickbacks. He said that if I had not had enough accumulated assets, he would have had to charge me an hourly fee. I didn't ask how much that was. Whew, hadn't meant to write such a long answer!\"" }, { "docid": "499864", "title": "", "text": "\"I have a related issue, since I have some income which is large enough to matter and hard to predict. Start with a best guess. Check what tax bracket you were in last year and withhold that percentage of the expected non-withheld income. Adjust upward a bit, if desired, to reflect the fact that you're getting paid more at the new job. Adjust again, either up or down, to reflect whether you were over-withheld or under-withheld last year (whether the IRS owed you a refund or you had to send a check with your return). Repeat that process next year after next tax season, when you see how well your guess worked out. (You could try pre-calculating the entire tax return based on your expected income and then divide any underpayment into per-paycheck additional withholding... but I don't think it's worth the effort.) I don't worry about trying to get this exactly correct. I don't stress about lost interest if I've over-withheld a bit, and as long as your withholding was reasonably close and you have the cash float available to send them a check for the rest when it comes due, the IRS generally doesn't grumble if your withholding was a bit low. (It would be really nice if the IRS paid us interest on over-withholding, to mirror the fact that they charge us interest if we're late in returning our forms. Oh well.) Despite all the stories, the IRS really is fairly reasonable; if you aren't deliberately trying to get away with something, the process is annoying but shouldn't be scary. The one time they mail-audited me, it was several thousand dollars in my favor; I'd forgotten to claim some investment losses, and their computers noticed the error. Though I still say the motto of the next revolution will be \"\"No taxation without proper instructions!\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "53496", "title": "", "text": "First, if you haven't seen it yet, check out the IRS Taxpayer Advocate Service's I Don't Have My Refund page. It discusses different things that can go wrong with receiving your refund and what to do about it. From your post, it sounds like you've tried all of the normal things to do, and you've tried calling in to the IRS. What you might not know is that there are local IRS offices that you can visit and talk to a real person face-to-face. Hopefully, you'll find someone helpful there who can either explain to you what is going on or put you in touch with someone who can help. To find your local IRS office, go to the Contact Your Local IRS Office page and click on the Office Locator button. Office visits are generally by appointment only, so you'll need to call the number for the office you want to visit and make an appointment. Alternatively, if you can't get anywhere with the IRS, you could contact the Taxpayer Advocate Service, which is an independent organization within the IRS that exists to help people with disputes with the IRS, and they have an office in every state. You could try contacting them and seeing if they can help you with your issue. To answer your question about this year's tax return: At least for the federal return, your refund from last year does not really affect this year's tax return. You should be able to file this year's return no matter what happens with last year's refund. That having been said, you should get the refund matter straightened out as soon as you can. Good luck." }, { "docid": "494689", "title": "", "text": "Credit card, without a doubt. The reason is dispute resolution. If you dispute a charge on debit card - the money has left your account already, and if the dispute was accepted - you'll get it back. If. Eventually. In the mean time your overdraft will be missing $$$. For credit cards, you can catch a fraud action before the money actually leaves your pocket and dispute it then. In this case the charge is set aside, and you will only be required to actually pay if the dispute is rejected. I.e.: The money stays in your pocket, until the business proves that the charge is legit. In both cases, if the dispute is justified (i.e.: there was indeed a fraud) neither you nor the bank will lose money at the bottom line, it's just who's got the money during the dispute resolution process (which may be lengthy) that matters." }, { "docid": "168530", "title": "", "text": "\"I spent some time searching, and couldn't find the answer written explicitly in IRS regulations. What I did find was this chart from the irs showing that nonqualified distributions from a Roth 401k are pro-rated between contributions and earnings. It is well documented that you can't withdraw any money early or tax free (even contributions) from a Roth 401k (\"\"Designated Roth Account\"\" in IRS parlance) that has made any money. source You can do a direct rollover from a \"\"Designated Roth Account\"\" to a Roth IRA and the basis describing contributions vs. earnings is preserved. source And there is plenty of evidence showing you can withdraw contributions from a Roth IRA without penalty. source All that being said, I can't find anything from the IRS that says this is a legitimate strategy.\"" }, { "docid": "444899", "title": "", "text": "With a $40,000 payment there is a 100% chance that the owner will be claiming this as a business expense on their taxes. The IRS and the state will definitely know about it, and the risk of interest and penalties if it is not claimed as income make the best course of action to see a tax adviser. Because taxes will not be taken out by the property owner, the tax payer should also make sure that the estimated $10,000 in federal taxes, if they are in the 25% tax bracket, doesn't trigger other tax issues that could result in penalties, or the need to file quarterly taxes next year. This kind of extra income could also result in a change or an elimination of a health care subsidy. A unexpected mid-year change could trigger the need to refund the subsidy received this year via the tax form next April." }, { "docid": "299724", "title": "", "text": "There is the underpayment penalty, and of course the general risk of any balloon-style loan. While you think that you have enough self-discipline, you never know what may happen that may prevent you from having enough cash at hands to pay the accumulated tax at the end of the year. If you try to do more risky investments (trying to maximize the opportunity) you may lose some of the money, or have some other kind of emergency that may preempt the tax payment." }, { "docid": "521014", "title": "", "text": "If you do not need the money in the 401k right away and are interested in avoiding penalties on the amounts accumulated, roll over the 401k monies into a Roth IRA (your contributions and growth thereof) and a Traditional IRA (company match a d growth thereof). You can choose to take out money from the Traditional IRA not as a lump sum (penalties in addition to lots of income tax in the year of taking the distribution) but as series of equal payments over your life expectancy (no penalty but US income tax is still due each year). Be aware that he who rides a tiger cannot dismount: if you opt for this method, you must take a distribution every year whether you need the money or not, and the amount of the distribution must match what the IRS wants you to take exactly; excess withdrawals lead to penalties etc. Publication 590 says Annuity. You can receive distributions from your traditional IRA that are part of a series of substantially equal payments over your life (or your life expectancy), or over the lives (or the joint life expectancies) of you and your beneficiary, without having to pay the 10% additional tax, even if you receive such distributions before you are age 59.5. You must use an IRS-approved distribution method and you must take at least one distribution annually for this exception to apply. The “required minimum distribution method,” when used for this purpose, results in the exact amount required to be distributed, not the minimum amount. Be aware that, depending on your country of residence/citizenship, you may be required to close all foreign accounts within x months of return, and if so, this stratagem will not work." }, { "docid": "535207", "title": "", "text": "\"Did I do anything wrong by cashing a check made out to \"\"trustee of <401k plan> FBO \"\", and if so how can I fix it? I thought I was just getting a termination payout of the balance. Yes, you did. It was not made to you, and you were not supposed to even be able to cash it. Both you and your bank made a mistake - you made a mistake by depositing a check that doesn't belong to you, and the bank made a mistake by allowing you to deposit a check that is not made out to you to your personal account. How do I handle the taxes I owe on the payout, given that I had a tax-free 1099 two years ago and no 1099 now? It was not tax free two years ago. It would have been tax free if you would forward it to the entity to which the check was intended - since that would not be you. But you didn't do that. As such, there was no withdrawal two years ago, and I believe the 401k plan is wrong to claim otherwise. You did however take the money out in 2014, and it is fully taxable to you, including penalties. You should probably talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). My personal (and unprofessional) opinion is that you didn't withdraw the money in 2012 since the check was not made out to you and the recipient never got it. You did withdraw money in 2014 since that's when you actually got the money (even if by mistake). As such, I'd report this withdrawal on the 2014 tax return. However, as I said, I'm not a professional and not licensed to provide tax advice, so this is my opinion only. I strongly suggest you talk to a licensed tax adviser to get a proper opinion and guidance on the matter. If it is determined that the withdrawal was indeed in 2012, then you'll have to amend the 2012 tax return, report the additional income and pay the additional tax (+interest and probably underpayment penalty).\"" }, { "docid": "442146", "title": "", "text": "Yes, you can send in a 2012 1040-ES form with a check to cover your tax liability. However, you will likely have to pay penalties for not paying tax in timely fashion as well as interest on the late payment. You can have the IRS figure the penalty and bill you for it, or you can complete Form 2210 (on which these matters are figured out) yourself and file it with your Form 1040. The long version of Form 2210 often results in the smallest extra amount due but is considerably more time-consuming to complete correctly. Alternatively, if you or your wife have one or more paychecks coming before the end of 2012, it might be possible to file a new W-4 form with the HR Department with a request to withhold additional amounts as Federal income tax. I say might because if the last paycheck of the year will be issued in just a few days' time, it might already have been sent for processing, and HR might tell you it is too late. But, depending on the take-home pay, it might be possible to have the entire $2000 withheld as additional income tax instead of sending in a 1040-ES. The advantage of doing it through withholding is that you are allowed to treat the entire withholding for 2012 as satisfying the timely filing requirements. So, no penalty for late payment even though you had a much bigger chunk withheld in December, and no interest due either. If you do use this approach, remember that Form W-4 applies until it is replaced with another, and so HR will continue to withhold the extra amount on your January paychecks as well. So, file a new W-4 in January to get back to normal withholding. (Fix the extra exemption too so the problem does not recur in 2013)." } ]

[ { "docid": "46737", "title": "", "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.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "300254", "title": "", "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" }, { "docid": "500403", "title": "", "text": "Not illegal. With respect to littleadv response, the printing of a check isn't illegal. I can order checks from cheap check printers, and they have no relationship to any bank, so long as they have my routing number and checking account number, they print. Years ago (25+) I wrote my account details on a shirt in protest to owing the IRS money, and my bank cashed it. They charged a penalty of some nominal amount, $20 or so for 'non-standard check format' or something like that. But, in fact, stupid young person rants aside, you may write a check out by hand on a piece of paper and it should clear. The missing factor is the magnetic ink. But, I often see a regular check with a strip taped to the bottom when the mag strip fails, proving that bad ink will not prevent a check from clearing. So long as the person trying to send you the funds isn't going to dispute the transaction (and the check is made out to you, so I suppose they couldn't even do that) this process should be simple. I see little to no risk so long as the image isn't intercepted along the way." }, { "docid": "223042", "title": "", "text": "The key for you this year (2015) be aggressive in paying the taxes quarterly so that you do not have to do the quarterly filings or pay penalties for owing too much in taxes in future years. The tax system has a safe harbor provision. If you have withheld or sent via the estimated quarterly taxes an amount equal to 100% of the previous years taxes then you are safe. That means that if you end to the IRS in 2015 an amount equal to 100% of your 2014 taxes then in April 2016 you can avoid the penalties. You should note that the required percentage is 110% for high income individual. Because you can never be sure about your side income, use your ability to adjust your W-4 to cover your taxes. You will know early in 2016 how much you need to cover via withholding, so make the adjustments. Yes the risk is what you over pay, but that may be what you need to do to avoid the quarterly filing requirements. From IRS PUB 17: If you owe additional tax for 2014, you may have to pay estimated tax for 2015. You can use the following general rule as a guide during the year to see if you will have enough withholding, or if you should increase your withholding or make estimated tax payments. General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2015 if both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2015, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2015 tax return, or 100% of the tax shown on your 2014 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2014 tax return must cover all 12 months. and Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2014 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2015 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2014 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty." }, { "docid": "53496", "title": "", "text": "First, if you haven't seen it yet, check out the IRS Taxpayer Advocate Service's I Don't Have My Refund page. It discusses different things that can go wrong with receiving your refund and what to do about it. From your post, it sounds like you've tried all of the normal things to do, and you've tried calling in to the IRS. What you might not know is that there are local IRS offices that you can visit and talk to a real person face-to-face. Hopefully, you'll find someone helpful there who can either explain to you what is going on or put you in touch with someone who can help. To find your local IRS office, go to the Contact Your Local IRS Office page and click on the Office Locator button. Office visits are generally by appointment only, so you'll need to call the number for the office you want to visit and make an appointment. Alternatively, if you can't get anywhere with the IRS, you could contact the Taxpayer Advocate Service, which is an independent organization within the IRS that exists to help people with disputes with the IRS, and they have an office in every state. You could try contacting them and seeing if they can help you with your issue. To answer your question about this year's tax return: At least for the federal return, your refund from last year does not really affect this year's tax return. You should be able to file this year's return no matter what happens with last year's refund. That having been said, you should get the refund matter straightened out as soon as you can. Good luck." }, { "docid": "174335", "title": "", "text": "\"This question had better be asked of the 401k plan administrator rather than here. The plan document that you received when you began participating undoubtedly has a page or more of definitions of the terms used in the contract, and especially so if the meanings are nonstandard. For example, one would expect that a Final Distribution leaves a balance of $0 in the 401k account and so a \"\"per distribution\"\" fee is meaningless in the context of Final Distribution. As the post by mbhunter indicates, withdrawal and distribution seem to be used interchangeably in IRS documents, and so there probably is a nonstandard meaning assigned to these terms in the 401k document. Three possible nonstandard meanings of these two words come to mind. Withdrawal = at the request of the participant, and Distribution = as required by law, e.g. required minimum distribution Withdrawal = anything before age 59.5 or before termination of employment and Distribution = anything after age 59.5 or after termination of employment Withdrawal = anything on which the 10% excise tax for premature distributions must be paid, or anything that is not eligible for rollover into another tax-deferred account and Distribution = anything on which the 10% excise tax does not need to be paid. But all the above is just idle speculation, and what matters is the plan document's definitions of these terms, and that can be determined only if you read your 401k plan document yourself. Reliance on the answers given by the employer's HR department, or the plan administrator, as to what the plan document says might or might not be advisable: even the IRS has been known to give out incorrect information. In general, money cannot be withdrawn from a 401k plan and rolled over (or transferred via a trustee-to-trustee transfer) into another tax-deferred plan while the participant is still employed by the sponsor of the 401k plan. Since most 401k plans have poor investment choices and excessive administrator fees, reflect that absent this prohibition, most people would with roll over money from their 401ks into their IRAs as often as feasible. You can withdraw money from a 401k account without paying the 10% excise tax for several reasons (including financial needs of various specified kinds), but you cannot then change your mind and put that money into your IRA, telling the IRA custodian that it is a rollover from the 401k. To do so will not just trigger the 10% excise tax on premature distributions from a 401k account, but you will also need to pay penalties for excess contributions to your IRA.\"" }, { "docid": "123531", "title": "", "text": "To be fair, Inland Revenue has options here. They don't have to accept this transfer pricing scheme Starbucks has come up with to funnel their profits to, almost certainly, some overseas tax haven. I work with the Treasury team at a large British multinational pharma company in Japan. There are constant disputes between Inland Revenue and the IRS and the Japanese NTA and the British, Japanese and U.S. companies over what is an appropriate or inappropriate level of royalty for patents and trademarks owned by the three and licensed back and forth." }, { "docid": "126007", "title": "", "text": "&gt;According to the IRS, penalties and fines are only non-deductible when they are paid for actual violations of laws/regulations. That's not quite correct. Section 162(f) says [bolding is mine]: &gt;No deduction shall be allowed under subsection (a) for any fine or similar penalty **paid to a government** for the violation of any law. That means they can only claim a deduction on the portion of the fine that isn't paid to the US government. I'm doing a little research to see if I can find out what the dealy-o is." }, { "docid": "591495", "title": "", "text": "\"Your 401K (and IRA) is a legally distinct entity from yourself. In fact, it is a \"\"trust,\"\" and your Administrator is a \"\"trustee,\"\" while you are both creator and benefactor. This fact, and the 10% early withdrawal penalty, makes it immune from most judgments. The IRS can \"\"levy\"\" your 401K or IRA for back taxes, but must waive the 10% penalty (under the 1997 Tax Reform law). That gives them the power to do what most others can't. A \"\"tricky\"\" banker may persuade you to take money out of your 401K to pay the bank. If you do, s/he has won. But s/he can't go after your 401k.\"" }, { "docid": "568324", "title": "", "text": "Because the question puts moral obligations aside, I'll answer from the practical point of view. There are two reasons for declaring side income, even cash income. If you buy a house in a year or two, the additional income will help qualify you for a mortgage. The IRS has ways to discover that you earned the money. a. A client might be audited. If the client deducts the cost of your services from their income, they could be asked for proof that they paid you. Suppose they saved ATM receipts that show the withdrawals of cash used to pay you, and kept records that document the dates they paid you. The IRS might want to ask you if you were paid by the client on those dates, and how much. The asking might be in the form of an audit, and you'd have to lie to the IRS to avoid penalty. b. A client might develop a grudge against you and report you to the IRS. Someone could do this even if they don't know for sure that you don't declare the income. If you were interviewed or audited, you'd have to lie to the IRS to avoid penalty. c. You could fall prey to an algorithm. There might be one that compares deductions and income. If you run a crazy-high ratio year after year, you could be flagged for audit. Once again, you'd have to lie to avoid penalty." }, { "docid": "257443", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "388713", "title": "", "text": "As a new (very!) small business, the IRS has lots of advice and information for you. Start at https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed and be sure you have several pots of coffee or other appropriate aid against somnolence. By default a single-member LLC is 'disregarded' for tax purposes (at least for Federal, and generally states follow Federal although I don't know Mass. specifically), although it does have other effects. If you go this route you simply include the business income and expenses on Schedule C as part of your individual return on 1040, and the net SE income is included along with your other income (if any) in computing your tax. TurboTax or similar software should handle this for you, although you may need a premium version that costs a little more. You can 'elect' to have the LLC taxed as a corporation by filing form 8832, see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/limited-liability-company-llc . In principle you are supposed to do this when the entity is 'formed', but in practice AIUI if you do it by the end of the year they won't care at all, and if you do it after the end of the year but before or with your first affected return you qualify for automatic 'relief'. However, deciding how to divide the business income/profits into 'reasonable pay' to yourself versus 'dividends' is more complicated, and filling out corporation tax returns in addition to your individual return (which is still required) is more work, in addition to the work and cost of filing and reporting the LLC itself to your state of choice. Unless/until you make something like $50k-100k a year this probably isn't worth it. 1099 Reporting. Stripe qualifies as a 'payment network' and under a recent law payment networks must annually report to IRS (and copy to you) on form 1099-K if your account exceeds certain thresholds; see https://support.stripe.com/questions/will-i-receive-a-1099-k-and-what-do-i-do-with-it . Note you are still legally required to report and pay tax on your SE income even if you aren't covered by 1099-K (or other) reporting. Self-employment tax. As a self-employed person (if the LLC is disregarded) you have to pay 'SE' tax that is effectively equivalent to the 'FICA' taxes that would be paid by your employer and you as an employee combined. This is 12.4% for Social Security unless/until your total earned income exceeds a cap (for 2017 $127,200, adjusted yearly for inflation), and 2.9% for Medicare with no limit (plus 'Additional Medicare' tax if you exceed a higher threshold and it isn't 'repealed and replaced'). If the LLC elects corporation status it has to pay you reasonable wages for your services, and withhold+pay FICA on those wages like any other employer. Estimated payments. You are required to pay most of your individual income tax, and SE tax if applicable, during the year (generally 90% of your tax or your tax minus $1,000 whichever is less). Most wage-earners don't notice this because it happens automatically through payroll withholding, but as self-employed you are responsible for making sufficient and timely estimated payments, and will owe a penalty if you don't. However, since this is your first year you may have a 'safe harbor'; if you also have income from an employer (reported on W-2, with withholding) and that withholding is sufficent to pay last year's tax, then you are exempt from the 'underpayment' penalty for this year. If you elect corporation status then the corporation (which is really just you) must always make timely payments of withheld amounts, according to one of several different schedules that may apply depending on the amounts; I believe it also must make estimated payments for its own liability, if any, but I'm not familiar with that part." }, { "docid": "154839", "title": "", "text": "Conversion of after-tax 401K into a Roth is known (on Bogleheads for instance) as a Mega Backdoor Roth IRA. Recent tax rulings seem to allow for this kind of transfer more cleanly. After conversions, the money is treated as a normal Roth - you don't pay any taxes or penalties on contributions. For investment earnings, the Roth IRA has the standard five-year rule: most commonly - you must hold the account for five years and be 59.5 years old (there are other criteria). Otherwise, you may pay taxes plus a 10% penalty on the earnings portion of your distribution. There are other reasons you can withdraw early - spelled out in IRS Publication 590B Figure 2-1." }, { "docid": "38046", "title": "", "text": "I think the issue would be that Wachovia/Wells Fargo who converted the Traditional IRA to a Roth IRA has told the IRS that you did the conversion, and so the IRS will want taxes on the money that came out of the Traditional IRA. You need to get Wells Fargo to issue a corrected 1099-R saying that it was a Roth to Roth roll-over, and possibly get a corrected 5498 for 2011 showing that the Wachovia Roth was converted to a Wells Fargo Roth. Else, the IRS might want an excise tax for a premature withdrawal from your Wachovia Roth, and assess penalties for excess contributions to a Traditional IRA in 2011 when the erroneous conversion was made, because to them it might look like you withdrew money from a Roth IRA, and made an excessive contribution to a Traditional IRA." }, { "docid": "487638", "title": "", "text": "\"Would I only have to pay regular taxes plus the excess contribution tax on any contributions? Yes, you'll pay regular taxes plus the excess contribution taxes on the contributions until you withdraw. So what would be your gain in doing this? The whole point in HSA is to use pre-tax money for medical expenses, and you're not only going to use post-tax money - you'll pay extra tax for doing that (6% for each year the contribution remains in the account). Are you trying to get the \"\"employer match\"\" in this way? Maybe just ask for a raise instead? Would this cause problems for my employer in any way? Not sure, but it might. Is it possible to simply receive funds in my HSA even though I am not eligible, and then transfer them to his HSA to avoid any penalties? No, HSA is a personal account. You can pay for dependents, but you can't move money between the accounts. You can roll over to your own account. See the IRS publication 969 for more details.\"" }, { "docid": "583321", "title": "", "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.\"" }, { "docid": "507077", "title": "", "text": "\"If you don't withhold enough you'll pay penalties. The best would be to withhold just enough not to have any additional liabilities or refunds at the end of the year. IRS gives you some space to play in case you miscalculate and withhold a little bit less (they'll \"\"look the other way\"\" if you end up withholding up to as low as 90% of your tax liability). Anything below that triggers penalties, interests and fees. IRS pub 505 for details.\"" }, { "docid": "449001", "title": "", "text": "There are too many nuances to the question asked to explore fully but here are a few points to keep in mind. If you are a cash-basis taxpayer (most individuals are), then you are not required to pay taxes on the money that has been billed but not received as yet. If you operate on an accrual basis, then the income accrues to you the day you perform the service and not on the day you bill the client. You can make four equal payments of estimated tax on the due dates, and if these (together with any income tax withholding from wage-paying jobs) are at least 90% of your tax liability for that year, then you owe no penalties for underpayment of tax regardless of how your income varied over the year. If your income does vary considerably over the year (even for people who only have wages but who invest in mutual funds, the income can vary quite a bit since mutual funds typically declare dividends and capital gains in December), then you can pay different amounts in each quarterly installment of estimated tax. This is called the annualization method (a part of Form 2210 that is best avoided unless you really need to use it). Your annualized income for the payment due on June 15 is 2.4 = 12/5 times your taxable income through May 31. Thus, on Form 2210, you are allowed to assume that your average monthly taxable income through May 31 will continue for the rest of the year. You then compute the tax due on that annualized income and you are supposed to have paid at least 45% of that amount by June 15. Similarly for September 15 for which you look at income through August 31, you use a multiplier of 1.5 = 12/8 and need to pay 67.5% of the tax on the annualized income, and so on. If you miscalculate these numbers and pay too little tax in any installment, then you owe penalties for that quarter. Most people find that guesstimating the tax due for the entire year and paying it in equal installments is simpler than keeping track of nuances of the annualized method. Even simpler is to pay 100% of last year's tax in four equal installments (110% for high earners) and then no penalty is due at all. If your business is really taking off and your income is going to be substantially higher in one year, then this 100%/110% of last year's tax deal could allow you to postpone a significant chunk of your tax bill till April 15." }, { "docid": "400631", "title": "", "text": "\"Be mindful of your reporting requirements. Besides checking the box on Schedule B of your 1040 that you have a foreign bank account, you also need to file a TD F 90-22.1 FBAR report for any year that the total of all foreign bank accounts reaches a value of $10,000 at any time during the year. This is filed separately from your 1040 by June 30 of the following year. Penalties for violating this reporting requirement are draconian, in some cases exceeding the amount of money in the foreign bank account. This penalty has been levied on people who have been reporting and paying tax on the interest on their foreign bank accounts, and merely neglected this separate report filing. Article on the \"\"shoot the jaywalker\"\" punitive enforcement policy. http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/006866.php Mariette IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law. EDITED TO ADD\"" }, { "docid": "128451", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes you can do the withdraw if you turned 55 during the year you separated from service. http://www.401khelpcenter.com/401k_education/Early_Dist_Options.html#.VdMrqPlVhBc Leaving Your Job On or After Age 55 The age 59½ distribution rule says any 401k participant may begin to withdraw money from his or her plan after reaching the age of 59½ without having to pay a 10 percent early withdrawal penalty. There is an exception to that rule, however, which allows an employee who retires, quits or is fired at age 55 to withdraw without penalty from their 401k (the \"\"rule of 55\"\"). There are three key points early retirees need to know. First, this exception applies if you leave your job at any time during the calendar year in which you turn 55, or later, according to IRS Publication 575. Second, if you still have money in the plan of a former employer and assuming you weren't at least age 55 when you left that employer, you'll have to wait until age 59½ to start taking withdrawals without penalty. Better yet, get any old 401k's rolled into your current 401k before you retire from your current job so that you will have access to these funds penalty free. Third, this exception only applies to funds withdrawn from a 401k. IRAs operate until different rules, so if you retire and roll money into an IRA from your 401k before age 59½, you will lose this exception on those dollars.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "314455", "title": "", "text": "didn't pay the extra underpayment penalty on the grounds that it was an honest mistake. You seem to think a penalty applies only when the IRS thinks you were trying to cheat the system. That's not the case. A mistake (honest or otherwise) still can imply a penalty. While you can appeal just about anything, on any grounds you like, it's unlikely you will prevail." } ]

[ { "docid": "336272", "title": "", "text": "1) Document that you held the bitcoins for more than one year. This should not be particularly difficult. Since you haven't moved the bitcoins, you hold the key to an address that has held them for more than one year. While this isn't absolute proof, it should be sufficient. 2) Since you can't document how you bought them easily, you can just assume a tax basis of zero. This will mean you will pay microscopically more in taxes, but don't worry about it. 3) Sign up with an exchange that can handle your sales. Coinbase will work if you want to sell it slowly. Gemini will work if you want to sell more quickly. 4) Get a decent, secure bitcoin wallet. Transfer the bitcoins to the exchange only as you're selling them. Make you first sale fairly small just in case something goes wrong. 5) Keep meticulous notes about each sale -- the date of the sale, the number of bitcoins you sold, and the number of dollars you got. 6) Make sure to keep enough money for taxes. In Michigan, 24.3% would be the highest possible tax rate you might have to pay if you sold a lot or had high income otherwise. 7) Either get a professional to file your taxes for you or learn how to correctly report long-term capital gains. You must report each individual sale. You may get audited or investigated, but there's nothing to find. The bitcoins have been in stasis for a long time, and it's completely plausible that you bought them and held them. If you can find any proof you bought them (such as a transfer to an exchange) that would be great, but it's not essential. Many people have this same story and unless you're connected to something illegal, you probably don't have anything to worry about. Congratulations! So thats my question, what steps do I need to take to declare this money and obtain it without getting arrested / investigated? There's nothing special you need to do other than keep very good documentation. When you file your taxes, you will need to declare each sale. (This answer assumes that you didn't have a lot of income last year and significantly less income this year. If that's the case, you may have to pay estimated taxes to avoid a penalty. But that penalty is very small and will be calculated by the IRS for you automatically. So I wouldn't worry about it.) You may wish to read up on gift taxes to understand how they work. You won't owe any, but you may need to file paperwork with the IRS if you give large gifts (over $14,000) to people and you will use up some of your lifetime exemption. Keep records of any gifts you give." }, { "docid": "300254", "title": "", "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" }, { "docid": "388713", "title": "", "text": "As a new (very!) small business, the IRS has lots of advice and information for you. Start at https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed and be sure you have several pots of coffee or other appropriate aid against somnolence. By default a single-member LLC is 'disregarded' for tax purposes (at least for Federal, and generally states follow Federal although I don't know Mass. specifically), although it does have other effects. If you go this route you simply include the business income and expenses on Schedule C as part of your individual return on 1040, and the net SE income is included along with your other income (if any) in computing your tax. TurboTax or similar software should handle this for you, although you may need a premium version that costs a little more. You can 'elect' to have the LLC taxed as a corporation by filing form 8832, see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/limited-liability-company-llc . In principle you are supposed to do this when the entity is 'formed', but in practice AIUI if you do it by the end of the year they won't care at all, and if you do it after the end of the year but before or with your first affected return you qualify for automatic 'relief'. However, deciding how to divide the business income/profits into 'reasonable pay' to yourself versus 'dividends' is more complicated, and filling out corporation tax returns in addition to your individual return (which is still required) is more work, in addition to the work and cost of filing and reporting the LLC itself to your state of choice. Unless/until you make something like $50k-100k a year this probably isn't worth it. 1099 Reporting. Stripe qualifies as a 'payment network' and under a recent law payment networks must annually report to IRS (and copy to you) on form 1099-K if your account exceeds certain thresholds; see https://support.stripe.com/questions/will-i-receive-a-1099-k-and-what-do-i-do-with-it . Note you are still legally required to report and pay tax on your SE income even if you aren't covered by 1099-K (or other) reporting. Self-employment tax. As a self-employed person (if the LLC is disregarded) you have to pay 'SE' tax that is effectively equivalent to the 'FICA' taxes that would be paid by your employer and you as an employee combined. This is 12.4% for Social Security unless/until your total earned income exceeds a cap (for 2017 $127,200, adjusted yearly for inflation), and 2.9% for Medicare with no limit (plus 'Additional Medicare' tax if you exceed a higher threshold and it isn't 'repealed and replaced'). If the LLC elects corporation status it has to pay you reasonable wages for your services, and withhold+pay FICA on those wages like any other employer. Estimated payments. You are required to pay most of your individual income tax, and SE tax if applicable, during the year (generally 90% of your tax or your tax minus $1,000 whichever is less). Most wage-earners don't notice this because it happens automatically through payroll withholding, but as self-employed you are responsible for making sufficient and timely estimated payments, and will owe a penalty if you don't. However, since this is your first year you may have a 'safe harbor'; if you also have income from an employer (reported on W-2, with withholding) and that withholding is sufficent to pay last year's tax, then you are exempt from the 'underpayment' penalty for this year. If you elect corporation status then the corporation (which is really just you) must always make timely payments of withheld amounts, according to one of several different schedules that may apply depending on the amounts; I believe it also must make estimated payments for its own liability, if any, but I'm not familiar with that part." }, { "docid": "352136", "title": "", "text": "First of all, consult an accountant who is familiar with tax laws and online businesses. While most accountants know tax laws, fewer know how to handle online income like you describe although the number is growing. Right now, since you're a minor, this complicates things a bit. That's why you'll need a tax accountant to come up with the best business structure to use. You'll need to keep your own records to estimate your quarterly taxes. At the amount you're making, you'll want to do this since you'll pay a substantial penalty at the end of the year if you don't. You can use a small business accounting software package for this or just track everything using Excel or the like. As long as taxes are paid, you won't go to jail. But you need to pay them along with any penalties by April 15, 2013. If you don't do this, then the IRS will want to have a 'discussion' with you." }, { "docid": "407316", "title": "", "text": "\"As long as you paid 100% of your last year's tax liability (overall tax liability, the total tax to pay on your 1040) or 90% of the total tax liability this year, or your underpayment is no more than $1000, you won't be penalized as long as you pay the difference by April 15th. That's per the IRS. I don't know where the \"\"10% of my income\"\" came from, I'm not aware of any such rule.\"" }, { "docid": "568324", "title": "", "text": "Because the question puts moral obligations aside, I'll answer from the practical point of view. There are two reasons for declaring side income, even cash income. If you buy a house in a year or two, the additional income will help qualify you for a mortgage. The IRS has ways to discover that you earned the money. a. A client might be audited. If the client deducts the cost of your services from their income, they could be asked for proof that they paid you. Suppose they saved ATM receipts that show the withdrawals of cash used to pay you, and kept records that document the dates they paid you. The IRS might want to ask you if you were paid by the client on those dates, and how much. The asking might be in the form of an audit, and you'd have to lie to the IRS to avoid penalty. b. A client might develop a grudge against you and report you to the IRS. Someone could do this even if they don't know for sure that you don't declare the income. If you were interviewed or audited, you'd have to lie to the IRS to avoid penalty. c. You could fall prey to an algorithm. There might be one that compares deductions and income. If you run a crazy-high ratio year after year, you could be flagged for audit. Once again, you'd have to lie to avoid penalty." }, { "docid": "283374", "title": "", "text": "The W4 specifies withholding for income taxes, FICA taxes are not impacted. The tax withholding is do that you do not need to make estimated tax payments. Failing to make sufficient quarterly estimated tax payments or withholding a sufficient amount could result in you being hit with under payment penalties but nothing more. The under payment penalties will be figured out as part of you income tax return. What you should have done when you discovered this was use the extra withholding line on the W4 to further increase your withholding. The nice thing about withholding is that you back load it and the IRS does not care. The company has no liability here. It is your responsibility to update them when your personal circumstances change. You will be fully responsible for the tax bill. There is no company paid portion of your income tax so they are not impacted. The company only pays an employer share of FICA and that is not impacted by how you fill out the W4. First thing to do is figure out how much you owe the IRS. Then determine if you can pay it or if you need to investigate an installment option. In any case make sure to file your return on time." }, { "docid": "444899", "title": "", "text": "With a $40,000 payment there is a 100% chance that the owner will be claiming this as a business expense on their taxes. The IRS and the state will definitely know about it, and the risk of interest and penalties if it is not claimed as income make the best course of action to see a tax adviser. Because taxes will not be taken out by the property owner, the tax payer should also make sure that the estimated $10,000 in federal taxes, if they are in the 25% tax bracket, doesn't trigger other tax issues that could result in penalties, or the need to file quarterly taxes next year. This kind of extra income could also result in a change or an elimination of a health care subsidy. A unexpected mid-year change could trigger the need to refund the subsidy received this year via the tax form next April." }, { "docid": "174335", "title": "", "text": "\"This question had better be asked of the 401k plan administrator rather than here. The plan document that you received when you began participating undoubtedly has a page or more of definitions of the terms used in the contract, and especially so if the meanings are nonstandard. For example, one would expect that a Final Distribution leaves a balance of $0 in the 401k account and so a \"\"per distribution\"\" fee is meaningless in the context of Final Distribution. As the post by mbhunter indicates, withdrawal and distribution seem to be used interchangeably in IRS documents, and so there probably is a nonstandard meaning assigned to these terms in the 401k document. Three possible nonstandard meanings of these two words come to mind. Withdrawal = at the request of the participant, and Distribution = as required by law, e.g. required minimum distribution Withdrawal = anything before age 59.5 or before termination of employment and Distribution = anything after age 59.5 or after termination of employment Withdrawal = anything on which the 10% excise tax for premature distributions must be paid, or anything that is not eligible for rollover into another tax-deferred account and Distribution = anything on which the 10% excise tax does not need to be paid. But all the above is just idle speculation, and what matters is the plan document's definitions of these terms, and that can be determined only if you read your 401k plan document yourself. Reliance on the answers given by the employer's HR department, or the plan administrator, as to what the plan document says might or might not be advisable: even the IRS has been known to give out incorrect information. In general, money cannot be withdrawn from a 401k plan and rolled over (or transferred via a trustee-to-trustee transfer) into another tax-deferred plan while the participant is still employed by the sponsor of the 401k plan. Since most 401k plans have poor investment choices and excessive administrator fees, reflect that absent this prohibition, most people would with roll over money from their 401ks into their IRAs as often as feasible. You can withdraw money from a 401k account without paying the 10% excise tax for several reasons (including financial needs of various specified kinds), but you cannot then change your mind and put that money into your IRA, telling the IRA custodian that it is a rollover from the 401k. To do so will not just trigger the 10% excise tax on premature distributions from a 401k account, but you will also need to pay penalties for excess contributions to your IRA.\"" }, { "docid": "53496", "title": "", "text": "First, if you haven't seen it yet, check out the IRS Taxpayer Advocate Service's I Don't Have My Refund page. It discusses different things that can go wrong with receiving your refund and what to do about it. From your post, it sounds like you've tried all of the normal things to do, and you've tried calling in to the IRS. What you might not know is that there are local IRS offices that you can visit and talk to a real person face-to-face. Hopefully, you'll find someone helpful there who can either explain to you what is going on or put you in touch with someone who can help. To find your local IRS office, go to the Contact Your Local IRS Office page and click on the Office Locator button. Office visits are generally by appointment only, so you'll need to call the number for the office you want to visit and make an appointment. Alternatively, if you can't get anywhere with the IRS, you could contact the Taxpayer Advocate Service, which is an independent organization within the IRS that exists to help people with disputes with the IRS, and they have an office in every state. You could try contacting them and seeing if they can help you with your issue. To answer your question about this year's tax return: At least for the federal return, your refund from last year does not really affect this year's tax return. You should be able to file this year's return no matter what happens with last year's refund. That having been said, you should get the refund matter straightened out as soon as you can. Good luck." }, { "docid": "257443", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "360925", "title": "", "text": "With your income so high, your marginal tax rate should be pretty easy to determine. You are very likely in the 33% tax bracket (married filing jointly income range of $231,450 to $413,350), so your wife's additional income will effectively be taxed at 33% plus 15% for self-employment taxes. Rounding to 50% means you need to withhold $19,000 over the year (or slightly less depending on what business expenses you can deduct). You could use a similar calculation for CA state taxes. You can either just add this gross additional amount to your withholdings, or make an estimated tax payment every quarter. Any difference will be made up when you file your 2017 taxes. So long as you withhold 100% of your total tax liability from last year, you should not have any underpayment penalties." }, { "docid": "260998", "title": "", "text": "The 60 day pay back rule of a distribution your are referring to is a reportable IRS rule so you won't be able to circumvent that by opening your own company with its own 401K and borrowing the funds from there. Failure to accurately report to the IRS leads to fines and possible jail time. It's not advisable to withdraw from a retirement account but if you really need the money then you can move the funds to a Rollover IRA at the new broker/dealer, or custodian etc. Once you withdraw funds, the plan sponsor has to abide by a mandatory 20% tax withholding on the distribution, you'll be hit with a 10% tax penalty for early withdraw and you'll have to report the distribution as income when you file your personal income taxes. The move from a 401K to a Rollover however is legal and has no tax implications or penalties (besides possible closing fees at the old account) - that is until you decide to withdraw from it assuming you are under age 59 1/2. Regarding your last point, 401Ks are administered by 3rd parties. You wouldn't be opening up any accounts directly with them necessarily. Best advice? Get a Financial Advisor in your area. I recommend going with an advisor who is backed by independent broker-dealer. Independent broker dealers don't offer their own investment products therefore don't push their advisors to sell you their 'in-house' products like big banks. Here's a good article on using Rollover funds to start a venture: http://www.ehow.com/how_6789743_rollover-directed-ira-start-business.html Here is a resource guide direct from the IRS (you can CTRL+F for any specific topics) http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/401%28k%29-Resource-Guide---Plan-Participants---General-Distribution-Rules" }, { "docid": "594097", "title": "", "text": "How are these zoning laws enforced and drawn up? Who ensures they are properly followed? Who handles penalties when they are not followed? Who handles disputes when right-of-way issues come up? How is all this done while still maintaining the rights of those who actually live on the land and may not have massive bank accounts? How are all these people, doing things that actively get in the way of a business doing what it wants and is ultimately seen by those that just want to build something as a feckless bureaucracy, get paid?" }, { "docid": "434351", "title": "", "text": "You can and are supposed to report self-employment income on Schedule C (or C-EZ if eligible, which a programmer likely is) even when the payer isn't required to give you 1099-MISC (or 1099-K for a payment network now). From there, after deducting permitted expenses, it flows to 1040 (for income tax) and Schedule SE (for self-employment tax). See https://www.irs.gov/individuals/self-employed for some basics and lots of useful links. If this income is large enough your tax on it will be more than $1000, you may need to make quarterly estimated payments (OR if you also have a 'day job' have that employer increase your withholding) to avoid an underpayment penalty. But if this is the first year you have significant self-employment income (or other taxable but unwithheld income like realized capital gains) and your economic/tax situation is otherwise unchanged -- i.e. you have the same (or more) payroll income with the same (or more) withholding -- then there is a 'safe harbor': if your withholding plus estimated payments this year is too low to pay this year's tax but it is enough to pay last year's tax you escape the penalty. (You still need to pay the tax due, of course, so keep the funds available for that.) At the end of the first year when you prepare your return you will see how the numbers work out and can more easily do a good estimate for the following year(s). A single-member LLC or 'S' corp is usually disregarded for tax purposes, although you can elect otherwise, while a (traditional) 'C' corp is more complicated and AIUI out-of-scope for this Stack; see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/business-structures for more." }, { "docid": "499864", "title": "", "text": "\"I have a related issue, since I have some income which is large enough to matter and hard to predict. Start with a best guess. Check what tax bracket you were in last year and withhold that percentage of the expected non-withheld income. Adjust upward a bit, if desired, to reflect the fact that you're getting paid more at the new job. Adjust again, either up or down, to reflect whether you were over-withheld or under-withheld last year (whether the IRS owed you a refund or you had to send a check with your return). Repeat that process next year after next tax season, when you see how well your guess worked out. (You could try pre-calculating the entire tax return based on your expected income and then divide any underpayment into per-paycheck additional withholding... but I don't think it's worth the effort.) I don't worry about trying to get this exactly correct. I don't stress about lost interest if I've over-withheld a bit, and as long as your withholding was reasonably close and you have the cash float available to send them a check for the rest when it comes due, the IRS generally doesn't grumble if your withholding was a bit low. (It would be really nice if the IRS paid us interest on over-withholding, to mirror the fact that they charge us interest if we're late in returning our forms. Oh well.) Despite all the stories, the IRS really is fairly reasonable; if you aren't deliberately trying to get away with something, the process is annoying but shouldn't be scary. The one time they mail-audited me, it was several thousand dollars in my favor; I'd forgotten to claim some investment losses, and their computers noticed the error. Though I still say the motto of the next revolution will be \"\"No taxation without proper instructions!\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "101490", "title": "", "text": "I'm in a similar situation as I have a consulting business in addition to my regular IT job. I called the company who has my IRA to ask about setting up the Individual 401k and also mentioned that I contribute to my employer's 401k plan. The rep was glad I brought this up because he said the IRS has a limit on how much you can contribute to BOTH plans. For me it would be $24K max (myAge >= 50; If you are younger than 50, then the limit might be lower). He said the IRS penalties can be steep if you exceed the limit. I don't know if this is an issue for you, but it's something you need to consider. Be sure to ask your brokerage firm before you start the process." }, { "docid": "31699", "title": "", "text": "In reference to the original question: You put pretax (untaxed) money into an IRA. If this was a rollover from a company plan (like a 401k), your company may have also put pretax dollars in. As the account grows, you get gains on all of this money. The government gives you this amazing deal because they want you to save for retirement. But, they also want you to eventually spend the money in retirement and they want to collect those deferred taxes. So they require RMDs starting at age 70.5. To guarantee that people follow the rules, they make a stiff penalty for not doing so. The IRS has the option to forgive a forgotten RMD distribution penalty, if you can convince them that it was a true oversight and not a deliberate flouting of the rules." }, { "docid": "154839", "title": "", "text": "Conversion of after-tax 401K into a Roth is known (on Bogleheads for instance) as a Mega Backdoor Roth IRA. Recent tax rulings seem to allow for this kind of transfer more cleanly. After conversions, the money is treated as a normal Roth - you don't pay any taxes or penalties on contributions. For investment earnings, the Roth IRA has the standard five-year rule: most commonly - you must hold the account for five years and be 59.5 years old (there are other criteria). Otherwise, you may pay taxes plus a 10% penalty on the earnings portion of your distribution. There are other reasons you can withdraw early - spelled out in IRS Publication 590B Figure 2-1." } ]

[ { "docid": "342756", "title": "", "text": "\"The underpayment \"\"penalty\"\" is just interest on the late payments--willful or not has nothing to do with it. When they feel it's willful there will be additional penalties.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "15448", "title": "", "text": "When you take any money out of an HSA, you'll get a 1099-SA. HSAs work a little differently than a 401(k). With a 401(k), you aren't supposed to take any money out until retirement. HSAs, however, are spending accounts. I take money out of my HSA every year. As long as you spend the money you take out of your HSA on qualified medical expenses, there are no taxes or penalties due. The bank that holds your HSA doesn't know or care what you spend the money on; they will certainly allow you to empty your HSA account. Anything you take out will be reported to the IRS (and to you) on a 1099-SA. At tax time, along with your tax return, you send in a form 8889, on which you report to the IRS what you took out of HSA, and you also certify how much of that money was spent on medical expenses. If any of it was spent on something else, taxes and penalties are due." }, { "docid": "261003", "title": "", "text": "ADP does not know your full tax situation and while the standard exemption system (actually designed by the IRS not ADP) works fairly well for most people it is an approximation. This system is designed so most people will end up with a small refund while some people will end up owing small amounts. So, while it is possible that ADP has messed up the calculations it is unlikely this is the cause. The most likely cause is that approximation ends ups making you pay less tax during the year than you actually owe. A few people like your friend may end up owing large amounts due to various circumstances. It is always your responsibility to make sure you pay enough tax throughout the year. While this technically means that you need to do your taxes every quarter during the year to make sure you pay the correct tax during the year, for most people this ends up being unnecessary as the approximation works fine. It is possible the exemption system failed your friend, but much more commonly people owe penalties because they put the wrong number of exemptions or had other side income. On a related note, most people in finance would argue that your situation where you owe some money at tax time, but not so much that you have to pay a penalty, is actually the best way to go. Getting a tax refund actually means you paid more tax than you needed to. This is similar to giving an interest-free loan to the government." }, { "docid": "101490", "title": "", "text": "I'm in a similar situation as I have a consulting business in addition to my regular IT job. I called the company who has my IRA to ask about setting up the Individual 401k and also mentioned that I contribute to my employer's 401k plan. The rep was glad I brought this up because he said the IRS has a limit on how much you can contribute to BOTH plans. For me it would be $24K max (myAge >= 50; If you are younger than 50, then the limit might be lower). He said the IRS penalties can be steep if you exceed the limit. I don't know if this is an issue for you, but it's something you need to consider. Be sure to ask your brokerage firm before you start the process." }, { "docid": "423892", "title": "", "text": "In practice the IRS seems to apply the late payment penalty when they issue a written paper notice. Those notices typically have a pay-by date where no additional penalty applies. The IRS will often waive penalties, but not interest or tax due, if the taxpayer presses the issue." }, { "docid": "183688", "title": "", "text": "I just want to point out something that seems to be generally true: If you are supposed to report something to the IRS, and you don't, the IRS will probably send you a letter assuming the maximum possible tax liability, and it's up to you to prove that scenario is incorrect. In your case you obviously owe no tax, but since you didn't report it, the IRS simply assumed that you do owe tax until you prove otherwise. You're one form away from fixing the issue. I have first hand experience that this is also true if you forget to report an HSA distribution. I received a letter considering my entire distribution as if it was for non eligible medical expenses. This made the amount taxable and had an additional 20% penalty to boot. Of course I have medical receipts for all of the distributions which makes them not taxable, and had I simply put the correct number on my return to begin with I wouldn't have had to fill out the additional form to correct my mistake." }, { "docid": "489790", "title": "", "text": "\"There is no penalty for foreigners but rather a 30% mandatory income tax withholding from distributions from 401(k) plans. You will \"\"get it back\"\" when you file the income tax return for the year and calculate your actual tax liability (including any penalties for a premature distribution from the 401(k) plan). You are, of course, a US citizen and not a foreigner, and thus are what the IRS calls a US person (which includes not just US citizens but permanent immigrants to the US as well as some temporary visa holders), but it is entirely possible that your 401(k) plan does not know this explicitly. This IRS web page tells 401(k) plan administrators Who can I presume is a US person? A retirement plan distribution is presumed to be made to a U.S. person only if the withholding agent: A payment that does not meet these rules is presumed to be made to a foreign person. Your SSN is presumably on file with the 401(k) plan administrator, but perhaps you are retired into a country that does not have an income tax treaty with the US and that's the mailing address that is on file with your 401(k) plan administrator? If so, the 401(k) administrator is merely following the rules and not presuming that you are a US person. So, how can you get around this non-presumption? The IRS document cited above (and the links therein) say that if the 401(k) plan has on file a W-9 form that you submitted to them, and the W-9 form includes your SSN, then the 401(k) plan has valid documentation to associate the distribution as being made to a US person, that is, the 401(k) plan does not need to make any presumptions; that you are a US person has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. So, to answer your question \"\"Will I be penalized when I later start a regular monthly withdrawal from my 401(k)?\"\" Yes, you will likely have mandatory 30% income tax withholding on your regular 401(k) distributions unless you have established that you are a US person to your 401(k) plan by submitting a W-9 form to them.\"" }, { "docid": "400631", "title": "", "text": "\"Be mindful of your reporting requirements. Besides checking the box on Schedule B of your 1040 that you have a foreign bank account, you also need to file a TD F 90-22.1 FBAR report for any year that the total of all foreign bank accounts reaches a value of $10,000 at any time during the year. This is filed separately from your 1040 by June 30 of the following year. Penalties for violating this reporting requirement are draconian, in some cases exceeding the amount of money in the foreign bank account. This penalty has been levied on people who have been reporting and paying tax on the interest on their foreign bank accounts, and merely neglected this separate report filing. Article on the \"\"shoot the jaywalker\"\" punitive enforcement policy. http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/006866.php Mariette IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law. EDITED TO ADD\"" }, { "docid": "62811", "title": "", "text": "\"The IRS provides a little more information on the subject on this FAQ: Will I be charged interest and penalties for filing and paying my taxes late?: If you did not pay your tax on time, you will generally have to pay a late-payment penalty, which is also called a failure to pay penalty. Some guidance on what constitutes \"\"reasonable cause\"\" is found on the IRS page Penalty Relief Due to Reasonable Cause: The IRS will consider any sound reason for failing to file a tax return, make a deposit, or pay tax when due. Sound reasons, if established, include: Note: A lack of funds, in and of itself, is not reasonable cause for failure to file or pay on time. However, the reasons for the lack of funds may meet reasonable cause criteria for the failure-to-pay penalty. In this article from U.S. News and World Report, it is suggested that the IRS will generally waive the penalty one time, if you have a clean tax history and ask for the penalty to be waived. It is definitely worth asking them to waive the penalty.\"" }, { "docid": "283374", "title": "", "text": "The W4 specifies withholding for income taxes, FICA taxes are not impacted. The tax withholding is do that you do not need to make estimated tax payments. Failing to make sufficient quarterly estimated tax payments or withholding a sufficient amount could result in you being hit with under payment penalties but nothing more. The under payment penalties will be figured out as part of you income tax return. What you should have done when you discovered this was use the extra withholding line on the W4 to further increase your withholding. The nice thing about withholding is that you back load it and the IRS does not care. The company has no liability here. It is your responsibility to update them when your personal circumstances change. You will be fully responsible for the tax bill. There is no company paid portion of your income tax so they are not impacted. The company only pays an employer share of FICA and that is not impacted by how you fill out the W4. First thing to do is figure out how much you owe the IRS. Then determine if you can pay it or if you need to investigate an installment option. In any case make sure to file your return on time." }, { "docid": "360925", "title": "", "text": "With your income so high, your marginal tax rate should be pretty easy to determine. You are very likely in the 33% tax bracket (married filing jointly income range of $231,450 to $413,350), so your wife's additional income will effectively be taxed at 33% plus 15% for self-employment taxes. Rounding to 50% means you need to withhold $19,000 over the year (or slightly less depending on what business expenses you can deduct). You could use a similar calculation for CA state taxes. You can either just add this gross additional amount to your withholdings, or make an estimated tax payment every quarter. Any difference will be made up when you file your 2017 taxes. So long as you withhold 100% of your total tax liability from last year, you should not have any underpayment penalties." }, { "docid": "568165", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm mostly guessing based on existing documentation, and have no direct experience, so take this with a pinch of salt. My best understanding is that you need to file Form 843. The instructions for the form say that it can be used to request: A refund or abatement of a penalty or addition to tax due to reasonable cause or other reason (other than erroneous written advice provided by the IRS) allowed under the law. The \"\"reasonable cause\"\" here is a good-faith confusion about what Line 79 of the form was referring to. In Form 843, the IRC Section Code you should enter is 6654 (estimated tax). For more, see the IRC Section 6654 (note, however, that if you already received a CP14 notice from the IRS, you should cross-check that this section code is listed on the notice under the part that covers the estimated tax penalty). If your request is accepted, the IRS should issue you Notice 746, item 17 Penalty Removed: You can get more general information about the tax collection process, and how to challenge it, from the pages linked from Understanding your CP14 Notice\"" }, { "docid": "470267", "title": "", "text": "Direct roll-overs / trustee to trustee transfers are typically initiated by the receiving institution. Therefore you need to work with Vanguard. They will have a form in which you provide them with your fidelity account info and they will then contact Fidelity and initiate the transfer. Do not take the option of being sent a check made out to you by Fidelity (an indirect rollover). There are too many ways to muck up and get hit with penalties if you are the middleman in the process. I believe in most, if not all, cases the IRS now requires a 20% withholding on indirect 401k rollovers. This is because too many times people would initiate a roll over but not complete it either at all or within the allowed 60 day window and then come tax time be unable to pay the tax and penalty on the distribution. The tricky part of that withholding is that you still have to deposit that amount into the new account otherwise it becomes a distribution subject to tax and penalties (and that means coming up with the money from other accounts). So in summary talk to Vanguard and set up an institution to institution transfer. They souls make this very easy as they want your money. And do not do any kind of rollover where you come into personal possession of the money. If the check is made out to Vanguard but sent to you to resend to Vanguard that should not be an issue as that is still a trustee to trustee transfer. Fidelity may have a minor account closer fee that will be deducted from the value of the account before it is sent." }, { "docid": "214934", "title": "", "text": "The difference is whether or not you have a contract that stipulates the payment plan, interest, and late payment penalties. If you have one then the IRS treats the transaction as a load/loan servicing. If not the IRS sees the money transfer as a gift." }, { "docid": "372900", "title": "", "text": "For the requirement for risk free and hassle free account a CD or money market account through your local bank, credit union, or even large online bank will be fine. These funds won't grow very fast over time but they are safe and insured. These types of accounts are perfect for all the miscellaneous birthday, Holiday and religious event checks. There is not a requirement that the money be in a UGMA (Uniform Gifts to Minors Act) account. Putting it in a UGMA account does make it hard for the parents to spend. The IRS does allow the child to have earnings from banks without the formality of a UGMA. The money shouldn't be moved between the parent's and child's account but it is possible for the parents to spend the child's money if times are tight and the money is used for items that benefit the child. If there is a reasonable assumption of college then the 529 plan makes a lot of sense. The prepaid tuition options would be risky because they tend to be tied to a single state, and who knows where they will be living in 10 to 15 years. The 529 does focus the money to be used for educational expenses, but it can be used for non-educational expenses if you are willing to pay the taxes and penalties. It can also be transferred to another child later, or even other family members. In my state the 529 plan doesn't have to be used right after high school graduation. It can be used up to 30 years after graduation. So they can decide a few years later that they want to go back to school." }, { "docid": "154839", "title": "", "text": "Conversion of after-tax 401K into a Roth is known (on Bogleheads for instance) as a Mega Backdoor Roth IRA. Recent tax rulings seem to allow for this kind of transfer more cleanly. After conversions, the money is treated as a normal Roth - you don't pay any taxes or penalties on contributions. For investment earnings, the Roth IRA has the standard five-year rule: most commonly - you must hold the account for five years and be 59.5 years old (there are other criteria). Otherwise, you may pay taxes plus a 10% penalty on the earnings portion of your distribution. There are other reasons you can withdraw early - spelled out in IRS Publication 590B Figure 2-1." }, { "docid": "590234", "title": "", "text": "In how much trouble can I get exactly if the IRS finds out? I understand that there's a 6 year statute of limitations on criminal charges and no limitation at all on fraud. Is this considered fraud? I'm assuming not. There's no statute of limitations for fraud (which is a criminal charge). The statute of limitations is for failure to report income which is not fraud. In your case, since you willingly decided to not report it knowingly that you should, it can most definitely account for fraud, so I wouldn't count on statute of limitations in this case. I should amend my taxes for those years That would be the easiest way to go. would the IRS go all the way and file criminal charges considering the amount of money I owe They have the legal right to, and if you do get caught - likely they will. Easy money for them, since you obviously have income and can pay all the fines and penalties. Practically speaking, what's the worst case scenario? Theoretically - can be jail as well. Being charged in a criminal court, even if the eventual punishment is just a penalty, is a punishment of its own. You'll have troubles finding jobs, passing security checks, getting loans approved, etc. For $3200, when you're in 25% bracket as an individual for years, I'd say not worth it." }, { "docid": "76530", "title": "", "text": "\"All transactions within an IRA are irrelevant as far as the taxation of the distributions from the IRA are concerned. You can only take cash from an IRA, and a (cash) distribution from a Traditional IRA is taxable as ordinary income (same as interest from a bank, say) without the advantage of any of the special tax rates for long-term capital gains or qualified dividends even if that cash was generated within the IRA from sales of stock etc. In short, just as with what is alleged to occur with respect to Las Vegas, what happens within the IRA stays within the IRA. Note: some IRA custodians are willing to make a distribution of stock or mutual fund shares to you, so that ownership of the 100 shares of GE, say, that you hold within your IRA is transferred to you in your personal (non-IRA) brokerage account. But, as far as the IRS is concerned, your IRA custodian sold the stock as the closing price on the day of the distribution, gave you the cash, and you promptly bought the 100 shares (at the closing price) in your personal brokerage account with the cash that you received from the IRA. It is just that your custodian saved the transaction fees involved in selling 100 shares of GE stock inside the IRA and you saved the transaction fee for buying 100 shares of GE stock in your personal brokerage account. Your basis in the 100 shares of GE stock is the \"\"cash_ that you imputedly received as a distribution from the IRA, so that when you sell the shares at some future time, your capital gains (or losses) will be with respect to this basis. The capital gains that occurred within the IRA when the shares were imputedly sold by your IRA custodian remain within the IRA, and you don't get to pay taxes on that at capital gains rates. That being said, I would like to add to what NathanL told you in his answer. Your mother passed away in 2011 and you are now 60 years old (so 54 or 55 in 2011?). It is likely that your mother was over 70.5 years old when she passed away, and so she likely had started taking Required Minimum Distributions from her IRA before her death. So, You should have been taking RMDs from the Inherited IRA starting with Year 2012. (The RMD for 2011, if not taken already by your mother before she passed away, should have been taken by her estate, and distributed to her heirs in accordance with her will, or, if she died intestate, in accordance with state law and/or probate court directives). There would not have been any 10% penalty tax due on the RMDs taken by you on the grounds that you were not 59.5 years old as yet; that rule applies to owners (your mom in this case) and not to beneficiaries (you in this case). So, have you taken the RMDs for 2012-2016? Or were you waiting to turn 59.5 before taking distributions in the mistaken belief that you would have to pay a 10% penalty for early wthdrawal? The penalty for not taking a RMD is 50% of the amount not distributed; yes, 50%. If you didn't take RMDs from the Inherited IRA for years 2012-2016, I recommend that you consult a CPA with expertise in tax law. Ask the CPA if he/she is an Enrolled Agent with the IRS: Enrolled Agents have to pass an exam administered by the IRS to show that they really understand tax law and are not just blowing smoke, and can represent you in front of the IRS in cases of audit etc,\"" }, { "docid": "437405", "title": "", "text": "Your friend would have only been liable for a tax penalty if he withdrew more 529 money than he reported for qualified expenses. That said, if he took the distribution in his name, it triggers a 1099-Q report to the IRS in his name rather than his beneficiaries. This will likely be flagged by the IRS, since it looks like he withdrew the money, but didn't pay taxes and penalties on it, not the beneficiary. In other words, qualified education expenses only apply to the beneficiary, not the plan owner/contributor. In this case, the IRS would request additional documentation to show that the expenses were indeed qualified. To avoid this hassle, it's easiest to make sure the distribution is payed directly to the beneficiary rather than yourself. Once he or she has the check, then have them sign the check over to you or transfer it into your account. Otherwise you trigger an IRS 1099-Q in your name rather than your beneficiary." }, { "docid": "583321", "title": "", "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.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "160786", "title": "", "text": "JoeTapayer has good advice here. I would like to add my notes. If they give a 50% match that means you are getting a 50% return on investment(ROI) immediately. I do not know of a way to get a better guaranteed ROI. Next, when investing you need to determine what kind of investor you are. I would suggest you make yourself more literate in investments, as I suggest to anyone, but there are basic things you want to look for. If your primary worry is loss of your prinicipal, go for Conservative investments. This means that you are willing to accept a reduced expected ROI in exchange for lower volatility(risk of loss of principal). This does not mean you have a 100% safe investment as the last market issues have shown, but in general you are better protected. The fidelity investments should give you some information as to volatility or if they deem the investments conservative. Conservative investments are normally made up of trading bonds, which have the lowest ROI in general but are the most secure. You can also invest in blue chip companies, although stock is inherently riskier. It is pointed out in comments that stocks always outperform bonds in the long term, and this has been true over the last 100 years. I am just suggesting ways you can protect yourself against market downturns. When the market is doing very well bonds will not give you the return your friends are seeing. I am just trying to give you a basic idea of what to look for when you pick your investments, nothing can replace a solid investment adviser and taking the time to educate yourself." } ]

[ { "docid": "1134", "title": "", "text": "The HSA money is yours to keep. You can't add new money into the account and get a tax deduction for the new money, but you can spend the old money on medical expenses. First log into the website for the HSA and see if you have money left. This can be important because if there is still money left they might be charging you a monthly fee. You should have gotten a letter from the old company or the administrator when you left the High deductible insurance plan. This would have told you your options regarding the spending or transferring of old funds. HSA related numbers would have appeared on your W2, and you should have a 1099-SA from the administrator. It is likely that there is a copy of the 1099 on the administrators website. The numbers you enter on the tax forms depends on how much you contributed from your paycheck, how much your company contributed, and how much you sent (if any) from other sources besides payroll deduction. You will also have to know how much money was withdrawn from the HSA and how much was used for medical purposes. The last month rule is for those people who start in the middle of the year. If you start partway through the year you are allowed to make the maximum contribution if you still have it at the end of the year, and you expect to keep it. The Last Month Rule The Last Month Rule states that if you are covered by an HSA eligible health plan on the first day of the last month of a given year, you are considered an eligible individual for the entire year. In turn, you can then contribute to the HSA for that full year. If you are covered by an HDHP on Dec 1st of a given year, you may contribute the maximum for that year. For example, you could begin coverage and open up my HSA in November of a given year. Come December 1st, you are covered and per the Last Month Rule, considered an eligible employee for that full year. That allows you to contribute up to that year’s contribution limit, even waiting a few months to make a prior year contribution if you like. Back up the truck and load up the HSA! However, there is a catch. The Testing Period The Testing Period states if you use the Last Month Rule, you must remain an eligible individual (covered by HDHP) for the following 12 months. If you fail to remain an eligible individual (change insurance plans, lose insurance plan, receive other health coverage) any “extra” contributions you made as a result of the Last Month Rule will be taxed and penalized. If you contribute per the Last Month Rule and end your HDHP insurance within 1 year, you will have to pay tax on any excess contributions you were allowed to make and pay a 10% penalty. In this case, “excess” contributions are determined by the contribution limit / 12 months, compared to your time eligible." }, { "docid": "591069", "title": "", "text": "Much of this is incorrect. Aetna owns Payflex for starters, and it's your EMPLOYER who decides which banks and brokers to offer, not Payflex. An HSA is a checking account with an investment account option after a minimum balance is met. A majority of U.S. employers only OFFER an HSA option but don't contribute a penny, so you're lucky you get anything. The easy solution is just keep the money that is sent to your HSA checking account in your checking account, and once a year roll it over into a different bank's HSA. The vast majority of banks offer HSAs that have no ties to a particular broker (i.e. Citibank, PNC, Chase). I have all my HSA funds in HSA Bank which is online but services lots of employers. Not true that most payroll deductions or employer contributions go to a single HSA custodian (bank). They might offer a single bank that either contracts with an investment provider or lets you invest anywhere. But most employers making contributions are large or mid-market employers offering multiple banks, and that trend is growing fast because of defined contribution, private exchanges and vendor product redesigns. Basically, nobody likes having a second bank account for their HSA when their home bank offers one." }, { "docid": "308380", "title": "", "text": "It depends how you do it. If you roll it from your 401k directly to a Roth then you will have to pay the taxes. The contributions to the 401k are tax deferred. Meaning you do not owe taxes on the money until you collect it. Roth contributions are post tax but the gains are not taxed so long as they are disbursed under acceptable conditions according to the regulations. If you roll it directly from the 401k to a regular tax deferred IRA you should be able to do that with out penalties or taxes. You will still have to pay the taxes at disbursement. If you have the money disbursed to you directly then you will have to pay the penalties, fees, and taxes. Your contributions to an IRA will then be subject to limitations based on the IRA. It will literally be exactly like you are taking money from your pocket to invest in the IRA. Your company should give you the option of a rollover check. This check will be made out to you but it will not be able to be deposited in a regular account or cashed. It will only be redeemable for deposit into a retirement account that meets the regulatory requirements of the 401k rollover criteria. I believe the check I received a few years ago was only good for 60 days. I recall that after 60 days that check was void and I would receive a standard disbursement and would be subject to fees and penalties. I am not sure if that was the policy of T.Rowe Price or if that is part of the regulation." }, { "docid": "181652", "title": "", "text": "If you have self-employment income you can open a Solo 401k. Your question is unclear as to what your employment status is. If you are self-employed as an independent contractor, you can open a Solo 401k. You can still do this even if you also earn non-self-employment income (i.e., you are an employee and receive a W-2). However, the limits for contributions to a Solo 401k are based on your self-mployment income, not your total income, so if you have only a small amount of self-employment income, you won't be able to contribute much to the Solo 401k. You may be able to reduce your taxes somewhat, but it's not like you can earn $1000 of self-employment income, open a Solo 401k, and dump $5000 into it; the limits don't work that way." }, { "docid": "130118", "title": "", "text": "I'm afraid you're mistaking 401k as an investment vehicle. It's not. It is a vehicle for retirement. Roth 401k/IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement, and as long as you're in the low tax bracket - it is for your benefit to take advantage of that. However, that is not the money you would be using to start a business or buy a home (except for maybe up to $10K you can withdraw without penalty for first time home buyers, but I wouldn't bother with $10k, if that's what will help you buying a house - maybe you shouldn't be buying at all). In addition, you should make sure you take advantage of the employer 401k match in full. That is free money added to your Traditional 401k retirement savings (taxed at distribution). Once you took the full advantage of the employer's match, and contributed as much as you consider necessary for your retirement above that (there are various retirement calculators on line that can help you in making that determination), everything else will probably go to taxable (regular) savings/investments." }, { "docid": "414737", "title": "", "text": "\"You do not need to inform your employer of your additional activity, but it is your responsibility not to work for more than 48 hours per week as long as you are an employee. So if you are working 38 hours for your employer, you may not work for yourself for more than 10 hours. It is, however, not so easy in practice to draw the line between work and a hobby, as long as you are not being paid by the hour. The main reason to present your employer with an addition to your work contract is to make it legally very clear that he holds no intentions to claim copyright to your work. He may attempt to do something funky like claim your home computer is, in fact, a work computer because you used it once a month to work from home, and your work contract may contain a paragraph that all work performed on a work computer results in copyright ownership for your employer. I have no idea how likely this is in practice, but this is the reason I know is commonly given as legal advice to have a contract. So the normal contract you present your employer with says: In order to earn user contribution money from a website, you need to register as a sole proprietor (Gewerbeanmeldung) and pay trade tax (Gewerbesteuer) and sales tax (Umsatzsteuer, alternatively you claim small trade exception, Kleingewerbe), which also makes a tax return mandatory. I would guess, however, (and this is not legal advice in any way, just my guess), that a couple of contributions towards server cost in a strictly non-profit endeavor is not commercial (\"\"gewerblich\"\") at all but private, in the same way that you may write an invoice to someone you sold your old bike to, or a kid may get paid to mow someone's lawn. Based on that guess, my non-legal-advice recommendation is to take the contributions and do nothing else, as long as the amount is nowhere near breaking even if you count your work input.\"" }, { "docid": "150883", "title": "", "text": "There are a couple of cases where I'd argue in favor of the 401k: Employer matching - If the employer matches your contributions, then it makes sense to get these additional investments which if you are in a low bracket may exist as highly-compensated employees may want those in the lower brackets to contribute as much as they can. Investment options - If the employer has enough assets in the plan, there could be access to institutional versions of those funds. For example, compare Vanguard Institutional Index Instl Pl (VIIIX) with Vanguard 500 Index Inv (VFINX), where the expense ratio in the former is just .02% while the latter is .17%. Granted this is a minor difference in expenses, there is something to be said for how much a .15% drag year over year could add up." }, { "docid": "430931", "title": "", "text": "Specifically on the subject of maxing out your 401k, there are several downsides: The employer match usually only applies to the first 6%. Some employers offer no match at all. You listed the match as a pro, but I think it should be pointed out that you can usually get this benefit without maxing out your plan. The investment options are limited. Usually there is at least one fund available from all the common investment classes, but these may not be your preferred funds if you were able to choose for yourself. Fees can be very high. If you are working for a small to medium size company, the fees for each fund will often be higher than for the same funds in a plan offered by a large company. Fees are usually related to the dollar amount of assets under management. Each person has a different tax situation, so if you are single and making 6 figures, you might still be in the 25% bracket even after maxing out your 401k, but the same person filing jointly with a spouse that makes less could get down to the 15% bracket with a smaller contribution. I meet my retirement savings goals without maxing out the 401k. As long as the amount is above the employer match amount, my second priority is to funnel as much money as possible in to my IRA (because I get lower fees and better investment options from Vanguard)." }, { "docid": "300438", "title": "", "text": "The account doesn't have to be associated with a specific health plan. There are some accounts that work that way. In fact, mine does. But I didn't go to a bank and open it up, it came as a package deal with my employer's health plan. Furthermore I don't contribute to it, the company does. If I wish to contribute my own funds, I have a separate Flexible Spending Account (FSA). This is not tied to my health plan. I can make qualified purchases at Wal Mart, Target, or wherever I choose. Then I can submit the receipts for reimbursement. In your case it sounds like your HSA works more like my FSA. The relevant question here is 'How do I (you) withdraw funds from the HSA?' There are a few different possibilities. Some accounts have a debit card, some give you checks, some have a reimbursement process similar to my FSA. (Some have more than one option available.) In your case you should contact Bank of America to determine how to withdraw funds from your account." }, { "docid": "49614", "title": "", "text": "\"401k plans are required to not discriminate against the non-HCE participants, and one way they achieve this is by limiting the percentage of wages that HCEs can contribute to the plan to the average annual percentage contribution by the non-HCE participants or 3% whichever is higher. If most non-HCE employees contribute only 3% (usually to capture the employer match but no more), then the HCEs are stuck with 3%. However, be aware that in companies that award year-end bonuses to all employees, many non-HCEs contribute part of their bonuses to their 401k plans, and so the average annual percentage can rise above 3% at the end of year. Some payroll offices have been known to ask all those who have not already maxed out their 401k contribution for the year (yes, it is possible to do this even while contributing only 3% if you are not just a HCE but a VHCE) whether they want to contribute the usual 3%, or a higher percentage, or to contribute the maximum possible under the nondiscrimination rules. So, you might be able to contribute more than 3% if the non-HCEs put in more money at the end of the year. With regard to NQSPs, you pretty much have their properties pegged correctly. That money is considered to be deferred compensation and so you pay taxes on it only when you receive it upon leaving employment. The company also gets to deduct it as a business expense when the money is paid out, and as you said, it is not money that is segregated as a 401k plan is. On the other hand, you have earned the money already: it is just that the company is \"\"holding\"\" it for you. Is it paying you interest on the money (accumulating in the NQSP, not paid out in cash or taxable income to you)? Would it be better to just take the money right now, pay taxes on it, and invest it yourself? Some deferred compensation plans work as follows. The deferred compensation is given to you as a loan in the year it is earned, and you pay only interest on the principal each year. Since the money is a loan, there is no tax of any kind due on the money when you receive it. Now you can invest the proceeds of this loan and hopefully earn enough to cover the interest payments due. (The interest you pay is deductible on Schedule A as an Investment Interest Expense). When employment ceases, you repay the loan to the company as a lump sum or in five or ten annual installments, whatever was agreed to, while the company pays you your deferred compensation less taxes withheld. The net effect is that you pay the company the taxes due on the money, and the company sends this on to the various tax authorities as money withheld from wages paid. The advantage is that you do not need to worry about what happens to your money if the company fails; you have received it up front. Yes, you have to pay the loan principal to the company but the company also owes you exactly that much money as unpaid wages. In the best of all worlds, things will proceed smoothly, but if not, it is better to be in this Mexican standoff rather than standing in line in bankruptcy court and hoping to get pennies on the dollar for your work.\"" }, { "docid": "206285", "title": "", "text": "\"First off, I highly recommend the book Get a Financial Life. The basics of personal finance and money management are pretty straightforward, and this book does a great job with it. It is very light reading, and it really geared for the young person starting their career. It isn't the most current book (pre real-estate boom), but the recommendations in the book are still sound. (update 8/28/2012: New edition of the book came out.) Now, with that out of the way, there's really two kinds of \"\"investing\"\" to think about: For most individuals, it is best to take care of #1 first. Most people shouldn't even think about #2 until they have fully funded their retirement accounts, established an emergency fund, and gotten their debt under control. There are lots of financial incentives for retirement investing, both from your employer, and the government. All the more reason to take care of #1 before #2! Your employer probably offers some kind of 401k (or equivalent, like a 403b) with a company-provided match. This is a potential 100% return on your investment after the vesting period. No investment you make on your own will ever match that. Additionally, there are tax advantages to contributing to the 401k. (The money you contribute doesn't count as taxable income.) The best way to start investing is to learn about your employer's retirement plan, and contribute enough to fully utilize the employer matching. Beyond this, there are also Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) you can open to contribute money to on your own. You should open one of these and start contributing, but only after you have fully utilized the employer matching with the 401k. The IRA won't give you that 100% ROI that the 401k will. Keep in mind that retirement investments are pretty much \"\"walled off\"\" from your day-to-day financial life. Money that goes into a retirement account generally can't be touched until retirement age, unless you want to pay lots of taxes and penalties. You generally don't want to put the money for your house down payment into a retirement account. One other thing to note: Your 401K and your IRA is an account that you put money into. Just because the money is sitting in the account doesn't necessarily mean it is invested. You put the money into this account, and then you use this money for investments. How you invest the retirement money is a topic unto itself. Here is a good starting point. If you want to ask questions about retirement portfolios, it is probably worth posting a new question.\"" }, { "docid": "224530", "title": "", "text": "\"Logic fail. The qty of shares is irrelevant. What matters is the value, which is, of course, quite high -- and, what's more, the P/E ratio, which is extremely favorable. Having worked in operations at Apple for 7 years, I can tell you that the company is very lean and efficient. 25% matching is extremely generous. 25% contribution rates are standard in corporate jobs (contribution rates are what maximum percentage of your pre-tax income you can opt to set aside into a 401K; this is different than matching). It absolutely is not bare bones to be given 25% matching. Although I no longer work at Apple, I still have my 401K, and the administration of it is good, as is the choice of funds. Back to the matching... It's free money. For every $1 you put in your 401K (pretax, btw), Apple puts in a quarter. Having worked in other corporations over my career, I can tell you that this level of matching is pretty much as good as it gets. For a good part of the time I worked there I made around $30K (not in Retail, but in Operations, as mentioned before). I maxed out the Employee Stock Purchase Program contribution and mostly maxed out my 401K contribution. Now, 12 years later, my stock appreciated beyond my wildest expectations. I have made well over six figures on it over the years. If I never sold any, it would be worth over $500,000 by now. All that from 10% contributions on a salary that ranged from about $26K when I started out to about $46K when I left 7 years later. My 401K holdings are worth about $60K, I think, invested extremely conservatively. I have had it in money market funds since right before the 2008/2009 crash, which I anticipated. So the investment benefits at Apple served me extremely well. My stock appreciation paid for my car, and it will soon cover the down payment on a house. I was essentially able to \"\"retire\"\" to be a stay-at-home-mom when my son was born, thanks to the safety net I have from my Apple stock. Regarding health benefits... I think you meant to say copays, not deductibles. When I was there, there were no copays. I forgot what the deductibles were, but for most routine visits, you wouldn't need to pay out of pocket. Annual physicals are included in the health plan, up to $250. The health plan works with various local providers to ensure that the $250 allotment will cover all expenses needed for an annual physical. This physical is separate and in addition to a women's health annual exam (pap smear/pelvic exam/etc) that is also included without copay. I'm pretty sure annual mammograms are covered. All prenatal visits are covered with zero copay. All child well checks, including immunizations, covered with zero copay. Two dental checks a year. Dental Xrays at regular intervals included. Annual vision exams and, I think $300 annually towards glasses or contacts included, IIRC. Time off was pretty standard and accrued by the hour worked, which was nice. There was no \"\"you have to be with the company for X length of time\"\" before time off benefits began to accrue, or before any benefits kicked in, for that matter. By about Year 5, I had easily racked up enough vacation days to take 3 weeks off at a time. The longer you have been with the company, the faster your time off accrues. And each summer they'd offer a cash-out program, where you could double up on time off, where if you took off a week, you could opt to deplete your accrued vacation time by two weeks and get double pay for it. A lot of people liked this option. The points for absenteeism thing seemed a bit silly -- and seemed to only have been implemented in one store and then only for a brief time. From what I gathered in the article, it was an experiment that failed miserably. The other corporation I have spent a significant amount of time working at is Whole Foods Market, in their corporate office. While both Apple and Whole Foods always are selected as two of the top companies to work for by Forbes in their annual report, as far as benefits went, Apple's were far superior in most aspects. With respect to company culture, I personally found Whole Foods to be better, but that was sort of a personal preference. Both were dream jobs, and I consider myself very fortunate to have had the opportunity to work for two outstanding companies that both treated me very well. Oh- and incidentally, Ron Johnson, who was VP of Retail at Apple from the inception of the stores until like a year ago, now is CEO of JC Penny, and, I suspect, is fully behind JCP's ad campaigns which include images of families with same-sex parents. JCP has stepped deliberately and full-on into what is, unfortunately, still a controversial topic and has taken a firm stand in support of all types of loving families. I have to wonder if part of this might have been inspired by the fact that Apple's new CEO, Tim Cook, is gay. Ron Johnson would have worked closely alongside Cook during his tenure. I met Ron once and found him to be a great guy, and I worked with the Retail operations folks from the time the stores launched. They were a great team that worked hard and were very sincere and dedicated. You could see his leadership reflecting in each member of the team.\"" }, { "docid": "301194", "title": "", "text": "\"I assume you get your information from somewhere where they don't report the truth. I'm sorry if mentioning Fox News offended you, it was not my intention. But the way the question is phrased suggests that you know nothing about what \"\"pension\"\" means. So let me explain. 403(b) is not a pension account. Pension account is generally a \"\"defined benefit\"\" account, whereas 403(b)/401(k) and similar - are \"\"defined contribution\"\" accounts. The difference is significant: for pensions, the employer committed on certain amount to be paid out at retirement (the defined benefit) regardless of how much the employee/employer contributed or how well the account performed. This makes such an arrangement a liability. An obligation to pay. In other words - debt. Defined contribution on the other hand doesn't create such a liability, since the employer is only committed for the match, which is paid currently. What happens to your account after the employer deposited the defined contribution (the match) - is your problem. You manage it to the best of your abilities and whatever you have there when you retire - is yours, the employer doesn't owe you anything. Here's the problem with pensions: many employers promised the defined benefit, but didn't do anything about actually having money to pay. As mentioned, such a pension is essentially a debt, and the retiree is a debt holder. What happens when employer cannot pay its debts? Employer goes bankrupt. And when bankrupt - debtors are paid only part of what they were owed, and that includes the retirees. There's no-one raiding pensions. No-one goes to the bank with a gun and demands \"\"give me the pension money\"\". What happened was that the employers just didn't fund the pensions. They promised to pay - but didn't set aside any money, or set aside not enough. Instead, they spent it on something else, and when the time came that the retirees wanted their money - they didn't have any. That's what happened in Detroit, and in many other places. 403(b) is in fact the solution to this problem. Instead of defined benefit - the employers commit on defined contribution, and after that - it's your problem, not theirs, to have enough when you're retired.\"" }, { "docid": "300665", "title": "", "text": "US corporations are allowed to automatically enter employees into a 401K plan. A basic automatic enrollment 401(k) plan must state that employees will be automatically enrolled in the plan unless they elect otherwise and must specify the percentage of an employee's wages that will be automatically deducted from each paycheck for contribution to the plan. The document must also explain that employees have the right to elect not to have salary deferrals withheld or to elect a different percentage to be withheld. An eligible automatic contribution arrangement (EACA) is similar to the basic automatic enrollment plan but has specific notice requirements. An EACA can allow automatically enrolled participants to withdraw their contributions within 30 to 90 days of the first contribution. A qualified automatic contribution arrangement (QACA) is a type of automatic enrollment 401(k) plan that automatically passes certain kinds of annual required testing. The plan must include certain features, such as a fixed schedule of automatic employee contributions, employer contributions, a special vesting schedule, and specific notice requirements. You generally have a period of time to stop the first deposit. One I saw recently gave new employees to the first paycheck after the 60 day mark to refuse to join. You also may be able to get back the first deposit if you really don't want to join. If you don't want to participate look on the corporate website or the Fidelity website to set your future contributions to 0% of your paycheck. Keep in mind several things: Personally I'm against any type of government sponsored investments or savings. I can save money on my own and I don't care about their benefits. Some companies provide an annual contribution to all employees regardless of participation in the 401K. They do need to establish an account to do that. Again that is free money Does it mean if I never contribute any money so I will have 0 I might go below 0 and owe them money in case they bankrupt or do bad investments? Even in total market collapse the value of the 401K could never go below zero, unless the 401K was setup to allow very exotic investments." }, { "docid": "547401", "title": "", "text": "Yes, you are generally allowed to make contributions yourself to your HSA, even if your employer also made contributions. Let me explain further. The contribution limit for tax year 2015 is $3350 for individual coverage. (It is higher for family coverage, or for account holders age 55+.) The limit is for everything contributed to the HSA, whether it is an employer contribution or an account holder contribution. (In other words, if your limit is $3350, and your employer contributed $3000, you can only contribute $350.) As far as the IRS is concerned, anything that your employer sends in is considered an employer contribution. This might be money from the company as part of a benefit, or it might be money deducted from your salary as part of a voluntary contribution on your part. Either way, if the employer sends it in, it is an employer contribution. None of this employer contribution shows up on your W-2 as taxable income, so you don't get to deduct it on your tax return. It has already been taken off of your income. Money that you send in yourself with your after-tax dollars is your account holder contribution. This is money that you can deduct on your tax return, so that you aren't paying tax on this money. So here is what you need to do: Determine your total HSA contribution limit for tax year 2015. Find out how much your employer has already contributed for 2015. The difference is how much you can still contribute for 2015. Contact your HSA provider and find out how to make a 2015 contribution. Don't just send money in, because there is probably a form they want you to fill out to make a prior year contribution. Get all this done by April 15, the deadline for making a prior year contribution. Actually, get it done before April 15, because often there will be some sort of delay of a day or two that will prevent you from doing this on the last day." }, { "docid": "271233", "title": "", "text": "Sure it is quite easy depending on income. If one receives a bonus that is high in relationship to their income, it is very easy to max out a 401K prior to when one intended. The later in the year such a bonus occurs the more likely that one will max out prematurely. If one only has a single employer in the year, the custodial company will not accept amounts above the max, so one need not worry about that case. If there is more than one employer, a refund is typically issued with the appropriate tax withheld. Assume that a person makes about 60K per year. They intend to put 12k into their 401K, thus have their contribution set to 20%. By the beginning of September, they have 8K into their retirement, but they also receive a bonus of 50K. Their 401K contribution for that bonus will be 10K, and thus they have maxed out their individual contribution for the year. So they will not be able to contribute for the rest of the year, including the first paycheck in September. They will miss out on any match that the company may supply. While that sucks, it should be relieved by the bless of receiving such a large bonus." }, { "docid": "290105", "title": "", "text": "I would hire an accountant to help set this up, given the sums of money involved. $53,000 would be the minimum amount of compensation needed to maximize the 401k. The total limit of contributions is the lesser of: 100% of the participant's compensation, or $53,000 ($59,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2015 and 2016. and they don't count contributions as compensation Your employer's contributions to a qualified retirement plan for you are not included in income at the time contributed. (Your employer can tell you whether your retirement plan is qualified.) On the bright side, employer contributions aren't subject to FICA withholdings." }, { "docid": "167438", "title": "", "text": "Congrats! That's a solid accomplishment for someone who is not even in college yet. I graduated college 3 years ago and I wish I was able to save more in college than I did. The rule of thumb with saving: the earlier the better. My personal portfolio for retirement is comprised of four areas: Roth IRA contributions, 401k contributions, HSA contributions, Stock Market One of the greatest things about the college I attended was its co-op program. I had 3 internships - each were full time positions for 6 months. I strongly recommend, if its available, finding an internship for whatever major you are looking into. It will not only convince you that the career path you chose is what you want to do, but there are added benefits specifically in regards to retirement and savings. In all three of my co-ops I was able to apply 8% of my paycheck to my company's 401k plan. They also had matching available. As a result, my 401k had a pretty substantial savings amount by the time I graduated college. To circle back to your question, I would recommend investing the money into a Roth IRA or the stock market. I personally have yet to invest a significant amount of money in the stock market. Instead, I have been maxing out my retirement for the last three years. That means I'm adding 18k to my 401k, 5.5k to my Roth, and adding ~3k to my HSA (there are limits to each of these and you can find them online). Compounded interest is amazing (I'm just going to leave this here... https://www.moneyunder30.com/power-of-compound-interest)." }, { "docid": "79375", "title": "", "text": "The presence of the 401K option means that your ability to contribute to an IRA will be limited, it doesn't matter if you contribute to the 401K or not. Unless your company allows you to roll over 401K money into an IRA while you are still an employee, your money in the 401K will remain there. Many 401K programs offer not just stock mutual funds, but bond mutual funds, and international funds. Many also have target date funds. You will have to look at the paperwork for the funds to determine if any of them meet your definition of low expense. Because any money you have in those 401K funds is going to remain in the 401K, you still need to look at your options and make the best choice. Very few companies allow employees to invest in individual stocks, but some do. You can ask your employer to research other options for the 401K. The are contracting with a investment company to make the plan. They may be able to switch to a different package from the same company or may need to switch companies. How much it will cost them is unknown. You will have to understand when their current contract is up for renewal. If you feel their current plan is poor, it may be making hiring new employees difficult, or ti may lead to some employees to leave in search of better options. It may also be a factor in the number of employees contributing and how much they contribute." } ]

[ { "docid": "42301", "title": "", "text": "You can only contribute up to 5% of your salary? Odd. Usually 401(k) contributions are limited to some dollar amount in the vicinity of $15,000 or so a year. Normal retirement guidelines suggest that putting away 10-15% of your salary is enough that you probably won't need to worry much when you retire. 5% isn't likely to be enough, employer match or no. I'd try to contribute 10-15% of my salary. I think you're reading the rules wrong. I'm almost certain. It's definitely worth checking. If you're not, you should seriously consider supplementing this saving with a Roth IRA or just an after-tax account. So. If you're with Fidelity and don't know what to do, look for a target date fund with a date near your retirement (e.g. Target Retirement 2040) and put 100% in there until you have a better idea of what going on. All Fidelity funds have pretty miserable expense ratios, even their token S&P500 index fund from another provider, so you might as let them do some leg work and pick your asset allocation for you. Alternatively, look for the Fidelity retirement planner tools on their website to suggest an asset allocation. As a (very rough) rule of thumb, as you're saving for retirement you'll want to have N% of your portfolio in bonds and the rest in stocks, where N is your age in years. Your stocks should probably be split about 70% US and 30% rest-of-world, give or take, and your US stocks should be split about 64% large-cap, 28% mid-cap and 8% small-cap (that's basically how the US stock market is split)." } ]

[ { "docid": "19306", "title": "", "text": "\"Even if your employer decides not to include the HSA contributions in Box 12, the IRS will still be informed how much went into your HSA when the form 5498-SA gets filed. So you don't need to worry about the IRS; they'll get the information they want. As for you, if you already know how much the \"\"employer contributions\"\" (both what the employer contributed and what you contributed through payroll deduction) were, and you know how much you contributed directly, then once you get your form 1099-SA you'll have all the information you need to complete your tax return.\"" }, { "docid": "290385", "title": "", "text": "\"Answers: 1. Is this a good idea? Is it really risky? What are the pros and cons? Yes, it is a bad idea. I think, with all the talk about employer matches and tax rates at retirement vs. now, that you miss the forest for the trees. It's the taxes on those retirement investments over the course of 40 years that really matter. Example: Imagine $833 per month ($10k per year) invested in XYZ fund, for 40 years (when you retire). The fund happens to make 10% per year over that time, and you're taxed at 28%. How much would you have at retirement? 2. Is it a bad idea to hold both long term savings and retirement in the same investment vehicle, especially one pegged to the US stock market? Yes. Keep your retirement separate, and untouchable. It's supposed to be there for when you're old and unable to work. Co-mingling it with other funds will induce you to spend it (\"\"I really need it for that house! I can always pay more into it later!\"\"). It also can create a false sense of security (\"\"look at how much I've got! I got that new car covered...\"\"). So, send 10% into whatever retirement account you've got, and forget about it. Save for other goals separately. 3. Is buying SPY a \"\"set it and forget it\"\" sort of deal, or would I need to rebalance, selling some of SPY and reinvesting in a safer vehicle like bonds over time? For a retirement account, yes, you would. That's the advantage of target date retirement funds like the one in your 401k. They handle that, and you don't have to worry about it. Think about it: do you know how to \"\"age\"\" your account, and what to age it into, and by how much every year? No offense, but your next question is what an ETF is! 4. I don't know ANYTHING about ETFs. Things to consider/know/read? Start here: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/etf.asp 5. My company plan is \"\"retirement goal\"\" focused, which, according to Fidelity, means that the asset allocation becomes more conservative over time and switches to an \"\"income fund\"\" after the retirement target date (2050). Would I need to rebalance over time if holding SPY? Answered in #3. 6. I'm pretty sure that contributing pretax to 401k is a good idea because I won't be in the 28% tax bracket when I retire. How are the benefits of investing in SPY outweigh paying taxes up front, or do they not? Partially answered in #1. Note that it's that 4 decades of tax-free growth that's the big dog for winning your retirement. Company matches (if you get one) are just a bonus, and the fact that contributions are tax free is a cherry on top. 7. Please comment on anything else you think I am missing I think what you're missing is that winning at personal finance is easy, and winning at personal finance is hard\"" }, { "docid": "301194", "title": "", "text": "\"I assume you get your information from somewhere where they don't report the truth. I'm sorry if mentioning Fox News offended you, it was not my intention. But the way the question is phrased suggests that you know nothing about what \"\"pension\"\" means. So let me explain. 403(b) is not a pension account. Pension account is generally a \"\"defined benefit\"\" account, whereas 403(b)/401(k) and similar - are \"\"defined contribution\"\" accounts. The difference is significant: for pensions, the employer committed on certain amount to be paid out at retirement (the defined benefit) regardless of how much the employee/employer contributed or how well the account performed. This makes such an arrangement a liability. An obligation to pay. In other words - debt. Defined contribution on the other hand doesn't create such a liability, since the employer is only committed for the match, which is paid currently. What happens to your account after the employer deposited the defined contribution (the match) - is your problem. You manage it to the best of your abilities and whatever you have there when you retire - is yours, the employer doesn't owe you anything. Here's the problem with pensions: many employers promised the defined benefit, but didn't do anything about actually having money to pay. As mentioned, such a pension is essentially a debt, and the retiree is a debt holder. What happens when employer cannot pay its debts? Employer goes bankrupt. And when bankrupt - debtors are paid only part of what they were owed, and that includes the retirees. There's no-one raiding pensions. No-one goes to the bank with a gun and demands \"\"give me the pension money\"\". What happened was that the employers just didn't fund the pensions. They promised to pay - but didn't set aside any money, or set aside not enough. Instead, they spent it on something else, and when the time came that the retirees wanted their money - they didn't have any. That's what happened in Detroit, and in many other places. 403(b) is in fact the solution to this problem. Instead of defined benefit - the employers commit on defined contribution, and after that - it's your problem, not theirs, to have enough when you're retired.\"" }, { "docid": "49614", "title": "", "text": "\"401k plans are required to not discriminate against the non-HCE participants, and one way they achieve this is by limiting the percentage of wages that HCEs can contribute to the plan to the average annual percentage contribution by the non-HCE participants or 3% whichever is higher. If most non-HCE employees contribute only 3% (usually to capture the employer match but no more), then the HCEs are stuck with 3%. However, be aware that in companies that award year-end bonuses to all employees, many non-HCEs contribute part of their bonuses to their 401k plans, and so the average annual percentage can rise above 3% at the end of year. Some payroll offices have been known to ask all those who have not already maxed out their 401k contribution for the year (yes, it is possible to do this even while contributing only 3% if you are not just a HCE but a VHCE) whether they want to contribute the usual 3%, or a higher percentage, or to contribute the maximum possible under the nondiscrimination rules. So, you might be able to contribute more than 3% if the non-HCEs put in more money at the end of the year. With regard to NQSPs, you pretty much have their properties pegged correctly. That money is considered to be deferred compensation and so you pay taxes on it only when you receive it upon leaving employment. The company also gets to deduct it as a business expense when the money is paid out, and as you said, it is not money that is segregated as a 401k plan is. On the other hand, you have earned the money already: it is just that the company is \"\"holding\"\" it for you. Is it paying you interest on the money (accumulating in the NQSP, not paid out in cash or taxable income to you)? Would it be better to just take the money right now, pay taxes on it, and invest it yourself? Some deferred compensation plans work as follows. The deferred compensation is given to you as a loan in the year it is earned, and you pay only interest on the principal each year. Since the money is a loan, there is no tax of any kind due on the money when you receive it. Now you can invest the proceeds of this loan and hopefully earn enough to cover the interest payments due. (The interest you pay is deductible on Schedule A as an Investment Interest Expense). When employment ceases, you repay the loan to the company as a lump sum or in five or ten annual installments, whatever was agreed to, while the company pays you your deferred compensation less taxes withheld. The net effect is that you pay the company the taxes due on the money, and the company sends this on to the various tax authorities as money withheld from wages paid. The advantage is that you do not need to worry about what happens to your money if the company fails; you have received it up front. Yes, you have to pay the loan principal to the company but the company also owes you exactly that much money as unpaid wages. In the best of all worlds, things will proceed smoothly, but if not, it is better to be in this Mexican standoff rather than standing in line in bankruptcy court and hoping to get pennies on the dollar for your work.\"" }, { "docid": "414737", "title": "", "text": "\"You do not need to inform your employer of your additional activity, but it is your responsibility not to work for more than 48 hours per week as long as you are an employee. So if you are working 38 hours for your employer, you may not work for yourself for more than 10 hours. It is, however, not so easy in practice to draw the line between work and a hobby, as long as you are not being paid by the hour. The main reason to present your employer with an addition to your work contract is to make it legally very clear that he holds no intentions to claim copyright to your work. He may attempt to do something funky like claim your home computer is, in fact, a work computer because you used it once a month to work from home, and your work contract may contain a paragraph that all work performed on a work computer results in copyright ownership for your employer. I have no idea how likely this is in practice, but this is the reason I know is commonly given as legal advice to have a contract. So the normal contract you present your employer with says: In order to earn user contribution money from a website, you need to register as a sole proprietor (Gewerbeanmeldung) and pay trade tax (Gewerbesteuer) and sales tax (Umsatzsteuer, alternatively you claim small trade exception, Kleingewerbe), which also makes a tax return mandatory. I would guess, however, (and this is not legal advice in any way, just my guess), that a couple of contributions towards server cost in a strictly non-profit endeavor is not commercial (\"\"gewerblich\"\") at all but private, in the same way that you may write an invoice to someone you sold your old bike to, or a kid may get paid to mow someone's lawn. Based on that guess, my non-legal-advice recommendation is to take the contributions and do nothing else, as long as the amount is nowhere near breaking even if you count your work input.\"" }, { "docid": "17166", "title": "", "text": "According to the 401K information from the IRS' website, it seems that you could seemingly get away with a salary as low as $53,000. It's tough, and I'd suggest speaking with an Accounting professional to get the clear answers, because as Brick's answer suggests, the IRS isn't super clear about it. An excerpt from a separate page regarding 401K contributions: The annual additions paid to a participant’s account cannot exceed the lesser of: There are separate, smaller limits for SIMPLE 401(k) plans. Example 1: Greg, 46, is employed by an employer with a 401(k) plan and he also works as an independent contractor for an unrelated business. Greg sets up a solo 401(k) plan for his independent contracting business. Greg contributes the maximum amount to his employer’s 401(k) plan for 2015, $18,000. Greg would also like to contribute the maximum amount to his solo 401(k) plan. He is not able to make further elective deferrals to his solo 401(k) plan because he has already contributed his personal maximum, $18,000. He has enough earned income from his business to contribute the overall maximum for the year, $53,000. Greg can make a nonelective contribution of $53,000 to his solo 401(k) plan. This limit is not reduced by the elective deferrals under his employer’s plan because the limit on annual additions applies to each plan separately. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/retirement-topics-401k-and-profit-sharing-plan-contribution-limits" }, { "docid": "436897", "title": "", "text": "As others have explained defined contribution is when you (or your employer) contributes a specified amount and you reap all the investment returns. Defined benefit is when your employer promises to pay you a specified amount (benefit) and is responsible for making the necessary investments to provide for it. Is one better than the other? We can argue this either way. Defined benefit would seem to be more predictable and assured. The problem being of course that it is entirely reliant upon the employer to have saved enough money to pay that amount. If the employer fails in that responsibility, then the only fallback is government guarantees. And of course the government has limitations on what it can guarantee. For example, from Wikipedia: The maximum pension benefit guaranteed by PBGC is set by law and adjusted yearly. For plans that end in 2016, workers who retire at age 65 can receive up to $5,011.36 per month (or $60,136 per year) under PBGC's insurance program for single-employer plans. Benefit payments starting at ages other than 65 are adjusted actuarially, which means the maximum guaranteed benefit is lower for those who retire early or when there is a benefit for a survivor, and higher for those who retire after age 65. Additionally, the PBGC will not fully guarantee benefit improvements that were adopted within the five-year period prior to a plan's termination or benefits that are not payable over a retiree's lifetime. Other limitations also apply to supplemental benefits in excess of normal retirement benefits, benefit increases within the last five years before a plan's termination, and benefits earned after a plan sponsor's bankruptcy. By contrast, people tend to control their own defined contribution accounts. So they control how much gets invested and where. Defined contribution accounts are always 100% funded. Defined benefit pension plans are often underfunded. They expect the employer to step forward and subsidize them when they run short. This allows the defined benefits to both be cheaper during the employment period and more generous in retirement. But it also means that employers have to subsidize the plans later, when they no longer get a benefit from the relationship with the employee. If you want someone else to make promises to you and aren't worried that they won't keep them, you probably prefer defined benefit. If you want to have personal control over the money, you probably prefer defined contribution. My personal opinion is that defined benefit plans are a curse. They encourage risky behavior and false promises. Defined contribution plans are more honest about what they provide and better match the production of employment with its compensation. Others see defined benefit plans as the gold standard of pensions." }, { "docid": "357340", "title": "", "text": "Someone messed up here. My tax accountant says she is supposed to enter the values as they are on the W2 and CompanyB said they will not issue a new W2 because they were not involved in the refund of the money. Correct. We decided that we will enter a value different from 12b-d, subtract the money that was refunded to me because it's already on the 1099. Incorrect. Is there an alternative to avoid paying taxes twice on the 401k overages? If not, is there a better way to do this to minimize the risk of an audit? You should enter the amounts in W2 as they are. Otherwise things won't tie at the IRS and they will come back asking questions. The amount in box 12-D was deducted from your wages pre-tax, so you didn't pay tax on it. The distribution is taxable, and if it was made before the tax day next year - only taxable once. So if you withdrew the same year of the contribution, as it sounds like you did, you will only pay tax on it once because the amounts were not included in your salary. If the 1099-R is marked with the correct code, the IRS will be able to match the excess contribution (box 12-D) and the removal of the excess contribution (1099-R with the code) and it will all tie, no-one will audit you. The accountant is probably clueless as to how her software works. By default, the accounting software will add the excess contribution on W2 box 12-D back into wages, and it will be added to taxable income on your tax return. However, when you type in the 1099 with the proper code, this should be reversed by the software, and if it is not - should be manually overridden. This should be done at the adjustment entry, not the W2 entry screen, since a copy of the W2 will be transmitted with your tax return and should match the actual W2 transmitted by your employer. If she doesn't know what she's doing, find someone who does." }, { "docid": "24404", "title": "", "text": "For the rollover, you should probably talk to the recipient manager. This would be your broker or whomever (your new employer if rolling into another 401k). They should be able to update you on progress and let you know if you need to do anything. In a comment, you say I could be putting in money but instead im lossing. There is no requirement that an IRA have 401k money in it. Just put the money in without the existing money. Eventually the rollover will complete and add that money to whatever you contribute to the IRA. The rollover should not affect your future contributions in any way." }, { "docid": "181652", "title": "", "text": "If you have self-employment income you can open a Solo 401k. Your question is unclear as to what your employment status is. If you are self-employed as an independent contractor, you can open a Solo 401k. You can still do this even if you also earn non-self-employment income (i.e., you are an employee and receive a W-2). However, the limits for contributions to a Solo 401k are based on your self-mployment income, not your total income, so if you have only a small amount of self-employment income, you won't be able to contribute much to the Solo 401k. You may be able to reduce your taxes somewhat, but it's not like you can earn $1000 of self-employment income, open a Solo 401k, and dump $5000 into it; the limits don't work that way." }, { "docid": "110114", "title": "", "text": "All data for a single adult in tax year 2010. Roth IRA 401K Roth 401k Traditional IRA and your employer offers a 401k Traditional IRA and your employer does NOT offer a 401k So, here are your options. If you have a 401k at work, you could max that out. If you make close to $120K, you could reduce your AGI enough to contribute to a Roth IRA. If you do not have a 401k at work, you could contribute to a Traditional IRA and deduct the $5K from your AGI similar to how a 401k works. Other than that, I think you are looking at investing outside of a retirement plan which means more flexibility, but no tax advantage." }, { "docid": "271233", "title": "", "text": "Sure it is quite easy depending on income. If one receives a bonus that is high in relationship to their income, it is very easy to max out a 401K prior to when one intended. The later in the year such a bonus occurs the more likely that one will max out prematurely. If one only has a single employer in the year, the custodial company will not accept amounts above the max, so one need not worry about that case. If there is more than one employer, a refund is typically issued with the appropriate tax withheld. Assume that a person makes about 60K per year. They intend to put 12k into their 401K, thus have their contribution set to 20%. By the beginning of September, they have 8K into their retirement, but they also receive a bonus of 50K. Their 401K contribution for that bonus will be 10K, and thus they have maxed out their individual contribution for the year. So they will not be able to contribute for the rest of the year, including the first paycheck in September. They will miss out on any match that the company may supply. While that sucks, it should be relieved by the bless of receiving such a large bonus." }, { "docid": "501290", "title": "", "text": "On the statement it now tracks how much is contributed to the account pre and post tax. This is the key. Your withdrawals will be proportional. Assuming you have contributed 90% in regular contributions (pre-tax) and 10% in Roth (post tax), when you withdraw $1000, it will be $900 from the regular (taxed fully) and $100 from the Roth (not taxed, assuming its a qualified distribution). Earnings attributed proportionally to the contributions. I agree with you that it is not the best option, and would also prefer separate accounts, but with 401k - the account is per employee. Instead of doing 401k Roth/Non-Roth consider switching to Regular 401k and Roth IRA - then you can separate the funds easily as you wish." }, { "docid": "517078", "title": "", "text": "\"Generally if you need to tap into your retirement for the house - you probably shouldn't buy the house. But that's your call. There are several things you could do. Sue your CPA \"\"friend\"\" for malpractice. Especially if there's any actual proof of that stupid suggestion. Check with your 401k administrator about home-purchase loan from the 401k. You'll be borrowing your own money, and repaying yourself back with interest, but it will be tax free and with no penalties. Keep in mind: if you cannot repay the loan, or you leave your employer without repaying it in full - the remaining balance will be considered withdrawal and you'll pay income taxes + 10% penalty on it. If you have an IRA, you can withdraw up to 10K without penalty if this is your first house (i.e.: you didn't own a house in the last 3 years), and is going to be your primary residence. You'll still pay taxes on the 10K. But, this is not available for 401k plans. You can request equal payments distribution calculated based on your life expectancy (This is the infamous 72(t)(2) distribution, even though many of the exceptions are in the IRC 72(t)(2). This in particular is 72(t)(2)(A)(iv)). Here's the full list of exceptions. Note that even if you're willing to pay the 10% penalty, many 401k plans do not allow distributions as long as you're still employed with the sponsoring employer. If you take a hardship distribution from your 401k (if it even allows it), you'll be prohibited from contributing for 6 months, and your employer will be prohibited from contributing on your behalf as well. I.e.: not only you take out your savings, you'll be barred from saving back. Also, in the same FAQ, it tells you that the hardship distribution can only include the amounts up to the original contributions (less whatever distributions already made), and not earnings or match. I.e.: it may actually be much less than the 40K you're counting on.\"" }, { "docid": "35680", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "551403", "title": "", "text": "\"From a purely analytical standpoint, assuming you are investing your Roth IRA contributions in broad market securities (such as the SPDR S&P 500 ETF, which tracks the S&P 500), the broader market has historically had more upward movement than downward, and therefore a dollar invested today will have a greater expected value than a dollar invested tomorrow. So from this perspective, it is better to \"\"max out\"\" your Roth on the first day of the contribution year and immediately invest in broad market (or at least well diversified) securities. That being said, opportunity costs must also be taken into account--every dollar you use to fund your Roth IRA is a dollar that is no longer available to be invested elsewhere (hence, a lost opportunity). With this in mind, if you are currently eligible for a 401k in which your employer matches some portion of your contributions, it is generally advised that you contribute to the 401k up to the employer-match. For example, if your employer matches 75% of contributions up to 3.5% of your gross salary, then it is advisable that you first contribute this 3.5% to your 401k before even considering contributing to a Roth IRA. The reasoning behind this is two-fold: first, the employer-match can be considered as a guaranteed Return on Investment--so for example, for an employer that matches 75%, for every dollar you contribute you already have earned a 75% return up to the employer's limit. Secondly, 401k contributions have tax implications: not only is the money contributed to the 401k pre-tax (i.e., contributions are not taxed), it also reduces your taxable income, so the marginal tax benefit of these contributions must also be taken into account. Keep in mind that in the usual circumstances, 401k disbursements are taxable. Finally, many financial advisors will also suggest establishing an \"\"emergency fund\"\", which is money that you will not use unless you suffer an emergency that has an impact on your normal income--loss of job, medical emergency, etc. These funds are often kept in highly liquid accounts (savings accounts, money-market funds, etc.) so they can be accessed immediately when you run into one of \"\"life's little surprises\"\". Generally, it is advised that an emergency fund between $500-$1000 is established ASAP, and over time the emergency fund should be increased until it has reached a value equivalent to the sum of 8 months' worth of expenses. If funding an IRA is preventing you from working towards such an emergency fund, then you may want to consider waiting on maxing out the IRA before you have that EF established. Of course, it goes without saying that credit card balances with APRs other than 0.00% (or similar) should be paid off before an IRA is funded, since while you can only hope to match the market at best (between 10-15% a year) in your IRA investments, paying down credit card balances is an instant \"\"return\"\" of whatever the APR is, which usually tends to be between a 15-30% APR. In a nutshell, assuming you are maxing out your 401k (if applicable), have an emergency fund established, are not carrying any high-APR credit card balances, and are able to do so, historical price movements in the markets suggest that funding your Roth IRA upfront and investing these funds immediately in a broadly diversified portfolio will yield a higher expected return than funding the account periodically throughout the year (using dollar cost averaging or similar strategies). If this is not the case, take some time to consider the opportunity costs you are incurring from not fully contributing to your 401k, carrying high credit card balances, or not having a sufficient emergency fund established. This is not financial advice specific to any individual and your mileage may vary. Consider consulting a Certified Financial Planner, Certified Public Accountant, etc. before making any major financial decisions.\"" }, { "docid": "122910", "title": "", "text": "The biggest challenge as a young person maxing out a 401k in my opinion is the challenge of saving for a house, and (if necessary) paying off student loans. You have to consider - are you OK renting for the next 3, 5, 10 years? Or do you eventually want to buy a place? how much will that cost vs your current expenses? That being said, I didn't max out but had over 8-10% of 401k contribution in the same situation you're in right now and I don't regret it. Rereading your question, I see you are considering investing in a Roth IRA. Especially at your current age, assuming your wages will go UP, investing to the company match with the 401K and then maxing out a Roth IRA would be my recommendation. THEN continue maxing out the 401k (if you wish). P.S. I highly recommend doing two things if you go down this path:" }, { "docid": "564796", "title": "", "text": "\"Since most of the answers are flawed in their logic, I decided to respond here. 1) \"\"What if you lose your job, you can't pay back the loan\"\" The point of the question was to reduce the amount paid per month. So obviously it would be easier to pay off the 401k loan rather than the 3 separate loans that are in place now. Also it's stated in the question that there's a mortgage, a child with medical costs, a car loan, student loans, other debt. On the list of priorities the 401k loan does not make the top 10 concerns if they lost their job. 2) \"\"Consider stopping the 401k contribution\"\" This is such a terrible idea. If you make the full contribution to the 401k and then just withdraw from the 401k rather than getting a loan you only pay a 10% penalty tax. You still get 90% of the company match. 3) \"\"You lose compound interest\"\" While currently the interest you get on a 401k (depending on how that money is invested) is higher than the interest you pay on your loans (which means it would be advantageous to keep the loans and keep contributing to the 401k), it's very unreliable and might even go down. I think you actually have a good case for getting a loan against the 401k if a) You have your spending and budget under control b) Your income is consistent c) You are certain that the loan will be paid back. My suggestion would be to take a loan against the 401k, but keep the current spending on the loans consistent. If you don't need the extra $150 per month, you really should try to pay off the loans as fast as you can. If you do need the $150 extra, you are lowering the mental threshold for getting more loans in the future.\"" }, { "docid": "167438", "title": "", "text": "Congrats! That's a solid accomplishment for someone who is not even in college yet. I graduated college 3 years ago and I wish I was able to save more in college than I did. The rule of thumb with saving: the earlier the better. My personal portfolio for retirement is comprised of four areas: Roth IRA contributions, 401k contributions, HSA contributions, Stock Market One of the greatest things about the college I attended was its co-op program. I had 3 internships - each were full time positions for 6 months. I strongly recommend, if its available, finding an internship for whatever major you are looking into. It will not only convince you that the career path you chose is what you want to do, but there are added benefits specifically in regards to retirement and savings. In all three of my co-ops I was able to apply 8% of my paycheck to my company's 401k plan. They also had matching available. As a result, my 401k had a pretty substantial savings amount by the time I graduated college. To circle back to your question, I would recommend investing the money into a Roth IRA or the stock market. I personally have yet to invest a significant amount of money in the stock market. Instead, I have been maxing out my retirement for the last three years. That means I'm adding 18k to my 401k, 5.5k to my Roth, and adding ~3k to my HSA (there are limits to each of these and you can find them online). Compounded interest is amazing (I'm just going to leave this here... https://www.moneyunder30.com/power-of-compound-interest)." } ]

[ { "docid": "7748", "title": "", "text": "\"For your first question, the general guidelines I've seen recommended are as follows: As to your second question, portfolio management is something you should familiarize yourself with. If you trust it to other people, don't be surprised when they make \"\"mistakes\"\". Remember, they get paid regardless of whether you make money. Consider how much any degree of risk will affect you. When starting out, your contributions make up most of the growth of your accounts; now is the time when you can most afford to take higher risk for higher payouts (still limiting your risk as much as possible, of course). A 10% loss on a portfolio of $50k can be replaced with a good year's contributions. Once your portfolio has grown to a much larger sum, it will be time to dial back the risk and focus on preserving your capital. When choosing investments, always treat your porfolio as a whole - including non-retirement assets (other investment accounts, savings, even your house). Don't put too many eggs from every account into the same basket, or you'll find that 30% of your porfolio is a single investment. Also consider that some investments have different tax consequences, and you can leverage the properties of each account to offset that.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "349706", "title": "", "text": "\"The presenter suggested we keep records of our claims for 10+ years in paper form. This seemed to be overkill. It would be overkill if you're taking distributions regularly and you have enough valid (and otherwise unreimbursed) medical receipts each year to correspond to your distributions. However, if you are pumping money into the HSA without regular distributions, then you may need to keep receipts for a long time, possibly since the beginning of your HSA. For example: If the IRS was to audit my HSA deductions would the Aetna online claims be adequate? It's better than nothing, but it is not ideal. You need to provide proof of what you actually paid, not just what was billed. (How would the IRS know if you actually paid the bill?) So, the bill and receipt together would be preferred. Also, there are many eligible expenses for HSA that would not be covered by your health insurance and would not appear in your Aetna statements (dental work for example). Personally I have an excel spreadsheet with every eligible expense listed, every contribution and distribution I make, and a box of receipts since I opened the HSA account. Should I also archive screenshots of these claims digitally somewhere? If you have the time and diligence to do it, then it wouldn't hurt. I personally am only one house fire away from having to make a lot of phone calls if I wanted to re-build my receipts folder from scratch. I actually have \"\"scan my HSA receipts\"\" on my todo list (where's it been for years as a pretty low priority). Lastly it makes sense to spend the money in my HSA on anything eligible because you can never roll it over into a retirement account, its shaky if another person (spouse) could get reimbursed for eligible medical expenses if you die, and if you lose your receipts you may not be able to spend all of the HSA money tax free. Is this an accurate assessment or is there a reason why I should not touch the HSA money at all and wait to reimburse my eligible expenses. First off, if you are married the HSA can be transferred to your spouse. But in general, it really depends on what you would do with the money if you distributed it right away. If you need the money to pay debts, bills, etc, then it might make sense to take it, but if it would be extra money that you would invest somewhere, then you should leave it in the HSA because it grows tax free while it's in there and (probably) wouldn't if you take it out. The caveat though is that you need to find an HSA administrator that offers your preferred investment choices. As for your worry that you might lose your receipts, well, that's a valid point- but I wouldn't drive my decision based on that- I would archive them digitally to remove that concern completely. ...Should I reimburse myself from ... the HSA funds if I am not hitting the 401k limit yet? It depends. If it's a Roth 401k, all other things being equal, (you are able to choose the same investments with your HSA as you can choose in your 401K, and the costs are the same), then you are better off leaving the money in your HSA rather than pulling it out and putting it into the Roth 401k. The reason is that there is no tax difference, and once you put it into the 401K you (probably) can't touch it (for free) until you retire. With the HSA, if you could have taken a distribution but chose not to, then you can take that amount of money out anytime you want to without any consequences, just like your normal checking account. However, if you have a traditional 401k, and if taking HSA distributions would increase your cash flow such that you could afford to contribute more to the 401k, then this would lower your tax burden that year by reducing your taxable income.\"" }, { "docid": "3481", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes it's entirely possible; see below. If you can't find anything on transfers out (partial or otherwise) on anyone's site it's because they don't want to give anyone ideas. I have successfully done exactly what you're proposing earlier this year, transferring most of the value from my employer's group personal pension scheme - also Aviva! - to a much lower-cost SIPP. The lack of any sign of movement by Aviva to post-RDR \"\"clean priced\"\" charge-levels on funds was the final straw for me. My only regret is that I didn't do it sooner! Transfer paperwork was initiated from the SIPP end but I was careful to make clear to HR people and Aviva's rep (or whatever group-scheme/employee benefits middleman organization he was from) that I was not exiting the company scheme and expected my employee and matching employer contributions to continue unchanged (and that I'd not be happy if some admin mess up led to me missing a month's contributions). There's a bit more on the affair in a thread here. Aviva's rep did seem to need a bit of a prod to finally get it to happen. With hindsight my original hope of an in-specie transfer does seem naive, but the out-of-the-market time was shorter and less scary than anticipated. Just in case you're unaware of it, Monevator's online broker list is an excellent resource to help decide who you might use for a SIPP; cheapest choice depends on level of funds and what you're likely to hold in it and how often you'll trade.\"" }, { "docid": "501290", "title": "", "text": "On the statement it now tracks how much is contributed to the account pre and post tax. This is the key. Your withdrawals will be proportional. Assuming you have contributed 90% in regular contributions (pre-tax) and 10% in Roth (post tax), when you withdraw $1000, it will be $900 from the regular (taxed fully) and $100 from the Roth (not taxed, assuming its a qualified distribution). Earnings attributed proportionally to the contributions. I agree with you that it is not the best option, and would also prefer separate accounts, but with 401k - the account is per employee. Instead of doing 401k Roth/Non-Roth consider switching to Regular 401k and Roth IRA - then you can separate the funds easily as you wish." }, { "docid": "312369", "title": "", "text": "Congratulations on your raise! Is my employer allowed to impose their own limit on my contributions that's different from the IRS limit? No. Is it something they can limit at will, or are they required to allow me to contribute up to the IRS limit? The employer cannot limit you, you can contribute up to the IRS limit. Your mistake is in thinking that the IRS limit is 17K for everyone. That is not so. You're affected by the HCE rules (Highly Compensated Employees). These rules define certain employees as HCE (if their salary is significantly higher than that of the rest of the employees), and limit the ability of the HCE's to deposit money into 401k, based on the deposits made by the rest of the employees. Basically it means that while the overall maximum is indeed 17K, your personal (and other HCE's in your company) is lowered down because those who are not HCE's in the company don't deposit to 401k enough. You can read more details and technical explanation about the HCE rules in this article and in this blog post." }, { "docid": "182305", "title": "", "text": "You asked specifically about the ROTH IRA option and stated you want to get the most bang for your buck in retirement. While others have pointed out the benefits of a tax deduction due to using a Traditional IRA instead, I haven't seen anyone point out some of the other differences between ROTH and Traditional, such as: I agree with your thoughts on using an IRA once you maximize the company match into a 401k plan. My reasoning is: I personally prefer ETFs over mutual funds for the ability to get in and out with limit, stop, or OCO orders, at open or anytime mid-day if needed. However, the price for that flexibility is that you risk discounts to NAV for ETFs that you wouldn't have with the equivalent mutual fund. Said another way, you may find yourself selling your ETF for less than the holdings are actually worth. Personally, I value the ability to exit positions at the time of my choosing more highly than the impact of tracking error on NAV. Also, as a final comment to your plan, if it were me I'd personally pay off the student loans with any money I had after contributing enough to my employer 401k to maximize matching. The net effect of paying down the loans is a guaranteed avg 5.3% annually (given what you've said) whereas any investments in 401k or IRA are at risk and have no such guarantee. In fact, with there being reasonable arguments that this has been an excessively long bull market, you might figure your chances of a 5.3% or better return are pretty low for new money put into an IRA or 401k today. That said, I'm long on stocks still, but then I don't have debt besides my mortgage at the moment. If I weren't so conservative, I'd be looking to maximize my leverage in the continued low rate environment." }, { "docid": "42999", "title": "", "text": "After reading OP Mark's question and the various answers carefully and also looking over some old pay stubs of mine, I am beginning to wonder if he is mis-reading his pay stub or slip of paper attached to the reimbursement check for the item(s) he purchases. Pay stubs (whether paper documents attached to checks or things received in one's company mailbox or available for downloading from a company web site while the money is deposited electronically into the employee's checking account) vary from company to company, but a reasonably well-designed stub would likely have categories such as Taxable gross income for the pay period: This is the amount from which payroll taxes (Federal and State income tax, Social Security and Medicare tax) are deducted as well as other post-tax deductions such as money going to purchase of US Savings Bonds, contributions to United Way via payroll deduction, contribution to Roth 401k etc. Employer-paid group life insurance premiums are taxable income too for any portion of the policy that exceeds $50K. In some cases, these appear as a lump sum on the last pay stub for the year. Nontaxable gross income for the pay period: This would be sum total of the amounts contributed to nonRoth 401k plans, employee's share of group health-care insurance premiums for employee and/or employee's family, money deposited into FSA accounts, etc. Net pay: This is the amount of the attached check or money sent via ACH to the employee's bank account. Year-to-date amounts: These just tell the employee what has been earned/paid/withheld to date in the various categories. Now, OP Mark said My company does not tax the reimbursement but they do add it to my running gross earnings total for the year. So, the question is whether the amount of the reimbursement is included in the Year-to-date amount of Taxable Income. If YTD Taxable Income does not include the reimbursement amount, then the the OP's question and the answers and comments are moot; unless the company has really-messed-up (Pat. Pending) payroll software that does weird things, the amount on the W2 form will be whatever is shown as YTD Taxable Income on the last pay stub of the year, and, as @DJClayworth noted cogently, it is what will appear on the W2 form that really matters. In summary, it is good that OP Mark is taking the time to investigate the matter of the reimbursements appearing in Total Gross Income, but if the amounts are not appearing in the YTD Taxable Income, his Payroll Office may just reassure him that they have good software and that what the YTD Taxable Income says on the last pay stub is what will be appearing on his W2 form. I am fairly confident that this is what will be the resolution of the matter because if the amount of the reimbursement was included in Taxable Income during that pay period and no tax was withheld, then the employer has a problem with Social Security and Medicare tax underwithholding, and nonpayment of this tax plus the employer's share to the US Treasury in timely fashion. The IRS takes an extremely dim view of such shenanigans and most employers are unlikely to take the risk." }, { "docid": "88597", "title": "", "text": "\"You're getting great wisdom and options. Establishing your actionable path will require the details that only you know, such as how much is actually in each paycheck (and how much tax is withheld), how much do you spend each month (and yearly expenses too), how much spending can you actually cut or replace, how comfortable are you with considering (or not considering) unexpected/emergency spending. You mentioned you were cash-poor, but only you know what your current account balances are, which will affect your actions and priorities. Btw, interestingly, your \"\"increase 401k contributions by 2% each year\"\" will need to end before hitting the $18K contribution limit. I took some time and added the details you posted into a cash-flow program to see your scenario over the next few years. There isn't a \"\"401k loan\"\" activity in this program yet, so I build the scenario from other simple activities. You seem financially minded enough to continue modeling on your own. I'm posting the more difficult one for you (borrow from 401k), but you'll have to input your actual balances, paycheck and spending. My spending assumptions must be low, and I entered $70K as \"\"take-home,\"\" so the model looks like you've got lots of cash. If you choose to play with it, then consider modeling some other scenarios from the advice in the other posts. Here's the \"\"Borrow $6500 from 401k\"\" scenario model at Whatll.Be: https://whatll.be/d1x1ndp26i/2 To me, it's all about trying the scenarios and see which one seems to work with all of the details. The trick is knowing what scenarios to try, and how to model them. Full disclosure: I needed to do similar planning, so I wrote Whatll.Be and I now share it with other people. It's in beta, so I'm testing it with scenarios like yours. (Notice most of the extra activity occurs on 2018-Jan-01)\"" }, { "docid": "289064", "title": "", "text": "\"If you are the sole owner (or just you and your spouse) and expect to be that way for a few years, consider the benefits of an individual 401(k). The contribution limits are higher than an IRA, and there are usually no fees involved. You can google \"\"Individual 401k\"\" and any of the major investment firms (Fidelity, Schwab, etc) will set one up free of charge. This option gives you a lot of freedom to decide how much money to put away without any plan management fees. The IRS site has all the details in an article titled One-Participant 401(k) Plans. Once you have employees, if you want to set up a retirement plan for them, you'll need to switch to a traditional, employer-sponsored 401k, which will involve some fees on your part. I seem to recall $2k/yr in fees when I had a sponsored 401(k) for my company, and I'm sure this varies widely. If you have employees and don't feel a need to have a company-wide retirement plan, you can set up your own personal IRA and simply not offer a company plan to your employees. The IRA contribution limits are lower than an individual 401(k), but setting it up is easy and fee-free. So basically, if you want to spend $0 on plan management fees, get an individual 401(k) if you are self-employed, or an IRA for yourself if you have employees.\"" }, { "docid": "181652", "title": "", "text": "If you have self-employment income you can open a Solo 401k. Your question is unclear as to what your employment status is. If you are self-employed as an independent contractor, you can open a Solo 401k. You can still do this even if you also earn non-self-employment income (i.e., you are an employee and receive a W-2). However, the limits for contributions to a Solo 401k are based on your self-mployment income, not your total income, so if you have only a small amount of self-employment income, you won't be able to contribute much to the Solo 401k. You may be able to reduce your taxes somewhat, but it's not like you can earn $1000 of self-employment income, open a Solo 401k, and dump $5000 into it; the limits don't work that way." }, { "docid": "448067", "title": "", "text": "There's no such requirement in general. If your particular employer requires that - you should address the question to the HR/payroll department. From my experience, matches are generally not conditioned on when you contribute, only how much." }, { "docid": "552031", "title": "", "text": "Roth and 401k are first because with the Roth you have tax free withdrawals (awesome!) and with the 401k you have tax free contributions (awesome!) as well as potential employer matching. Traditional IRAs would be the final thing I would contribute to after both of those. And in your case, unless you make around 150k, you aren't maxing your 401k; so I'd do that first." }, { "docid": "290105", "title": "", "text": "I would hire an accountant to help set this up, given the sums of money involved. $53,000 would be the minimum amount of compensation needed to maximize the 401k. The total limit of contributions is the lesser of: 100% of the participant's compensation, or $53,000 ($59,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2015 and 2016. and they don't count contributions as compensation Your employer's contributions to a qualified retirement plan for you are not included in income at the time contributed. (Your employer can tell you whether your retirement plan is qualified.) On the bright side, employer contributions aren't subject to FICA withholdings." }, { "docid": "92442", "title": "", "text": "Is there any benefit to investing in a Roth 401(k) plan, as opposed to a Roth IRA? They have separate contribution limits, so how much you contribute to one does not change the amount you can contribute to the other. Which is relevant to your question because you said the earnings on that account compounded over the next 40 years growing tax-free will be much higher than what I'd save on current taxes on a traditional 401(k). This is only true if you max out your contribution limits. If you start with the same amount of money and have the same marginal tax rate in both years, it doesn't matter which one you pick. Start with $10,000 to invest. With the traditional, you can invest all $10,000. With the Roth, you pay taxes on it and then invest it. Let's assume a tax rate of 25%. So invest $7500. Let's assume that you invest either amount long enough to double four times (forty years at 7% return after inflation is about right). So the traditional has $160,000 and the Roth has $120,000. Now you withdraw them. For simplicity's sake, we'll pretend it's all one year. It's probably over several years, but the math is easier in a single year. With the Roth, you have $120,000. With the traditional, you have to pay tax. Again, let's assume 25%. So that's $40,000, leaving you with $120,000 from the traditional. That is the same amount as the Roth! So it would make sense to If you can max out both, great. You do that for forty years and your retirement will be as financially secure as you can make it. If you can't max them out, the most important thing is the employer match. That's free money. Then you may prefer your Roth IRA to the 401k. Note that you can also roll over your Roth 401k to a Roth IRA. Then you can withdraw your contributions from the Roth IRA without penalty or additional tax. Alternate source. Beyond answering your question, I would still like to reiterate that Roth or traditional does not have a big effect on your investment unless you max them out or you have different tax rates now versus in retirement. It may change other things. For example, you can roll over a Roth 401k to a Roth IRA without paying taxes. And the Roth IRA will act like it was contributed directly. You have to check with your employer what their rollover rules are. They may allow it any time or only at employment separation (when you leave the job). If you do max out your Roth accounts, then they will perform better than the traditional accounts at the same nominal contribution. This is because they are tax free while your returns in the other accounts will have to pay taxes. But it doesn't matter until you hit the limits. Until then, you could just invest the tax savings of the traditional as well as the money you could invest in a Roth." }, { "docid": "517078", "title": "", "text": "\"Generally if you need to tap into your retirement for the house - you probably shouldn't buy the house. But that's your call. There are several things you could do. Sue your CPA \"\"friend\"\" for malpractice. Especially if there's any actual proof of that stupid suggestion. Check with your 401k administrator about home-purchase loan from the 401k. You'll be borrowing your own money, and repaying yourself back with interest, but it will be tax free and with no penalties. Keep in mind: if you cannot repay the loan, or you leave your employer without repaying it in full - the remaining balance will be considered withdrawal and you'll pay income taxes + 10% penalty on it. If you have an IRA, you can withdraw up to 10K without penalty if this is your first house (i.e.: you didn't own a house in the last 3 years), and is going to be your primary residence. You'll still pay taxes on the 10K. But, this is not available for 401k plans. You can request equal payments distribution calculated based on your life expectancy (This is the infamous 72(t)(2) distribution, even though many of the exceptions are in the IRC 72(t)(2). This in particular is 72(t)(2)(A)(iv)). Here's the full list of exceptions. Note that even if you're willing to pay the 10% penalty, many 401k plans do not allow distributions as long as you're still employed with the sponsoring employer. If you take a hardship distribution from your 401k (if it even allows it), you'll be prohibited from contributing for 6 months, and your employer will be prohibited from contributing on your behalf as well. I.e.: not only you take out your savings, you'll be barred from saving back. Also, in the same FAQ, it tells you that the hardship distribution can only include the amounts up to the original contributions (less whatever distributions already made), and not earnings or match. I.e.: it may actually be much less than the 40K you're counting on.\"" }, { "docid": "110114", "title": "", "text": "All data for a single adult in tax year 2010. Roth IRA 401K Roth 401k Traditional IRA and your employer offers a 401k Traditional IRA and your employer does NOT offer a 401k So, here are your options. If you have a 401k at work, you could max that out. If you make close to $120K, you could reduce your AGI enough to contribute to a Roth IRA. If you do not have a 401k at work, you could contribute to a Traditional IRA and deduct the $5K from your AGI similar to how a 401k works. Other than that, I think you are looking at investing outside of a retirement plan which means more flexibility, but no tax advantage." }, { "docid": "392371", "title": "", "text": "Does you job offer a retirement plan? (401k, SIMPLE, etc) Does your employer offer a match on contributions? Typically an employer will match what you put in, up to a certain percentage (e.g. 3%). So, say you contribute 3% of your paycheck into your retirement plan. If your employer mathes that, you've effectively contributed 6%. You've just doubled your money! The best thing a young professional can do is to contribute to your employer-matched retirement plan, up to the maximum amount they will match. You should do it immediately. If not, you are leaving money on the table." }, { "docid": "430931", "title": "", "text": "Specifically on the subject of maxing out your 401k, there are several downsides: The employer match usually only applies to the first 6%. Some employers offer no match at all. You listed the match as a pro, but I think it should be pointed out that you can usually get this benefit without maxing out your plan. The investment options are limited. Usually there is at least one fund available from all the common investment classes, but these may not be your preferred funds if you were able to choose for yourself. Fees can be very high. If you are working for a small to medium size company, the fees for each fund will often be higher than for the same funds in a plan offered by a large company. Fees are usually related to the dollar amount of assets under management. Each person has a different tax situation, so if you are single and making 6 figures, you might still be in the 25% bracket even after maxing out your 401k, but the same person filing jointly with a spouse that makes less could get down to the 15% bracket with a smaller contribution. I meet my retirement savings goals without maxing out the 401k. As long as the amount is above the employer match amount, my second priority is to funnel as much money as possible in to my IRA (because I get lower fees and better investment options from Vanguard)." }, { "docid": "52438", "title": "", "text": "\"Highly Compensated Employee Rules Aim to Make 401k's Fair would be the piece that I suspect you are missing here. I remember hearing of this rule when I worked in the US and can understand why it exists. A key quote from the article: You wouldn't think the prospect of getting money from an employer would be nerve-wracking. But those jittery co-workers are highly compensated employees (HCEs) concerned that they will receive a refund of excess 401k contributions because their plan failed its discrimination test. A refund means they will owe more income tax for the current tax year. Geersk (a pseudonym), who is also an HCE, is in information services and manages the computers that process his firm's 401k plan. 401(k) - Wikipedia reference on this: To help ensure that companies extend their 401(k) plans to low-paid employees, an IRS rule limits the maximum deferral by the company's \"\"highly compensated\"\" employees, based on the average deferral by the company's non-highly compensated employees. If the less compensated employees are allowed to save more for retirement, then the executives are allowed to save more for retirement. This provision is enforced via \"\"non-discrimination testing\"\". Non-discrimination testing takes the deferral rates of \"\"highly compensated employees\"\" (HCEs) and compares them to non-highly compensated employees (NHCEs). An HCE in 2008 is defined as an employee with compensation of greater than $100,000 in 2007 or an employee that owned more than 5% of the business at any time during the year or the preceding year.[13] In addition to the $100,000 limit for determining HCEs, employers can elect to limit the top-paid group of employees to the top 20% of employees ranked by compensation.[13] That is for plans whose first day of the plan year is in calendar year 2007, we look to each employee's prior year gross compensation (also known as 'Medicare wages') and those who earned more than $100,000 are HCEs. Most testing done now in 2009 will be for the 2008 plan year and compare employees' 2007 plan year gross compensation to the $100,000 threshold for 2007 to determine who is HCE and who is a NHCE. The threshold was $110,000 in 2010 and it did not change for 2011. The average deferral percentage (ADP) of all HCEs, as a group, can be no more than 2 percentage points greater (or 125% of, whichever is more) than the NHCEs, as a group. This is known as the ADP test. When a plan fails the ADP test, it essentially has two options to come into compliance. It can have a return of excess done to the HCEs to bring their ADP to a lower, passing, level. Or it can process a \"\"qualified non-elective contribution\"\" (QNEC) to some or all of the NHCEs to raise their ADP to a passing level. The return of excess requires the plan to send a taxable distribution to the HCEs (or reclassify regular contributions as catch-up contributions subject to the annual catch-up limit for those HCEs over 50) by March 15 of the year following the failed test. A QNEC must be an immediately vested contribution. The annual contribution percentage (ACP) test is similarly performed but also includes employer matching and employee after-tax contributions. ACPs do not use the simple 2% threshold, and include other provisions which can allow the plan to \"\"shift\"\" excess passing rates from the ADP over to the ACP. A failed ACP test is likewise addressed through return of excess, or a QNEC or qualified match (QMAC). There are a number of \"\"safe harbor\"\" provisions that can allow a company to be exempted from the ADP test. This includes making a \"\"safe harbor\"\" employer contribution to employees' accounts. Safe harbor contributions can take the form of a match (generally totaling 4% of pay) or a non-elective profit sharing (totaling 3% of pay). Safe harbor 401(k) contributions must be 100% vested at all times with immediate eligibility for employees. There are other administrative requirements within the safe harbor, such as requiring the employer to notify all eligible employees of the opportunity to participate in the plan, and restricting the employer from suspending participants for any reason other than due to a hardship withdrawal.\"" }, { "docid": "150883", "title": "", "text": "There are a couple of cases where I'd argue in favor of the 401k: Employer matching - If the employer matches your contributions, then it makes sense to get these additional investments which if you are in a low bracket may exist as highly-compensated employees may want those in the lower brackets to contribute as much as they can. Investment options - If the employer has enough assets in the plan, there could be access to institutional versions of those funds. For example, compare Vanguard Institutional Index Instl Pl (VIIIX) with Vanguard 500 Index Inv (VFINX), where the expense ratio in the former is just .02% while the latter is .17%. Granted this is a minor difference in expenses, there is something to be said for how much a .15% drag year over year could add up." } ]

[ { "docid": "107554", "title": "", "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.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "294573", "title": "", "text": "You should always always enroll in an espp if there is no lockup period and you can finance the contributions at a non-onerous rate. You should also always always sell it right away regardless of your feelings for the company. If you feel you must hold company stock to be a good employee buy some in your 401k which has additional advantages for company stock. (Gains treated as gains and not income on distribution.) If you can't contribute at first, do as much as you can and use your results from the previous offering period to finance a greater contribution the next period. I slowly went from 4% to 10% over 6 offering periods at my plan. The actual apr on a 15% discount plan is ~90% if you are able to sell right when the shares are priced. (Usually not the case, but the risk is small, there usually is a day or two administrative lockup (getting the shares into your account)) even for ESPP's that have no official lockup period. see here for details on the calculation. http://blog.adamnash.com/2006/11/22/your-employee-stock-purchase-plan-espp-is-worth-a-lot-more-than-15/ Just a note For your reference I worked for Motorola for 10 years. A stock that fell pretty dramatically over those 10 years and I always made money on the ESPP and more than once doubled my money. One additional note....Be aware of tax treatment on espp. Specifically be aware that plans generally withhold income tax on gains over the purchase price automatically. I didn't realize this for a couple of years and double taxed myself on those gains. Fortunately I found out my error in time to refile and get the money back, but it was a headache." }, { "docid": "104134", "title": "", "text": "\"You can move money from a 403b to a 401k plan, but the question you should ask yourself is whether it is a wise decision. Unless there are specific reasons for wanting to invest in your new employer's 401k (e.g. you can buy your employer's stock at discounted rates within the 401k, and this is a good investment according to your friends, neighbors, and brothers-in-law), you would be much better off moving the 403b money into an IRA, where you have many more choices for investment and usually can manage to find investments with lower investment costs (e.g. mutual fund fees) than in a typical employer's 401k plan. On the other hand, 401k assets are better protected than IRA assets in case you are sued and a court finds you to be liable for damages; the plaintiff cannot come after the 401k assets if you cannot pay. To answer the question of \"\"how?\"\", you need to talk to the HR people at your current employer to make sure that they are willing to accept a roll-over from another tax-deferred plan (not all plans are agreeable to do this) and get any paperwork from them, especially making sure that you find out where the check is to be sent, and to whom it should be payable. Then, talk to your previous employer's HR people and tell them that you want to roll over your 403b money into the 401k plan of your new employer, fill out the paperwork, make sure they know to whom to cut the check to, and where it is to be sent etc. In my personal experience, I was sent the check payable to the custodian of my new (IRA) account, and I had to send it on to the custodian; my 403b people refused to send the check directly to the new custodian. The following January, you will receive a 1099-R form from your 403b plan showing the amount transferred to the new custodian, with hopefully the correct code letter indicating that the money was rolled over into another tax-deferred account.\"" }, { "docid": "361510", "title": "", "text": "If your employer offers a 401k retirement plan then you can contribute a portion of your salary to your retirement and that will lower your effective income to remain in the 15% bracket (although as others have pointed out, only the dollars that exceed the 15% bracket will be taxed at the higher rate anyway). AND if your employer offers any kind of 401k matching contribution, that's effectively a pay-raise or 100% return on investment (depending on how you prefer to look at it)." }, { "docid": "88597", "title": "", "text": "\"You're getting great wisdom and options. Establishing your actionable path will require the details that only you know, such as how much is actually in each paycheck (and how much tax is withheld), how much do you spend each month (and yearly expenses too), how much spending can you actually cut or replace, how comfortable are you with considering (or not considering) unexpected/emergency spending. You mentioned you were cash-poor, but only you know what your current account balances are, which will affect your actions and priorities. Btw, interestingly, your \"\"increase 401k contributions by 2% each year\"\" will need to end before hitting the $18K contribution limit. I took some time and added the details you posted into a cash-flow program to see your scenario over the next few years. There isn't a \"\"401k loan\"\" activity in this program yet, so I build the scenario from other simple activities. You seem financially minded enough to continue modeling on your own. I'm posting the more difficult one for you (borrow from 401k), but you'll have to input your actual balances, paycheck and spending. My spending assumptions must be low, and I entered $70K as \"\"take-home,\"\" so the model looks like you've got lots of cash. If you choose to play with it, then consider modeling some other scenarios from the advice in the other posts. Here's the \"\"Borrow $6500 from 401k\"\" scenario model at Whatll.Be: https://whatll.be/d1x1ndp26i/2 To me, it's all about trying the scenarios and see which one seems to work with all of the details. The trick is knowing what scenarios to try, and how to model them. Full disclosure: I needed to do similar planning, so I wrote Whatll.Be and I now share it with other people. It's in beta, so I'm testing it with scenarios like yours. (Notice most of the extra activity occurs on 2018-Jan-01)\"" }, { "docid": "81148", "title": "", "text": "Your assumptions are flawed or miss crucial details. An employer sponsored 401k typically limits the choices of investments, whereas an IRA typically gives you self directed investment choices at a brokerage house or through a bank account. You are correct in noticing that you are limited in making your own pre-tax contributions to a traditional IRA in many circumstances when you also have an employer sponsored 401k, but you miss the massive benefit you have: You can rollover unlimited amounts from a traditional 401k to a traditional IRA. This is a benefit that far exceeds the capabilities of someone without a traditional 401k who is subject to the IRA contribution limits. Your rollover capabilities completely gets around any statutory contribution limit. You can contribution, at time of writing, $18,000 annually to a 401k from salary deferrals and an additional $35,000 from employer contributions for a maximum of $53,000 annually and roll that same $53,000 into an IRA if you so desired. That is a factor. This should be counterweighed with the borrowing capabilities of a 401k, which vastly exceeds an IRA again. The main rebuttal to your assumptions is that you are not necessarily paying taxes to fund an IRA." }, { "docid": "392371", "title": "", "text": "Does you job offer a retirement plan? (401k, SIMPLE, etc) Does your employer offer a match on contributions? Typically an employer will match what you put in, up to a certain percentage (e.g. 3%). So, say you contribute 3% of your paycheck into your retirement plan. If your employer mathes that, you've effectively contributed 6%. You've just doubled your money! The best thing a young professional can do is to contribute to your employer-matched retirement plan, up to the maximum amount they will match. You should do it immediately. If not, you are leaving money on the table." }, { "docid": "290105", "title": "", "text": "I would hire an accountant to help set this up, given the sums of money involved. $53,000 would be the minimum amount of compensation needed to maximize the 401k. The total limit of contributions is the lesser of: 100% of the participant's compensation, or $53,000 ($59,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2015 and 2016. and they don't count contributions as compensation Your employer's contributions to a qualified retirement plan for you are not included in income at the time contributed. (Your employer can tell you whether your retirement plan is qualified.) On the bright side, employer contributions aren't subject to FICA withholdings." }, { "docid": "182305", "title": "", "text": "You asked specifically about the ROTH IRA option and stated you want to get the most bang for your buck in retirement. While others have pointed out the benefits of a tax deduction due to using a Traditional IRA instead, I haven't seen anyone point out some of the other differences between ROTH and Traditional, such as: I agree with your thoughts on using an IRA once you maximize the company match into a 401k plan. My reasoning is: I personally prefer ETFs over mutual funds for the ability to get in and out with limit, stop, or OCO orders, at open or anytime mid-day if needed. However, the price for that flexibility is that you risk discounts to NAV for ETFs that you wouldn't have with the equivalent mutual fund. Said another way, you may find yourself selling your ETF for less than the holdings are actually worth. Personally, I value the ability to exit positions at the time of my choosing more highly than the impact of tracking error on NAV. Also, as a final comment to your plan, if it were me I'd personally pay off the student loans with any money I had after contributing enough to my employer 401k to maximize matching. The net effect of paying down the loans is a guaranteed avg 5.3% annually (given what you've said) whereas any investments in 401k or IRA are at risk and have no such guarantee. In fact, with there being reasonable arguments that this has been an excessively long bull market, you might figure your chances of a 5.3% or better return are pretty low for new money put into an IRA or 401k today. That said, I'm long on stocks still, but then I don't have debt besides my mortgage at the moment. If I weren't so conservative, I'd be looking to maximize my leverage in the continued low rate environment." }, { "docid": "253373", "title": "", "text": "What is my best course of action, trying to minimize future debt? Minimizing expenses is the best thing you can do. The first step to financial independence is making do with less. Assuming I receive this $3500, am I better off using the bulk to pay off my credit cards, or should I keep as much cash available as I can? This would depend on the interest rate that is associated with the credit cards and the $3500. If the $3500 has a higher interest rate than your credit cards, then do not use any of it to pay your credit cards. Paying back the money you borrow hurts but it's the interest rate that does you in. If the interest rate for the $3500 is lower than the credit card interest, then placing some of it on the credit cards may be a wise course of action. But this depends on how long you are out of work. If you could be out of work for an extended period of time, I would recommend holding on to all of the funds. Note on saving I know this goes against the grain, but I would actually not recommend saving several months worth of funds (maybe one month though). Most employers offer some type of retirement savings account (401(k), Thrift Savings Plan, etc.). I contribute 5% to this fund instead of putting the money in savings. This is an especially effective strategy if your employer offers matching contributions such as mine. Because the divedends for a savings account are so low, it is not a wise place to store your money in the long run. If I had placed my Thrift Savings Plan contributions in a standard savings account, I would now be $12,000 poorer. In addition to this, most long term investment accounts allow you to withdraw the money early in case of emergency, such as being without work. (I also find it too temping to have huge amounts of funds on hand)." }, { "docid": "140330", "title": "", "text": "Adding to the excellent answers already given, we typically advise members to contribute as much as needed to get a full employer match in their 401K, but not more. We then redirect any additional savings to a traditional IRA or ROTH IRA (depending on their age, income, and future plans). Only once they've exhausted the $5000 maximum in their IRA will we look at putting more money into the 401K. The ROTH IRA is a beautiful and powerful vehicle for savings. The only reason to consider taking money out of the ROTH is in a case of serious catastrophe." }, { "docid": "546150", "title": "", "text": "I have managed two IRA accounts; one I inherited from my wife's 401K and my own's 457B. I managed actively my wife's 401 at Tradestation which doesn't restrict on Options except level 5 as naked puts and calls. I moved half of my 457B funds to TDAmeritrade, the only broker authorized by my employer, to open a Self Directed account. However, my 457 plan disallows me from using a Cash-secured Puts, only Covered Calls. For those who does not know investing, I resent the contention that participants to these IRAs should not be messing around with their IRA funds. For years, I left my 401k/457B funds with my current fund custodian, Great West Financial. I checked it's current values once or twice a year. These last years, the market dived in the last 2 quarters of 2015 and another dive early January and February of 2016. I lost a total of $40K leaving my portfolio with my current custodian choosing all 30 products they offer, 90% of them are ETFs and the rest are bonds. If you don't know investing, better leave it with the pros - right? But no one can predict the future of the market. Even the pros are at the mercy of the market. So, I you know how to invest and choose your stocks, I don't think your plan administrator has to limit you on how you manage your funds. For example, if you are not allowed to place a Cash-Secured Puts and you just Buy the stocks or EFT at market or even limit order, you buy the securities at their market value. If you sell a Cash-secured puts against the stocks/ETF you are interested in buying, you will receive a credit in fraction of a dollar in a specific time frame. In average, your cost to owning a stock/ETF is lesser if you buy it at market or even a limit order. Most of the participants of the IRA funds rely too much on their portfolio manager because they don't know how to manage. If you try to educate yourself at a minimum, you will have a good understanding of how your IRA funds are tied up to the market. If you know how to trade in bear market compared to bull market, then you are good at managing your investments. When I started contributing to my employer's deferred comp account (457B) as a public employee, I have no idea of how my portfolio works. Year after year as I looked at my investment, I was happy because it continued to grow. Without scrutinizing how much it grew yearly, and my regular payroll contribution, I am happy even it only grew 2% per year. And at this age that I am ready to retire at 60, I started taking investment classes and attended pre-retirement seminars. Then I knew that it was not totally a good decision to leave your retirement funds in the hands of the portfolio manager since they don't really care if it tanked out on some years as long at overall it grew to a meager 1%-4% because they managers are pretty conservative on picking the equities they invest. You can generalize that maybe 90% of IRA investors don't know about investing and have poor decision making actions which securities/ETF to buy and hold. For those who would like to remain as one, that is fine. But for those who spent time and money to study and know how to invest, I don't think the plan manager can limit the participants ability to manage their own portfolio especially if the funds have no matching from the employer like mine. All I can say to all who have IRA or any retirement accounts, educate yourself early because if you leave it all to your portfolio managers, you lost a lot. Don't believe much in what those commercial fund managers also show in their presentation just to move your funds for them to manage. Be proactive. If you start learning how to invest now when you are young, JUST DO IT!" }, { "docid": "399543", "title": "", "text": "Does your employer provide a matching contribution to your 401k? If so, contribute enough to the 401k that you can fully take advantage of the 401k match (e.g. if you employer matches 3% of your income, contribute 3% of your income). It's free money, take advantage of it. Next up, max out your Roth IRA. The limit is $5000 currently a year. After maxing your Roth, revisit your 401k. You can contribute up to 16,500 per year. You savings account is a good place to keep a rainy day fund (do you have one?), but it lacks the tax advantages of a Roth IRA or 401k, so it is not really suitable for retirement savings (unless you have maxed out both your 401k and Roth IRA). Once you have take care of getting money into your 401k and Roth IRA accounts, the next step is investing it. The specific investment options available to you will vary depending on who provides your retirement account(s), so these are general guidelines. Generally, you want to invest in higher-risk, higher-return investments when you are young. This includes things like stocks and developing countries. As you get older (>30), you should look at moving some of your investments into things that less volatile. Bond funds are the usual choice. They tend to be safer than stocks (assuming you don't invest in Junk bonds), but your investment grows at a slower rate. Now this doesn't mean you immediately dump all of your stock and buy bonds. Rather, it is a gradual transition over time. As you get older and older, you gradually shift your investments to bond funds. A general rule of thumb I have seen: 100 - (YOUR AGE) = Percentage of your portfolio that should be in stocks Someone that is 30 would have 70% of their portfolio in stock, someone that is 40 would have 60% in stock, etc. As you get closer to retirement (50s-60s), you will want to start looking at investments that are more conservatie than bonds. Start to look at fixed-income and money market funds." }, { "docid": "379911", "title": "", "text": "\"The error in the example is here: \"\"Now, if you contribute 5% to a Roth 401(k), your employer would match your after-tax 5% contribution. If the tax rate is 25%, that would be 5% of $60,000, which is $3,000. However, that $3,000 is put in to a traditional 401(k), so it is taxed when withdrawn. Assuming the tax rate is still 25% when you withdraw, you are only getting $2,250. Essentially you are giving up $750 of free money in this case.\"\" You set your contribution to Roth 401k as a function of the gross, 80,000. You choose 5% and contribute 4000 Your employer matches 4000. At the end of the year, your taxable income to the IRS is 80000, and you pay 30% or 24000. You have 80K-4K-24K to live on, or 52K If you chose the alternate regular 401k,then you contribute 4K, your income to the IRS is (80-4=) 76k, and you pay 30%, 22.8K in tax. You have 80-4-22.8 or 53.2K to live on. Or, to come at it the other way, you have 4000*30% =1200 extra tax reduction in your income this year. If the extra income in 401k versus extra current year tax in Roth IRA means you have to reduce less, like 2800K to the roth so you maintain a 53.2K lifestyle, then yes, the Roth IRA match is reduced. If you have the cash flow to prepay the current year tax and maximum-match contribution, you will get the full match based on your gross income.\"" }, { "docid": "436897", "title": "", "text": "As others have explained defined contribution is when you (or your employer) contributes a specified amount and you reap all the investment returns. Defined benefit is when your employer promises to pay you a specified amount (benefit) and is responsible for making the necessary investments to provide for it. Is one better than the other? We can argue this either way. Defined benefit would seem to be more predictable and assured. The problem being of course that it is entirely reliant upon the employer to have saved enough money to pay that amount. If the employer fails in that responsibility, then the only fallback is government guarantees. And of course the government has limitations on what it can guarantee. For example, from Wikipedia: The maximum pension benefit guaranteed by PBGC is set by law and adjusted yearly. For plans that end in 2016, workers who retire at age 65 can receive up to $5,011.36 per month (or $60,136 per year) under PBGC's insurance program for single-employer plans. Benefit payments starting at ages other than 65 are adjusted actuarially, which means the maximum guaranteed benefit is lower for those who retire early or when there is a benefit for a survivor, and higher for those who retire after age 65. Additionally, the PBGC will not fully guarantee benefit improvements that were adopted within the five-year period prior to a plan's termination or benefits that are not payable over a retiree's lifetime. Other limitations also apply to supplemental benefits in excess of normal retirement benefits, benefit increases within the last five years before a plan's termination, and benefits earned after a plan sponsor's bankruptcy. By contrast, people tend to control their own defined contribution accounts. So they control how much gets invested and where. Defined contribution accounts are always 100% funded. Defined benefit pension plans are often underfunded. They expect the employer to step forward and subsidize them when they run short. This allows the defined benefits to both be cheaper during the employment period and more generous in retirement. But it also means that employers have to subsidize the plans later, when they no longer get a benefit from the relationship with the employee. If you want someone else to make promises to you and aren't worried that they won't keep them, you probably prefer defined benefit. If you want to have personal control over the money, you probably prefer defined contribution. My personal opinion is that defined benefit plans are a curse. They encourage risky behavior and false promises. Defined contribution plans are more honest about what they provide and better match the production of employment with its compensation. Others see defined benefit plans as the gold standard of pensions." }, { "docid": "181652", "title": "", "text": "If you have self-employment income you can open a Solo 401k. Your question is unclear as to what your employment status is. If you are self-employed as an independent contractor, you can open a Solo 401k. You can still do this even if you also earn non-self-employment income (i.e., you are an employee and receive a W-2). However, the limits for contributions to a Solo 401k are based on your self-mployment income, not your total income, so if you have only a small amount of self-employment income, you won't be able to contribute much to the Solo 401k. You may be able to reduce your taxes somewhat, but it's not like you can earn $1000 of self-employment income, open a Solo 401k, and dump $5000 into it; the limits don't work that way." }, { "docid": "547401", "title": "", "text": "Yes, you are generally allowed to make contributions yourself to your HSA, even if your employer also made contributions. Let me explain further. The contribution limit for tax year 2015 is $3350 for individual coverage. (It is higher for family coverage, or for account holders age 55+.) The limit is for everything contributed to the HSA, whether it is an employer contribution or an account holder contribution. (In other words, if your limit is $3350, and your employer contributed $3000, you can only contribute $350.) As far as the IRS is concerned, anything that your employer sends in is considered an employer contribution. This might be money from the company as part of a benefit, or it might be money deducted from your salary as part of a voluntary contribution on your part. Either way, if the employer sends it in, it is an employer contribution. None of this employer contribution shows up on your W-2 as taxable income, so you don't get to deduct it on your tax return. It has already been taken off of your income. Money that you send in yourself with your after-tax dollars is your account holder contribution. This is money that you can deduct on your tax return, so that you aren't paying tax on this money. So here is what you need to do: Determine your total HSA contribution limit for tax year 2015. Find out how much your employer has already contributed for 2015. The difference is how much you can still contribute for 2015. Contact your HSA provider and find out how to make a 2015 contribution. Don't just send money in, because there is probably a form they want you to fill out to make a prior year contribution. Get all this done by April 15, the deadline for making a prior year contribution. Actually, get it done before April 15, because often there will be some sort of delay of a day or two that will prevent you from doing this on the last day." }, { "docid": "290385", "title": "", "text": "\"Answers: 1. Is this a good idea? Is it really risky? What are the pros and cons? Yes, it is a bad idea. I think, with all the talk about employer matches and tax rates at retirement vs. now, that you miss the forest for the trees. It's the taxes on those retirement investments over the course of 40 years that really matter. Example: Imagine $833 per month ($10k per year) invested in XYZ fund, for 40 years (when you retire). The fund happens to make 10% per year over that time, and you're taxed at 28%. How much would you have at retirement? 2. Is it a bad idea to hold both long term savings and retirement in the same investment vehicle, especially one pegged to the US stock market? Yes. Keep your retirement separate, and untouchable. It's supposed to be there for when you're old and unable to work. Co-mingling it with other funds will induce you to spend it (\"\"I really need it for that house! I can always pay more into it later!\"\"). It also can create a false sense of security (\"\"look at how much I've got! I got that new car covered...\"\"). So, send 10% into whatever retirement account you've got, and forget about it. Save for other goals separately. 3. Is buying SPY a \"\"set it and forget it\"\" sort of deal, or would I need to rebalance, selling some of SPY and reinvesting in a safer vehicle like bonds over time? For a retirement account, yes, you would. That's the advantage of target date retirement funds like the one in your 401k. They handle that, and you don't have to worry about it. Think about it: do you know how to \"\"age\"\" your account, and what to age it into, and by how much every year? No offense, but your next question is what an ETF is! 4. I don't know ANYTHING about ETFs. Things to consider/know/read? Start here: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/etf.asp 5. My company plan is \"\"retirement goal\"\" focused, which, according to Fidelity, means that the asset allocation becomes more conservative over time and switches to an \"\"income fund\"\" after the retirement target date (2050). Would I need to rebalance over time if holding SPY? Answered in #3. 6. I'm pretty sure that contributing pretax to 401k is a good idea because I won't be in the 28% tax bracket when I retire. How are the benefits of investing in SPY outweigh paying taxes up front, or do they not? Partially answered in #1. Note that it's that 4 decades of tax-free growth that's the big dog for winning your retirement. Company matches (if you get one) are just a bonus, and the fact that contributions are tax free is a cherry on top. 7. Please comment on anything else you think I am missing I think what you're missing is that winning at personal finance is easy, and winning at personal finance is hard\"" }, { "docid": "32009", "title": "", "text": "\"So many complicated answers for a straight forward question. First to this point \"\"I am failing to see why would a person get an IRA, instead of just putting the same amount of money into a mutual fund...\"\" An IRA can be invested in a mutual fund. The IRA benefit over standard mutual fund is pre-tax contribution lowering your current tax liability. The advantage of an IRA over a 401k is control. Your employer controls where the 401k is invested, you control where your IRA is invested. Often employers have a very small number of options, because this keeps their costs with the brokerage low. 401k is AMAZING if you have employer matched contributions. Use them to the maximum your employer will match. After that OWN your IRA. Control is key when it comes to your money. On IRA's. Buy ROTH first. Contribute the calendar maximum. Then get a traditional. The benefit of ROTH is that you already paid taxes on the contribution so your withdrawal is not taxed AND they do not tax the interest earned like they do on a standard mutual fund.\"" }, { "docid": "130118", "title": "", "text": "I'm afraid you're mistaking 401k as an investment vehicle. It's not. It is a vehicle for retirement. Roth 401k/IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement, and as long as you're in the low tax bracket - it is for your benefit to take advantage of that. However, that is not the money you would be using to start a business or buy a home (except for maybe up to $10K you can withdraw without penalty for first time home buyers, but I wouldn't bother with $10k, if that's what will help you buying a house - maybe you shouldn't be buying at all). In addition, you should make sure you take advantage of the employer 401k match in full. That is free money added to your Traditional 401k retirement savings (taxed at distribution). Once you took the full advantage of the employer's match, and contributed as much as you consider necessary for your retirement above that (there are various retirement calculators on line that can help you in making that determination), everything else will probably go to taxable (regular) savings/investments." } ]

[ { "docid": "95282", "title": "", "text": "\"Contribute as much as you can. When do you want to retire and how much income do you think you'll need? A $1M portfolio yielding 5% will yield $50,000/year. Do some research about how to build a portfolio... this site is a good start, but check out books on retirement planning and magazines like Money and Kiplinger. If you don't speak \"\"money\"\" or are intimidated by investing, look for a fee-based financial advisor whom you are comfortable with.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "270818", "title": "", "text": "\"You seem to be treating your Roth IRA as a sort of savings account for use in emergency situations. I would use a savings account for savings as withdrawing money from an IRA will have penalties under various circumstances (more than contributions, Roth IRA less than 5 years old, more than $10k for a down payment). Also, you mention folding your IRA into your 401k so that it will \"\"grow faster\"\". However, this will not have that effect. Imagine you have $30k in an IRA and $100k in a 401k and you are averaging a return of 8% / year on each. This will be identical to having a single 401k with $130k and an 8% / year return. This is not one of your questions, but employer matches are not counted in the 401k contribution limit. If your 22% calculation of your salary includes the match to reach the max contribution, you can still contribute more.\"" }, { "docid": "349706", "title": "", "text": "\"The presenter suggested we keep records of our claims for 10+ years in paper form. This seemed to be overkill. It would be overkill if you're taking distributions regularly and you have enough valid (and otherwise unreimbursed) medical receipts each year to correspond to your distributions. However, if you are pumping money into the HSA without regular distributions, then you may need to keep receipts for a long time, possibly since the beginning of your HSA. For example: If the IRS was to audit my HSA deductions would the Aetna online claims be adequate? It's better than nothing, but it is not ideal. You need to provide proof of what you actually paid, not just what was billed. (How would the IRS know if you actually paid the bill?) So, the bill and receipt together would be preferred. Also, there are many eligible expenses for HSA that would not be covered by your health insurance and would not appear in your Aetna statements (dental work for example). Personally I have an excel spreadsheet with every eligible expense listed, every contribution and distribution I make, and a box of receipts since I opened the HSA account. Should I also archive screenshots of these claims digitally somewhere? If you have the time and diligence to do it, then it wouldn't hurt. I personally am only one house fire away from having to make a lot of phone calls if I wanted to re-build my receipts folder from scratch. I actually have \"\"scan my HSA receipts\"\" on my todo list (where's it been for years as a pretty low priority). Lastly it makes sense to spend the money in my HSA on anything eligible because you can never roll it over into a retirement account, its shaky if another person (spouse) could get reimbursed for eligible medical expenses if you die, and if you lose your receipts you may not be able to spend all of the HSA money tax free. Is this an accurate assessment or is there a reason why I should not touch the HSA money at all and wait to reimburse my eligible expenses. First off, if you are married the HSA can be transferred to your spouse. But in general, it really depends on what you would do with the money if you distributed it right away. If you need the money to pay debts, bills, etc, then it might make sense to take it, but if it would be extra money that you would invest somewhere, then you should leave it in the HSA because it grows tax free while it's in there and (probably) wouldn't if you take it out. The caveat though is that you need to find an HSA administrator that offers your preferred investment choices. As for your worry that you might lose your receipts, well, that's a valid point- but I wouldn't drive my decision based on that- I would archive them digitally to remove that concern completely. ...Should I reimburse myself from ... the HSA funds if I am not hitting the 401k limit yet? It depends. If it's a Roth 401k, all other things being equal, (you are able to choose the same investments with your HSA as you can choose in your 401K, and the costs are the same), then you are better off leaving the money in your HSA rather than pulling it out and putting it into the Roth 401k. The reason is that there is no tax difference, and once you put it into the 401K you (probably) can't touch it (for free) until you retire. With the HSA, if you could have taken a distribution but chose not to, then you can take that amount of money out anytime you want to without any consequences, just like your normal checking account. However, if you have a traditional 401k, and if taking HSA distributions would increase your cash flow such that you could afford to contribute more to the 401k, then this would lower your tax burden that year by reducing your taxable income.\"" }, { "docid": "224530", "title": "", "text": "\"Logic fail. The qty of shares is irrelevant. What matters is the value, which is, of course, quite high -- and, what's more, the P/E ratio, which is extremely favorable. Having worked in operations at Apple for 7 years, I can tell you that the company is very lean and efficient. 25% matching is extremely generous. 25% contribution rates are standard in corporate jobs (contribution rates are what maximum percentage of your pre-tax income you can opt to set aside into a 401K; this is different than matching). It absolutely is not bare bones to be given 25% matching. Although I no longer work at Apple, I still have my 401K, and the administration of it is good, as is the choice of funds. Back to the matching... It's free money. For every $1 you put in your 401K (pretax, btw), Apple puts in a quarter. Having worked in other corporations over my career, I can tell you that this level of matching is pretty much as good as it gets. For a good part of the time I worked there I made around $30K (not in Retail, but in Operations, as mentioned before). I maxed out the Employee Stock Purchase Program contribution and mostly maxed out my 401K contribution. Now, 12 years later, my stock appreciated beyond my wildest expectations. I have made well over six figures on it over the years. If I never sold any, it would be worth over $500,000 by now. All that from 10% contributions on a salary that ranged from about $26K when I started out to about $46K when I left 7 years later. My 401K holdings are worth about $60K, I think, invested extremely conservatively. I have had it in money market funds since right before the 2008/2009 crash, which I anticipated. So the investment benefits at Apple served me extremely well. My stock appreciation paid for my car, and it will soon cover the down payment on a house. I was essentially able to \"\"retire\"\" to be a stay-at-home-mom when my son was born, thanks to the safety net I have from my Apple stock. Regarding health benefits... I think you meant to say copays, not deductibles. When I was there, there were no copays. I forgot what the deductibles were, but for most routine visits, you wouldn't need to pay out of pocket. Annual physicals are included in the health plan, up to $250. The health plan works with various local providers to ensure that the $250 allotment will cover all expenses needed for an annual physical. This physical is separate and in addition to a women's health annual exam (pap smear/pelvic exam/etc) that is also included without copay. I'm pretty sure annual mammograms are covered. All prenatal visits are covered with zero copay. All child well checks, including immunizations, covered with zero copay. Two dental checks a year. Dental Xrays at regular intervals included. Annual vision exams and, I think $300 annually towards glasses or contacts included, IIRC. Time off was pretty standard and accrued by the hour worked, which was nice. There was no \"\"you have to be with the company for X length of time\"\" before time off benefits began to accrue, or before any benefits kicked in, for that matter. By about Year 5, I had easily racked up enough vacation days to take 3 weeks off at a time. The longer you have been with the company, the faster your time off accrues. And each summer they'd offer a cash-out program, where you could double up on time off, where if you took off a week, you could opt to deplete your accrued vacation time by two weeks and get double pay for it. A lot of people liked this option. The points for absenteeism thing seemed a bit silly -- and seemed to only have been implemented in one store and then only for a brief time. From what I gathered in the article, it was an experiment that failed miserably. The other corporation I have spent a significant amount of time working at is Whole Foods Market, in their corporate office. While both Apple and Whole Foods always are selected as two of the top companies to work for by Forbes in their annual report, as far as benefits went, Apple's were far superior in most aspects. With respect to company culture, I personally found Whole Foods to be better, but that was sort of a personal preference. Both were dream jobs, and I consider myself very fortunate to have had the opportunity to work for two outstanding companies that both treated me very well. Oh- and incidentally, Ron Johnson, who was VP of Retail at Apple from the inception of the stores until like a year ago, now is CEO of JC Penny, and, I suspect, is fully behind JCP's ad campaigns which include images of families with same-sex parents. JCP has stepped deliberately and full-on into what is, unfortunately, still a controversial topic and has taken a firm stand in support of all types of loving families. I have to wonder if part of this might have been inspired by the fact that Apple's new CEO, Tim Cook, is gay. Ron Johnson would have worked closely alongside Cook during his tenure. I met Ron once and found him to be a great guy, and I worked with the Retail operations folks from the time the stores launched. They were a great team that worked hard and were very sincere and dedicated. You could see his leadership reflecting in each member of the team.\"" }, { "docid": "19306", "title": "", "text": "\"Even if your employer decides not to include the HSA contributions in Box 12, the IRS will still be informed how much went into your HSA when the form 5498-SA gets filed. So you don't need to worry about the IRS; they'll get the information they want. As for you, if you already know how much the \"\"employer contributions\"\" (both what the employer contributed and what you contributed through payroll deduction) were, and you know how much you contributed directly, then once you get your form 1099-SA you'll have all the information you need to complete your tax return.\"" }, { "docid": "194155", "title": "", "text": "Unless you have an actual hardship (bankruptcy or other emergency), you will be better off leaving that money alone. This excellent answer, gives more than enough reasons why a withdrawal or loan is not recommended. I would love some advice because I need to know if I should contribute more into my 401k or less. If your priority to purchase is high enough, it may be worth considering stopping 401k contributions for a short time to help pile up a down payment. I also encourage you to consider that if you cannot pool the money from non-retirement sources, then you cannot afford that much house at this time. This might mean looking for cheaper houses or delaying purchase for a number of years." }, { "docid": "3481", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes it's entirely possible; see below. If you can't find anything on transfers out (partial or otherwise) on anyone's site it's because they don't want to give anyone ideas. I have successfully done exactly what you're proposing earlier this year, transferring most of the value from my employer's group personal pension scheme - also Aviva! - to a much lower-cost SIPP. The lack of any sign of movement by Aviva to post-RDR \"\"clean priced\"\" charge-levels on funds was the final straw for me. My only regret is that I didn't do it sooner! Transfer paperwork was initiated from the SIPP end but I was careful to make clear to HR people and Aviva's rep (or whatever group-scheme/employee benefits middleman organization he was from) that I was not exiting the company scheme and expected my employee and matching employer contributions to continue unchanged (and that I'd not be happy if some admin mess up led to me missing a month's contributions). There's a bit more on the affair in a thread here. Aviva's rep did seem to need a bit of a prod to finally get it to happen. With hindsight my original hope of an in-specie transfer does seem naive, but the out-of-the-market time was shorter and less scary than anticipated. Just in case you're unaware of it, Monevator's online broker list is an excellent resource to help decide who you might use for a SIPP; cheapest choice depends on level of funds and what you're likely to hold in it and how often you'll trade.\"" }, { "docid": "554739", "title": "", "text": "\"There are certain allowable reasons to withdraw money from a 401K. The desire to free your money from a \"\"bad\"\" plan is not one of them. A rollover is a special type of withdrawal that is only available after one leaves their current employer. So as long as you stay with your current company, you cannot rollover. [Exception: if you are over age 59.5] One option is to talk to HR, see if they can get a expansion of offerings. You might have some suggestions for mutual funds that you would like to see. The smaller the company the more likely you will have success here. That being said, there is some research to support having few choices. Too many choices intimidates people. It's quite popular to have \"\"target funds\"\" That is funds that target a certain retirement year. Being that I will be 50 in 2016, I should invest in either a 2030 or 2035 fund. These are a collection of funds that rebalances the investment as they age. The closer one gets to retirement the more goes into bonds and less into stocks. However, I think such rebalancing is not as smart as the experts say. IMHO is almost always better off heavily invested in equity funds. So this becomes a second option. Invest in a Target fund that is meant for younger people. In my case I would put into a 2060 or even 2065 target. As JoeTaxpayer pointed out, even in a plan that has high fees and poor choices one is often better off contributing up to the match. Then one would go outside and contribute to an individual ROTH or IRA (income restrictions may apply), then back into the 401K until the desired amount is invested. You could always move on to a different employer and ask some really good questions about their 401K. Which leads me back to talking with HR. With the current technology shortage, making a few tweaks to the 401K, is a very cheap way to make their employees happy. If you can score a 1099 contracting gig, you can do a SEP which allows up to a whopping 53K per year. No match but with typically higher pay, sometimes overtime, and a high contribution limit you can easily make up for it.\"" }, { "docid": "323934", "title": "", "text": "\"Open an investment account on your own and have them roll the old 401K accounts into either a ROTH or traditional IRA. Do not leave them in old 401k accounts and definitely don't roll them into your new employer's 401K. Why? Well, as great as 401K accounts are, there is one thing that employers rarely mention and the 401K companies actively try to hide: Most 401K plans are loaded with HUGE fees. You won't see them on your statements, they are often hidden very cleverly with accounting tricks. For example, in several plans I have participated in, the mutual fund symbols may LOOK like the ones you see on the stock tickers, but if you read the fine print they only \"\"approximate\"\" the underlying mutual fund they are named for. That is, if you multiply the number of shares by the market price you will arrive at a number higher than the one printed on your statement. The \"\"spread\"\" between those numbers is the fee charged by the 401K management company, and since employees don't pick that company and can't easily fire them, they aren't very competitive unless your company is really large and has a tough negotiator in HR. If you work for a small company, you are probably getting slammed by these fees. Also, they often charge fees for the \"\"automatic rebalancing\"\" service they offer to do annually to your account to keep your allocation in line with your current contribution allocations. I have no idea why it is legal for them not to disclose these fees on the statements, but they don't. I had to do some serious digging to find this out on my own and when I did it was downright scary. In one case they were siphoning off over 3% annually from the account using this standard practice. HOWEVER, that is not to say that you shouldn't participate in these plans, especially if there is an employer match. There are fees with any investment account and the \"\"free money\"\" your employer is kicking in almost always offsets these fees. My point here is just that you shouldn't keep the money in the 401K after you leave the company when you have an option to move it to an account with much cheaper fees.\"" }, { "docid": "253373", "title": "", "text": "What is my best course of action, trying to minimize future debt? Minimizing expenses is the best thing you can do. The first step to financial independence is making do with less. Assuming I receive this $3500, am I better off using the bulk to pay off my credit cards, or should I keep as much cash available as I can? This would depend on the interest rate that is associated with the credit cards and the $3500. If the $3500 has a higher interest rate than your credit cards, then do not use any of it to pay your credit cards. Paying back the money you borrow hurts but it's the interest rate that does you in. If the interest rate for the $3500 is lower than the credit card interest, then placing some of it on the credit cards may be a wise course of action. But this depends on how long you are out of work. If you could be out of work for an extended period of time, I would recommend holding on to all of the funds. Note on saving I know this goes against the grain, but I would actually not recommend saving several months worth of funds (maybe one month though). Most employers offer some type of retirement savings account (401(k), Thrift Savings Plan, etc.). I contribute 5% to this fund instead of putting the money in savings. This is an especially effective strategy if your employer offers matching contributions such as mine. Because the divedends for a savings account are so low, it is not a wise place to store your money in the long run. If I had placed my Thrift Savings Plan contributions in a standard savings account, I would now be $12,000 poorer. In addition to this, most long term investment accounts allow you to withdraw the money early in case of emergency, such as being without work. (I also find it too temping to have huge amounts of funds on hand)." }, { "docid": "501290", "title": "", "text": "On the statement it now tracks how much is contributed to the account pre and post tax. This is the key. Your withdrawals will be proportional. Assuming you have contributed 90% in regular contributions (pre-tax) and 10% in Roth (post tax), when you withdraw $1000, it will be $900 from the regular (taxed fully) and $100 from the Roth (not taxed, assuming its a qualified distribution). Earnings attributed proportionally to the contributions. I agree with you that it is not the best option, and would also prefer separate accounts, but with 401k - the account is per employee. Instead of doing 401k Roth/Non-Roth consider switching to Regular 401k and Roth IRA - then you can separate the funds easily as you wish." }, { "docid": "546150", "title": "", "text": "I have managed two IRA accounts; one I inherited from my wife's 401K and my own's 457B. I managed actively my wife's 401 at Tradestation which doesn't restrict on Options except level 5 as naked puts and calls. I moved half of my 457B funds to TDAmeritrade, the only broker authorized by my employer, to open a Self Directed account. However, my 457 plan disallows me from using a Cash-secured Puts, only Covered Calls. For those who does not know investing, I resent the contention that participants to these IRAs should not be messing around with their IRA funds. For years, I left my 401k/457B funds with my current fund custodian, Great West Financial. I checked it's current values once or twice a year. These last years, the market dived in the last 2 quarters of 2015 and another dive early January and February of 2016. I lost a total of $40K leaving my portfolio with my current custodian choosing all 30 products they offer, 90% of them are ETFs and the rest are bonds. If you don't know investing, better leave it with the pros - right? But no one can predict the future of the market. Even the pros are at the mercy of the market. So, I you know how to invest and choose your stocks, I don't think your plan administrator has to limit you on how you manage your funds. For example, if you are not allowed to place a Cash-Secured Puts and you just Buy the stocks or EFT at market or even limit order, you buy the securities at their market value. If you sell a Cash-secured puts against the stocks/ETF you are interested in buying, you will receive a credit in fraction of a dollar in a specific time frame. In average, your cost to owning a stock/ETF is lesser if you buy it at market or even a limit order. Most of the participants of the IRA funds rely too much on their portfolio manager because they don't know how to manage. If you try to educate yourself at a minimum, you will have a good understanding of how your IRA funds are tied up to the market. If you know how to trade in bear market compared to bull market, then you are good at managing your investments. When I started contributing to my employer's deferred comp account (457B) as a public employee, I have no idea of how my portfolio works. Year after year as I looked at my investment, I was happy because it continued to grow. Without scrutinizing how much it grew yearly, and my regular payroll contribution, I am happy even it only grew 2% per year. And at this age that I am ready to retire at 60, I started taking investment classes and attended pre-retirement seminars. Then I knew that it was not totally a good decision to leave your retirement funds in the hands of the portfolio manager since they don't really care if it tanked out on some years as long at overall it grew to a meager 1%-4% because they managers are pretty conservative on picking the equities they invest. You can generalize that maybe 90% of IRA investors don't know about investing and have poor decision making actions which securities/ETF to buy and hold. For those who would like to remain as one, that is fine. But for those who spent time and money to study and know how to invest, I don't think the plan manager can limit the participants ability to manage their own portfolio especially if the funds have no matching from the employer like mine. All I can say to all who have IRA or any retirement accounts, educate yourself early because if you leave it all to your portfolio managers, you lost a lot. Don't believe much in what those commercial fund managers also show in their presentation just to move your funds for them to manage. Be proactive. If you start learning how to invest now when you are young, JUST DO IT!" }, { "docid": "361510", "title": "", "text": "If your employer offers a 401k retirement plan then you can contribute a portion of your salary to your retirement and that will lower your effective income to remain in the 15% bracket (although as others have pointed out, only the dollars that exceed the 15% bracket will be taxed at the higher rate anyway). AND if your employer offers any kind of 401k matching contribution, that's effectively a pay-raise or 100% return on investment (depending on how you prefer to look at it)." }, { "docid": "308255", "title": "", "text": "Let me first start off by saying that you need to be careful with an S-Corp and defined contribution plans. You might want to consider an LLC or some other entity form, depending on your state and other factors. You should read this entire page on the irs site: S-Corp Retirement Plan FAQ, but here is a small clip: Contributions to a Self-Employed Plan You can’t make contributions to a self-employed retirement plan from your S corporation distributions. Although, as an S corporation shareholder, you receive distributions similar to distributions that a partner receives from a partnership, your shareholder distributions aren’t earned income for retirement plan purposes (see IRC section 1402(a)(2)). Therefore, you also can’t establish a self-employed retirement plan for yourself solely based on being an S corporation shareholder. There are also some issues and cases about reasonable compensation in S-Corp. I recommend you read the IRS site's S Corporation Compensation and Medical Insurance Issues page answers as I see them, but I recommend hiring CPA You should be able to do option B. The limitations are in place for the two different types of contributions: Elective deferrals and Employer nonelective contributions. I am going to make a leap and say your talking about a SEP here, therefore you can't setup one were the employee could contribute (post 1997). If your doing self employee 401k, be careful to not make the contributions yourself. If your wife is employed the by company, here calculation is separate and the company could make a separate contribution for her. The limitation for SEP in 2015 are 25% of employee's compensation or $53,000. Since you will be self employed, you need to calculate your net earnings from self-employment which takes into account the eductible part of your self employment tax and contributions business makes to SEP. Good read on SEPs at IRS site. and take a look at chapter 2 of Publication 560. I hope that helps and I recommend hiring a CPA in your area to help." }, { "docid": "42999", "title": "", "text": "After reading OP Mark's question and the various answers carefully and also looking over some old pay stubs of mine, I am beginning to wonder if he is mis-reading his pay stub or slip of paper attached to the reimbursement check for the item(s) he purchases. Pay stubs (whether paper documents attached to checks or things received in one's company mailbox or available for downloading from a company web site while the money is deposited electronically into the employee's checking account) vary from company to company, but a reasonably well-designed stub would likely have categories such as Taxable gross income for the pay period: This is the amount from which payroll taxes (Federal and State income tax, Social Security and Medicare tax) are deducted as well as other post-tax deductions such as money going to purchase of US Savings Bonds, contributions to United Way via payroll deduction, contribution to Roth 401k etc. Employer-paid group life insurance premiums are taxable income too for any portion of the policy that exceeds $50K. In some cases, these appear as a lump sum on the last pay stub for the year. Nontaxable gross income for the pay period: This would be sum total of the amounts contributed to nonRoth 401k plans, employee's share of group health-care insurance premiums for employee and/or employee's family, money deposited into FSA accounts, etc. Net pay: This is the amount of the attached check or money sent via ACH to the employee's bank account. Year-to-date amounts: These just tell the employee what has been earned/paid/withheld to date in the various categories. Now, OP Mark said My company does not tax the reimbursement but they do add it to my running gross earnings total for the year. So, the question is whether the amount of the reimbursement is included in the Year-to-date amount of Taxable Income. If YTD Taxable Income does not include the reimbursement amount, then the the OP's question and the answers and comments are moot; unless the company has really-messed-up (Pat. Pending) payroll software that does weird things, the amount on the W2 form will be whatever is shown as YTD Taxable Income on the last pay stub of the year, and, as @DJClayworth noted cogently, it is what will appear on the W2 form that really matters. In summary, it is good that OP Mark is taking the time to investigate the matter of the reimbursements appearing in Total Gross Income, but if the amounts are not appearing in the YTD Taxable Income, his Payroll Office may just reassure him that they have good software and that what the YTD Taxable Income says on the last pay stub is what will be appearing on his W2 form. I am fairly confident that this is what will be the resolution of the matter because if the amount of the reimbursement was included in Taxable Income during that pay period and no tax was withheld, then the employer has a problem with Social Security and Medicare tax underwithholding, and nonpayment of this tax plus the employer's share to the US Treasury in timely fashion. The IRS takes an extremely dim view of such shenanigans and most employers are unlikely to take the risk." }, { "docid": "117845", "title": "", "text": "\"Your employer could consider procuring benefits via a third party administrator, which provides benefits to and bargains collectively on behalf of multiple small companies. I used to work for a small start-up that did exactly that to improve their benefits across the board, including the 401k. The fees were still higher than buying a Vanguard index or ETF directly, but much better than the 1% you're talking about. In the meantime, here's my non-professional advice from personal experience and hindsight: If you're in a low/medium tax bracket and your 401k sucks, you might be better off to pay the tax up front and invest in a taxable account for the flexibility (assuming you're disciplined enough that you don't need the 401k to protect you from yourself). If you max out a crappy 401k today, you might miss a better opportunity to contribute to a 401k in the future. Big expenses could pop up at exactly the same time you get better investment options. Side note: if not enough employees participate in the 401k, the principals won't be able to take full advantage of it themselves. I think it's called a \"\"nondiscrimination test\"\" to ensure that the plan benefits all employees, not just the owners and management. So voting with your feet might be the best way to spark improvement with your employer. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "110114", "title": "", "text": "All data for a single adult in tax year 2010. Roth IRA 401K Roth 401k Traditional IRA and your employer offers a 401k Traditional IRA and your employer does NOT offer a 401k So, here are your options. If you have a 401k at work, you could max that out. If you make close to $120K, you could reduce your AGI enough to contribute to a Roth IRA. If you do not have a 401k at work, you could contribute to a Traditional IRA and deduct the $5K from your AGI similar to how a 401k works. Other than that, I think you are looking at investing outside of a retirement plan which means more flexibility, but no tax advantage." }, { "docid": "597574", "title": "", "text": "The amount you contribute will reduce the taxable income for each paycheck, but it won't impact the level of your social security and medicare taxes. A 401(k) plan is a qualified deferred compensation plan in which an employee can elect to have the employer contribute a portion of his or her cash wages to the plan on a pretax basis. Generally, these deferred wages (commonly referred to as elective contributions) are not subject to income tax withholding at the time of deferral, and they are not reflected on your Form 1040 (PDF) since they were not included in the taxable wages on your Form W-2 (PDF). However, they are included as wages subject to withholding for social security and Medicare taxes. In addition, employers must report the elective contributions as wages subject to federal unemployment taxes. You might be able to keep this up for more than 7 weeks if the company offers health, dental and vision insurance. Your contributions for these policies would need to be paid for before you contribute to the 401K. Of course these items are also pre-tax so they will keep the taxable amount at zero. If there was a non-pretax deduction on your pay check that would keep the check at zero, but there would be taxes owed. This might be union dues, but it can also be some life and disability insurance polices. Most stubs specify which deductions are pre-tax, and which are post-tax. Warning. If you get the company match some companies give you the maximum match for those 7 weeks, then zero for the rest of the year. Others will still credit you with a match at the end of the year saying if you should get the benefit. It is not required that they do this. Check the company documents. You could also contribute post-tax money, which is different than Roth 401K, for the rest of the year to keep the match going. Note: If you are turning 50 this year, or are already 50, then you can contribute an additional $5,500" }, { "docid": "317419", "title": "", "text": "I see you've marked an answer as accepted but I MUST tell you that STOPPING your 401k contribution all together is a bad idea. Your company match is 100% rate of return(or 50% depending on structure). I don't care what market you look at, or how bad a loan you take out, you will not receive 100% rate of return, or be charged 100% interest. Further, taking out a loan against your 401k effectively does two things: It is a loan that must be repaid according to the terms of your 401k AND in every 401k I've ever encountered, you cannot make contributions to the 401k until the loan is repaid. This in effect stops your contributions, and will almost certainly save you very little on your interest rates on your current loans. I have 4 potential solutions that may help achieve your goal without sacrificing your 401k match and transferring the debt from one lender to another, but they are conditional. Is your company match 100% up to 4% of your salary, or 50% of your contribution (up to a limit you have not yet reached)? This is important. If it is 100% up to 4%, stop committing the additional 4% and use that to pay down your debt...and after ward set up that 4% as auto pay into an IRA, not into the 401k. An IRA will make you more money because YOU have control over its management, not your employer. If it is 50% match, contribute until the match is met because you cannot get 50% rate of return anywhere, then take your additional monies and get an IRA. As far as your debt, in this scenario simply suck it up and pay it as is. You will lose far more than you gain by stopping your contributions. If you simply must reduce your expenses by 150$ month try refinancing the mortgage and rolling the 6500$ into it. If you get a big enough drop in the interest rate you could still end up paying less. OR If you cannot make the gain there, try snowballing the three payments. You do this by calling your student loan vendor and telling them you need to make much smaller payments, like even zero depending on the type of loan. Then take ALL of the money you are currently spending on the 3 loans and put into the car payment. When it's gone, roll the whole thing into the higher interest student loan, then finally roll it all into the last student loan. You'll pay it off faster, and student loans have lots of laws and regulations regarding working with payers to keep them paying something without breaking them. WHATEVER YOU DO, DO NOT STOP YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS. 50% OR 100%, THAT MONEY IS GUARANTEED AT A HIGHER RATE OF RETURN THAN YOU CAN GET ANYWHERE, ESPECIALLY GUARANTEED." }, { "docid": "447482", "title": "", "text": "if you have a work-sponsored retirement plan A 401k plan counts as a work-sponsored retirement plan. If you are a highly compensated employee (this is $115,000 for 2012), even your 401k contributions are limited. Given that, is there any difference at all between having a traditional IRA and a normal, taxable (non-retirement) investment account? You should consider a Roth IRA if you are making too much for a traditional IRA. When you make even more, then you can't contribute to a Roth, but can only contribute post-tax money to a traditional IRA. Use Form 8606 to keep track of non-deductable contributions over the years. Publication 590 is the official IRS explanation of what is deductable or not." } ]

[ { "docid": "191588", "title": "", "text": "The values of 12, 26 and 9 are the typical industry standard setting used with the MACD, however other values can be substituted depending on your trading style and goals. The 26d EMA is considered the long moving average when in this case it is compared to the shorter 12d EMA. If you used a 5d EMA and a 10d EMA then the 10d EMA would be considered the long MA. It is based on what you are comparing it with. Apart from providing signals for a reversal in trend, MACD can also be used as an early indication to a possible end to a trend. What you look out for is divergence between the price and the MACD. See chart below of an example: Here I have used 10d & 3d EMAs and 1 for the signal (as I did not want the signal to show up). I am simply using the MACD as a momentum indicator - which work by providing higher highs in the MACD with higher highs in price. This shows that the momentum in the trend is good so the trend should continue. However the last high in price is not met with a higher high in the MACD. The green lines demonstrate bearish divergence between price and the MACD, which is an indication that the momentum of the trend is slowing down. This could provide forewarning that the trend may be about to end and to take caution - i.e. not a good time to be buying this stock or if you already own it you may want to tighten up your stop loss." } ]

[ { "docid": "522655", "title": "", "text": "Keep 3-6 months (or more if you need to, for me the number is 9 months) worth of expenses in an emergency fund. Put the rest against the student loan. The length of time depends on your situation. I have family, and work in IT. Changing jobs takes me longer, because ... reasons. Having less than 6-9 months of buffer means that I have to rush and possibly take a position that is not a good fit, or get behind on payments. So, set aside your emergency fund, add to it if you need to. Once it is fully funded, take the money you were using to fund the emergency fund and budget that to clearing student loans. Also, don't start new credit cards, and be sure to never carry a balance on them. I know it seems like a lot, but keep in mind that yours is small, and you'll likely be able to knock it out in a very short time. Edit (after OP listed expenses): Taking into account the expenses you listed, it looks like you have about 2000 per month in expenses (if you're in emergency fund mode, luxuries can wait, and you can tighten the belt on food, so go with the lower end of your estimate.) Lets say you have 600 a month to work with. My suggestion would be bring savings up to $6000. That will take you two months. Then pay 850 a month to student loans. You'll be paid off in a year, and still have 6000 for emergencies. Once you're done, you will have 850 a month to save and invest. With patience, persistence and care, you can start a nest egg that will allow you to remain financially independent. Search around for FIRE (financial independence, retire early) and other strategies for retirement savings and investing. Be sure to save for retirement. The worst inheritance to leave your loved ones would be to become financially dependent upon them in your later years. And watch out for credit, it's a trap." }, { "docid": "445348", "title": "", "text": "This calculation arrives at the correct answer. However, it uses the formula for an annuity due. This means the payments are made at the beginning of the month and the last month of the 10 year period has interest accrued. See the section, Calculating the Future Value of an Annuity Due. The rate is given as an effective rate. with In Excel, =FV((1+0.12)^(1/12)-1,120,3500,0,1)" }, { "docid": "510163", "title": "", "text": "\"The Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company was established in 1902 as a private company. It first raised public funds around 1903 but had a limited shareholder base. By around 1929, it was reported as being tradeable as an OTC (over-the-counter) stock but it's likely that shares were traded well before this. On 14 Jan 1946, the stock was listed on NYSE. On 26 Sep 1962 it became a constituent of the the S&P 500 index. On 9 Aug 1976 it became a constituent of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. In 2002, the company's name changed to 3M Co. It appears that the data on Crunchbase's \"\"IPO Date\"\" is wrong on this one. However, there are several companies that appear to do an \"\"IPO\"\" and have trading prices prior. This is quite typical of early-stage biotech companies that trade OTC prior to a major exchange listing and \"\"IPO\"\". An example of an IPO happening after a company became publicly tradeable is NASDAQ:IMRN (Immuron). They had an \"\"IPO\"\" on Nasdaq on 9 Jun 2017, yet they had been trading as an OTC/Pink Sheet stock for months prior. They also have been listed in Australia since 30 Apr 1999. http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/activity.aspx?tab=pricings&month=2017-06 Another example is NASDAQ:GNTY (Guaranty Banchshares Inc) which had an \"\"IPO\"\" and NASDAQ listing in May 2017. This was a Nasdaq stock in 1998, went OTC/pink sheet stock in 2005. It has been paying regular dividends since that time. Clearly the word \"\"Initial\"\" is subjective! http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/activity.aspx?tab=pricings&month=2017-05\"" }, { "docid": "545902", "title": "", "text": "The key to understanding a mortgage is to look at an amortization schedule. Put in 100k, 4.5% interest, 30 years, 360 monthly payments and look at the results. You should get roughly 507 monthly P&I payment. Amortization is only the loan portion, escrow for taxes and insurance and additional payments for PMI are extra. You'll get a list of all the payments to match the numbers you enter. These won't exactly match what you really get in a mortgage, but they're close enough to demonstrate the way amortization works, and to plan a budget. For those terms, with equal monthly payments, you'll start paying 74% interest from the first payment. Each payment thereafter, that percentage drops. The way this is all calculated is through the time value of money equations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money. Read slowly, understand how the equations work, then look at the formula for Repeating Payment and Present Value. That is used to find the monthly payment. You can validate that the formula works by using their answer and making a spreadsheet that has these columns: Previous balance, payment, interest, new balance. Each line represents a month. Calculate interest as previous balance * APR/12. Calculate new balance as previous balance minus payment plus interest. Work through all this for a 1 year loan and you will understand a lot better." }, { "docid": "182764", "title": "", "text": "Tips and taxes definitely help push that up. A $9 burger is over $10 with the tax rate of 7.5% sales, 3.5% city, and another 3.5% restaurant tax. Then a $2 tip is abysmal, but now you are over the $12 mark." }, { "docid": "65121", "title": "", "text": "\"If it were me, I would pay off the 23%er. That is as long as you don't borrow anymore. Please consider \"\"your hair on fire\"\" and get that 26%er paid off as soon as possible. From my calculations your big CC is sitting at 26% has a balance of 20K. Holy cow girl, what in the world? The goal here is to have that paid off in less than one year. Get another job, work more than you have in your life. Others may disagree as it is more efficient to pay down the 26%er. However, if you pay it all of within the year the difference only comes to $260. If you gain momentum, which is important in changing your financial life, that $260 will be meaningless. With focus, intensity, and momentum you can get this mess cleaned up sooner than you think. However, if you are going to continue to rack up credit card debt at these rates, it does not matter what you do.\"" }, { "docid": "21132", "title": "", "text": "\"**Planned obsolescence** Planned obsolescence, or built-in obsolescence, in industrial design and economics is a policy of planning or designing a product with an artificially limited useful life, so it will become obsolete (that is, unfashionable or no longer functional) after a certain period of time. The rationale behind the strategy is to generate long-term sales volume by reducing the time between repeat purchases (referred to as \"\"shortening the replacement cycle\"\"). Producers that pursue this strategy believe that the additional sales revenue it creates more than offsets the additional costs of research and development and opportunity costs of existing product line cannibalization. In a competitive industry, this is a risky strategy because when consumers catch on to this, they may decide to buy from competitors instead. *** **Artificial demand** Artificial demand constitutes demand for something that, in the absence of exposure to the vehicle of creating demand, would not exist. It has controversial applications in microeconomics (pump and dump strategy) and advertising. A demand is usually seen as artificial when it increases consumer utility very inefficiently; for example, a physician prescribing unnecessary surgeries would create artificial demand. Government spending with the primary purpose of providing jobs (rather than deliverying any other end product) has been labelled \"\"artificial demand\"\". *** **Artificial scarcity** Artificial scarcity describes the scarcity of items even though either the technology and production, or sharing capacity exists to create a theoretically limitless abundance, as well as the use of laws to create scarcity where otherwise there wouldn't be. The most common causes are monopoly pricing structures, such as those enabled by laws that restrict competition or by high fixed costs in a particular marketplace. The inefficiency associated with artificial scarcity is formally known as a deadweight loss. *** **Perverse incentive** A perverse incentive is an incentive that has an unintended and undesirable result which is contrary to the interests of the incentive makers. Perverse incentives are a type of negative unintended consequence or cobra effect. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&amp;message=Excludeme&amp;subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27\"" }, { "docid": "78675", "title": "", "text": "\"Just to be clear to start, beta is a statistical property. So if your beta is 0.8 over a period of time. Stock X moved on average 0.8 for a point move in the index. We might hope this property is persistent and it seems to be fairly persistent (predictable) but it doesn't have to be. Also it is important to note this is not a lag in time. Beta is a measure of the average size of a move in the stock at the same time as a move in the index. In your example both the stock and index are measured at end of day. You can say that the stock \"\"lags\"\" behind the index because it doesn't grow as quickly as the market when the market is growing, but this is not a lag in time just a lag in magnitude. People do occasionally calculate betas between a stock and lagged in time market prices, but this is not the commonly used meaning of beta. This might actually be a more useful measure as then you could bet on the future of the stock given what happened today in the market, but these \"\"betas\"\" tend to be much more unstable than the synchronized version and hard to trade on. When you calculated beta you choose a time scale, in this case daily. So if your calculation is on a day-to-day basis then you have only tested the relationship on a day-to-day basis not, for instance, on a week-to-week basis. Now day-to-day and week-to-week betas are often related and are generally reasonably close but they do not have to be. There can be longer term effects only picked up on the longer scale. Stock X could day-to-day with a (average) beta of 1 to the stock market, but could have even a negative beta year-to-year with the market if the stock is counter-cyclical to longer scale trends on the market. So beta can change with the time scale used in the calculation.\"" }, { "docid": "42639", "title": "", "text": "You cannot use continuous compounding for returns less than or equal to 100% because a natural logarithm can only be taken for a positive amount. This answer includes the accurate way to ascertain r, for which many people use an approximation. For example, using -20% monthly return for 12 months:- -0.2 -0.223144 0.0687195 Checking: 0.0687195 True Now trying -100% monthly return:- -1. Indeterminate Why? Because a natural logarithm can only be taken for a positive amount. So the latter calculation can not be done using (logarithmic) continuous compounding. Of course, the calculation can still be done using regular compounding. For -100% the results go to zero in the first month, but -150% produces a more interesting result: -1.5 -11920.9" }, { "docid": "134494", "title": "", "text": "\"Yep. You're single, you're possibly still a dependent on your parent's taxes (in lieu of rent), and you're finally bringing home bacon instead of bacon bits. Welcome to the working world. Let's say your gross salary is the U.S. median of $50,000. With bi-weekly checks (26 a year; common practice) you're getting $1923.08 per paycheck. In the 2013 \"\"Percentage Method\"\" tax tables, here's how your federal withholding is calculated as a single person paid biweekly: Federal taxes are computed piecewise; the amount up to A is taxed at X%, then the amount between A and B is taxed at Y%, so if you make $C, between A and B, the tax is (A*X) + (C-A)*Y. The amount A*X is included in the \"\"base amount\"\" for ease of calculation. Back to our example; let's say you're getting $1923.08 gross wages per check. That puts you in the 25% marginal bracket. You pay the sum of all lesser brackets (which is the \"\"base amount\"\" of the 25% bracket), plus the 25% marginal rate on every dollar that falls within the bracket. That's 191.95 + (1923.08 - 1479) * .25 = 191.95 + (444.08 * .25) = 191.95 + 111.02 = $302.97 per paycheck. The \"\"effective\"\" tax rate on the total amount, as if you were being charged a flat tax, is 15.75%, and this is just for the federal income tax. Add to this MA state income taxes (5.25% flat tax), FICA (aka Medicare; 1.45% flat) and SECA (aka Social Security; 6.2% up to a \"\"wage base\"\" that $50k doesn't even approach), and your effective tax rate on each dollar you earn is 15.75% + 5.25% + 1.45% + 6.2% = 28.65%. This doesn't include any state unemployment taxes that may be withheld separately, but as the rate I come up with is pretty darn close to what you've figured (meaning I slightly overestimated your gross income and thus your effective tax rate), my bet is that SUTA's either employer-paid in MA, or it's just part of MA state income tax. It gets better, at least at the federal level: The amount of your state income taxes is tax-deductible at the federal level if you itemize your deductions. That may not be a factor for you as you'd have to come up with more than $6,100 of other tax-deductible expenses to make itemizing the better option than taking the standard deduction (big-ticket items are mortgage expenses other than principal payments, hospital stays such as for childbirth or major accident, and state and local taxes such as sales, property and income). If you can claim yourself as a dependent (meaning your parents can't), then $150 of each check ($3,900 of your annual salary) is no longer taxed for federal withholding, lowering the amount of money taxed at the 25% marginal rate. You effectively save $37.50 biweekly ($975 annually) in taxes. Get married and file jointly, and your spouse, her personal exemption, and an extra standard deduction amount (if you don't itemize) go on your taxes. The tax rates for married couples filing jointly are also lower; they're currently calculated (or were in 2012) to be the same as if two equal earners were to file separately, so if your spouse doesn't work, your taxes on the single income are calculated at the rates you'd get if you earned half as much. It doesn't work out to half the taxes, but it is a significant \"\"marriage advantage\"\". Have kids, and each one is another little $3,900 tax write-off. It's nowhere near the cost of having or raising the child, but it helps, and having kids isn't about the money. Owning a home, making charitable deductions, having medical expenses, etc are a toss-up. The magic number in 2013 is $12,200 for a married couple, $6,100 for a single person. If your mortgage interest, insurance premiums, property taxes, medical expenditures, charitable donations, any contributions from your take-home pay to a tax-deferred savings account (typically these accounts are paid into by your employer as a \"\"pre-tax deduction\"\" and never show up as taxable income, but you could just as easily move money from your take-home pay into tax-deferred savings) and any other tax-deductible payments add up to more than 12 large, then itemize. If not, take your standard deduction. As a single taxpayer just starting out in life, you probably don't have any of these types of expenditures, certainly not enough to give up the SD. I did the math on my own taxes in 2012, and was surprised at how little the government actually gets of my paycheck when all's said and done. Remember back in the summer of 2012 when everyone was mad at Romney for making millions and only paying an effective income tax rate of 14%, which was compared to the middle class's marginal rate of 25-28%? Well, my family of 3, living on a little more than the median income from one earner (me), taking the married standard deduction, three personal exemptions, and a little extra for student loan interest, paid an effective federal income tax rate of something like 3.5%. Of course, the FICA and SS taxes don't allow any deductions (not even for retirement savings), so add in the 4.2% SS (in 2012) and 1.45% FICA and the full federal gimme was more like 9-10%.\"" }, { "docid": "410564", "title": "", "text": "Like azam pointed out, fundamentally you need to decide if the money invested elsewhere will grow faster than the Interest you are paying on the loan. In India, the safe returns from Fixed Deposits is around 8-9% currently. Factoring taxes, the real rate of return would be around 6-7%. This is less than what you are paying towards interest. The PPF gives around 9% with Tax break [if there are no other options] and tax free interest, the real return can be as high as 12-14%. There is a limit on how much you can invest in PPF. However this looks higher than your average interest. The stock markets in long term [7 Years] averages give you around 15% returns, but are not predictable year to year. So the suggest from azam is valid, you would need to see what are the high rate of interest loans and if they accept early repayment, you should complete it ASAP. If there are loans that are less than average, say in the range of 7-8%, you can keep it and pay as per schedule." }, { "docid": "351209", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "445593", "title": "", "text": "Well, what you are asking is EMI, which comes to 30.78 in your case. The formula you are applying is of compounding a value, which is completely different. In EMI, person keeps paying money every month or any other period as specified. This amount is firstly allocated towards the interest for the period and the balance for principal amount. So, in effect principal keeps decreasing and subsequently interest thereon. Also, since, interest is getting paid every time it becomes due, compounding actually do not happen at all. In the case of compounding, interest gets applied at certain interval, but do not get paid. So, in effect every time when interest gets applied, it applies on complete Principal outstanding as well as interest unpaid. Hence, this complete amount gets payable at the end. In this case, total amount payable is obviously high, because of 2 reasons: 1. Since, Principal gets unpaid during whole period, you are paying interest on complete amount for complete period. 2. You will be paying interest on interest (compounding of interest) since you are not paying it as it is becoming due. Hence, both are different. You need to find EMI calculator or EMI formula, to achieve your purpose. EDIT: The formula for calculating EMI: Assuming a loan of Rs. 1 lakh at 9 % per annum, repayable in 15 years, the EMI calculation using the formula will be: EMI = (1,00,000 × 0.0075) × [(1 + 0.0075) 180 ÷ {(1+0.0075) 180 } - 1] = 750 × [3.838 ÷ 2.838] = 750 × 1.35236 = 1,014" }, { "docid": "70389", "title": "", "text": "Is it safe to invest in a portfolio of dividend stocks yielding 7-9% with the money borrowed at 3-4% from one of these brokerages? Yes and no. It depends on your risk profile! Any investment has its risks of losing your capital, but not investing is a guaranteed risk, as you will be guaranteed to fall behind the rate of inflation. Regarding investing on margin, this can increase your gains but can also increase your loses. Regarding the stock market - when investing in stocks you should not only look at the dividend rate but also the capital gain or loss potential. Remember in regards to investing on margin, if the share price drop too much you can get a margin call no matter how much dividend you are getting. It is no use gaining 9% in dividend yield per year if you are losing 15% or more in capital each year. Also, what is the risk of the dividend rate being cut back or dividends not being paid at all in the future? These are some of the risks you should consider before investing and derive a risk management plan as part of your investment plan before you invest. No investment is totally safe or risk free, but it is less risky than not investing at all, as long as you understand the risks involved and have a risk management plan in place as part of your overall investment plan." }, { "docid": "381849", "title": "", "text": "\"You sound like you know what you're talking about, but you say: \"\"foreign buyers will laugh at them\"\" But the Wall Street Journal, 9/20/12, says that in the last quarter FOREIGN INVESTORS ARE FLOCKING TO BUY JAPANESE BONDS IN RECORD LEVELS even though the yields are very much below other industrialized countries. LOL\"" }, { "docid": "568220", "title": "", "text": "The solution is x = 8.92. This assumes that Chuck's six years of deposits start from today, so that the first deposit accumulates 10 years of gain, i.e. 20*(1 + 0.1)^10. The second deposit gains nine years' interest: 20*(1 + 0.1)^9 and so on ... If you want to do this calculation using the formula for an annuity due, i.e. http://www.financeformulas.net/Future-Value-of-Annuity-Due.html where (formula by induction) you have to bear in mind this is for the whole time span (k = 1 to n), so for just the first six years you need to calculate for all ten years then subtract another annuity calculation for the last four years. So the full calculation is: As you can see it's not very neat, because the standard formula is for a whole time span. You could make it a little tidier by using a formula for k = m to n instead, i.e. So the calculation becomes which can be done with simple arithmetic (and doesn't actually need a solver)." }, { "docid": "131696", "title": "", "text": "The short answer is you'd be much better off paying up front in this case. The present value of $2,500 plus 12 $500 monthly payments is $8,128 at a 12% discount rate, which is much higher then the $6,000 you could pay now. The long answer is how you get that present value. How can I use time value of money to find the present value of money if I choose to go with option A? First of all, I'd question your discount rate. A 12% discount rate means that you can safely reinvest the money that you're not spending today at a 12% annual (1% monthly) rate, which seems very high. Normally for short-term spending decisions you'd use a risk-free rate, which would be closer to 1%-2%. However, to discount at 1% monthly you'd just divide each monthly payment by 1 plus the discount rate raised to the power of the number of periods until each payment. So the total is which is $8,127.54 You could also use the NPV function in Excel. It seems like to get an accurate answer the calculation of the interest rate should take into account compounding period as well? Correct, and in the example above the compounding is assumed to be monthly since that's the periodicity of the cash flows. You could calculate it with a different compounding period but it gets much more complicated and probably wouldn't make a significant difference. The discount rate does take compounding into effect, meaning if you saved the $5,628 (the PV of $8,128 minus the $2,500 initial payment), you'd earn 1% interest on $5,628 the first month, $5,128 plus that interest the second month, etc." }, { "docid": "176883", "title": "", "text": "\"A 'Call' gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy a stock at a particular price. The price, called the \"\"strike price\"\" is fixed when you buy the option. Let's run through an example - AAPL trades @ $259. You think it's going up over the next year, and you decide to buy the $280 Jan11 call for $12. Here are the details of this trade. Your cost is $1200 as options are traded on 100 shares each. You start to have the potential to make money only as Apple rises above $280 and the option trades \"\"in the money.\"\" It would take a move to $292 for you to break even, but after that, you are making $100 for each dollar it goes higher. At $300, your $1200 would be worth $2000, for example. A 16% move on the stock and a 67% increase on your money. On the other hand, if the stock doesn't rise enough by January 2011, you lose it all. A couple points here - American options are traded at any time. If the stock goes up next week, your $1200 may be worth $1500 and you can sell. If the option is not \"\"in the money\"\" its value is pure time value. There have been claims made that most options expire worthless. This of course is nonsense, you can see there will always be options with a strike below the price of the stock at expiration and those options are \"\"in the money.\"\" Of course, we don't know what those options were traded at. On the other end of this trade is the option seller. If he owns Apple, the sale is called a \"\"covered call\"\" and he is basically saying he's ok if the stock goes up enough that the buyer will get his shares for that price. For him, he knows that he'll get $292 (the $280, plus the option sale of $12) for a stock that is only $259 today. If the stock stays under $280, he just pocketed $12, 4.6% of the stock value, in just 3 months. This is why call writing can be a decent strategy for some investors. Especially if the market goes down, you can think of it as the investor lowering his cost by that $12. This particular strategy works best in a flat to down market. Of course in a fast rising market, the seller misses out on potentially high gains. (I'll call it quits here, just to say a Put is the mirror image, you have the right to sell a stock at a given price. It's the difference similar to shorting a stock as opposed to buying it.) If you have a follow up question - happy to help. EDIT - Apple closed on Jan 21, 2011 at $326.72, the $280 call would have been worth $46.72 vs the purchase price of $12. Nearly 4X return (A 289% gain) in just over 4 months for a stock move of 26%. This is the leverage you can have with options. Any stock could just as easily trade flat to down, and the entire option premium, lost.\"" }, { "docid": "243855", "title": "", "text": "You will not necessarily incur a penalty. You can potentially use the Annualized Income Installment method, which allows you to compute the tax due for each quarter based on income actually earned up to that point in the year. See Publication 505, in particular Worksheet 2-9. Form 2210 is also relevant as that is the form you will use when actually calculating whether you owe a penalty after the year is over. On my reading of Form 2210, if you had literally zero income during the first quarter, you won't be expected to make an estimated tax payment for that quarter (as long as you properly follow the Annualized Income Installment method for future quarters). However, you should go through the calculations yourself to see what the situation is with your actual numbers." } ]

[ { "docid": "518721", "title": "", "text": "\"Unless you are buying a significant value of your goods in USD then the relative strength of USD versus your local currency will have little to no effect on what the value of your investments is worth to you. In fact only (de|in)flation will effect your purchasing power. If your investments are in your local currency and your future expenses (usage of the returns on the investments) will be in your local currency FX has no effect. To answer your question, however, since all investments involve flows of money there can be no investment (other than perhaps gold which is really a form of currency) that isn't bound to at least one currency. In general investments are expected to be valued against the investor's home currency (I tend to call it \"\"fund currency\"\" as I work with hedge funds) as the return on the investment will be paid out in the fund currency and returns will be compared on the same basis. If investments are to be made internationally then it is necessary to reduce, or \"\"hedge\"\" the exchange rate risk. This is normally done using FX swaps or futures that allow an exchange rate in the future to be locked in today. Far from being unbound from FX moves these derivatives are closely bound to any moves but crucially are bound in the opposite direction to the hoped for FX move. an example of this would be if I'm investing 100GBP (my local currency) in a US company XYZ corp which I expect to do well. Suppose I get 200USD for my 100GBP and so buy 1 * 200USD shares in XYZ. No matter what happens to XYZ stock any move in GBP/USD will affect my P&L so I buy a future that allows me to exchange 200USD for 100GBP in 6 month's time. If GBP rises I can sell the future and make money on both the higher exchange rate and the increase in XYZ corp. If GBP falls I can keep the future until maturity and exchange the 200USD from XYZ corp for 100GBP so I only take the foreign exchange hit on any profits. If I expect my profits to be 10USD I can even buy futures such that I can lock in the exchange rate for 110USD in 6 months so that I will lose even less of my profit from the exchange rate move.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "100087", "title": "", "text": "CreditKarma review I don't personally use HelloWallet, but I have also heard very good things about it. Independence from financial products is a HUGE thing in the field because so many investment advisers place the firm before the customer (c.f. Too Big To Fail), so having an independent resource is a huge benefit." }, { "docid": "170966", "title": "", "text": "I am using the term homework generically to mean anything that is a part of school work that you should be working on independently. You can see if the people at r/investing or r/finance will answer your question" }, { "docid": "567079", "title": "", "text": "CDs pay less than the going rate so that the banks can earn money. Investing is risky right now due to the inaction of the Fed. Try your independent life insurance agent. You could get endowment life insurance. It would pay out at age 21. If you decide to invest it yourself try to buy a stable equity fund. My 'bedrock' fund is PGF. It pays dividends each month and is currently yealding 5.5% per year. Scottrade has a facility to automatically reinvest the dividend each month at no commission. http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/PGF?CountryCode=US" }, { "docid": "266194", "title": "", "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\"" }, { "docid": "581054", "title": "", "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\"" }, { "docid": "286226", "title": "", "text": "Risk is reduced but isn't zero The default risk is still there, the issuer can go bankrupt, and you can still loose all or some of your money if restructuring happens. If the bond has a callable option, the issuer can retire them if conditions are favourable for the issuer, you can still loose some of your investment. Callable schedule should be in the bond issuer's prospectus while issuing the bond. If the issuer is in a different country, that brings along a lot of headaches of recovering your money if something goes bad i.e. forex rates can go up and down. YTM, when the bond was bought was greater than risk free rate(govt deposit rates) Has to be greater than the risk free rate, because of the extra risk you are taking. Reinvestment risk is less because of the short term involved(I am assuming 2-3 years at max), but you should also look at the coupon rate of your bond, if it isn't a zero-coupon bond, and how you invest that. would it be ideal to hold the bond till maturity irrespective of price change It always depends on the current conditions. You cannot be sure that everything is fine, so it pays to be vigilant. Check the health of the issuer, any adverse circumstances, and the overall economy as a whole. As you intend to hold till maturity you should be more concerned about the serviceability of the bond by the issuer on maturity and till then." }, { "docid": "291229", "title": "", "text": "\"The other option apart from the above which I feel is quite good is \"\"Travel Card\"\" [also called Forex Card] issued in USD. These cards are like prepaid debit cards. They are available from almost quite a few Indian Banks like HDFC / ICICI / UTI. The limit for students is around 100 K USD per year. http://www.hdfcbank.com/personal/cards/prepaid_cards/forexplus_card/pre_forex_elg.htm The card can be reloaded by any amount [i think the minimum is USD 100] by visiting the Branch or certain Forex agents. There loading fee is INR 75. The Fx is typical Card Rate prevailing on the day. In US this card can be used as a credit card for almost everything [I have used this without any hassel]. Avoid using the card for blocking anything [at Hotel for room booking, or initial block at car rentals]. Although its mentioned that there is a withdrawl fees, i was never charged anything for withdrawls. The card comes with an internet based login to monitor account balance and transactions. Any unused funds can be withdrawn in India. The payment will be make in INR.\"" }, { "docid": "277074", "title": "", "text": "It isn't that the companies force traders, it is more the other way around. Traders wouldn't trade without margin. The main reason is liquidity and taking advantage of minor changes in the forex quotes. It goes down to pips and traders make profit(loss) on movement of pips maybe by 1 or 2 and in some cases in 1/1000 or less of a pip. So you need to put in a large amount to make a profit when the quotes move up or down. Supposedly if they have put in all the amount upfront, their trading options are limited. And the liquidity in the market goes out of the window. The banks and traders cannot make a profit with the limited amount of money available at their disposal. So what they would do is borrow from somebody else, so why not the broker itself in this case maybe the forex company, and execute the trades. So it helps everybody. Forex companies make their profit from the fees, more the trades done, more the fees and hence more profit. Traders get to put their fingers in many pies and so their chances of making profits increases. So everybody is happy." }, { "docid": "511647", "title": "", "text": "\"This page from TripAdvisor may be of interest. Look at what fees are charged on your ATM cards and credit cards, and consider overpaying your credit card so you have a credit balance that you can draw on for cash \"\"advances\"\" from ATMs that will dispense in local currency. Depending on what fees your bank charges, you may get a better rate than the forex cash traders at the airport. Edit: Cards may not always have the best rate. I recently heard from a traveler who was able to use a locally but not globally dominant currency to buy cash of a major currency at a shopping mall (with competitive forex traders) at rates even better than the mid-market rates posted at xe.com and similar places; I don't think you'll have that experience going from Australia to Malaysia (but another traveler reading this might have a different pair). In my experience the card rates are slightly worse than those and the airport forex traders significantly worse.\"" }, { "docid": "522655", "title": "", "text": "Keep 3-6 months (or more if you need to, for me the number is 9 months) worth of expenses in an emergency fund. Put the rest against the student loan. The length of time depends on your situation. I have family, and work in IT. Changing jobs takes me longer, because ... reasons. Having less than 6-9 months of buffer means that I have to rush and possibly take a position that is not a good fit, or get behind on payments. So, set aside your emergency fund, add to it if you need to. Once it is fully funded, take the money you were using to fund the emergency fund and budget that to clearing student loans. Also, don't start new credit cards, and be sure to never carry a balance on them. I know it seems like a lot, but keep in mind that yours is small, and you'll likely be able to knock it out in a very short time. Edit (after OP listed expenses): Taking into account the expenses you listed, it looks like you have about 2000 per month in expenses (if you're in emergency fund mode, luxuries can wait, and you can tighten the belt on food, so go with the lower end of your estimate.) Lets say you have 600 a month to work with. My suggestion would be bring savings up to $6000. That will take you two months. Then pay 850 a month to student loans. You'll be paid off in a year, and still have 6000 for emergencies. Once you're done, you will have 850 a month to save and invest. With patience, persistence and care, you can start a nest egg that will allow you to remain financially independent. Search around for FIRE (financial independence, retire early) and other strategies for retirement savings and investing. Be sure to save for retirement. The worst inheritance to leave your loved ones would be to become financially dependent upon them in your later years. And watch out for credit, it's a trap." }, { "docid": "471789", "title": "", "text": "Banking vs. speculating isn't a relevant dichotomy here. If my broker-dealer goes belly-up, I'm covered for up to $500K to replace the cash and securities I had on deposit with them. If he was doing forex investing, he fell into one of the few areas which is not covered by SIPC deposit insurance." }, { "docid": "126460", "title": "", "text": "&gt;You were an unsecured creditor. Yes, but his situation was more complicated than your run of the mill unsecured creditor. He had a trading account. It may very well have been technically *structured*, for accounting purposes, as unsecured credit - but the reasonable assumption for the average person is that trading/deposit accounts are held in trust rather than as individual investments/grants which the company can use how it pleases with just the promise to pay you back later. Now, granted, somebody with a Refco forex account should be sophisticated enough to understand the difference - but that doesn't change the fact that even such investors might normally just assume that their accounts are being sequestered. It would make the most sense. It sounds to me like Refco's accountants, and everybody involved in the process, were thieving scumbags." }, { "docid": "405276", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "272174", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "39566", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "137378", "title": "", "text": "This is what helped me. - I did my own taxes - get your own job, not from your parents, or parents friends, but entirely by yourself. Complete independence will equate to financial independence - Wikipedia (for specifics and definitions) paired with finance genre movies - audiobook, or YouTube video, 'why an economy grows, and why it doesnt' That's a good start. Good luck! Don't be too gung ho to invest and all that crap, you got lots too learn. Rule 1: don't be too eager, that's how you lose all your money! My best financial investments to date were: 1) my education (engineering) 2) I didn't pay my student loan off, instead, I bought a property, and I made $70,000 in 8 months off of one, and $100,000 off of another one in 2 years, 3) still making minimum payments on my student loan, a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow 4) pack my own lunches every day, eating out every meal ends up costing more than most mortgage payments. This is in Vancouver BC, Canada." }, { "docid": "553304", "title": "", "text": "Actually, most of the forex traders do not prefer the practice of leveraging. In forex trading, a contract signed by a common trader is way more than any common man can afford to risk. It is not a compulsion for the traders to use leveraging yet most of the traders practice it. The other side of it is completely different. Trading companies or brokers specifically like it because you turn into a kind of cash cow when your account gets exhausted. As for trader, most of them don’t practice leveraging." }, { "docid": "401174", "title": "", "text": "&gt; Tax rates do make a difference between whether to invest here or in Ireland. Not actual investment, but if you have the discretion to chanel profits to a lower taxed jurisdiction (necessarily a loophole that can be closed), then you may structure transactions accordingly. &gt; he money that American businesses profit overseas stays overseas instead of being repatriated because the taxes are too high to justify paying them before reinvesting the money in the economy. That is an issue that is also independent of tax rates. Providing incentives to bring money back is unlikely to finance any new investment though. There are loopholes that allow using foreign assets (cash especially) to fund foreign loans that can finance any desired investment. Still, even if repatriation is used for stock buybacks and dividends that would be more money flowing into the US, though not really money flowing to people who spend a high portion of flows (rich investors). But just because there are reasonable arguments for tax reform encouraging repatriation and HQ locations as at least not being harful, does not support also including the genuinely directly harmful effects of cuts to tax rates." }, { "docid": "330683", "title": "", "text": "I've had a small forex investment in the AUDUSD since Oct of 2010 at 50:1 leverage, and have more than doubled my investment on the swap alone. Granted this is high risk with virtually every guarantee that it will fail *eventually*, but the AUD hasn't dropped at anytime during this trade enough to stop me out so far. With a higher interest rate, there's a natural scarcity in the AUD, especially when compared to the USD. Unless there's another crash like 2008, Asian trading with Aus significantly weakens, or the RBA screws the pooch, the AUD doesn't have many factors with a high probability for devastating impact on the currency." } ]

[ { "docid": "104134", "title": "", "text": "\"You can move money from a 403b to a 401k plan, but the question you should ask yourself is whether it is a wise decision. Unless there are specific reasons for wanting to invest in your new employer's 401k (e.g. you can buy your employer's stock at discounted rates within the 401k, and this is a good investment according to your friends, neighbors, and brothers-in-law), you would be much better off moving the 403b money into an IRA, where you have many more choices for investment and usually can manage to find investments with lower investment costs (e.g. mutual fund fees) than in a typical employer's 401k plan. On the other hand, 401k assets are better protected than IRA assets in case you are sued and a court finds you to be liable for damages; the plaintiff cannot come after the 401k assets if you cannot pay. To answer the question of \"\"how?\"\", you need to talk to the HR people at your current employer to make sure that they are willing to accept a roll-over from another tax-deferred plan (not all plans are agreeable to do this) and get any paperwork from them, especially making sure that you find out where the check is to be sent, and to whom it should be payable. Then, talk to your previous employer's HR people and tell them that you want to roll over your 403b money into the 401k plan of your new employer, fill out the paperwork, make sure they know to whom to cut the check to, and where it is to be sent etc. In my personal experience, I was sent the check payable to the custodian of my new (IRA) account, and I had to send it on to the custodian; my 403b people refused to send the check directly to the new custodian. The following January, you will receive a 1099-R form from your 403b plan showing the amount transferred to the new custodian, with hopefully the correct code letter indicating that the money was rolled over into another tax-deferred account.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "183856", "title": "", "text": "Once you roll the money from the 401K into a rollover IRA don't mix it with new funds. The money from the 401K will be treated differently depending on if the funds are pre-tax, post-tax, Roth, or matching. (Yes, Post-tax and Roth are not the same thing). In the future an employer may allow you to roll IRA or 401K money into their program. They don't have to allow it, and they can put restrictions on the types of money they will accept." }, { "docid": "530703", "title": "", "text": "One of the strengths of 401K accounts is that you can move from investment X in the program to investment Y in the program without tax consequences. As you move through your lifetime you will tend to want to lower risk by investing in funds that are less aggressive. The only way this works is if there is an ability to move funds. If there were only one or two funds to pick from or that you were locked in to your initial choices that would be a very poor 401K to be enrolled in. On your benefits/401K website you should be able to adjust three sets of numbers: Some have you enter the current money as a percentage others allow you to enter it in dollars. They might limit the number of changes you can do in a month to the current money balances to avoid the temptation to try and time the market. These changes usually happen within 1 business day. Regarding new and match money they could limit the lowest non zero percent to 5% or 10%, but they might allow numbers as low as 1%. These changes take place generally with the next paycheck." }, { "docid": "302619", "title": "", "text": "It doesn't make a difference if you will be keeping it in the 401K or transferring it to an IRA, it is still retirement money that you plan on investing for decades. Pre-Enron many employees invested significant amounts of their retirement funds with the employer. One of the risks was that if a single stock was down at the wrong time, you were hurt if you needed to sell. If you are going from an S&P 500 in the 401K to an S&P 500 in the IRA, it doesn't matter if the the market is up or down, the two funds will be pretty much in synch." }, { "docid": "181371", "title": "", "text": "\"This is a very trivial scam. Flow is like this: Send money to Mr. X (you, in this case). Call Mr. X and ask for the money back, because mistake. Usually they ask for a wire transfer/cash/gift cards/prepaid cards or something else irreversible/untraceable. Mr. X initiates transfer back to Scammer. Accept the transfer from Mr. X Dispute the original transfer or otherwise cancel it through the netbank Mr. X cannot dispute his transfer to the Scammer, since it was genuinely and intentionally initiated by Mr. X. End up with twice the money, at the expense of Mr. X In other countries this is usually done with forged checks, but transfers can work just as well. As long as the transfer can be retroactively canceled or reversed - the scam works. You mentioned money laundering - this is definitely a possibility as well. They transfer dirty money to you from unidentified sources, and you send a \"\"gift\"\" to them with a clear paper trail. When the audit comes - the only proof is that you actually sent them the gift, and no-one will believe your story. You'll have to explain why the Mr. Z who's now in jail sent you a $1K of his drug money. However, in this case I think it is more likely a scam, and the scammer didn't really know what he was doing...\"" }, { "docid": "238360", "title": "", "text": "The investments offered in 401K are usually limited to a selection of mutual funds offered by a 401K provider. The 401K providers and the mutual funds charge fees. The mutual fund industry has a lobbying group that will push for increased 401K contributions to direct money into their mutual funds to collect fees. The top 401 K provider in 2005 was fidelity. It managed $337 billion in 401Ks of which $334 billion was directed into mutual funds. Although I would have to use some of the same providers to open an IRA, I would not have to invest in the providers' mutual funds when I open an IRA. I can buy a stock and hold onto it for 10, 20, 50 years inside of my IRA. Thus, the only fee the investment company would collect from me would be from when I purchased the stock and when I sold the stock. Not nearly as profitable as mutual fund fees." }, { "docid": "168890", "title": "", "text": "Companies usually have a minimum account balance required to keep a 401k for former employees. You will have to check whether $10k is sufficient to keep your funds in your former employer's 401k. If you are below their threshold, you will have to move your money. One option is to rollover into the new employer's 401k. You can rollover a 401k into a traditional IRA account that is independent of your employer. A traditional IRA has the same tax benefits as a 401k; it grows tax-free until you withdraw money from the account. Companies that offer IRAs include Vanguard, Fidelity, TIAA. Many companies have significant overhead costs in the their 401k management. It may be better for you to rollover your money into an IRA to save on these costs. I am not knowledgeable about loaning from retirement accounts, so I cannot help with that." }, { "docid": "591495", "title": "", "text": "\"Your 401K (and IRA) is a legally distinct entity from yourself. In fact, it is a \"\"trust,\"\" and your Administrator is a \"\"trustee,\"\" while you are both creator and benefactor. This fact, and the 10% early withdrawal penalty, makes it immune from most judgments. The IRS can \"\"levy\"\" your 401K or IRA for back taxes, but must waive the 10% penalty (under the 1997 Tax Reform law). That gives them the power to do what most others can't. A \"\"tricky\"\" banker may persuade you to take money out of your 401K to pay the bank. If you do, s/he has won. But s/he can't go after your 401k.\"" }, { "docid": "258431", "title": "", "text": "Do you think your 403b will earn more than the mortgage interest rate? If so, then mortgage seems the way to go. Conservative investment strategies might not earn much more than a 3-4% mortgage, and if you're paying 5-6% it's more likely you'll be earning less than the mortgage. From another point of view, though, I would probably take a loan anyway just from a security standpoint - you have more risk if you put a third of your retirement savings into one purchase directly, whereas if you do a 10-15 year loan, you'll have more of a cushion. Also, if you don't outlive the mortgage, you'll have had use of more of your retirement income than otherwise - though I do wonder if it puts you at some risk if you have significant medical bills (which might require you to liquidate your 403b but wouldn't require you to sell your house, so paying it off has some upside). Also, as @chili555 notes in comments, you should consider the taxation of your 403(b) income. If you pull it out in one lump sum, some of it may be taxed at a higher rate than if you pulled it out more slowly over time, which will easily overwhelm any interest rate differences. This assumes it's not a Roth 403(b) account; if it is Roth then it doesn't matter." }, { "docid": "110649", "title": "", "text": "I want to take a loan out against an old 401k to use as the down payment on a house. The problem that I've found is that in order to borrow against the 401k it has to be considered current. I'd like to avoid rolling it over to my current job because then if I quit the entire load has to be repaid within 60 days. I'm specifically wondering if me plan of starting a company with a 401k will work. From what I can tell, there's no limit on the number of current 401ks you can have. Since I'm obviously never going to fire myself, having to suddenly repay the entire loan won't be a problem. I'd like to keep my job and money related to investments separate." }, { "docid": "59600", "title": "", "text": "It is really hard to tell where you should withdraw money from. So instead, I'll give you some pointers to make it easier for you to make the decision for yourself, while keeping the answer useful to others as well. I have 3 401ks, ... and some has post tax, non Roth money Why keeping 3 401ks? You can roll them over into an IRA or the one 401k which is still active (I assume here you're not currently employed with 3 different employers). This will also help you avoiding fees for too low balances on your IRAs. However, for the 401k with after tax (not Roth) balance - read the next part carefully. Post tax amounts are your basis. Generally, it is not a good idea to keep post-tax amounts in 401k/IRA, you usually do post-tax contributions to convert them to Roth ASAP. Withdrawing from 401k with basis may become a mess since you'll have to account for the basis portion of each withdrawal. Especially if you pool it with IRAs, so that one - don't rollover, keep it separately to make that accounting easier. I also have several smaller IRAs and Roth IRAs, Keep in mind the RMD requirements. Roth IRAs don't have those, and are non-taxable income, so you would probably want to keep them as long as possible. This is relevant for 401k as well. Again, consolidating will help you with the fees. I'm concerned about having easily accessible cash for emergencies. I suggest keeping Roth amounts for this purpose as they're easily accessible and bear no taxable consequence. Other than emergencies don't touch them for as long as you can. I do have some other money in taxable investments For those, consider re-balancing to a more conservative style, but beware of the capital gains taxes if you have a lot of gains accumulated. You may want consider loss-harvesting (selling the positions in the red) to liquidate investments without adverse tax consequences while getting some of your cash back into the checking account. In any case, depending on your tax bracket, capital gains taxes are generally lower (down to 0%) than ordinary income taxes (which is what you pay for IRA/401k withdrawals), so you would probably want to start with these, after careful planning and taking the RMD and the Social Security (if you're getting any) into account." }, { "docid": "154839", "title": "", "text": "Conversion of after-tax 401K into a Roth is known (on Bogleheads for instance) as a Mega Backdoor Roth IRA. Recent tax rulings seem to allow for this kind of transfer more cleanly. After conversions, the money is treated as a normal Roth - you don't pay any taxes or penalties on contributions. For investment earnings, the Roth IRA has the standard five-year rule: most commonly - you must hold the account for five years and be 59.5 years old (there are other criteria). Otherwise, you may pay taxes plus a 10% penalty on the earnings portion of your distribution. There are other reasons you can withdraw early - spelled out in IRS Publication 590B Figure 2-1." }, { "docid": "12488", "title": "", "text": "easier access to your money That can be a disadvantage for some people. Based on the number of people who tap their 401K for non-retirement reasons, or just cash it in when they change jobs; making it painful to use before retirement age does keep some people from spending it too early. They need to be able to compartmentalize the funds in order to understand the difference between funds spending, saving and investing for retirement. Roth 401K One advantage that the 401K may have is that you can in many plans invest the funds in a Roth 401K. This allows you to go beyond the Roth IRA limits. You are currently investing the maximum amount in your Roth IRA, so this could be a big advantage." }, { "docid": "367277", "title": "", "text": "\"Assuming nothing here helps, here are some thoughts. First, If Principal Financial knows the 401k was rolled over to an IRA, then it must have been a custodian-to-custodian transfer, which means they need to know who the recipient custodian was, so I'd call them back and push a little harder. Next, they couldn't have just created an IRA out of thin air and moved some money into it without some paperwork and signatures from you, so you should have copies of that paperwork. Principal may also still have archived copies of that paperwork, that they may be able to provide to you, although they'll probably charge for that service. Also, there would have been tax reporting around the rollover. For the year the rollover occurred in, you would have received a 1099-R and 5498. The 1099-R would have to have been reported on your federal (and possibly state) income tax for that year. It may be possible to obtain copies of old 1099-R's from the IRS, maybe call them and ask. In subsequent years, you should have received at least a year-end statement. If you don't have any of that, and contacting Principal and the IRS don't help, then I'm not sure there's much that anyone can do to help you. As far as I know, there's no \"\"universal clearinghouse\"\" for IRAs, and there are a lot of IRA custodians. I would expect you to receive a year-end statement from the custodian for 2015 sometime in early 2016, so maybe just wait for (and watch for) that. And take this as an object lesson that you need to keep better track of your finances. No one's going to do it for you (unless you pay them a bunch of money).\"" }, { "docid": "494783", "title": "", "text": "Typically your paychecks are direct deposited into your bank account and you receive a paycheck stub telling you how much of your money went where (taxes, insurance, 401k, etc.). Most people use debit or credit cards for purchases. I personally only use checks to transfer money to another person (family, friend, etc.) than a business. And even then, there's PayPal." }, { "docid": "87260", "title": "", "text": "All other things being equal, you might be better off contributing to a IRA that is a brokerage account. You will have lots of flexibility in your investments and there would probably not be fees for the account itself. You might incur commissions for trading and/or owning mutual funds that are charged by the funds themselves. You won't be able to borrow from an IRA, as opposed to a 401K. IMHO, that is a good thing. Are you suggesting that you would withdraw early from a retirement account? You'd probably be better off not doing that. Assuming a large salary, you would be paying 43% to withdraw your money early. Would you accept a loan at 43% interest? You are probably better off not putting the money in in the first place to accomplish your goals, then withdrawing it early. Most people opt for a 401K for two reasons. The company match and ease of investment make a compelling argument. Keep in mind if a 401K is available to you, regardless if you particpate, you start phasing out your IRA deduction at 60K a year (single) or 96K (married). Given your huge salary comments I imagine an IRA would not be an option in your scenario. Given that, if you leave a job, you can roll your 401K balance into a trading account." }, { "docid": "309684", "title": "", "text": "See if there are any favorable tax treaties between your two countries. (check US state department - or find the nearest PWC, Deloitte, KPMG, these are global auditing firms that deal with international tax and compliance) A tax treaty could have possible goodies such as a lower more favorable tax or even a tax credit from. For instance, if you paid 28% tax in the US then your new country will give you a credit on the taxes owed to them. The point of tax treaties are to prevent double taxation, but in the effort to do so they often create their own new tax rates for transfers between countries. You'll be better off just paying the 28% US income tax on your 401k distribution. And using the post-tax money as you please. US citizens are on the hook for income tax several years after they leave the US." }, { "docid": "434869", "title": "", "text": "\"It is difficult to become a millionaire in the short term (a few years) working at a 9-to-5 job, unless you get lucky (win the lottery, inheritance, gambling at a casino, etc). However, if you max out your employer's Retirement Plan (401k, 403b) for the next 30 years, and you average a 5% rate of return on your investment, you will reach millionaire status. Many people would consider this \"\"easy\"\" and \"\"automatic\"\". Of course, this assumes you are able to max our your retirement savings at the start of your career, and keep it going. The idea is that if you get in the habit of saving early in your career and live modestly, it becomes an automatic thing. Unfortunately, the value of $1 million after 30 years of inflation will be eroded somewhat. (Sorry.) If you don't want to wait 30 years, then you need to look at a different strategy. Work harder or take risks. Some options:\"" }, { "docid": "505993", "title": "", "text": "Buy the minimum of one fund now. (Eg total bond market) Buy the minimum of the next fund next time you have $2500. (Eg large-cap stocks.) Continue with those until you have enough to buy the next fund (eg small-cap stocks). Adjust as you go to balance these funds according to your planned ratios, or as close as you can reasonably get without having to actually transfer money between the funds more than once a year or so. Build up to your targets over time. If you can't easily afford to tie up that first $2500, stay with banks and CDs and maybe money market accounts until you can. And don't try to invest (except maybe through a matched 401k) before you have adequate savings both for normal life and for an emergency reserve. Note too that the 401k can be a way to buy into funds without a minimum. Check with your employer. If you haven't maxed out your 401k yet, and it has matching funds, that is usually the place to start saving for retirement; otherwise you are leaving free money on the table." }, { "docid": "136627", "title": "", "text": "\"Congratulations on the job offer! That type of matching sounds good if you plan to stay at a company for more than a year. My experience has been that 401k matching can range from 2% up to 8% for your typical starting job, so a total of 6% is good. You would definitely want to contribute at least 5% to take advantage of the \"\"Free\"\" money. Loan provision could mean that loans from 401k are allowed. I did some research and found that not all company 401ks allow for you to take a loan out of your 401k. Typically this is bad practice since you are robbing your 401k of it's major advantage - tax free compound interest. Source\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "61022", "title": "", "text": "\"From the way you frame the question it sounds like you more or less know the answer already. Yes - you can make a non-deductable contribution to a traditional IRA and convert it to a Roth IRA. Here is Wikipedia's explanation: Regardless of income but subject to contribution limits, contributions can be made to a Traditional IRA and then converted to a Roth IRA.[10] This allows for \"\"backdoor\"\" contributions where individuals are able to avoid the income limitations of the Roth IRA. There is no limit to the frequency with which conversions can occur, so this process can be repeated indefinitely. One major caveat to the entire \"\"backdoor\"\" Roth IRA contribution process, however, is that it only works for people who do not have any pre-tax contributed money in IRA accounts at the time of the \"\"backdoor\"\" conversion to Roth; conversions made when other IRA money exists are subject to pro-rata calculations and may lead to tax liabilities on the part of the converter. [9] Do note the caveat in the second paragraph. This article explains it more thoroughly: The IRS does not allow converters to specify which dollars are being converted as they can with shares of stock being sold; for the purposes of determining taxes on conversions the IRS considers a person’s non-Roth IRA money to be a single, co-mingled sum. Hence, if a person has any funds in any non-Roth IRA accounts, it is impossible to contribute to a Traditional IRA and then “convert that account” to a Roth IRA as suggested by various pundits and the Wikipedia piece referenced above – conversions must be performed on a pro-rata basis of all IRA money, not on specific dollars or accounts. Say you have $20k of pre-tax assets in a traditional IRA, and make a non-deductable contribution of $5k. The account is now 80% pre-tax assets and 20% post-tax assets, so if you move $5k into a Roth IRA, $4k of it would be taxed in the conversion. The traditional IRA would be left with $16k of pre-tax assets and $4k of post-tax assets.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "448358", "title": "", "text": "Your 401k IRA will now have three different sub-accounts, the one holding your Traditional (pre-tax) 401k contributions, the one holding your Roth 401k contributions, and the one holding the employer match contributions (which, as has been pointed out to you, cannot be considered to be Roth 401k contributions). That is, it is not true that So my next month's check shows $500+$500 going to the regular 401k, and $82+$82 going to the Roth 401k. Your next month's paystub will show $500 going into the regular 401k, $100 going into the Roth 401k, and if employer matching contributions are listed on the paystub, it will still show $600 going into the employer match. If you have chosen to invest your 401k in mutual funds (or stocks), shares are purchased when the 401k administrator receives the money and are also segregated in the three subaccounts. If you are paid monthly, then you will know on a month-by-month basis how many shares you hold in the three separate subaccounts, and there is no end-of-year modification of how many shares were purchased with Roth 401k contributions versus how many were purchased with pretax contributions or with employer matching funds as you seem to think." }, { "docid": "551403", "title": "", "text": "\"From a purely analytical standpoint, assuming you are investing your Roth IRA contributions in broad market securities (such as the SPDR S&P 500 ETF, which tracks the S&P 500), the broader market has historically had more upward movement than downward, and therefore a dollar invested today will have a greater expected value than a dollar invested tomorrow. So from this perspective, it is better to \"\"max out\"\" your Roth on the first day of the contribution year and immediately invest in broad market (or at least well diversified) securities. That being said, opportunity costs must also be taken into account--every dollar you use to fund your Roth IRA is a dollar that is no longer available to be invested elsewhere (hence, a lost opportunity). With this in mind, if you are currently eligible for a 401k in which your employer matches some portion of your contributions, it is generally advised that you contribute to the 401k up to the employer-match. For example, if your employer matches 75% of contributions up to 3.5% of your gross salary, then it is advisable that you first contribute this 3.5% to your 401k before even considering contributing to a Roth IRA. The reasoning behind this is two-fold: first, the employer-match can be considered as a guaranteed Return on Investment--so for example, for an employer that matches 75%, for every dollar you contribute you already have earned a 75% return up to the employer's limit. Secondly, 401k contributions have tax implications: not only is the money contributed to the 401k pre-tax (i.e., contributions are not taxed), it also reduces your taxable income, so the marginal tax benefit of these contributions must also be taken into account. Keep in mind that in the usual circumstances, 401k disbursements are taxable. Finally, many financial advisors will also suggest establishing an \"\"emergency fund\"\", which is money that you will not use unless you suffer an emergency that has an impact on your normal income--loss of job, medical emergency, etc. These funds are often kept in highly liquid accounts (savings accounts, money-market funds, etc.) so they can be accessed immediately when you run into one of \"\"life's little surprises\"\". Generally, it is advised that an emergency fund between $500-$1000 is established ASAP, and over time the emergency fund should be increased until it has reached a value equivalent to the sum of 8 months' worth of expenses. If funding an IRA is preventing you from working towards such an emergency fund, then you may want to consider waiting on maxing out the IRA before you have that EF established. Of course, it goes without saying that credit card balances with APRs other than 0.00% (or similar) should be paid off before an IRA is funded, since while you can only hope to match the market at best (between 10-15% a year) in your IRA investments, paying down credit card balances is an instant \"\"return\"\" of whatever the APR is, which usually tends to be between a 15-30% APR. In a nutshell, assuming you are maxing out your 401k (if applicable), have an emergency fund established, are not carrying any high-APR credit card balances, and are able to do so, historical price movements in the markets suggest that funding your Roth IRA upfront and investing these funds immediately in a broadly diversified portfolio will yield a higher expected return than funding the account periodically throughout the year (using dollar cost averaging or similar strategies). If this is not the case, take some time to consider the opportunity costs you are incurring from not fully contributing to your 401k, carrying high credit card balances, or not having a sufficient emergency fund established. This is not financial advice specific to any individual and your mileage may vary. Consider consulting a Certified Financial Planner, Certified Public Accountant, etc. before making any major financial decisions.\"" }, { "docid": "55954", "title": "", "text": "(Note: The OP does not state whether the employer-sponsored retirement savings are pre-tax or post-tax (such as a Roth 401(k)). The following answer assumes the more common case of a pre-tax plan.) This is a bad idea, IMHO. IRS Pub 970 lists exceptions to the 10% early withdrawal penalty for educational expenses. This doesn't include, as far as I can tell, student loan payments. So withdrawing from your retirement account would incur both income tax and penalties. Even if there were an exception, you'd still have to pay income taxes, which, depending on the amount and your income, could be at a higher marginal rate than you are currently paying. If you really want the debt gone as soon as possible, why not reduce the amount you contribute to the retirement plan (but not below the amount that gets you the maximum employer match) and use that money to increase your monthly payments to the student loan? Note that, if you do this, you will pay taxes on income that would have been tax-deferred in order to save money on interest, so there's still a trade-off. (One more thing: rather than rolling over to your new company's plan, you could roll over to a self-directed Traditional IRA.)" }, { "docid": "482768", "title": "", "text": "There are a few incorrect assumptions in your question but the TL;DR version is: All, or most, of the withdrawal is taxable income that is reported on Lines 15a (total distribution) and 15b (taxable amount) of Form 1040. None of the distribution is given special treatment as Qualified Dividends or Capital Gains regardless of what happened inside the IRA, and none of the distribution is subject to the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax that some high-income people need to compute on Form 8960. If the withdrawal is not a Qualified Distribution, it will be subject to a 10% excise tax (tax penalty on premature withdrawal). Not all contributions to Traditional IRAs are deductible from income for the year for which the contribution was made. People with high income and/or coverage by a workplace retirement plan (pension plan, 401(k) plan, 403(b) plan, etc) cannot deduct any contributions that they choose to make to a Traditional IRA. Such people can always make a contribution (subject to them having compensation (earned income such as salary or wages, self-employment income, commissions on sales, etc), but they don't get a tax deduction for it (just as contributions to Roth IRAs are not deductible). Whether it is wise to make such nondeductible contributions to a Traditional IRA is a question on which reasonable people can hold different opinions. Be that as it may, nondeductible contributions to a Traditional IRA create (or add to) what is called the basis of an IRA. They are reported to the IRS on Form 8606 which is attached to the Federal Form 1040. Note that the IRA custodian or trustee is not told that the contributions are not deductible. Earnings on the basis accumulate tax-deferred within the IRA just as do the earnings on the deductible contributions. Now, when you make a withdrawal from your Traditional IRA, no matter which of your various IRA accounts you take the money from, part of the money is deemed to be taken from the basis (and is not subject to income tax) while the rest is pure taxable income. That is, none of the rest is eligible for the reduced taxation rates for Qualified Dividends or Capital Gains and since it does not count as investment income, it is not subject to the 3.8% Net Investment Tax of Form 8960 either. Computation of how much of your withdrawal is nontaxable basis and how much is taxable income is done on Form 8606. Note that you don't get to withdraw your entire basis until such time as when you close all your Traditional IRA accounts. How is all this reported? Well, your IRA custodian(s) will send you Form 1099-R reporting the total amount of the withdrawal, what income tax, if any, was withheld, etc. The custodian(s) don't know what your basis is, and so Box 2b will say that the taxable amount is not determined. You need to fill out Form 8606 to figure out what the taxable amount is, and then report the taxable amount on Line 15b of Form 1040. (The total withdrawal is reported on Line 15a which is not included in the AGI computations). Note that as far as the IRS is concerned, you have only one Traditional IRA. The A in IRA stands for Arrangement, not Account as most everybody thinks, and your Traditional IRA can invest in many different things, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc with different custodians if you choose, but your basis is in the IRA, not the specific investment that you made with your nondeductible contribution. That's why the total IRA contribution is limited, not the per-account contribution, and why you need to look that the total value of your IRA in determining the taxable portion, not the specific account(s) from which you withdrew the money. So, how much basis did you withdraw? Well, if you withdrew $W during 2016 and the total value of all your Traditional IRA accounts was $X at the end of 2016 and your total basis in your Traditional IRA is $B, then (assuming that you did not indulge in any Traditional-to-Roth rollovers for 2016), multiply W by B/(W+X) to get the amount of nontaxable basis in the withdrawal. B thus gets reduced for 2017 by amount of basis withdrawal. What if you never made a nondeductible contribution to your Traditional IRA, or you made some nondeductible contributions many years ago and have forgotten about them? Well, you could still fill out Form 8606 reporting a zero basis, but it will just tell you that your basis continues $0. Or, you could just enter the total amount of your withdrawal in Lines 15a and 15b, effectively saying that all of the withdrawal is taxable income to you. The IRS does not care if you choose to pay taxes on nontaxable income." }, { "docid": "38532", "title": "", "text": "\"Your contribution limit to a 401(k) is $18,000. Your employer is allowed to contribute to your 401(k), usually a \"\"matching contribution\"\". That matching contribution comes from your employer, so is not subject to your personal contribution limit. A contribution to a regular 401(k) is typically made with pre-tax money (i.e. you don't pay payroll taxes on the money you contribute) so you pay less taxes for the current tax year. However when you retire and you take money out, you pay taxes on the money you take out. On one hand, your tax rate may be lower when you have retired, but on the other hand, if your investments have appreciated over time, the total amount of tax you pay would be higher. If your company offers a Roth 401(k) plan, you can contribute $18,000 of after tax money. This way you pay the tax on the $18,000 today, as you would if you did not put the money in the 401(k), but when you take the money out at retirement, you would not have to pay tax. In my opinion, that serves as a way to pay effectively more money into your 401(k). Some firms put vesting provisions on the amount that they match in your 401(k), e.g. 4 years at 25% per year. So you have to work 1 full year to be entitled to 25% of their matching contribution, 2 years for 50%, and 4 years to receive all of it. Check your company's Summary Plan Description of the 401(k) to be sure. You are not allowed to invest pre-tax money into a Traditional IRA if you are already contributing to a 401(k) plan and have reached the income limits ($62,000 AGI for single head of household). You are allowed to contribute post-tax money to a Traditional IRA plan if you have already contributed to a 401(k), which you can then Roll-over into a Roth IRA (look up 'backdoor IRA'). The IRA contribution limit applies to all IRA accounts over that calendar year. You could put some money in a traditional IRA, a Roth IRA, another traditional IRA, etc. so long as the total amount is not more than the contribution limit. This gives you an upper limit of 5.5k + 18k = 23.5 investments in retirement accounts. Note however, once you reach age 50, these limits increase to 6.5k (IRA) + 24k (401(k)). They also are adjusted periodically with the rate of inflation. The following approach may be more efficient for building wealth: This ordering is the subject of debate and people have different opinions. There is a separate discussion of these priorities here: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? Note however, a 401(k) loan becomes payable if you leave your company, and if not repaid, is an unauthorised distribution from your 401k (and therefore subject to an additional 10% tax penalty). You should also be careful putting money into an IRA, as you will be subject to an additional 10% tax penalty if you take out the money (distribution) before retirement, unless one of the exceptions defined by the IRA applies (e.g. $10,000 for first time home purchase), which could wipe out more than any gains you made by putting it in there in the first place. Your specific circumstances may vary, so this approach may not be best for you. A registered financial advisor may be able to help - ensure they are legitimate: https://adviserinfo.sec.gov\"" }, { "docid": "174335", "title": "", "text": "\"This question had better be asked of the 401k plan administrator rather than here. The plan document that you received when you began participating undoubtedly has a page or more of definitions of the terms used in the contract, and especially so if the meanings are nonstandard. For example, one would expect that a Final Distribution leaves a balance of $0 in the 401k account and so a \"\"per distribution\"\" fee is meaningless in the context of Final Distribution. As the post by mbhunter indicates, withdrawal and distribution seem to be used interchangeably in IRS documents, and so there probably is a nonstandard meaning assigned to these terms in the 401k document. Three possible nonstandard meanings of these two words come to mind. Withdrawal = at the request of the participant, and Distribution = as required by law, e.g. required minimum distribution Withdrawal = anything before age 59.5 or before termination of employment and Distribution = anything after age 59.5 or after termination of employment Withdrawal = anything on which the 10% excise tax for premature distributions must be paid, or anything that is not eligible for rollover into another tax-deferred account and Distribution = anything on which the 10% excise tax does not need to be paid. But all the above is just idle speculation, and what matters is the plan document's definitions of these terms, and that can be determined only if you read your 401k plan document yourself. Reliance on the answers given by the employer's HR department, or the plan administrator, as to what the plan document says might or might not be advisable: even the IRS has been known to give out incorrect information. In general, money cannot be withdrawn from a 401k plan and rolled over (or transferred via a trustee-to-trustee transfer) into another tax-deferred plan while the participant is still employed by the sponsor of the 401k plan. Since most 401k plans have poor investment choices and excessive administrator fees, reflect that absent this prohibition, most people would with roll over money from their 401ks into their IRAs as often as feasible. You can withdraw money from a 401k account without paying the 10% excise tax for several reasons (including financial needs of various specified kinds), but you cannot then change your mind and put that money into your IRA, telling the IRA custodian that it is a rollover from the 401k. To do so will not just trigger the 10% excise tax on premature distributions from a 401k account, but you will also need to pay penalties for excess contributions to your IRA.\"" }, { "docid": "469311", "title": "", "text": "Just the amount contributed to the Roth 401k that you rolled over, not the conversions from regular 401k/traditional IRA (for those there are holding period limitation of 5 year from conversion), the earning on it or the employer's match (neither of these can be withdrawn without penalty as a non-qualified withdrawal). However, I'd suggest not to withdraw from Roth IRA unless you're sleeping on a bench in a park and beg strangers for a piece of bread. This is the best retirement investment you can make while you're in the lower tax brackets, and withdrawing it would reduce dramatically your tax-free retirement income." }, { "docid": "47747", "title": "", "text": "\"The Finance Buff discusses why the Roth 401k is often disadvantaged compared to a Traditional 401k in the article The Case Against the Roth 401k, including the following reasons (paraphrased): Contributions to the 401k come from the \"\"top\"\" of your highest tax bracket rate but withdrawals fill in from the \"\"bottom\"\". For example, suppose you are in the 28% tax bracket. Every marginal dollar you contribute to the Traditional 401k reduces your tax burden by .28 cents. However, when withdrawing, the first $10,150 of income is tax-free (from standard deduction and exemption, 2014 numbers; $20,300 for married couples, joint filing). The next dollars are at the 10% tax bracket, and so on. This is an advantage for the Traditional 401k only if you earn less when withdrawing than you did when contributing, a reasonable assumption. Avoid High State Income Tax. There are many states that have low or no state income tax. If you live in a state with a high income tax, paying tax now through the Roth 401k reduces the benefit of moving to a state with a lower income tax rate. Avoid triggering credit phaseouts. Many tax credits (e.g. student loan interest, child tax credit, Hope credit, Roth IRA eligibility, etc.) begin phasing out as your income increases. Contributing to the Traditional 401k can help you realize more of those credits when you starting running up against those limits. As described in the article, if these items don't apply, contributing to the Roth 401k can be a valuable component of tax diversification.\"" }, { "docid": "248536", "title": "", "text": "According to the IRS, you can still put money in your IRA. Here (https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/Retirement-Topics-IRA-Contribution-Limits) they say: Can I contribute to an IRA if I participate in a retirement plan at work? You can contribute to a traditional or Roth IRA whether or not you participate in another retirement plan through your employer or business. However, you might not be able to deduct all of your traditional IRA contributions if you or your spouse participates in another retirement plan at work. Roth IRA contributions might be limited if your income exceeds a certain level. In addition, in this link (https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/IRA-Deduction-Limits), the IRS says: Retirement plan at work: Your deduction may be limited if you (or your spouse, if you are married) are covered by a retirement plan at work and your income exceeds certain levels. The word 'covered' should clarify that - you are not covered anymore in that year, you just got a contribution in that year which was triggered by work done in a previous year. You cannot legally be covered in a plan at an employer where you did not work in that year." }, { "docid": "59600", "title": "", "text": "It is really hard to tell where you should withdraw money from. So instead, I'll give you some pointers to make it easier for you to make the decision for yourself, while keeping the answer useful to others as well. I have 3 401ks, ... and some has post tax, non Roth money Why keeping 3 401ks? You can roll them over into an IRA or the one 401k which is still active (I assume here you're not currently employed with 3 different employers). This will also help you avoiding fees for too low balances on your IRAs. However, for the 401k with after tax (not Roth) balance - read the next part carefully. Post tax amounts are your basis. Generally, it is not a good idea to keep post-tax amounts in 401k/IRA, you usually do post-tax contributions to convert them to Roth ASAP. Withdrawing from 401k with basis may become a mess since you'll have to account for the basis portion of each withdrawal. Especially if you pool it with IRAs, so that one - don't rollover, keep it separately to make that accounting easier. I also have several smaller IRAs and Roth IRAs, Keep in mind the RMD requirements. Roth IRAs don't have those, and are non-taxable income, so you would probably want to keep them as long as possible. This is relevant for 401k as well. Again, consolidating will help you with the fees. I'm concerned about having easily accessible cash for emergencies. I suggest keeping Roth amounts for this purpose as they're easily accessible and bear no taxable consequence. Other than emergencies don't touch them for as long as you can. I do have some other money in taxable investments For those, consider re-balancing to a more conservative style, but beware of the capital gains taxes if you have a lot of gains accumulated. You may want consider loss-harvesting (selling the positions in the red) to liquidate investments without adverse tax consequences while getting some of your cash back into the checking account. In any case, depending on your tax bracket, capital gains taxes are generally lower (down to 0%) than ordinary income taxes (which is what you pay for IRA/401k withdrawals), so you would probably want to start with these, after careful planning and taking the RMD and the Social Security (if you're getting any) into account." }, { "docid": "151042", "title": "", "text": "You can buy stocks in the IRA, similarly to your regular investment account. Generally, when you open an account with a retail provider like TDAmeritrade, all the options available for you on that account are allowable. Keep in mind that you cannot just deposit money to IRA. There's a limit on how much you can deposit a year ($5500 as of 2015, $6500 for those 50 or older), and there's also a limit on top of that - the amount you deposit into an IRA cannot be more than your total earned income (i.e. income from work). In addition, there are limits on how much of your contribution you can deduct (depending on your income and whether you/your spouse have an employer-sponsored retirement plan)." }, { "docid": "406239", "title": "", "text": "The benefit is that your earnings in the 401k are not subject to income tax until you make withdrawals. This allows you to grow your money faster than if you made equivalent investments in a taxable account and had to pay taxes on dividends and capital gains along the way. Also, the theory is that you will be in a lower tax bracket in retirement and thus you will pay lower taxes overall. If this is not true (especially if you will be in a higher tax bracket in retirement), then there may not be any advantage for you to contribute to a 401k. One advantage over the Traditional IRA is the higher contribution limit. Some 401k plans also allow you to take loans from the plan, I don't think this is possible with a Traditional IRA. An alternative to both the 401k and Traditional IRA is the Roth version of either plan. With a Roth, you pay taxes up front, but your withdrawals during retirement are tax free." }, { "docid": "410675", "title": "", "text": "Why would you want to withdraw only the company match, and presumably leave your personal contributions sitting in your ex-company's 401k plan? Generally, 401k plans have larger annual expenses and provide for poorer investment choices than are available to you if you roll over your 401k investments into an IRA. So, unless you have specific reasons for wanting to continue to leave your money in the 401k plan (e.g. you have access to investments that are not available to nonparticipants and you think those investments are where you want your money to be), roll over part (or all) of your 401k assets into an IRA, and withdraw the rest for personal expenses. If your personal contributions are in a Roth 401k, roll them over to a Roth IRA, but, as I remember it, company contributions are not part of the Roth 401k and must be rolled over into a Traditional IRA. Perhaps this is why you want to take those in cash to pay for your personal purchase? Also, what is this 30% hit you are talking about? You will owe income tax on the money withdrawn from the 401k (and custodians traditionally withhold 20% and send it to the IRS on your behalf) plus penalty for early withdrawal (which the custodian may also withhold if you ask them), but the tax that you will pay on the money withdrawn will depend on your tax bracket, which may be lower if you are laid off and do not immediately take on a new job. That is, the 30% hit may be on the cash flow, but you may get some of it back as a refund when you file your income tax return." }, { "docid": "20323", "title": "", "text": "If you invest in a 401(k), the shares in that plan are yours for as long as you live, or until you pull them out. So, if the employer is offering any sort of matching and those matched funds remain yours after you leave, then definitely contribute; that's an immediate return on your money. If the employer is NOT matching funds, then usually it is better to contribute to an IRA instead; you get the same income tax benefits from the deduction, without the headaches of going through your company (or the company from 3 jobs ago or whoever bought them) to get to your money. If I were in your position, the most I personally would do after I quit the company (which I'm assuming you'd be doing if you were going back to your country of origin) would be to have the 401k shares rolled over into a traditional IRA; that way I'd have more control over it from outside the country. Just keep the bank holding your IRA apprised of your movements around the world and how they can get ahold of you (it may be wise to grant a limited power of attorney to someone who will be staying in the U.S. if you don't want the bank mailing your statements all around the world), and the money can stay in an American account while you do whatever you have to outside it. As long as you don't take the money out in cash before you're 59 1/2 years old, you don't need to pay taxes or penalties on it. If you were to need it to cover unexpected expenses (perhaps relating to the aforementioned family emergency), then that decision can be made at that time. If you think that's even remotely likely, you may consider a Roth IRA. With a Roth, you pay the income taxes on your contributions, but the money is then yours; you can withdraw anything up to the total amount of your contributions without any additional taxes or penalties, and once you hit 59 and a half the interest also becomes available, also tax- and penalty- free. So if you had to leave the country and take a lot of cash with you, you could get out everything you actually put into a Roth with only minor if any transaction fees, and the interest will still be there compounding." }, { "docid": "218696", "title": "", "text": "401(k) plans, 403(b) plans, IRAs etc all require more paperwork than a non-tax-advantaged investment. As a result, most such plans (with Vanguard as well as with other management companies) offer only a small set of investment options, and so it costs the plan sponsor (you wearing your Employer hat) money if you want to add more investment options for your Solo 401(k) plan). Note that with employer-sponsored retirement plans, investments in each mutual fund might be coming in small amounts from various employees, much less than the usual minimum investment in each fund, and possibly less than the minimum per-investment transaction requirement (often $50) of the fund group. Taking care of all that is expensive, and it is reasonable that Vanguard wants to charge you (the Employer) a fee for the extra work it is doing for you. When I was young and IRAs had just been invented (and the annual contribution limit was $2000 for IRAs), I remember being charged a $20 annual fee per Vanguard fund that I wanted to invest in within my IRA but this fee was waived once my total IRA assets with Vanguard had increased above $10K." }, { "docid": "446226", "title": "", "text": "\"First off, high five on the paycheck. There are a few retirement issues to deal with. 401k issues - At that income level, you will probably fall into the \"\"Highly Compensated Employee\"\" category, which means things get a little more complicated, both for you and your employer. (Wikipedia link) IRA issues - As you already realized, you make too much to directly open and contribute to a Roth IRA. You can open a Traditional IRA, however. Your income is already over the limit for Traditional IRA deduction (bummer), so it would seem there is little point to opening an IRA at all. However, there is a way to take advantage of a Roth IRA, even at your income level. It is possible to convert a Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. There used to be income limits on the ability to do the conversion, which would have normally made this off limits to you. Starting in 2010, the income limit is removed, so you can do this. Basically, you open a Traditional IRA, max it out, then convert it to a Roth. Since there was no income deduction, you shouldn't have to pay any more taxes. (link) Disclaimer: I've never tried this, nor do I know anyone who has, so you might want to research it a bit more before you try it yourself.\"" }, { "docid": "145787", "title": "", "text": "Probably the biggest tax-deferment available to US workers is through employee-sponsored investment plans like the 401k. If you meet the income limits, you could also use a Traditional IRA if you do not have a 401k at work. But keep in mind that you are really just deferring taxes here. The US Government will eventually get their due. :) One way which you may find interesting is by using 529 plans, or other college investment plans, to save for your child's (or your) college expenses. Generally, contributions up to a certain amount are deductible on your state taxes, and are exempt from Federal and State taxes when used for qualifying education expenses. The state deduction can lower your taxes and help you save for college for your children, if that is a desire of yours." }, { "docid": "110114", "title": "", "text": "All data for a single adult in tax year 2010. Roth IRA 401K Roth 401k Traditional IRA and your employer offers a 401k Traditional IRA and your employer does NOT offer a 401k So, here are your options. If you have a 401k at work, you could max that out. If you make close to $120K, you could reduce your AGI enough to contribute to a Roth IRA. If you do not have a 401k at work, you could contribute to a Traditional IRA and deduct the $5K from your AGI similar to how a 401k works. Other than that, I think you are looking at investing outside of a retirement plan which means more flexibility, but no tax advantage." }, { "docid": "53996", "title": "", "text": "Your math is correct. As you point out, because of the commutative property of multiplication, Roth and traditional IRAs offer the same terminal wealth if your tax rate is the same when you pull it out as when you put it in. Roth does lock in your tax rate as of today as you point out, which is why it frequently does not maximize wealth (most of us have a higher tax bracket when we are saving than when we are withdrawing from savings). There are a few other potential considerations/advantages of a Roth: Roth and traditional IRAs have the same maximum contribution amount. This means the effective amount you can contribute to a Roth is higher ($5,500 after tax instead of before). If this constraint is binding for you and you don't expect your tax rate to change, Roth is better. Roth IRAs allow you to withdraw your contributed money (not the gains) at any time without any tax or penalty whatsoever. This can be an advantage to some who would like to use it for something like a down payment instead of keeping it all the way to retirement. In this sense the Roth is more flexible. As your income becomes high, the deductibility of traditional IRA contributions goes to zero if you have a 401(k) at work (you can still contribute but can't deduct contributions). At high incomes you also may be disallowed from contributing to a Roth, but because of the backdoor Roth loophole you can make Roth contributions at any income level and preserve the full Roth tax advantage. Which type of account is better for any given person is a complex problem with several unknowns (like future tax rates). However, because tax rates are generally higher when earning money, for most people who can contribute to them, traditional IRAs maximize your tax savings and therefore wealth. Edit: Note that traditional IRA contributions also reduce your AGI, which is used to compute eligibility for other tax advantages, like the child care tax credit and earned income credit. AGI is also often used for state income tax calculation. In retirement, traditional IRA distributions may or may not be state taxable, depending on your state and circumstances." } ]

[ { "docid": "148728", "title": "", "text": "\"Assuming these are standardized and regulated contracts, the short answer is yes. In your example, Trader A is short while Trader B is long. If Trader B wants to exit his long position, he merely enters a \"\"sell to close\"\" order with his broker. Trader B never goes short as you state. He was long while he held the contract, then he \"\"sold to close\"\". As to who finds the buyer of Trader B's contract, I believe that would be the exchange or a market maker. Therefore, Trader C ends up the counterparty to Trader A's short position after buying from Trader B. Assuming the contract is held until expiration, Trader A is responsible for delivering contracted product to Trader C for contracted price. In reality this is generally settled up in cash, and Trader A and Trader C never even know each other's identity.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "145892", "title": "", "text": "\"Because you've sold something you've received cash (or at least an entry on your brokerage statement to say you've got cash) so you should record that as a credit in your brokerage account in GnuCash. The other side of the entry should go into another account that you create called something like \"\"Open Positions\"\" and is usually marked as a Liability account type (if you need to mark it as such). If you want to keep an accurate daily tally of your net worth you can add a new entry to your Open Positions account and offset that against Income which will be either negative or positive depending on how the position has moved for/against you. You can also do this at a lower frequency or not at all and just put an entry in when your position closes out because you bought it back or it expired or it was exercised. My preferred method is to have a single entry in the Open Positions account with an arbitrary date near when I expect it to be closed and each time I edit that value (daily or weekly) so I only have the initial entry and the current adjust to look at which reduces the number of entries and confusion if there are too many.\"" }, { "docid": "371105", "title": "", "text": "\"There is no Federal law that mandates that they must re-open a closed account. They can either refuse the transfer / return the money, or they can optionally re-open your account so they get money (makes more sense for them). It is, however, in one of your agreements that they reserve the right to re-open a closed account in order to receive the deposit. At which point, your account will become active, and the balance may be below the required minimum balance threshold, so you may have maintenance or low-balance fees charged against the account (Credit Unions are less likely to have these fees). If you want to call them out on their BS, you can ask them to cite the law which mandates the re-opening of closed accounts. They will likely fall back on your Member agreement. There may be some state laws that discuss this, but I haven't found anything. This has become such a problem for some bank customers (where they are charged fees on the money they weren't aware they had) that a law was proposed in Sept. 2013, called the Freedom and Mobility in Consumer Banking Act, which would essentially only allow the named account holder(s) to re-open a closed account. I went ahead and looked up the NACHA guidelines for ACH transfers (I got the 2013 version) 2013 Corporate Rules and Guidelines. These lines reference \"\"Article 4A\"\", which is Uniform Commercial Code Section 4A - Funds Transfer. This means that if your account is actually closed, they have an exception to the standard timeframe for issuing a Return Entry. This means that if you notify them (in writing) that you refuse any future credit Entries to the account, they MUST return them. I then went looking for the return reason codes RDFI = Receiving Depository Financial Institution From what I gather, based on these NACHA guidelines, your CU didn't actually close your account. They put it on \"\"hold\"\" or some similar state. If they actually close your account, they are required to issue a Return Entry with Code R02. In your case, your CU doesn't charge you any maintenance fees, but for those working with banks, the best bet is to notify them in writing that you refuse any future credits to the account, or go into a branch and insist on fully closing out the account.\"" }, { "docid": "105373", "title": "", "text": "It's unclear what you're asking. When I originally read your question, it seemed that you had closed out one options position and opened another. When I read your question the second time, it seemed that you were writing a second option while the first was still open. In the second case, you have one covered and one naked position. The covered call will expire worthless, the naked call will expire in the money. How your broker will resolve that is a question best left for them, but my expectation is that they will assign the non-worthless calls. Whereas, if both options expired in the money, you would be assigned and you would have to come up with the additional shares (and again, that depends on how your broker works). In general, for both cases, your net is the premiums you received, plus the difference between strike price and the price that you paid for the stock, minus any cost to close out the position. So whether you make a profit is very much dependent on how much you received for your premiums. Scenario #1: close first call, write second: Scenario #2: write covered + naked, one expires worthless Scenario #3: write covered + naked, both expire in the money Disclaimer: the SEC does not consider me a financial/investment advisor, so this is not financial/investment advice" }, { "docid": "355319", "title": "", "text": "One of the fundamental of technical analysis suggests that holding a security overnight represents a huge commitment. Therefore it would follow that traders would tend to close their positions prior to market close and open them when it opens." }, { "docid": "6771", "title": "", "text": "Conceptually, yes, you need to worry about it. As a practical matter, it's less likely to be exercised until expiry or shortly prior. The way to think about paying a European option is: [Odds of paying out] = [odds that strike is in the money at expiry] Whereas the American option can be thought of as: [Odds of paying out] = [odds that strike price is in the money at expiry] + ( [odds that strike price is in the money prior to expiry] * [odds that other party will exercise early] ). This is just a heuristic, not a formal financial tool. But the point is that you need to consider the odds that it will go into the money early, for how long (maybe over multiple periods), and how likely the counterparty is to exercise early. Important considerations for whether they will exercise early are the strategy of the other side (long, straddle, quick turnaround), the length of time the option is in the money early, and the anticipated future movement. A quick buck strategy might exercise immediately before the stock turns around. But that could leave further gains on the table, so it's usually best to wait unless the expectation is that the stock will quickly reverse its movement. This sort of counter-market strategy is generally unlikely from someone who bought the option at a certain strike, and is equivalent to betting against their original purchase of the option. So most of these people will wait because they expect the possibility of a bigger payoff. A long strategy is usually in no hurry to exercise, and in fact they would prefer to wait until the end to hold the time value of the option (the choice to get out of the option, if it goes back to being unprofitable). So it usually makes little sense for these people to exercise early. The same goes for a straddle, if someone is buying an option for insurance or to economically exit a position. So you're really just concerned that people will exercise early and forgo the time value of the American option. That may include people who really want to close a position, take their money, and move on. In some cases, it may include people who have become overextended or need liquidity, so they close positions. But for the most part, it's less likely to happen until the expiration approaches because it leaves potential value on the table. The time value of an option dwindles at the end because the implicit option becomes less likely, especially if the option is fairly deep in the money (the implicit option is then fairly deep out of the money). So early exercise becomes more meaningful concern as the expiration approaches. Otherwise, it's usually less worrisome but more than a nonzero proposition." }, { "docid": "258447", "title": "", "text": "The Net Present Value calculation would need to include 1) payments on the debt of $50 million (negative future cashflows) 2) returns from the project (positive future cashflows) If both of those things are taken into account and the NPV is positive then the project could be accepted." }, { "docid": "278025", "title": "", "text": "\"First, I'm really sorry to hear about your mother. My wife was recently diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer, so I know that there is a possibility that your mind is in \"\"survival\"\" mode, trying to preserve as much as you can in the way of things that you can effect (that's how I've been feeling recently). Having a loved one with cancer is really tough because there is absolutely, positively nothing tangible that you can do to change the fact that they have cancer. You will have to ask yourself some questions: How important is it that your mom can stay in her house? Moving could add some unneeded stress. How may years have you been contributing to your 401k? If you have 30 years left, you could have enough time to recover some of your losses from reducing the amount of money you have given up for your mom. Will your mom be able to pay you back for paying the taxes over time, or would this be a 'gift'? Have her doctors told her that she \"\"... has N months left...\"\"? What is the next step after you are able to pay her taxes and save the house? Someone close to me recently told me that \"\"There is no point in trying to save for someone for the future, if you can't sustain them until they get to that future. What will happen to your mom if she loses her house? Will it make it easier or harder for her to recover if she can stay? To paraphrase someone famous, \"\"you can't take a loan out for your retirement, but you could take a loan out for this event.\"\" At any rate, good luck. My thoughts are with you and your mother.\"" }, { "docid": "73846", "title": "", "text": "\"For stock options, where I'm used to seeing these terms: Volume is usually reported per day, whereas open interest is cumulative. In addition, some volume closes positions and some opens positions. For example, if I am long one contract and sell it to someone who was short one contract, then that adds to volume and reduces open interest. If I hold no contracts and sell (creating a short position) to someone who also had no contracts, then I add to volume and I increase open interest. EDIT: With the clarification in your comment, then I would say some people opened and closed positions in that one day. Their opening and closing trades both contribute to \"\"volume\"\" but they have not net position in the \"\"open interest.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "394886", "title": "", "text": "As far as trading is concerned, these forward curves are the price at which you can speculate on the future value of the commodity. Basically, if you want to speculate on gold, you can either buy the physical and store it somewhere (which may have significant costs) or you can buy futures (ETFs typically hold futures or hold physical and store it for you). If you buy futures, you will have to roll your position every month, meaning you sell the current month's futures and buy the next month's. However, these may not be trading at the same price, so each time you roll your position, you face a risk. If you know you want to hold gold for exactly 1 year, then you can buy a 1-year future, which in this case according to your graph will cost you about $10 more than buying the front month. The forward curve (or sometimes called the futures term structure) represents the prices at which gold can be bought or sold at various points in the future." }, { "docid": "589127", "title": "", "text": "\"There are more than a few different ways to consider why someone may have a transaction in the stock market: Employee stock options - If part of my compensation comes from having options that vest over time, I may well sell shares at various points because I don't want so much of my new worth tied up in one company stock. Thus, some transactions may happen from people cashing out stock options. Shorting stocks - This is where one would sell borrowed stock that then gets replaced later. Thus, one could reverse the traditional buy and sell order in which case the buy is done to close the position rather than open one. Convertible debt - Some companies may have debt that come with warrants or options that allow the holder to acquire shares at a specific price. This would be similar to 1 in some ways though the holder may be a mutual fund or company in some cases. There is also some people that may seek high-yield stocks and want an income stream from the stock while others may just want capital appreciation and like stocks that may not pay dividends(Berkshire Hathaway being the classic example here). Others may be traders believing the stock will move one way or another in the short-term and want to profit from that. So, thus the stock market isn't necessarily as simple as you state initially. A terrorist attack may impact stocks in a couple ways to consider: Liquidity - In the case of the attacks of 9/11, the stock market was closed for a number of days which meant people couldn't trade to convert shares to cash or cash to shares. Thus, some people may pull out of the market out of fear of their money being \"\"locked up\"\" when they need to access it. If someone is retired and expects to get $x/quarter from their stocks and it appears that that may be in jeopardy, it could cause one to shift their asset allocation. Future profits - Some companies may have costs to rebuild offices and other losses that could put a temporary dent in profits. If there is a company that makes widgets and the factory is attacked, the company may have to stop making widgets for a while which would impact earnings, no? There can also be the perception that an attack is \"\"just the beginning\"\" and one could extrapolate out more attacks that may affect broader areas. Sometimes what recently happens with the stock market is expected to continue that can be dangerous as some people may believe the market has to continue like the recent past as that is how they think the future will be.\"" }, { "docid": "259659", "title": "", "text": "\"There are many reasons. Here are just some possibilities: The stock has a lot of negative sentiment and puts are being \"\"bid up\"\". The stock fell at the close and the options reflect that. The puts closed on the offer and the calls closed on the bid. The traders with big positions marked the puts up and the calls down because they are long puts and short calls. There isn't enough volume in the puts or calls to make any determination - what you are seeing is part of the randomness of a moment in time.\"" }, { "docid": "567034", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "115436", "title": "", "text": "\"I believe they manage a bit over 500 million. He is still the founder and probably has control of the company but he is not the ceo. He has probably gotten the company to a stable position and wants to move on to other things... big deal. If tradeworx is stable and making money it is not a big deal if narang doesn't want to micro manage people and run day to day shit, someone else can handle that while he can go explore other things. Just like De shaw did.... de shaw got his fund up and running, make a ton on money, left to do research and the fund still makes money. [you can read this to see why he left](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-markets-tradeworx-narangdeparture/exclusive-tradeworx-founder-narang-leaves-high-frequency-firm-idUSKBN0KM1Z720150113) \"\"Narang declined to spell out why he was leaving Red Bank, New Jersey-based Tradeworx, but said, “I had a few differences with the board about the direction of the company.” Narang said there were no losses or expected losses at closely held Tradeworx, which he said has a bright future and where he remains a shareholder. Tradeworx accounts for about 5 to 6 percent of daily U.S. equity market volume, sources say. There was no immediate response from Tradeworx management. Narang has not decided on a future venture, but he said he is likely to remain in the financial services industry, is talking to people and is looking closely at the options market. “I have a whole lot of ideas that I‘m excited about that I’ve been wanting to pursue, so now is the time to figure out which of those ideas I’d like to pursue,” Narang told Reuters. “I‘m particularly interested in options trading, I have been for some time, that’s something Tradeworx doesn’t do. Many of my ideas are in that space,” said Narang, 45, who has degrees in computer science and mathematics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.\"\" edit- This all really has nothing to do with the original post about actuallyserious65 comment regarding hft.\"" }, { "docid": "388362", "title": "", "text": "\"The other two answers seem basically correct, but I wanted to add on thing: While you can exercise an \"\"American style\"\" option at any time, it's almost never smart to do so before expiration. In your example, when the underlying stock reaches $110, you can theoretically make $2/share by exercising your option (buying 100 shares @ $108/share) and immediately selling those 100 shares back to the market at $110/share. This is all before commission. In more detail, you'll have these practical issues: You are going to have to pay commissions, which means you'll need a bigger spread to make this worthwhile. You and those who have already answered have you finger on this part, but I include it for completeness. (Even at expiration, if the difference between the last close price and the strike price is pretty close, some \"\"in-the-money\"\" options will be allowed to expire unexercised when the holders can't cover the closing commission costs.) The market value of the option contract itself should also go up as the price of the underlying stock goes up. Unless it's very close to expiration, the option contract should have some \"\"time value\"\" in its market price, so, if you want to close your position at this point, earlier then expiration, it will probably be better for you to sell the contract back to the market (for more money and only one commission) than to exercise and then close the stock position (for less money and two commissions). If you want to exercise and then flip the stock back as your exit strategy, you need to be aware of the settlement times. You probably are not going to instantly have those 100 shares of stock credited to your account, so you may not be able to sell them right away, which could leave you subject to some risk of the price changing. Alternatively, you could sell the stock short to lock in the price, but you'll have to be sure that your brokerage account is set up to allow that and understand how to do this.\"" }, { "docid": "313135", "title": "", "text": "\"You gave your own answer - the 80% is positions, not contracts. Most actors on the option market have no interest in the underlying asset. They want \"\"just\"\" exposure to its price movement. It makes more sense to close your position than to be handed over bushels of wheat or whatever.\"" }, { "docid": "500180", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Thank you very much for your reply. &gt; &gt;I'll look more into the CFA but I have a question - does it require an undergrad degree in finance/accounting to become licensed if you pass? Obviously that's an area that I need to do more research but a great place to start based on your suggestions. No, you do not need anything but to be in your fourth year or graduate from any undergraduate program. It's a three test process (Level 1/2/3) and it will take you years to become a chartholder. People recommend 4-6 months of study for level one, it is quite difficult. More information on r/CFA, or CFAI's website. &gt;If I take it in December I'll be 5 months from my masters. In that case it makes more sense to complete the masters because quitting that close to the end really throws a lot away. I know counseling isn't specific to the field, but people skills seem to be the cornerstone of every career. I don't know enough about counselling to really advise you, nor do I really know about the hiring process or decision criteria. You can ask on wallstreetoasis (WSO) &gt; I'm more interested in a career that is not as emotionally taxing Uhhh, I don't know about that, but I really don't know anything about counselling. Can you tell me what a day in the life of a counsellor is like and how you see the career and challenges faced in the industry or by people in your current/future positions?" }, { "docid": "221427", "title": "", "text": "With a short position you make your money (profit) when you buy the stocks back to close the position at a lower price than what you bought them at. As short selling is classed as speculation and not investing and you at no time own any actual assets, you cannot donate any short possition to charity. If you did want to avoid paying tax on the profits you could donate the proceeds of the profits after closing the position and thus get a tax deduction equal to the profits you made. But that raises a new and more important question, why are you trading in the first place if you are afraid to make profits in case you have to pay tax on those profits?" }, { "docid": "316497", "title": "", "text": "\"When trading Forex each currency is traded relative to another. So when shorting a currency you must go long another currency vs the currency you are shorting, it seems a little odd and can be a bit confusing, but here is the explanation that Wikipedia provides: An example of this is as follows: Let us say a trader wants to trade with the US dollar and the Indian rupee currencies. Assume that the current market rate is USD 1 to Rs.50 and the trader borrows Rs.100. With this, he buys USD 2. If the next day, the conversion rate becomes USD 1 to Rs.51, then the trader sells his USD 2 and gets Rs.102. He returns Rs.100 and keeps the Rs.2 profit (minus fees). So in this example the trader is shorting the rupee vs the dollar. Does this article add up all other currency crosses to get the 'net' figure? So they don't care what it is depreciating against? This data is called the Commitment of Traders (COT) which is issued by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) In the WSJ article it is actually referring to Forex Futures. In an another article from CountingPips it explains a bit clearer as to how a news organization comes up with these type of numbers. according to the CFTC COT data and calculations by Reuters which calculates the dollar positions against the euro, British pound, Japanese yen, Australian dollar, Canadian dollar and the Swiss franc. So this article is not talking about futures but it does tell us they got data from the COT and in addition Reuters added additional calculations from adding up \"\"X\"\" currency positions. No subscription needed: Speculators Pile Up Largest Net Dollar Long Position Since June 2010 - CFTC Here is some additional reading on the topic if you're interested: CFTC Commitment of the Traders Data – COT Report FOREX : What Is It And How Does It Work? Futures vs. Forex Options Forex - Wiki\"" }, { "docid": "9274", "title": "", "text": "\"Futures are an agreement to buy or sell something in the future. The futures \"\"price\"\" is the price at which you agree to make the trade. This price does not indicate what will happen in the future so much as it indicates the cost of buying the item today and holding it until the future date. Hence, for very liquid products such as stock index futures, the futures price is a very simple function of today's stock index value and current short-term interest rates. If the stock exchange is closed but the futures exchange is open, then using the futures price and interest rates one can back out an implied \"\"fair value\"\" for the index, which is in essence the market's estimate of what the stock index value would be right now if the stock market were open. Of course, as soon as the stock exchange opens, the futures price trades to within a narrow band of the actual index value, where the size of the band depends on transaction costs (bid-ask spread, commissions, etc.).\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "164001", "title": "", "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.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "211122", "title": "", "text": "In addition to the expatriation case already mentioned by Ben Miller, traders/investors are required to use mark-to-market accounting on certain investments. These go by Section 1256 contracts due to the part of the law that defines them. Mark-to-market is also required on straddles (combination of a long and and a short position in equities that are expected to vary inversely to each other). Mark-to-market means that you have to treat the positions as if you closed them at their end-of-year market value (even if you still have the position across the new year)." }, { "docid": "479874", "title": "", "text": "\"Treat each position or partial position as a separate LOT. Each time you open a position, a new lot of shares is created. If you sell the whole position, then the lot is closed. Done. But if you sell a partial quantity, you need to create a new lot. Split the original lot into two. The quantities in each are the amount sold, and the amount remaining. If you were to then buy a few more shares, create a third lot. If you then sell the entire position, you'll be closing out all the remaining lots. This allows you to track each buy/sell pairing. For each lot, simply calculate return based on cost and proceeds. You can't derive an annualized number for ALL the lots as a group, because there's no common timeframe that they share. If you wish to calculate your return over time on the whole series of trades, consider using TWIRR. It treats these positions, plus the cash they represent, as a whole portfolio. See my post in this thread: How can I calculate a \"\"running\"\" return using XIRR in a spreadsheet?\"" }, { "docid": "261331", "title": "", "text": "Context is key here. Futures don't really have to do with a time in the future in this context. Futures are a capital market (futures market), just like Stocks are a market (stock market). Both capital markets have the ability to affect each other. Up until 30 years ago there was a separate use for the futures market, but in the days since they are MOSTLY used for stock derivatives (financial futures are the most widely traded contracts since 1980, hugely eclipsing the commodity futures that the market was designed for.) So there is overlap and one affect the other, I'm not going to go into too much detail here but basically the futures market trades 24 hours a day, 6.5 days of the week and the stock market trades 8-12 hours a day, 5 days a week. So when the stock market closes, the futures market is still running will react and effect the broad stock market. Hope that gets you started in your research" }, { "docid": "482871", "title": "", "text": "\"Yahoo's \"\"Adj Close\"\" data is adjusted for splits, but not for dividends. Despite Yahoo's webpage's footnote saying *Close price adjusted for dividends and splits. we can see empirically that the \"\"Adj Close\"\" is only adjusted for splits. For example, consider Siemens from Jan 27, 2017 to Mar 15, 2017: The Adj Close adjusts for splits: On any particular day, the \"\"Adj Close\"\" is equal to the \"\"Close\"\" price divided by the cumulative product of all splits that occurred after that day. If there have been no splits after that day, then the \"\"Adj Close\"\" equals the \"\"Close\"\" price. Since there is a 2-for-1 split on Mar 14, 2017, the Adj Close is half the Close price for all dates from Jan 27, 2017 to Mar 13, 2017. Note that if Siemens were to split again at some time in the future, the Adj Close prices will be readjusted for this future split. For example, if Siemens were to split 3-for-1 tomorrow, then all the Adj Close prices seen above will be divided by 3. The Adj Close is thus showing the price that a share would have traded on that day if the shares had already been split in accordance with all splits up to today. The Adj Close does not adjust for dividends: Notice that Siemens distributed a $1.87 dividend on Feb 02, 2017 and ~$3.74 dividend on Jan 30, 2017. If the Adj Close value were adjusted for these dividends then we should expect the Adj Close should no longer be exactly half of the Close amount. But we can see that there is no such adjustment -- the Adj Close remains (up to rounding) exactly half the Close amount: Note that in theory, the market reacts to the distribution of dividends by reducing the trading price of shares post-dividend. This in turn is reflected in the raw closing price. So in that sense the Adj Close is also automatically adjusted for dividends. But there is no formula for this. The effect is already baked in through the market's closing prices.\"" }, { "docid": "371105", "title": "", "text": "\"There is no Federal law that mandates that they must re-open a closed account. They can either refuse the transfer / return the money, or they can optionally re-open your account so they get money (makes more sense for them). It is, however, in one of your agreements that they reserve the right to re-open a closed account in order to receive the deposit. At which point, your account will become active, and the balance may be below the required minimum balance threshold, so you may have maintenance or low-balance fees charged against the account (Credit Unions are less likely to have these fees). If you want to call them out on their BS, you can ask them to cite the law which mandates the re-opening of closed accounts. They will likely fall back on your Member agreement. There may be some state laws that discuss this, but I haven't found anything. This has become such a problem for some bank customers (where they are charged fees on the money they weren't aware they had) that a law was proposed in Sept. 2013, called the Freedom and Mobility in Consumer Banking Act, which would essentially only allow the named account holder(s) to re-open a closed account. I went ahead and looked up the NACHA guidelines for ACH transfers (I got the 2013 version) 2013 Corporate Rules and Guidelines. These lines reference \"\"Article 4A\"\", which is Uniform Commercial Code Section 4A - Funds Transfer. This means that if your account is actually closed, they have an exception to the standard timeframe for issuing a Return Entry. This means that if you notify them (in writing) that you refuse any future credit Entries to the account, they MUST return them. I then went looking for the return reason codes RDFI = Receiving Depository Financial Institution From what I gather, based on these NACHA guidelines, your CU didn't actually close your account. They put it on \"\"hold\"\" or some similar state. If they actually close your account, they are required to issue a Return Entry with Code R02. In your case, your CU doesn't charge you any maintenance fees, but for those working with banks, the best bet is to notify them in writing that you refuse any future credits to the account, or go into a branch and insist on fully closing out the account.\"" }, { "docid": "362765", "title": "", "text": "\"In general economic theory, there are always two markets created based on a need for a good; a spot market (where people who need something now can go outbid other people who need the same thing), and a futures market (where people who know they will need something later can agree to buy it for a pre-approved price, even if the good in question doesn't exist yet, like a grain crop). Options exist as a natural extension of the futures market. In a traditional future, you're obligated, by buying the contract, to execute it, for good or ill. If it turns out that you could have gotten a lower price when buying, or a higher price when selling, that's tough; you gave up the ability to say no in return for knowing, a month or three months or even a year in advance, the price you'll get to buy or sell this good that you know you need. Futures thus give both sides the ability to plan based on a known price, but that's their only risk-reduction mechanism. Enter the option. You're the Coors Brewing Company, and you want to buy 50 tons of barley grain for delivery in December in order to brew up for the Super Bowl and other assorted sports parties. A co-op bellies up to close the deal. But, since you're Coors, you compete on price with Budweiser and Miller, and if you end up paying more than the grain's really worth, perhaps because of a mild wet fall and a bumper crop that the almanac predicts, then you're going to have a real bad time of it in January. You ask for the right to say \"\"no\"\" when the contract falls due, if the price you negotiate now is too high based on the spot price. The co-op now has a choice; for such a large shipment, if Coors decided to leave them holding the bag on the contract and instead bought it from them anyway on a depressed spot market, they could lose big if they were counting on getting the contract price and bought equipment or facilities on credit against it. To mitigate those losses, the co-op asks for an option price; basically, this is \"\"insurance\"\" on the contract, and the co-op will, in return for this fee (exactly how and when it's paid is also negotiable), agree to eat any future realized losses if Coors were to back out of the contract. Like any insurance premium, the option price is nominally based on an outwardly simple formula: the probability of Coors \"\"exercising\"\" their option, times the losses the co-op would incur if that happened. Long-term, if these two figures are accurate, the co-op will break even by offering this price and Coors either taking the contract or exercising the option. However, coming up with accurate predictions of these two figures, such that the co-op (or anyone offering such a position) would indeed break even at least, is the stuff that keeps actuaries in business (and awake at night).\"" }, { "docid": "422467", "title": "", "text": "The problem with rate of return calculation on short positions is, that the commonly used approach assumes an initial investment creating a cash outflow. If we want to apply this approach to short selling, we should look at the trade from another perspective. We buy money and pay for this money with stock. Our investment to buy 50$ in your example is 1 share. When closing the short position, we effectively sell back our money (50$) and receive 2 shares. Our profit on this position is obviously 1 share. Setting this in relation to our investment of 1 share yields a performance of 100% in reality, we do not sell back the entire cash but only the amount needed to get back our investment of 1 share. This is actually comparable to a purchase of stock which we only partially close to get back our invested cash amount and keep the remaining shares as our profit" }, { "docid": "383930", "title": "", "text": "Option contracts typically each represent 100 shares. So the 1 call contract you sold to open (wrote) grants the buyer of that option the right to purchase your 100 shares for $80.00 per share any time before the option expiration date. You were paid a gross amount of $100 (100 shares times $1.00 premium per share) for taking on the obligation to deliver should the option holder choose to exercise. You received credit in your account of $89.22, which ought to be the $100 less any trading commission (~$10?) and miscellaneous fees (regulatory, exchange, etc.) per contract. You did capture premium. However, your covered call write represents an open short position that, until either (a) the option expires worthless, or (b) is exercised, or (c) is bought back to close the position, will continue to show on your account as a liability. Until the open position is somehow closed, the value of both the short option contract and long stock will continue to fluctuate. This is normal." }, { "docid": "410887", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll answer this question: \"\"Why do intraday traders close their position at then end of day while most gains can be done overnight (buy just before the market close and sell just after it opens). Is this observation true for other companies or is it specific to apple ?\"\" Intraday traders often trade shares of a company using intraday leverage provided by their firm. For every $5000 dollars they actually have, they may be trading with $100,000, 20:1 leverage as an example. Since a stock can also decrease in value, substantially, while the markets are closed, intraday traders are not allowed to keep their highly leveraged positions opened. Probabilities fail in a random walk scenario, and only one failure can bankrupt you and the firm.\"" }, { "docid": "226984", "title": "", "text": "\"The settlement date for any trade is the date on which the seller gets the buyer's money and the buyer gets the seller's product. In US equities markets the settlement date is (almost universally) three trading days after the trade date. This settlement period gives the exchanges, the clearing houses, and the brokers time to figure out how many shares and how many dollars need to actually be moved around in order to give everyone what they're owed (and then to actually do all that moving around). So, \"\"settling\"\" a short trade is the same thing as settling any other trade. It has nothing to do with \"\"closing\"\" (or covering) the seller's short position. Q: Is this referring to when a short is initiated, or closed? A: Initiated. If you initiate a short position by selling borrowed shares on day 1, then settlement occurs on day 4. (Regardless of whether your short position is still open or has been closed.) Q: All open shorts which are still open by the settlement date have to be reported by the due date. A: Not exactly. The requirement is that all short positions evaluated based on their settlement dates (rather than their trade dates) still open on the deadline have to be reported by the due date. You sell short 100 AAPL on day 1. You then cover that short by buying 100 AAPL on day 2. As far as the clearing houses and brokers are concerned, however, you don't even get into the short position until your sell settles at the end of day 4, and you finally get out of your short position (in their eyes) when your buy settles at the end of day 5. So imagine the following scenarios: The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 2. Since your (FINRA member) broker has been told to report based on settlement date, it would report no open position for you in AAPL even though you executed a trade to sell on day 1. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 3. Your sell still has not settled, so there's still no open position to report for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 4. Your sell has settled but your buy has not, so the broker reports a 100 share open short position for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 5. Your sell and buy have both settled, so the broker once again has no open position to report for you. So, the point is that when dealing with settlement dates you just pretend the world is 3 days behind where it actually is.\"" }, { "docid": "106314", "title": "", "text": "\"The gap up/down and rapid movement immediately following market open is due to overnight futures activity. In your example, SP500 on June 20, 2016 saw a 20-point gap up at market open. This was because the SP500 futures were trading 20 points higher at 9:30 AM than at its close on Friday. The index will always \"\"catch up\"\" with futures at market open. You can see that below. The top chart is the E-mini SP500 futures from Sunday night to Monday. Beneath it is the SP500 index.\"" }, { "docid": "384221", "title": "", "text": "This depends on a combination of factors: What are you charged (call it margin interest) to hold the position? How does this reduce your buying power and what are the opportunity costs? What are the transaction costs alternative ways to close the position? What are your risks (exposure while legging out) for alternative ways to close? Finally, where is the asset closing relative to the strike? Generally, If asset price is below the put strike then the call expires worthless and you need to exercise the put. If asset is above the call strike then put expires worthless and you'll likely get assigned. Given this framework: If margin interest is eating up your profit faster than you're earning theta (a convenient way to represent the time value) then you have some urgency and you need to exit that position before expiry. I would not exit the stock until the call is covered. Keep minimal risk at all times. If you are limited by the position's impact on your buying power and probable value of available opportunities is greater than the time decay you're earning then once again, you have some urgency about closing instead of unwinding at expiry. Same as above. Cover that call, before you ditch your hedge in the long stock. Playing the tradeoff game of expiration/exercise cost against open market transactions is tough. You need sub-penny commissions on stock (and I would say a lot of leverage) and most importantly you need options charges much lower than IB to make that kind of trading work. IB is the cheapest in the retail brokerage game, but those commissions aren't even close to what the traders are getting who are more than likely on the other side of your options trades." }, { "docid": "279185", "title": "", "text": "\"Simplest way to answer this is that on margin, one is using borrowed assets and thus there are strings that come with doing that. Thus, if the amount of equity left gets too low, the broker has a legal obligation to close the position which can be selling purchased shares or buying back borrowed shares depending on if this is a long or short position respectively. Investopedia has an example that they walk through as the call is where you are asked to either put in more money to the account or the position may be closed because the broker wants their money back. What is Maintenance Margin? A maintenance margin is the required amount of securities an investor must hold in his account if he either purchases shares on margin, or if he sells shares short. If an investor's margin balance falls below the set maintenance margin, the investor would then need to contribute additional funds to the account or liquidate stocks in the account to bring the account back to the initial margin requirement. This request is known as a margin call. As discussed previously, the Federal Reserve Board sets the initial margin requirement (currently at 50%). The Federal Reserve Board also sets the maintenance margin. The maintenance margin, the amount of equity an investor needs to hold in his account if he buys stock on margin or sells shares short, is 25%. Keep in mind, however, that this 25% level is the minimum level set, brokerage firms can increase, but not decrease this level as they desire. Example: Determining when a margin call would occur. Assume that an investor had purchased 500 shares of Newco's stock. The shares were trading at $50 when the transaction was executed. The initial margin requirement on the account was 70% and the maintenance margin is 30%. Assume no transaction costs. Determine the price at which the investor will receive a margin call. Answer: Calculate the price as follows: $50 (1- 0.70) = $21.43 1 - 0.30 A margin call would be received when the price of Newco's stock fell below $21.43 per share. At that time, the investor would either need to deposit additional funds or liquidate shares to satisfy the initial margin requirement. Most people don't want \"\"Margin Calls\"\" but stocks may move in unexpected ways and this is where there are mechanisms to limit losses, especially for the brokerage firm that wants to make as much money as possible. Cancel what trade? No, the broker will close the position if the requirement isn't kept. Basically think of this as a way for the broker to get their money back if necessary while following federal rules. This would be selling in a long position or buying in a short sale situation. The Margin Investor walks through an example where an e-mail would be sent and if the requirement isn't met then the position gets exited as per the law.\"" }, { "docid": "221427", "title": "", "text": "With a short position you make your money (profit) when you buy the stocks back to close the position at a lower price than what you bought them at. As short selling is classed as speculation and not investing and you at no time own any actual assets, you cannot donate any short possition to charity. If you did want to avoid paying tax on the profits you could donate the proceeds of the profits after closing the position and thus get a tax deduction equal to the profits you made. But that raises a new and more important question, why are you trading in the first place if you are afraid to make profits in case you have to pay tax on those profits?" }, { "docid": "333496", "title": "", "text": "\"Your strategy fails to control risk. Your \"\"inversed crash\"\" is called a rally. And These kind of things often turn into bigger rallies because of short squeezes, when all the people that are shorting a stock are forced to close their stock because of margin calls - its not that shorts \"\"scramble\"\" to close their position, the broker AUTOMATICALLY closes your short positions with market orders and you are stuck with the loss. So no, your \"\"trick\"\" is not enough. There are better ways to profit from a bearish outlook.\"" }, { "docid": "324564", "title": "", "text": "I have held an in the money long position on an option into expiration, on etrade, and nothing happened. (Scalping expiring options - high risk) The option expired a penny or two ITM, and was not worth exercising, nor did I have the purchasing power to exercise it. (AAPL) From etrade's website: Here are a few things to keep in mind about exercises and assignments: Equity options $0.01 or more in the money will be automatically exercised for you unless you instruct us not to exercise them. For example, a September $25 call will be automatically exercised if the underlying security's closing price is $25.01 or higher at expiration. If the closing price is below $25.01, you would need to call an E*TRADE Securities broker at 1-800-ETRADE-1 with specific instructions for exercising the option. You would also need to call an E*TRADE Securities broker if the closing price is higher than $25.01 at expiration and you do not wish to exercise the call option. Index options $0.01 or more in the money will be automatically exercised for you unless you instruct us not to exercise them. Options that are out of the money will expire worthless. You may request to exercise American style options anytime prior to expiration. A request not to exercise options may be made only on the last trading day prior to expiration. If you'd like to exercise options or submit do-not-exercise instructions, call an E*TRADE Securities broker at 1-800-ETRADE-1. You won't be charged our normal fee for broker-assisted trades, but the regular options commission will apply. Requests are processed on a best-efforts basis. When equity options are exercised or assigned, you'll receive a Smart Alert message letting you know. You can also check View Orders to see which stock you bought or sold, the number of shares, and the strike price. Notes: If you do not have sufficient purchasing power in your account to accept the assignment or exercise, your expiring options positions may be closed, without notification, on the last trading day for the specific options series. Additionally, if your expiring position is not closed and you do not have sufficient purchasing power, E*TRADE Securities may submit do-not-exercise instructions without notification. Find out more about options expiration dates." }, { "docid": "388362", "title": "", "text": "\"The other two answers seem basically correct, but I wanted to add on thing: While you can exercise an \"\"American style\"\" option at any time, it's almost never smart to do so before expiration. In your example, when the underlying stock reaches $110, you can theoretically make $2/share by exercising your option (buying 100 shares @ $108/share) and immediately selling those 100 shares back to the market at $110/share. This is all before commission. In more detail, you'll have these practical issues: You are going to have to pay commissions, which means you'll need a bigger spread to make this worthwhile. You and those who have already answered have you finger on this part, but I include it for completeness. (Even at expiration, if the difference between the last close price and the strike price is pretty close, some \"\"in-the-money\"\" options will be allowed to expire unexercised when the holders can't cover the closing commission costs.) The market value of the option contract itself should also go up as the price of the underlying stock goes up. Unless it's very close to expiration, the option contract should have some \"\"time value\"\" in its market price, so, if you want to close your position at this point, earlier then expiration, it will probably be better for you to sell the contract back to the market (for more money and only one commission) than to exercise and then close the stock position (for less money and two commissions). If you want to exercise and then flip the stock back as your exit strategy, you need to be aware of the settlement times. You probably are not going to instantly have those 100 shares of stock credited to your account, so you may not be able to sell them right away, which could leave you subject to some risk of the price changing. Alternatively, you could sell the stock short to lock in the price, but you'll have to be sure that your brokerage account is set up to allow that and understand how to do this.\"" }, { "docid": "450067", "title": "", "text": "There are 2 approaches. One of them is already mentioned by @Afforess. If the approach by @Afforess is not feasible, and you can not see yourself making an unbiased decision, close the position. By closing the position you will not get the best price. But by removing a distraction you will reduce amount of mistakes you make in the other stocks." }, { "docid": "216404", "title": "", "text": "Generally stock trades will require an additional Capital Gains and Losses form included with a 1040, known as Schedule D (summary) and Schedule D-1 (itemized). That year I believe the maximum declarable Capital loss was $3000--the rest could carry over to future years. The purchase date/year only matters insofar as to rank the lot as short term or long term(a position held 365 days or longer), short term typically but depends on actual asset taxed then at 25%, long term 15%. The year a position was closed(eg. sold) tells you which year's filing it belongs in. The tiny $16.08 interest earned probably goes into Schedule B, typically a short form. The IRS actually has a hotline 800-829-1040 (Individuals) for quick questions such as advising which previous-year filing forms they'd expect from you. Be sure to explain the custodial situation and that it all recently came to your awareness etc. Disclaimer: I am no specialist. You'd need to verify everything I wrote; it was just from personal experience with the IRS and taxes." } ]

[ { "docid": "362762", "title": "", "text": "For exchange contracts, yes. A trader can close a position by taking an offsetting position. CME's introduction to Futures explains it quite well (on page 22). Exiting the Market Jack entered the market on the buy side, speculating that the S&P 500 futures price would move higher. He has three choices for exiting the market:" } ]

[ { "docid": "482871", "title": "", "text": "\"Yahoo's \"\"Adj Close\"\" data is adjusted for splits, but not for dividends. Despite Yahoo's webpage's footnote saying *Close price adjusted for dividends and splits. we can see empirically that the \"\"Adj Close\"\" is only adjusted for splits. For example, consider Siemens from Jan 27, 2017 to Mar 15, 2017: The Adj Close adjusts for splits: On any particular day, the \"\"Adj Close\"\" is equal to the \"\"Close\"\" price divided by the cumulative product of all splits that occurred after that day. If there have been no splits after that day, then the \"\"Adj Close\"\" equals the \"\"Close\"\" price. Since there is a 2-for-1 split on Mar 14, 2017, the Adj Close is half the Close price for all dates from Jan 27, 2017 to Mar 13, 2017. Note that if Siemens were to split again at some time in the future, the Adj Close prices will be readjusted for this future split. For example, if Siemens were to split 3-for-1 tomorrow, then all the Adj Close prices seen above will be divided by 3. The Adj Close is thus showing the price that a share would have traded on that day if the shares had already been split in accordance with all splits up to today. The Adj Close does not adjust for dividends: Notice that Siemens distributed a $1.87 dividend on Feb 02, 2017 and ~$3.74 dividend on Jan 30, 2017. If the Adj Close value were adjusted for these dividends then we should expect the Adj Close should no longer be exactly half of the Close amount. But we can see that there is no such adjustment -- the Adj Close remains (up to rounding) exactly half the Close amount: Note that in theory, the market reacts to the distribution of dividends by reducing the trading price of shares post-dividend. This in turn is reflected in the raw closing price. So in that sense the Adj Close is also automatically adjusted for dividends. But there is no formula for this. The effect is already baked in through the market's closing prices.\"" }, { "docid": "450067", "title": "", "text": "There are 2 approaches. One of them is already mentioned by @Afforess. If the approach by @Afforess is not feasible, and you can not see yourself making an unbiased decision, close the position. By closing the position you will not get the best price. But by removing a distraction you will reduce amount of mistakes you make in the other stocks." }, { "docid": "521897", "title": "", "text": "With margin accounts you will be able to use the proceeds from a closed trade INSTANTLY. Without margin accounts this is the time you close the trade + 3 business days for clearing. In practice this means 4-5 days if there is a weekend or holiday involved between those 3 business days. This ties up your capital for an unfavorable amount of time, where as a margin account lets you continue to use the capital over and over again for more opportunities. You CANNOT sell to open a position in cash accounts. This means no short selling. This means no covered calls or spreads and MANY other strategies. These are the real differences you'll notice in a margin account vs a cash account. Then there are the myriad of regulations that dictate how much cash you should keep in your account for any margin position." }, { "docid": "43087", "title": "", "text": "Perhaps it was to close a short position. Suppose the seller had written the calls at some time in the past and maybe made a buck or two off of them. By buying the calls now they can close out the position and go away on vacation, or at least have one less thing they have to pay attention to. If they were covered calls, perhaps the buyer wants to sell the underlying and in order to do so has to get out of the calls." }, { "docid": "322891", "title": "", "text": "A stop order can be used to both enter or exit a position. A stop loss is used to set the price you want to get out if the price reaches that level. Whilst a stop buy or entry order is used to get into a position if the price reaches your desired level for entry. The stop order just means that you want to place your order at that level, you then need to specify if you are buying to open, selling to open, buying to close or selling to close your position at the stop level." }, { "docid": "13672", "title": "", "text": "like any share, valuing facebook requires a projection of earnings and earnings growth to arrive at a present value for the right to share in these future earnings. there are economic arguments to be had for facebook to see either a negative or positive future long term net income growth. given the uncertainty we can establish a very rough baseline value by treating it as a perpetuity (zero growth) discounted at historical equity growth rate (8%) with some very simple math. An annual net income of 900 million discounted at 8 percent in perpetuity is worth 11.25 Billion. Now, take into account the fact that tech stocks trade at an inflated PE multiple of around 3 times that of a mature company in an established industry (PE x10-20 for average stocks and anywhere between x30-60+ for tech stocks), and I would expect the market cap for this perpetuity to be around 34 Billion. A market cap of 34 billion is a share value of around 15.5, which is the point where I would take up a long position with fair confidence. I do think that the share deserves a premium for potential income growth (despite the current and potential future revenue losses) simply due to the incredibly large user base and the potential to monetize this. Of course, it wasn't worth the 22 dollar premium that IPO buyers paid but its worth something. I think there is simply too much uncertainty for me to go long in the next 6 months unless it hits 15/share which may never happen. If the company can monetize mobile and show quarterly results in the next year I would consider a long position for anywhere from 15-20 a share." }, { "docid": "230456", "title": "", "text": "\"Trading at the start of a session is by far higher than at any other time of the day. This is mostly due to markets incorporating news into the prices of stocks. In other words, there are a lot of factors that can affect a stock, 24 hours a day, but the market trades for only 6.5 hours a day. So, a lot of news accumulates during the time when people cannot trade on that news. Then when markets finally open, people are able to finally trade on that news, and there is a lot of \"\"price discovery\"\" going on between market participants. In the last minutes of trading, volumes increase as well. This can often be attributed to certain kinds of traders closing out their position before the end of the day. For example, if you don't want to take the risk a large price movement at the start of the next day affecting you, you would need to completely close your position.\"" }, { "docid": "291600", "title": "", "text": "\"As I stated in my comment, options are futures, but with the twist that you're allowed to say no to the agreed-on transaction; if the market offers you a better deal on whatever you had contracted to buy or sell, you have the option of simply letting it expire. Options therefore are the insurance policy of the free market. You negotiate a future price (actually you usually take what you can get if you're an individual investor; the institutional fund managers get to negotiate because they're moving billions around every day), then you pay the other guy up front for the right of refusal later. How much you pay depends on how likely the person giving you this option is to have to make good on it; if your position looks like a sure thing, an option's going to be very expensive (and if it's such a sure thing, you should just make your move on the spot market; it's thus useful to track futures prices to see where the various big players are predicting that your portfolio will move). A put option, which is an option for you to sell something at a future price, is a hedge against loss of value of your portfolio. You can take one out on any single item in your portfolio, or against a portion or even your entire portfolio. If the stock loses value such that the contract price is better than the market price as of the delivery date of the contract, you execute the option; otherwise, you let it expire. A call option, which is an option to buy something at a future price, is a hedge against rising costs. The rough analog is a \"\"pre-order\"\" in retail (but more like a \"\"holding fee\"\"). They're unusual in portfolio management but can be useful when moving money around in more complex ways. Basically, if you need to guarantee that you will not pay more than a certain per-share price to buy something in the future, you buy a call option. If the spot price as of the delivery date is less than the contract price, you buy from the market and ignore the contract, while if prices have soared, you exercise it and get the lower contract price. Stock options, offered as benefits in many companies, are a specific form of call option with very generous terms for whomever holds them. A swaption, basically a put and a call rolled into one, allows you to trade something for something else. Call it the free market's \"\"exchange policy\"\". For a price, if a security you currently hold loses value, you can exchange it for something else that you predicted would become more valuable at the same time. One example might be airline stocks and crude oil; when crude spikes, airline stocks generally suffer, and you can take advantage of this, if it happens, with a swaption to sell your airline stocks for crude oil certificates. There are many such closely-related inverse positions in the market, such as between various currencies, between stocks and commodities (gold is inversely related to pretty much everything else), and even straight-up cash-for-bad-debt arrangements (credit-default swaps, which we heard so much about in 2008).\"" }, { "docid": "171819", "title": "", "text": "\"There some specific circumstances when you would have a long-term gain. Option 1: If you meet all of these conditions: Then you've got a long-term gain on the stock. The premium on the option gets rolled into the capital gain on the stock and is not taxed separately. From the IRS: If a call you write is exercised and you sell the underlying stock, increase your amount realized on the sale of the stock by the amount you received for the call when figuring your gain or loss. The gain or loss is long term or short term depending on your holding period of the stock. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010630 Option 2: If you didn't hold the underlying and the exercise of the call that you wrote resulted in a short position, you might also be able to get to a long-term gain by buying the underlying while keeping your short position open and then \"\"crossing\"\" them to close both positions after one year. (In other words, don't \"\"buy to cover\"\" just \"\"buy\"\" so that your account shows both a long and a short position in the same security. Your broker probably allows this, but if not you, could buy in a different account than the one with the short position.) That would get you to this rule: As a general rule, you determine whether you have short-term or long-term capital gain or loss on a short sale by the amount of time you actually hold the property eventually delivered to the lender to close the short sale. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010586 Option 1 is probably reasonably common. Option 2, I would guess, is uncommon and likely not worthwhile. I do not think that the wash sale rules can help string along options from expiration to expiration though. Option 1 has some elements of what you wrote in italics (I find that paragraph a bit confusing), but the wash sale does not help you out.\"" }, { "docid": "383930", "title": "", "text": "Option contracts typically each represent 100 shares. So the 1 call contract you sold to open (wrote) grants the buyer of that option the right to purchase your 100 shares for $80.00 per share any time before the option expiration date. You were paid a gross amount of $100 (100 shares times $1.00 premium per share) for taking on the obligation to deliver should the option holder choose to exercise. You received credit in your account of $89.22, which ought to be the $100 less any trading commission (~$10?) and miscellaneous fees (regulatory, exchange, etc.) per contract. You did capture premium. However, your covered call write represents an open short position that, until either (a) the option expires worthless, or (b) is exercised, or (c) is bought back to close the position, will continue to show on your account as a liability. Until the open position is somehow closed, the value of both the short option contract and long stock will continue to fluctuate. This is normal." }, { "docid": "9274", "title": "", "text": "\"Futures are an agreement to buy or sell something in the future. The futures \"\"price\"\" is the price at which you agree to make the trade. This price does not indicate what will happen in the future so much as it indicates the cost of buying the item today and holding it until the future date. Hence, for very liquid products such as stock index futures, the futures price is a very simple function of today's stock index value and current short-term interest rates. If the stock exchange is closed but the futures exchange is open, then using the futures price and interest rates one can back out an implied \"\"fair value\"\" for the index, which is in essence the market's estimate of what the stock index value would be right now if the stock market were open. Of course, as soon as the stock exchange opens, the futures price trades to within a narrow band of the actual index value, where the size of the band depends on transaction costs (bid-ask spread, commissions, etc.).\"" }, { "docid": "362765", "title": "", "text": "\"In general economic theory, there are always two markets created based on a need for a good; a spot market (where people who need something now can go outbid other people who need the same thing), and a futures market (where people who know they will need something later can agree to buy it for a pre-approved price, even if the good in question doesn't exist yet, like a grain crop). Options exist as a natural extension of the futures market. In a traditional future, you're obligated, by buying the contract, to execute it, for good or ill. If it turns out that you could have gotten a lower price when buying, or a higher price when selling, that's tough; you gave up the ability to say no in return for knowing, a month or three months or even a year in advance, the price you'll get to buy or sell this good that you know you need. Futures thus give both sides the ability to plan based on a known price, but that's their only risk-reduction mechanism. Enter the option. You're the Coors Brewing Company, and you want to buy 50 tons of barley grain for delivery in December in order to brew up for the Super Bowl and other assorted sports parties. A co-op bellies up to close the deal. But, since you're Coors, you compete on price with Budweiser and Miller, and if you end up paying more than the grain's really worth, perhaps because of a mild wet fall and a bumper crop that the almanac predicts, then you're going to have a real bad time of it in January. You ask for the right to say \"\"no\"\" when the contract falls due, if the price you negotiate now is too high based on the spot price. The co-op now has a choice; for such a large shipment, if Coors decided to leave them holding the bag on the contract and instead bought it from them anyway on a depressed spot market, they could lose big if they were counting on getting the contract price and bought equipment or facilities on credit against it. To mitigate those losses, the co-op asks for an option price; basically, this is \"\"insurance\"\" on the contract, and the co-op will, in return for this fee (exactly how and when it's paid is also negotiable), agree to eat any future realized losses if Coors were to back out of the contract. Like any insurance premium, the option price is nominally based on an outwardly simple formula: the probability of Coors \"\"exercising\"\" their option, times the losses the co-op would incur if that happened. Long-term, if these two figures are accurate, the co-op will break even by offering this price and Coors either taking the contract or exercising the option. However, coming up with accurate predictions of these two figures, such that the co-op (or anyone offering such a position) would indeed break even at least, is the stuff that keeps actuaries in business (and awake at night).\"" }, { "docid": "211122", "title": "", "text": "In addition to the expatriation case already mentioned by Ben Miller, traders/investors are required to use mark-to-market accounting on certain investments. These go by Section 1256 contracts due to the part of the law that defines them. Mark-to-market is also required on straddles (combination of a long and and a short position in equities that are expected to vary inversely to each other). Mark-to-market means that you have to treat the positions as if you closed them at their end-of-year market value (even if you still have the position across the new year)." }, { "docid": "261331", "title": "", "text": "Context is key here. Futures don't really have to do with a time in the future in this context. Futures are a capital market (futures market), just like Stocks are a market (stock market). Both capital markets have the ability to affect each other. Up until 30 years ago there was a separate use for the futures market, but in the days since they are MOSTLY used for stock derivatives (financial futures are the most widely traded contracts since 1980, hugely eclipsing the commodity futures that the market was designed for.) So there is overlap and one affect the other, I'm not going to go into too much detail here but basically the futures market trades 24 hours a day, 6.5 days of the week and the stock market trades 8-12 hours a day, 5 days a week. So when the stock market closes, the futures market is still running will react and effect the broad stock market. Hope that gets you started in your research" }, { "docid": "523729", "title": "", "text": "But by closing the short position the broker would still be purchasing shares from the market no? Or at least, someone would be purchasing the shares to close the short position. So, why doesn't the broker just let Client A keep their short position open and buy shares in the market so that Client B can sell them...I know it sounds a bit ridic, but not much more so to me than letting Client A borrow the shares to begin with!" }, { "docid": "300139", "title": "", "text": "\"In summary: In long form: Spreads and shorts are not allowed in cash accounts, except for covered options. Brokers will allow clients to roll option positions in a single transaction, which look like spreads, but these are not actually \"\"sell to open\"\" transactions. \"\"Sell to open\"\" is forbidden in cash accounts. Short positions from closing the long half of a covered trade are verboten. Day-trading is allowed in both margin and cash accounts. However, \"\"pattern day-trading\"\" only applies to margin accounts, and requires a minimum account balance of $25,000. Cash accounts are free to buy and sell the same security on the same day over and over, provided that there is sufficient buying power to pay for opening a new position. Since proceeds are held for both stock and option sales in a cash account, that means buying power available at the start of the day will drop with each purchase and not rise again until settlement. Unsettled funds are available immediately within margin accounts, without restriction. In cash accounts, using unsettled funds to purchase securities will require you to hold the new position until funds settle -- otherwise your account will be blocked for \"\"free-riding\"\". Legally, you can buy securities in a cash account without available cash on deposit with the broker, but most brokers don't allow this, and some will aggressively liquidate any position that you are somehow able to enter for which you didn't have available cash already on deposit. In a margin account, margin can help gloss over the few days between purchase and deposit, allowing you to be somewhat more aggressive in investing funds. A margin account will allow you to make an investment if you feel the opportunity is right before requiring you to deposit the funds. See a great opportunity? With sufficient margin, you can open the trade immediately and then run to the bank to deposit funds, rather than being stuck waiting for funds to be credited to your account. Margin accounts might show up on your credit report. The possibility of losing more than you invested, having positions liquidated when you least expect it, your broker doing possibly stupid things in order to close out an over-margined account, and other consequences are all very serious risks of margin accounts. Although you mentioned awareness of this issue, any answer is not complete with mentioning those risks.\"" }, { "docid": "115436", "title": "", "text": "\"I believe they manage a bit over 500 million. He is still the founder and probably has control of the company but he is not the ceo. He has probably gotten the company to a stable position and wants to move on to other things... big deal. If tradeworx is stable and making money it is not a big deal if narang doesn't want to micro manage people and run day to day shit, someone else can handle that while he can go explore other things. Just like De shaw did.... de shaw got his fund up and running, make a ton on money, left to do research and the fund still makes money. [you can read this to see why he left](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-markets-tradeworx-narangdeparture/exclusive-tradeworx-founder-narang-leaves-high-frequency-firm-idUSKBN0KM1Z720150113) \"\"Narang declined to spell out why he was leaving Red Bank, New Jersey-based Tradeworx, but said, “I had a few differences with the board about the direction of the company.” Narang said there were no losses or expected losses at closely held Tradeworx, which he said has a bright future and where he remains a shareholder. Tradeworx accounts for about 5 to 6 percent of daily U.S. equity market volume, sources say. There was no immediate response from Tradeworx management. Narang has not decided on a future venture, but he said he is likely to remain in the financial services industry, is talking to people and is looking closely at the options market. “I have a whole lot of ideas that I‘m excited about that I’ve been wanting to pursue, so now is the time to figure out which of those ideas I’d like to pursue,” Narang told Reuters. “I‘m particularly interested in options trading, I have been for some time, that’s something Tradeworx doesn’t do. Many of my ideas are in that space,” said Narang, 45, who has degrees in computer science and mathematics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.\"\" edit- This all really has nothing to do with the original post about actuallyserious65 comment regarding hft.\"" }, { "docid": "316497", "title": "", "text": "\"When trading Forex each currency is traded relative to another. So when shorting a currency you must go long another currency vs the currency you are shorting, it seems a little odd and can be a bit confusing, but here is the explanation that Wikipedia provides: An example of this is as follows: Let us say a trader wants to trade with the US dollar and the Indian rupee currencies. Assume that the current market rate is USD 1 to Rs.50 and the trader borrows Rs.100. With this, he buys USD 2. If the next day, the conversion rate becomes USD 1 to Rs.51, then the trader sells his USD 2 and gets Rs.102. He returns Rs.100 and keeps the Rs.2 profit (minus fees). So in this example the trader is shorting the rupee vs the dollar. Does this article add up all other currency crosses to get the 'net' figure? So they don't care what it is depreciating against? This data is called the Commitment of Traders (COT) which is issued by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) In the WSJ article it is actually referring to Forex Futures. In an another article from CountingPips it explains a bit clearer as to how a news organization comes up with these type of numbers. according to the CFTC COT data and calculations by Reuters which calculates the dollar positions against the euro, British pound, Japanese yen, Australian dollar, Canadian dollar and the Swiss franc. So this article is not talking about futures but it does tell us they got data from the COT and in addition Reuters added additional calculations from adding up \"\"X\"\" currency positions. No subscription needed: Speculators Pile Up Largest Net Dollar Long Position Since June 2010 - CFTC Here is some additional reading on the topic if you're interested: CFTC Commitment of the Traders Data – COT Report FOREX : What Is It And How Does It Work? Futures vs. Forex Options Forex - Wiki\"" }, { "docid": "422467", "title": "", "text": "The problem with rate of return calculation on short positions is, that the commonly used approach assumes an initial investment creating a cash outflow. If we want to apply this approach to short selling, we should look at the trade from another perspective. We buy money and pay for this money with stock. Our investment to buy 50$ in your example is 1 share. When closing the short position, we effectively sell back our money (50$) and receive 2 shares. Our profit on this position is obviously 1 share. Setting this in relation to our investment of 1 share yields a performance of 100% in reality, we do not sell back the entire cash but only the amount needed to get back our investment of 1 share. This is actually comparable to a purchase of stock which we only partially close to get back our invested cash amount and keep the remaining shares as our profit" } ]

[ { "docid": "121158", "title": "", "text": "Futures exchanges are essentially auction houses facilitating a two-way auction. While they provide a venue for buyers and sellers to come together and transact (be that a physical venue such as a pit at the CME or an electronic network such as Globex), they don't actively seek out or find buyers and sellers to pair them together. The exchanges enable this process through an order book. As a futures trader you may submit one of two types of order to an exchange: Market Order - this is sent to the exchange and is filled immediately by being paired with a limit order. Limit Order - this is placed on the books of the exchange at the price you specify. If other participants enter opposing market orders at this price, then their market order will be paired with your limit order. In your example, trader B wishes to close his long position. To do this he may enter a market sell order, which will immediately close his position at the lowest possible buy limit price, or he may enter a limit sell order, specifying the price at or above which he is willing to sell. In the case of the limit order, he will only sell and successfully close his position if his order becomes the lowest sell order on the book. All this may be a lot easier to understand by looking at a visual image of an order book such as the one given in the explanation that I have published here: Stop Orders for Futures Finally, not that as far as the exchange is concerned, there is no difference between an order to open and an order to close a position. They're all just 'buy' or 'sell' orders. Whether they cause you to reduce/exit a position or increase/establish a position is relative to the position you currently hold; if you're flat a buy order establishes a new position, if you're short it closes your position and leaves you flat." } ]

[ { "docid": "493012", "title": "", "text": "\"Well, futures don't have a \"\"strike\"\" like an option - the price represents how much you're obligated to buy/sell the index for at a specified date in the future. You are correct that there's no cost to enter a contract (though there may be broker fees and margin payments). Any difference between the contract price and the price of the index at settlement is what is exchanged at settlement. It's analogous to the bid/ask on a stock - the bid price represents the price at which someone is willing to \"\"buy\"\" a futures contract (meaning enter into a long position) and the ask is how much someone is willing to \"\"sell\"\" a contract. So if you want to take a long position on S&P500 mini futures you'd have to enter in at the \"\"ask\"\" price. If the index is above your contract price on the future expiry date you'll make a profit; if it is below the contract price you'll take a loss.\"" }, { "docid": "13885", "title": "", "text": "You could buy shares of an Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) based on the price of gold, like GLD, IAU, or SGOL. You can invest in this fund through almost any brokerage firm, e.g. Fidelity, Etrade, Scotttrade, TD Ameritrade, Charles Schwab, ShareBuilder, etc. Keep in mind that you'll still have to pay a commission and fees when purchasing an ETF, but it will almost certainly be less than paying the markup or storage fees of buying the physical commodity directly. An ETF trades exactly like a stock, on an exchange, with a ticker symbol as noted above. The commission will apply the same as any stock trade, and the price will reflect some fraction of an ounce of gold, for the GLD, it started as .1oz, but fees have been applied over the years, so it's a bit less. You could also invest in PHYS, which is a closed-end mutual fund that allows investors to trade their shares for 400-ounce gold bars. However, because the fund is closed-end, it may trade at a significant premium or discount compared to the actual price of gold for supply and demand reasons. Also, keep in mind that investing in gold will never be the same as depositing your money in the bank. In the United States, money stored in a bank is FDIC-insured up to $250,000, and there are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example). If you invest in gold and the price plunges, you're left with the fair market value of that gold, not your original deposit. Yes, you're hoping the price of your gold investment will increase to at least match inflation, but you're hoping, i.e. speculating, which isn't the same as depositing your money in an insured bank account. If you want to speculate and invest in something with the hope of outpacing inflation, you're likely better off investing in a low-cost index fund of inflation-protected securities (or the S&P500, over the long term) rather than gold. Just to be clear, I'm using the laymen's definition of a speculator, which is someone who engages in risky financial transactions in an attempt to profit from short or medium term fluctuations This is similar to the definition used in some markets, e.g. futures, but in many cases, economists and places like the CFTC define speculators as anyone who doesn't have a position in the underlying security. For example, a farmer selling corn futures is a hedger, while the trading firm purchasing the contracts is a speculator. The trading firm doesn't necessarily have to be actively trading the contract in the short-run; they merely have no position in the underlying commodity." }, { "docid": "105373", "title": "", "text": "It's unclear what you're asking. When I originally read your question, it seemed that you had closed out one options position and opened another. When I read your question the second time, it seemed that you were writing a second option while the first was still open. In the second case, you have one covered and one naked position. The covered call will expire worthless, the naked call will expire in the money. How your broker will resolve that is a question best left for them, but my expectation is that they will assign the non-worthless calls. Whereas, if both options expired in the money, you would be assigned and you would have to come up with the additional shares (and again, that depends on how your broker works). In general, for both cases, your net is the premiums you received, plus the difference between strike price and the price that you paid for the stock, minus any cost to close out the position. So whether you make a profit is very much dependent on how much you received for your premiums. Scenario #1: close first call, write second: Scenario #2: write covered + naked, one expires worthless Scenario #3: write covered + naked, both expire in the money Disclaimer: the SEC does not consider me a financial/investment advisor, so this is not financial/investment advice" }, { "docid": "388362", "title": "", "text": "\"The other two answers seem basically correct, but I wanted to add on thing: While you can exercise an \"\"American style\"\" option at any time, it's almost never smart to do so before expiration. In your example, when the underlying stock reaches $110, you can theoretically make $2/share by exercising your option (buying 100 shares @ $108/share) and immediately selling those 100 shares back to the market at $110/share. This is all before commission. In more detail, you'll have these practical issues: You are going to have to pay commissions, which means you'll need a bigger spread to make this worthwhile. You and those who have already answered have you finger on this part, but I include it for completeness. (Even at expiration, if the difference between the last close price and the strike price is pretty close, some \"\"in-the-money\"\" options will be allowed to expire unexercised when the holders can't cover the closing commission costs.) The market value of the option contract itself should also go up as the price of the underlying stock goes up. Unless it's very close to expiration, the option contract should have some \"\"time value\"\" in its market price, so, if you want to close your position at this point, earlier then expiration, it will probably be better for you to sell the contract back to the market (for more money and only one commission) than to exercise and then close the stock position (for less money and two commissions). If you want to exercise and then flip the stock back as your exit strategy, you need to be aware of the settlement times. You probably are not going to instantly have those 100 shares of stock credited to your account, so you may not be able to sell them right away, which could leave you subject to some risk of the price changing. Alternatively, you could sell the stock short to lock in the price, but you'll have to be sure that your brokerage account is set up to allow that and understand how to do this.\"" }, { "docid": "450067", "title": "", "text": "There are 2 approaches. One of them is already mentioned by @Afforess. If the approach by @Afforess is not feasible, and you can not see yourself making an unbiased decision, close the position. By closing the position you will not get the best price. But by removing a distraction you will reduce amount of mistakes you make in the other stocks." }, { "docid": "13672", "title": "", "text": "like any share, valuing facebook requires a projection of earnings and earnings growth to arrive at a present value for the right to share in these future earnings. there are economic arguments to be had for facebook to see either a negative or positive future long term net income growth. given the uncertainty we can establish a very rough baseline value by treating it as a perpetuity (zero growth) discounted at historical equity growth rate (8%) with some very simple math. An annual net income of 900 million discounted at 8 percent in perpetuity is worth 11.25 Billion. Now, take into account the fact that tech stocks trade at an inflated PE multiple of around 3 times that of a mature company in an established industry (PE x10-20 for average stocks and anywhere between x30-60+ for tech stocks), and I would expect the market cap for this perpetuity to be around 34 Billion. A market cap of 34 billion is a share value of around 15.5, which is the point where I would take up a long position with fair confidence. I do think that the share deserves a premium for potential income growth (despite the current and potential future revenue losses) simply due to the incredibly large user base and the potential to monetize this. Of course, it wasn't worth the 22 dollar premium that IPO buyers paid but its worth something. I think there is simply too much uncertainty for me to go long in the next 6 months unless it hits 15/share which may never happen. If the company can monetize mobile and show quarterly results in the next year I would consider a long position for anywhere from 15-20 a share." }, { "docid": "384221", "title": "", "text": "This depends on a combination of factors: What are you charged (call it margin interest) to hold the position? How does this reduce your buying power and what are the opportunity costs? What are the transaction costs alternative ways to close the position? What are your risks (exposure while legging out) for alternative ways to close? Finally, where is the asset closing relative to the strike? Generally, If asset price is below the put strike then the call expires worthless and you need to exercise the put. If asset is above the call strike then put expires worthless and you'll likely get assigned. Given this framework: If margin interest is eating up your profit faster than you're earning theta (a convenient way to represent the time value) then you have some urgency and you need to exit that position before expiry. I would not exit the stock until the call is covered. Keep minimal risk at all times. If you are limited by the position's impact on your buying power and probable value of available opportunities is greater than the time decay you're earning then once again, you have some urgency about closing instead of unwinding at expiry. Same as above. Cover that call, before you ditch your hedge in the long stock. Playing the tradeoff game of expiration/exercise cost against open market transactions is tough. You need sub-penny commissions on stock (and I would say a lot of leverage) and most importantly you need options charges much lower than IB to make that kind of trading work. IB is the cheapest in the retail brokerage game, but those commissions aren't even close to what the traders are getting who are more than likely on the other side of your options trades." }, { "docid": "567034", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "479874", "title": "", "text": "\"Treat each position or partial position as a separate LOT. Each time you open a position, a new lot of shares is created. If you sell the whole position, then the lot is closed. Done. But if you sell a partial quantity, you need to create a new lot. Split the original lot into two. The quantities in each are the amount sold, and the amount remaining. If you were to then buy a few more shares, create a third lot. If you then sell the entire position, you'll be closing out all the remaining lots. This allows you to track each buy/sell pairing. For each lot, simply calculate return based on cost and proceeds. You can't derive an annualized number for ALL the lots as a group, because there's no common timeframe that they share. If you wish to calculate your return over time on the whole series of trades, consider using TWIRR. It treats these positions, plus the cash they represent, as a whole portfolio. See my post in this thread: How can I calculate a \"\"running\"\" return using XIRR in a spreadsheet?\"" }, { "docid": "43087", "title": "", "text": "Perhaps it was to close a short position. Suppose the seller had written the calls at some time in the past and maybe made a buck or two off of them. By buying the calls now they can close out the position and go away on vacation, or at least have one less thing they have to pay attention to. If they were covered calls, perhaps the buyer wants to sell the underlying and in order to do so has to get out of the calls." }, { "docid": "226984", "title": "", "text": "\"The settlement date for any trade is the date on which the seller gets the buyer's money and the buyer gets the seller's product. In US equities markets the settlement date is (almost universally) three trading days after the trade date. This settlement period gives the exchanges, the clearing houses, and the brokers time to figure out how many shares and how many dollars need to actually be moved around in order to give everyone what they're owed (and then to actually do all that moving around). So, \"\"settling\"\" a short trade is the same thing as settling any other trade. It has nothing to do with \"\"closing\"\" (or covering) the seller's short position. Q: Is this referring to when a short is initiated, or closed? A: Initiated. If you initiate a short position by selling borrowed shares on day 1, then settlement occurs on day 4. (Regardless of whether your short position is still open or has been closed.) Q: All open shorts which are still open by the settlement date have to be reported by the due date. A: Not exactly. The requirement is that all short positions evaluated based on their settlement dates (rather than their trade dates) still open on the deadline have to be reported by the due date. You sell short 100 AAPL on day 1. You then cover that short by buying 100 AAPL on day 2. As far as the clearing houses and brokers are concerned, however, you don't even get into the short position until your sell settles at the end of day 4, and you finally get out of your short position (in their eyes) when your buy settles at the end of day 5. So imagine the following scenarios: The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 2. Since your (FINRA member) broker has been told to report based on settlement date, it would report no open position for you in AAPL even though you executed a trade to sell on day 1. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 3. Your sell still has not settled, so there's still no open position to report for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 4. Your sell has settled but your buy has not, so the broker reports a 100 share open short position for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 5. Your sell and buy have both settled, so the broker once again has no open position to report for you. So, the point is that when dealing with settlement dates you just pretend the world is 3 days behind where it actually is.\"" }, { "docid": "234935", "title": "", "text": "I guess the opposite of being hedged is being unhedged. Typically, a hedge is an additional position that you would take on in order to mitigate the potential for losses on another position. I'll give an example: Say that I purchase 100 shares of stock XYZ at $10 per share because I believe its price will increase in the future. At that point, my full investment of $1000 is at risk, so the position is not hedged. If the price of XYZ decreases to $8, then I've lost $200. If the price of XYZ increases to $12, then I've gained $200; the profit/loss curve has a linear relationship to the future stock price. Suppose that I decide to hedge my XYZ position by purchasing a put option. I purchase a single option contract (corresponding to my 100 shares) with a strike price of $10 and an expiration date in January 2013 for a price of $0.50/share. This means that until the contract expires, I can always sell my XYZ shares for a minimum of $10. Therefore, if the price of XYZ decreases to $8, then I've only lost $50 (the price of the option contract), compared to the $200 that I would have lost if the position was unhedged. Likewise, however, if the price increases to $12, then I've only gained a net total of $150 due to the money I spent on the hedge. (the details of how much money you would actually lose in the hedged scenario are simplified out above; even out-of-the-money options retain some value before expiration, but pricing of options is outside of the scope of this post) So, as a more pointed answer to your question, I would say that the hedged/unhedged status of a position can be characterized by its potential for loss. If you don't have any other assets that will increase in value to offset losses on your position of interest, I would call it unhedged." }, { "docid": "45065", "title": "", "text": "You would generally have to pay interest for everyday you hold the position overnight. If you never close the position and the stock price goes to zero, you will be closed out and credited with your profit. If you never close the position and the stock price keeps going up and up, your potential loss is an unlimited amount of money. Of course your broker may close you out early for a number of reasons, particularly if your loss goes above the amount of capital you have in your trading account." }, { "docid": "159417", "title": "", "text": "You're confusing open positions and account balance. Your position in GBP is 1000, that's what you've bought. You then used some of it to buy something else, but to the broker you still have an open position of 1000 GBP. They will only close it when you give them the 1000GBP back. What you do with it until then is none of their business. Your account balance (available funds) in GBP is 10." }, { "docid": "259659", "title": "", "text": "\"There are many reasons. Here are just some possibilities: The stock has a lot of negative sentiment and puts are being \"\"bid up\"\". The stock fell at the close and the options reflect that. The puts closed on the offer and the calls closed on the bid. The traders with big positions marked the puts up and the calls down because they are long puts and short calls. There isn't enough volume in the puts or calls to make any determination - what you are seeing is part of the randomness of a moment in time.\"" }, { "docid": "10558", "title": "", "text": "\"At the most fundamental level, every market is comprised of buyers and selling trading securities. These buyers and sellers decide what and how to trade based on the probability of future events, as they see it. That's a simple statement, but an example demonstrates how complicated it can be. Picture a company that's about to announce earnings. Some investors/traders (from here on, \"\"agents\"\") will have purchased the company's stock a while ago, with the expectation that the company will have strong earnings and grow going forward. Other agents will have sold the stock short, bought put options, etc. with the expectation that the company won't do as well in the future. Still others may be unsure about the future of the company, but still expecting a lot of volatility around the earnings announcement, so they'll have bought/sold the stock, options, futures, etc. to take advantage of that volatility. All of these various predictions, expectations, etc. factor into what agents are bidding and asking for the stock, its associated derivatives, and other securities, which in turn determines its price (along with overall economic factors, like the sector's performance, interest rates, etc.) It can be very difficult to determine exactly how markets are factoring in information about an event, though. Take the example in your question. The article states that if market expectations of higher interest rates tightened credit conditions... In this case, lenders could expect higher interest rates in the future, so they may be less willing to lend money now because they expect to earn a higher interest rate in the future. You could also see this reflected in bond prices, because since interest rates are inversely related to bond prices, higher interest rates could decrease the value of bond portfolios. This could lead agents to sell bonds now in order to lock in their profits, while other agents could wait to buy bonds because they expect to be able to purchase bonds with a higher rate in the future. Furthermore, higher interest rates make taking out loans more expensive for individuals and businesses. This potential decline in investment could lead to decreased revenue/profits for businesses, which could in turn cause declines in the stock market. Agents expecting these declines could sell now in order to lock in their profits, buy derivatives to hedge against or ride out possible declines, etc. However, the current low interest rate environment makes it cheaper for businesses to obtain loans, which can in turn drive investment and lead to increases in the stock market. This is one criticism of the easy money/quantitative easing policies of the US Federal Reserve, i.e. the low interest rates are driving a bubble in the stock market. One quick example of how tricky this can be. The usual assumption is that positive economic news, e.g. low unemployment numbers, strong business/residential investment, etc. will lead to price increases in the stock market as more agents see growth in the future and buy accordingly. However, in the US, positive economic news has recently led to declines in the market because agents are worried that positive news will lead the Federal Reserve to taper/stop quantitative easing sooner rather than later, thus ending the low interest rate environment and possibly tampering growth. Summary: In short, markets incorporate information about an event because the buyers and sellers trade securities based on the likelihood of that event, its possible effects, and the behavior of other buyers and sellers as they react to the same information. Information may lead agents to buy and sell in multiple markets, e.g. equity and fixed-income, different types of derivatives, etc. which can in turn affect prices and yields throughout numerous markets.\"" }, { "docid": "279185", "title": "", "text": "\"Simplest way to answer this is that on margin, one is using borrowed assets and thus there are strings that come with doing that. Thus, if the amount of equity left gets too low, the broker has a legal obligation to close the position which can be selling purchased shares or buying back borrowed shares depending on if this is a long or short position respectively. Investopedia has an example that they walk through as the call is where you are asked to either put in more money to the account or the position may be closed because the broker wants their money back. What is Maintenance Margin? A maintenance margin is the required amount of securities an investor must hold in his account if he either purchases shares on margin, or if he sells shares short. If an investor's margin balance falls below the set maintenance margin, the investor would then need to contribute additional funds to the account or liquidate stocks in the account to bring the account back to the initial margin requirement. This request is known as a margin call. As discussed previously, the Federal Reserve Board sets the initial margin requirement (currently at 50%). The Federal Reserve Board also sets the maintenance margin. The maintenance margin, the amount of equity an investor needs to hold in his account if he buys stock on margin or sells shares short, is 25%. Keep in mind, however, that this 25% level is the minimum level set, brokerage firms can increase, but not decrease this level as they desire. Example: Determining when a margin call would occur. Assume that an investor had purchased 500 shares of Newco's stock. The shares were trading at $50 when the transaction was executed. The initial margin requirement on the account was 70% and the maintenance margin is 30%. Assume no transaction costs. Determine the price at which the investor will receive a margin call. Answer: Calculate the price as follows: $50 (1- 0.70) = $21.43 1 - 0.30 A margin call would be received when the price of Newco's stock fell below $21.43 per share. At that time, the investor would either need to deposit additional funds or liquidate shares to satisfy the initial margin requirement. Most people don't want \"\"Margin Calls\"\" but stocks may move in unexpected ways and this is where there are mechanisms to limit losses, especially for the brokerage firm that wants to make as much money as possible. Cancel what trade? No, the broker will close the position if the requirement isn't kept. Basically think of this as a way for the broker to get their money back if necessary while following federal rules. This would be selling in a long position or buying in a short sale situation. The Margin Investor walks through an example where an e-mail would be sent and if the requirement isn't met then the position gets exited as per the law.\"" }, { "docid": "414636", "title": "", "text": "In the US you specify explicitly what stocks you're selling. Brokers now are required to keep track of cost basis and report it to the IRS on the 1099-B, so you have to tell the broker which position it is that you're closing. Usually, the default is FIFO (i.e.: when you sell, you're assumed to be closing the oldest position), but you can change it if you want. In the US you cannot average costs basis of stocks (you can for mutual funds), so you either do FIFO, LIFO (last position closed first), or specify the specific positions when you submit the sale order." }, { "docid": "589127", "title": "", "text": "\"There are more than a few different ways to consider why someone may have a transaction in the stock market: Employee stock options - If part of my compensation comes from having options that vest over time, I may well sell shares at various points because I don't want so much of my new worth tied up in one company stock. Thus, some transactions may happen from people cashing out stock options. Shorting stocks - This is where one would sell borrowed stock that then gets replaced later. Thus, one could reverse the traditional buy and sell order in which case the buy is done to close the position rather than open one. Convertible debt - Some companies may have debt that come with warrants or options that allow the holder to acquire shares at a specific price. This would be similar to 1 in some ways though the holder may be a mutual fund or company in some cases. There is also some people that may seek high-yield stocks and want an income stream from the stock while others may just want capital appreciation and like stocks that may not pay dividends(Berkshire Hathaway being the classic example here). Others may be traders believing the stock will move one way or another in the short-term and want to profit from that. So, thus the stock market isn't necessarily as simple as you state initially. A terrorist attack may impact stocks in a couple ways to consider: Liquidity - In the case of the attacks of 9/11, the stock market was closed for a number of days which meant people couldn't trade to convert shares to cash or cash to shares. Thus, some people may pull out of the market out of fear of their money being \"\"locked up\"\" when they need to access it. If someone is retired and expects to get $x/quarter from their stocks and it appears that that may be in jeopardy, it could cause one to shift their asset allocation. Future profits - Some companies may have costs to rebuild offices and other losses that could put a temporary dent in profits. If there is a company that makes widgets and the factory is attacked, the company may have to stop making widgets for a while which would impact earnings, no? There can also be the perception that an attack is \"\"just the beginning\"\" and one could extrapolate out more attacks that may affect broader areas. Sometimes what recently happens with the stock market is expected to continue that can be dangerous as some people may believe the market has to continue like the recent past as that is how they think the future will be.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "496820", "title": "", "text": "When you invest (say $1000) in (say 100 shares) of a mutual fund at $10 per share, and the price of the shares changes, you do not have a capital gain or loss, and you do not have to declare anything to the IRS or make any entry on any line on Form 1040 or tell anyone else about it either. You can brag about it at parties if the share price has gone up, or weep bitter tears into your cocktail if the price has gone down, but the IRS not only does not care, but it will not let you deduct the paper loss or pay taxes on the paper gain. What you put down on Form 1040 Schedules B and D is precisely what the mutual fund will tell you on Form 1099-DIV (and Form 1099-B), no more, no less. If you did not report any of these amounts on your previous tax returns, you need to file amended tax returns, both Federal as well as State, A stock mutual fund invests in stocks and the fund manager may buy and sell some stocks during the course of the year. If he makes a profit, that money will be distributed to the share holders of the mutual fund. That money can be re-invested in more shares of the same mutual fund or taken as cash (and possibly invested in some other fund). This capital gain distribution is reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you have to report sit on your tax return even if you re-invested in more share of the same mutual fund, and the amount of the distribution is taxable income to you. Similarly, if the stocks owned by the mutual fund pay dividends, those will be passed on to you as a dividend distribution and all the above still applies. You can choose to reinvest, etc, the amount will be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV, and you need to report it to the IRS and include it in your taxable income. If the mutual fund manager loses money in the buying and selling he will not tell you that he lost money but it will be visible as a reduction in the price of the shares. The loss will not be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you cannot do anything about it. Especially important, you cannot declare to the IRS that you have a loss and you cannot deduct the loss on your income tax returns that year. When you finally sell your shares in the mutual fund, you will have a gain or loss that you can pay taxes on or deduct. Say the mutual fund paid a dividend of $33 one year and you re-invested the money into the mutual fund, buying 3 shares at the then cost of $11 per share. You declare the $33 on your tax return that year and pay taxes on it. Two years later, you sell all 103 shares that you own for $10.50 per share. Your total investment was $1000 + $33 = $1033. You get $1081.50 from the fund, and you will owe taxes on $1081.50 - $1033 = $48.50. You have a profit of $50 on the 100 shares originally bought and a loss of $1.50 on the 3 shares bought for $11: the net result is a gain of $48.50. You do not pay taxes on $81.50 as the profit from your original $1000 investment; you pay taxes only on $48.50 (remember that you already paid taxes on the $33). The mutual fund will report on Form 1099-B that you sold 103 shares for $1081.50 and that you bought the 103 shares for an average price of $1033/103 = $10.029 per share. The difference is taxable income to you. If you sell the 103 shares for $9 per share (say), then you get $927 out of an investment of $1033 for a capital loss of $106. This will be reported to you on Form 1099-B and you will enter the amounts on Schedule D of Form 1040 as a capital loss. What you actually pay taxes on is the net capital gain, if any, after combining all your capital gains and losses for the year. If the net is a loss, you can deduct up to $3000 in a year, and carry the rest forward to later years to offset capital gains in later years. But, your unrealized capital gains or losses (those that occur because the mutual fund share price goes up and down like a yoyo while you grin or grit your teeth and hang on to your shares) are not reported or deducted or taxed anywhere. It is more complicated when you don't sell all the shares you own in the mutual fund or if you sell shares within one year of buying them, but let's stick to simple cases." } ]

[ { "docid": "491472", "title": "", "text": "\"Determine which fund company issues the fund. In this case, a search reveals the fund name to be Vanguard Dividend Growth Fund from Vanguard Funds. Locate information for the fund on the fund company's web site. Here is the overview page for VDIGX. In the fund information, look for information about distributions. In the case of VDIGX, the fourth tab to the right of \"\"Overview\"\" is \"\"Distributions\"\". See here. At the top: Distributions for this fund are scheduled Semi-Annually The actual distribution history should give you some clues as to when. Failing that, ask your broker or the fund company directly. On \"\"distribution\"\" vs. \"\"dividend\"\": When a mutual fund spins off periodic cash, it is generally not called a \"\"dividend\"\", but rather a \"\"distribution\"\". The terminology is different because a distribution can be made up of more than one kind of payout. Dividends are just one kind. Capital gains, interest, and return of capital are other kinds of cash that can be distributed. While cash is cash, the nature of each varies for tax purposes and so they are classified differently.\"" }, { "docid": "287923", "title": "", "text": "\"Offset against taxable gains means that the amount - $25 million in this case - can be used to reduce another sum that the company would otherwise have to pay tax on. Suppose the company had made a profit of $100 million on some other investments. At some point, they are likely to have to pay corporation tax on that amount before being able to distribute it as a cash dividend to shareholders. However if they can offset the $25 million, then they will only have to pay tax on $75 million. This is quite normal as you usually only pay tax on the aggregate of your gains and losses. If corporation tax is about 32% that would explain the claimed saving of approximately $8 million. It sounds like the Plaintiffs want the stock to be sold on the market to get that tax saving. Presumably they believe that distributing it directly would not have the same effect because of the way the tax rules work. I don't know if the Plaintiffs are right or not, but if they are the difference would probably come about due to the stock being treated as a \"\"realized loss\"\" in the case where they sell it but not in the case where they distribute it. It's also possible - though this is all very speculative - that if the loss isn't realised when they distribute it directly, then the \"\"cost basis\"\" of the shareholders would be the price the company originally paid for the stock, rather than the value at the time they receive it. That in turn could mean a tax advantage for the shareholders.\"" }, { "docid": "214358", "title": "", "text": "Here is a quote from the IRS website on this topic: You may be able to deduct premiums paid for medical and dental insurance and qualified long-term care insurance for yourself, your spouse, and your dependents. The insurance can also cover your child who was under age 27 at the end of 2011, even if the child was not your dependent. A child includes your son, daughter, stepchild, adopted child, or foster child. A foster child is any child placed with you by an authorized placement agency or by judgment, decree, or other order of any court of competent jurisdiction. One of the following statements must be true. You were self-employed and had a net profit for the year reported on Schedule C (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Business; Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040), Net Profit From Business; or Schedule F (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Farming. You were a partner with net earnings from self-employment for the year reported on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065), Partner's Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc., box 14, code A. You used one of the optional methods to figure your net earnings from self-employment on Schedule SE. You received wages in 2011 from an S corporation in which you were a more-than-2% shareholder. Health insurance premiums paid or reimbursed by the S corporation are shown as wages on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. The insurance plan must be established, or considered to be established as discussed in the following bullets, under your business. For self-employed individuals filing a Schedule C, C-EZ, or F, a policy can be either in the name of the business or in the name of the individual. For partners, a policy can be either in the name of the partnership or in the name of the partner. You can either pay the premiums yourself or your partnership can pay them and report the premium amounts on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) as guaranteed payments to be included in your gross income. However, if the policy is in your name and you pay the premiums yourself, the partnership must reimburse you and report the premium amounts on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) as guaranteed payments to be included in your gross income. Otherwise, the insurance plan will not be considered to be established under your business. For more-than-2% shareholders, a policy can be either in the name of the S corporation or in the name of the shareholder. You can either pay the premiums yourself or your S corporation can pay them and report the premium amounts on Form W-2 as wages to be included in your gross income. However, if the policy is in your name and you pay the premiums yourself, the S corporation must reimburse you and report the premium amounts on Form W-2 as wages to be included in your gross income. Otherwise, the insurance plan will not be considered to be established under your business. Medicare premiums you voluntarily pay to obtain insurance in your name that is similar to qualifying private health insurance can be used to figure the deduction. If you previously filed returns without using Medicare premiums to figure the deduction, you can file timely amended returns to refigure the deduction. For more information, see Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Amounts paid for health insurance coverage from retirement plan distributions that were nontaxable because you are a retired public safety officer cannot be used to figure the deduction. Take the deduction on Form 1040, line 29." }, { "docid": "162916", "title": "", "text": "In the absence of a country designation where the mutual fund is registered, the question cannot be fully answered. For US mutual funds, the N.A.V per share is calculated each day after the close of the stock exchanges and all purchase and redemption requests received that day are transacted at this share price. So, the price of the mutual fund shares for April 2016 is not enough information: you need to specify the date more accurately. Your calculation of what you get from the mutual fund is incorrect because in the US, declared mutual fund dividends are net of the expense ratio. If the declared dividend is US$ 0.0451 per share, you get a cash payout of US$ 0.0451 for each share that you own: the expense ratio has already been subtracted before the declared dividend is calculated. The N.A.V. price of the mutual fund also falls by the amount of the per-share dividend (assuming that the price of all the fund assets (e.g. shares of stocks, bonds etc) does not change that day). Thus. if you have opted to re-invest your dividend in the same fund, your holding has the same value as before, but you own more shares of the mutual fund (which have a lower price per share). For exchange-traded funds, the rules are slightly different. In other jurisdictions, the rules might be different too." }, { "docid": "209838", "title": "", "text": "The short answer is that you would want to use the net inflow or net outflow, aka profit or loss. In my experience, you've got a couple different uses for IRR and that may be driving the confusion. Pretty much the same formula, but just coming at it from different angles. Thinking about a stock or mutual fund investment, you could project a scenario with an up-front investment (net outflow) in the first period and then positive returns (dividends, then final sale proceeds, each a net inflow) in subsequent periods. This is a model that more closely follows some of the logic you laid out. Thinking about a business project or investment, you tend to see more complicated and less smooth cashflows. For example, you may have a large up-front capital expenditure in the first period, then have net profit (revenue less ongoing maintenance expense), then another large capital outlay, and so on. In both cases you would want to base your analysis on the net inflow or net outflow in each period. It just depends on the complexity of the cashflows trend as to whether you see a straightforward example (initial payment, then ongoing net inflows), or a less straightforward example with both inflows and outflows. One other thing to note - you would only want to include those costs that are applicable to the project. So you would not want to include the cost of overhead that would exist even if you did not undertake the project." }, { "docid": "337993", "title": "", "text": "\"This answer is about the USA. Each time you sell a security (a stock or a bond) or some other asset, you are expected to pay tax on the net gain. It doesn't matter whether you use a broker or mutual fund to make the sale. You still owe the tax. Net capital gain is defined this way: Gross sale prices less (broker fees for selling + cost of buying the asset) The cost of buying the asset is called the \"\"basis price.\"\" You, or your broker, needs to keep track of the basis price for each share. This is easy when you're just getting started investing. It stays easy if you're careful about your record keeping. You owe the capital gains tax whenever you sell an asset, whether or not you reinvest the proceeds in something else. If your capital gains are modest, you can pay all the taxes at the end of the year. If they are larger -- for example if they exceed your wage earnings -- you should pay quarterly estimated tax. The tax authorities ding you for a penalty if you wait to pay five- or six-figure tax bills without paying quarterly estimates. You pay NET capital gains tax. If one asset loses money and another makes money, you pay on your gains minus your losses. If you have more losses than gains in a particular year, you can carry forward up to $3,000 (I think). You can't carry forward tens of thousands in capital losses. Long term and short term gains are treated separately. IRS Schedule B has places to plug in all those numbers, and the tax programs (Turbo etc) do too. Dividend payments are also taxable when they are paid. Those aren't capital gains. They go on Schedule D along with interest payments. The same is true for a mutual fund. If the fund has Ford shares in it, and Ford pays $0.70 per share in March, that's a dividend payment. If the fund managers decide to sell Ford and buy Tesla in June, the selling of Ford shares will be a cap-gains taxable event for you. The good news: the mutual fund managers send you a statement sometime in February or March of each year telling what you should put on your tax forms. This is great. They add it all up for you. They give you a nice consolidated tax statement covering everything: dividends, their buying and selling activity on your behalf, and any selling they did when you withdrew money from the fund for any purpose. Some investment accounts like 401(k) accounts are tax free. You don't pay any tax on those accounts -- capital gains, dividends, interest -- until you withdraw the money to live on after you retire. Then that money is taxed as if it were wage income. If you want an easy and fairly reliable way to invest, and don't want to do a lot of tax-form scrambling, choose a couple of different mutual funds, put money into them, and leave it there. They'll send you consolidated tax statements once a year. Download them into your tax program and you're done. You mentioned \"\"riding out bad times in cash.\"\" No, no, NOT a good idea. That investment strategy almost guarantees you will sell when the market is going down and buy when it's going up. That's \"\"sell low, buy high.\"\" It's a loser. Not even Warren Buffett can call the top of the market and the bottom. Ned Johnson (Fidelity's founder) DEFINITELY can't.\"" }, { "docid": "514529", "title": "", "text": "\"The 0.14% is coming out of the assets of the fund itself. The expense ratio can be broken down so that on any given day, a portion of the fund's assets are set aside to cover the administrative cost of running the fund. A fund's total return already includes the expense ratio. This depends a lot on what kind of account in which you hold the fund. If you hold the fund in an IRA then you wouldn't have taxes from the fund itself as the account is sheltered. There may be notes in the prospectus and latest annual and semi-annual report of what past distributions have been as remember the fund isn't paying taxes but rather passing that along in the form of distributions to shareholders. Also, there is something to be said for what kinds of investments the fund holds as if the fund is to hold small-cap stocks then it may have to sell the stock if it gets too big and thus would pass on the capital gains to shareholders. Other funds may not have this issue as they invest in large-cap stocks that don't have this problem. Some funds may invest in municipal bonds which would have tax-exempt interest that may be another strategy for lowering taxes in bond funds. Depending on the fund quite a broad range actually. In the case of the Fidelity fund you link, it is a \"\"Fund of funds\"\" and thus has a 0% expense ratio as Fidelity has underlying funds that that fund holds. What level of active management are you expecting, what economies of scale does the fund have to bring down the expense ratio and what expense ratio is typical for that category of fund would come to mind as a few things to consider. That Fidelity link is incorrect as both Morningstar and Fidelity's site list an expense ratio for the fund of funds at .79%. I'd expect an institutional US large-cap index fund to have the lowest expense ratio outside of the fund of fund situation while if I were to pick an actively managed fund that requires a lot of research then the expense ratio may well be much higher though this is where you have to consider what strategy do you want the fund to be employing and how much of a cost are you prepared to accept for that? VTTHX is Vanguard Target Retirement 2035 Fund which has a .14% expense ratio which is using index funds in the fund of funds system.\"" }, { "docid": "399149", "title": "", "text": "\"The article \"\"Best Stock Fund of the Decade: CGM Focus\"\" from the Wall Street Journal in 2009 describe the highest performing mutual fund in the USA between 2000 and 2009. The investor return in the fund (what the shareholders actually earned) was abysmal. Why? Because the fund was so volatile that investors panicked and bailed out, locking in losses instead of waiting them out. The reality is that almost any strategy will lead to success in investing, so long as it is actually followed. A strategy keeps you from making emotional or knee-jerk decisions. (BTW, beware of anyone selling you a strategy by telling you that everyone in the world is a failure except for the few special people who have the privilege of knowing their \"\"secrets.\"\") (Link removed, as it's gone dead)\"" }, { "docid": "522759", "title": "", "text": "Mutual funds (that are not exchange-traded funds) often need to sell some of their securities to get cash when a shareholder redeems some shares. Such transactions incur costs that are paid (proportionally) by all the shareholders in the fund, not just the person requesting redemption, and thus the remaining shareholders get a lower return. (Exchange-traded funds are traded as if they are shares of common stock, and a shareholder seeking a redemption pays the costs of the redemption). For this reason, many mutual funds do not allow redemptions for some period of time after a purchase, or purchases for some period of time after a redemption. The periods of time are chosen by the fund, and are stated in the prospectus (which everyone has acknowledged has been received before an investment was made)." }, { "docid": "1034", "title": "", "text": "\"What you are describing is a very specific case of the more general principle of how dividend payments work. Broadly speaking, if you own common shares in a corporation, you are a part owner of that corporation; you have the right to a % of all of that corporation's assets. The value in having that right is ultimately because the corporation will pay you dividends while it operates, and perhaps a final dividend when it liquidates at the end of its life. This is why your shares have value - because they give you ownership of the business itself. Now, assume you own 1k shares in a company with 100M shares, worth a total of $5B. You own 0.001% of the company, and each of your shares is worth $50; the total value of all your shares is $50k. Assume further that the value of the company includes $1B in cash. If the company pays out a dividend of $1B, it will now be only worth $4B. Your shares have just gone down in value by 20%! But, you have a right to 0.001% of the dividend, which equals a $10k cash payment to you. Your personal holdings are now $40k worth of shares, plus $10k in cash. Except for taxes, financial theory states that whether a corporation pays a dividend or not should not impact the value to the individual shareholder. The difference between a regular corporation and a mutual fund, is that the mutual fund is actually a pool of various investments, and it reports a breakdown of that pool to you in a different way. If you own shares directly in a corporation, the dividends you receive are called 'dividends', even if you bought them 1 minute before the ex-dividend date. But a payment from a mutual fund can be divided between, for example, a flow through of dividends, interest, or a return of capital. If you 'looked inside' your mutual fund you when you bought it, you would see that 40% of its value comes from stock A, 20% comes from stock B, etc etc., including maybe 1% of the value coming from a pile of cash the fund owns at the time you bought your units. In theory the mutual fund could set aside the cash it holds for current owners only, but then it would need to track everyone's cash-ownership on an individual basis, and there would be thousands of different 'unit classes' based on timing. For simplicity, the mutual fund just says \"\"yes, when you bought $50k in units, we were 1/3 of the year towards paying out a $10k dividend. So of that $10k dividend, $3,333k of it is assumed to have been cash at the time you bought your shares. Instead of being an actual 'dividend', it is simply a return of capital.\"\" By doing this, the mutual fund is able to pay you your owed dividend [otherwise you would still have the same number of units but no cash, meaning you would lose overall value], without forcing you to be taxed on that payment. If the mutual fund didn't do this separate reporting, you would have paid $50k to buy $46,667k of shares and $3,333k of cash, and then you would have paid tax on that cash when it was returned to you. Note that this does not \"\"falsely exaggerate the investment return\"\", because a return of capital is not earnings; that's why it is reported separately. Note that a 'close-ended fund' is not a mutual fund, it is actually a single corporation. You own units in a mutual fund, giving you the rights to a proportion of all the fund's various investments. You own shares in a close-ended fund, just as you would own shares in any other corporation. The mutual fund passes along the interest, dividends, etc. from its investments on to you; the close-ended fund may pay dividends directly to its shareholders, based on its own internal dividend policy.\"" }, { "docid": "202960", "title": "", "text": "No. You shorted the stock so you are not a shareholder. If you covered your short, again you are not a shareholder as you statement of account must show. You cannot participate in the net settlement fund." }, { "docid": "290184", "title": "", "text": "&gt;When a Business entity is so large and powerful its failure threatens the safety and well being of the nation it is based / present in. Don't you think we should approach this issue from the other side and say that the government should be enforcing these restrictions pre-emptively? In other words, firms should be prevented from attaining 'too big to fail' status. It seems a bit controversial to me for a government to go in after the fact and forcefully break up a private company. Where was the government beforehand? &gt;The government should be able to forcefully break up the company into smaller groups, or instate laws and regulations that promote competition and allow smaller businesses the ability to compete. How is management distributed across the new entities? How is intellectual property distributed? It is easy to say we should break these companies up, but actually breaking them up is a nightmare. Each of the new companies will need a duplicate management structure, and invariably they will have to source outside resources to fill these roles. If one firm retains the more valuable management then it has an advantage over the other firm. The same goes for intellectual property, or any other rare or unique assets. Shareholders will not receive the same dividend yield from their shares because the two companies once split will lose out on some economies of scale. Should the government compensate shareholders for the lost value of their shares? If not, why not and how is this different from the government directly seizing assets of the shareholders even though they have not committed any crime? Bear in mind nearly every American citizen owns shares in these companies through their retirement funding and so any loss in market cap will affect normal people, not just rich investors. &gt;National preservation. Once again, I think we need to be asking a different question: how did these firms come to exist in the first place? Its one thing to turn around and plead to the government to break the firms up but it as the government itself which was asleep on the job and allowed the firm to reach this point anyway. Should we really trust the government (who let the firms come into being) to break them up again?" }, { "docid": "41176", "title": "", "text": "\"What does ETFs have to do with this or Amazon? Actually, investing in ETFs means you are killing actively managed Mutual Funds (managed by people, fund managers) to get an average return (and loss) of the market that a computer manage instead of a person. And the ETF will surely have Amazon stocks because they are part of the index. I only invest in actively managed mutual funds. Yes, most actively managed mutual funds can't do better than the index, but if you work a bit harder, you can find the many that do much better than the \"\"average\"\" that an index give you.\"" }, { "docid": "346345", "title": "", "text": "If you want to go far upstream, you can get mutual fund NAV and dividend data from the Nasdaq Mutual Fund Quotation Service (MFQS). This isn't for end-users but rather is offered as a part of the regulatory framework. Not surprisingly, there is a fee for data access. From Nasdaq's MFQS specifications page: To promote market transparency, Nasdaq operates the Mutual Fund Quotation Service (MFQS). MFQS is designed to facilitate the collection and dissemination of daily price, dividends and capital distributions data for mutual funds, money market funds, unit investment trusts (UITs), annuities and structured products." }, { "docid": "315345", "title": "", "text": "The price of a share of a mutual fund is its Net Asset Value (nav). Before the payout of dividends and capital gain distribution, the fund was holding both stock shares and cash that resulted from dividends and capital gains. After the payout, a share only holds the stock. Therefore once the cash is paid out the NAV must drop by the same amount as was paid out per share. Thus of course assumes no other activity or valuation changes of the underlying assets. Regular market activity will obscure what the payout does to the NAV." }, { "docid": "104198", "title": "", "text": "Returns reported by mutual funds to shareholders, google, etc. are computed after all the funds' costs, including Therefore the returns you see on google finance are the returns you would actually have gotten." }, { "docid": "350317", "title": "", "text": "Generally, ETFs and mutual funds don't pay taxes (although there are some cases where they do, and some countries where it is a common case). What happens is, the fund reports the portion of the gain attributed to each investor, and the investor pays the tax. In the US, this is reported to you on 1099-DIV as capital gains distribution, and can be either short term (as in the scenario you described), long term, or a mix of both. It doesn't mean you actually get a distribution, though, but if you don't - it reduces your basis." }, { "docid": "454537", "title": "", "text": "\"It might be best to step back and look at the core information first. You're evaluating an LLC vs a Corporation (both corporate entities). Both have one or more members, and both are seen similarly (emphasis on SIMILAR here, they're not all the same) to the IRS. Specifically, LLC's can opt for a pass-through tax system, basically seen by the IRS the same way an S-Corp is. Put another way, you can be taxed as a corporate entity, or it's P/L statements can \"\"flow through\"\" to your personal taxes. When you opt for a flow-through, the business files and you get a separate schedule to tie into your taxes. You should also look at filing a business expense schedule (Schedule C) on your taxes to claim legitimate business expenses (good reference point here). While there are several differences (see this, and this, and this) between these entities, the best determination on which structure is best for you is usually if you have full time employ while you're running the business. S corps limit shares, shareholders and some deductions, but taxes are only paid by the shareholders. C corps have employees, no restrictions on types or number of stock, and no restrictions on the number of shareholders. However, this means you would become an employee of your business (you have to draw monies from somewhere) and would be subject to paying taxes on your income, both as an individual, and as a business (employment taxes such as Social Security, Medicare, etc). From the broad view of the IRS, in most cases an LLC and a Corp are the same type of entity (tax wise). In fact, most of the differences between LLCs and Corps occur in how Profits/losses are distributed between members (LLCs are arbitrary to a point, and Corps base this on shares). Back to your question IMHO, you should opt for an LLC. This allows you to work out a partnership with your co-worker, and allows you to disburse funds in a more flexible manner. From Wikipedia : A limited liability company with multiple members that elects to be taxed as partnership may specially allocate the members' distributive share of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit via the company operating agreement on a basis other than the ownership percentage of each member so long as the rules contained in Treasury Regulation (26 CFR) 1.704-1 are met. S corporations may not specially allocate profits, losses and other tax items under US tax law. Hope this helps, please do let me know if you have further questions. As always, this is not legal or tax advice, just what I've learned in setting several LLCs and Corporate structures up over the years. EDIT: As far as your formulas go, the tax rate will be based upon your personal income, for any pass through entity. This means that the same monies earned from and LLC or an S-corp, with the same expenses and the same pass-through options will be taxed the same. More reading: LLC and the law (Google Group)\"" }, { "docid": "93882", "title": "", "text": "\"I hope a wall of text with citations qualifies as \"\"relatively easy.\"\" Many of these studies are worth quoting at length. Long story short, a great deal of research has found that actively-managed funds underperform market indexes and passively-managed funds because of their high turnover and higher fees, among other factors. Longer answer: Chris is right in stating that survivorship bias presents a problem for such research; however, there are several academic papers that address the survivorship problem, as well as the wider subject of active vs. passive performance. I'll try to provide a brief summary of some of the relevant literature. The seminal paper that started the debate is Michael Jensen's 1968 paper titled \"\"The Performance of Mutual Funds in the Period 1945-1964\"\". This is the paper where Jensen's alpha, the ubiquitous measure of the performance of mutual fund managers, was first defined. Using a dataset of 115 mutual fund managers, Jensen finds that The evidence on mutual fund performance indicates not only that these 115 mutual funds were on average not able to predict security prices well enough to outperform a buy-the-market-and-hold policy, but also that there is very little evidence that any individual fund was able to do significantly better than that which we expected from mere random chance. Although this paper doesn't address problems of survivorship, it's notable because, among other points, it found that managers who actively picked stocks performed worse even when fund expenses were ignored. Since actively-managed funds tend to have higher expenses than passive funds, the actual picture looks even worse for actively managed funds. A more recent paper on the subject, which draws similar conclusions, is Martin Gruber's 1996 paper \"\"Another puzzle: The growth in actively managed mutual funds\"\". Gruber calls it \"\"a puzzle\"\" that investors still invest in actively-managed funds, given that their performance on average has been inferior to that of index funds. He addresses survivorship bias by tracking funds across the entire sample, including through mergers. Since most mutual funds that disappear are merged into existing funds, he assumes that investors in a fund that disappear choose to continue investing their money in the fund that resulted from the merger. Using this assumption and standard measures of mutual fund performance, Gruber finds that mutual funds underperform an appropriately weighted average of the indices by about 65 basis points per year. Expense ratios for my sample averaged 113 basis points a year. These numbers suggest that active management adds value, but that mutual funds charge the investor more than the value added. Another nice paper is Mark Carhart's 1997 paper \"\"On persistence in mutual fund performance\"\" uses a sample free of survivorship bias because it includes \"\"all known equity funds over this period.\"\" It's worth quoting parts of this paper in full: I demonstrate that expenses have at least a one-for-one negative impact on fund performance, and that turnover also negatively impacts performance. ... Trading reduces performance by approximately 0.95% of the trade's market value. In reference to expense ratios and other fees, Carhart finds that The investment costs of expense ratios, transaction costs, and load fees all have a direct, negative impact on performance. The study also finds that funds with abnormally high returns last year usually have higher-than-expected returns next year, but not in the following years, because of momentum effects. Lest you think the news is all bad, Russ Wermer's 2000 study \"\"Mutual fund performance: An empirical decomposition into stock‐picking talent, style, transactions costs, and expenses\"\" provides an interesting result. He finds that many actively-managed mutual funds hold stocks that outperform the market, even though the net return of the funds themselves underperforms passive funds and the market itself. On a net-return level, the funds underperform broad market indexes by one percent a year. Of the 2.3% difference between the returns on stock holdings and the net returns of the funds, 0.7% per year is due to the lower average returns of the nonstock holdings of the funds during the period (relative to stocks). The remaining 1.6% per year is split almost evenly between the expense ratios and the transaction costs of the funds. The final paper I'll cite is a 2008 paper by Fama and French (of the Fama-French model covered in business schools) titled, appropriately, \"\"Mutual Fund Performance\"\". The paper is pretty technical, and somewhat above my level at this time of night, but the authors state one of their conclusions bluntly quite early on: After costs (that is, in terms of net returns to investors) active investment is a negative sum game. Emphasis mine. In short, expense ratios, transaction costs, and other fees quickly diminish the returns to active investment. They find that The [value-weight] portfolio of mutual funds that invest primarily in U.S. equities is close to the market portfolio, and estimated before fees and expenses, its alpha is close to zero. Since the [value-weight] portfolio of funds produces an α close to zero in gross returns, the alpha estimated on the net returns to investors is negative by about the amount of fees and expenses. This implies that the higher the fees, the farther alpha decreases below zero. Since actively-managed mutual funds tend to have higher expense ratios than passively-managed index funds, it's safe to say that their net return to the investor is worse than a market index itself. I don't know of any free datasets that would allow you to research this, but one highly-regarded commercial dataset is the CRSP Survivor-Bias-Free US Mutual Fund Database from the Center for Research in Security Prices at the University of Chicago. In financial research, CRSP is one of the \"\"gold standards\"\" for historical market data, so if you can access that data (perhaps for a firm or academic institution, if you're affiliated with one that has access), it's one way you could run some numbers yourself.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "212394", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll try to answer using your original example. First, let me restate your assumptions, slightly modified: The mutual fund has: Note that I say the \"\"mutual fund has\"\" those gains and losses. That's because they occur inside the mutual fund and not directly to you as a shareholder. I use \"\"realized\"\" gains and losses because the only gains and losses handled this way are those causes by actual asset (stock) sales within the fund (as directed by fund management). Changes in the value of fund holdings that are not sold are not included in this. As a holder of the fund, you learn the values of X, Y, and Z after the end of the year when the fund management reports the values. For gains, you will also typically see the values reported on your 1099-DIV under \"\"capital gains distributions\"\". For example, your 1099-DIV for year 3 will have the value Z for capital gains (besides reporting any ordinary dividends in another box). Your year 1 1099 will have $0 \"\"capital gains distributions\"\" shown because of the rule you highlighted in bold: net realized losses are not distributed. This capital loss however can later be used to the mutual fund holder's tax advantage. The fund's internal accounting carries forward the loss, and uses it to offset later realized gains. Thus your year 2 1099 will have a capital gain distribution of (Y-X), not Y, thus recognizing the loss which occurred. Thus the loss is taken into account. Note that for capital gains you, the holder, pay no tax in year 1, pay tax in year 2 on Y-X, and pay tax in year 3 on Z. All the above is the way it works whether or not you sell the shares immediately after the end of year 3 or you hold the shares for many more years. Whenever you do sell the shares, you will have a gain or loss, but that is different from the fund's realized losses we have been talking about (X, Y, and Z).\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "217499", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't know if it's common or necessary to include capital stock as a liability? Yes, if you look at the title of the nonasset part of the balance sheet it actually is titled \"\"Liabilities and Shareholders' Equity\"\". Your capital stock is a component of Equity. This sounds like it was reported in a reasonable manner. \"\"$2,582 listed under Loans from Shareholders (Line 19).\"\" Did you have a basis issue with your distributions? That is did you take shareholder distributions more than your adjusted basis that you have been taxed on? I have seen the practice of considering distributions in excess of basis as short term loans to prevent the additional taxation of the excess distribution. Be careful when you adjust this entry, your balance sheet had to roll from one year to the next. You must have a reasonable transaction to substantiate the removal of the shareholder loan.\"" }, { "docid": "527939", "title": "", "text": "\"The Roth vs not debate is irrelevant to the question. It doesn't matter where your emergency fund is kept, as long as it is liquid and safe. I said it before in an answer to another question: your emergency fund is not an investment -- it's your safety net This answer also says it well: an \"\"emergency fund\"\" is just that... for emergencies... NOT investment. While it \"\"hurts\"\" not to have your emergency money making more money... its MORE IMPORTANT to have quick access to it. So at TD Ameritrade, just park it in their FDIC deposit account. It will not earn any meaningful interest (at least until rates rise), but you'll be able to have access to it when you need it. Note that I would caution against putting it in a money market mutual fund. They're safer than many other investments, but they're not FDIC insured against loss and there is a potential for temporary loss of liquidity. In late 2008 when the credit markets collapsed, a lot of people suddenly became unemployed -- and needed access to their emergency funds. When Lehman Brothers went bust in September, the Reserve Primary Fund (with billions of dollars in their fund) \"\"broke the buck\"\" -- they lowered the price of shares below $1, meaning investors lost principal. The worst part is that investors were not as liquid as they wanted to be: the fund froze and it was hard to get money out. The lesson to take away from this is that one of the times you're likely to need access to your emergency fund is during a macroeconomic crisis. This is also the time when any investment that isn't guaranteed safe may potentially be (at least temporarily) unavailable or decline in value. Emergency funds should be 100% government insured. When you have your Roth funded to the point where there's extra money beyond the emergency fund, you can start investing in higher-yielding vehicles: stock or bond index ETFs would be a good start. But then that part of your Roth starts to look like a retirement account and not an emergency fund. If it were me, I'd open a Roth at a stable local bank and just keep it in their FDIC insured money market deposit account. Then if I wanted a slight boost, I might put the \"\"upper half\"\" of my emergency fund into short term CDs, but even CDs aren't worth much at the moment.\"" }, { "docid": "208215", "title": "", "text": "Normally, you don't pay capital gains tax until you actually realize a capital gain. However, there are some exceptions. The exception that affected Eduardo Saverin is the expatriation tax, or exit tax. If you leave a country and are no longer a tax resident, your former country taxes you on your unrealized capital gains from the period that you were a tax resident of that country. There are several countries that have an expatriation tax, including the United States. Saverin left the U.S. before the Facebook IPO. Saverin was perhaps already planning on leaving the U.S. (he is originally from Brazil and has investments in Asia), so leaving before the IPO limited the amount of capital gains tax he had to pay upon his exit. (Source: Wall Street Journal: So How Much Did He Really Save?) Another situation that might be considered an exception and affects a lot of us is capital gain distributions inside a mutual fund. When mutual fund managers sell investments inside the fund and realize gains, they have to distribute those gains among all the mutual fund investors. This often takes the form of additional shares of the mutual fund that you are given, and you have to pay capital gains tax on these distributions. As a result, you can invest in a mutual fund, leave your money there and not sell, but have to pay capital gains tax anyway. In fact, you could owe capital gains tax on the distributions even if the value of your mutual fund investment has gone down." }, { "docid": "41675", "title": "", "text": "The Paragraph talks about dividends given by Mutual Funds. Say a fund has NAV of $ 10, as the value of the underlying security grows, the value of the fund would also grow, lets say it becomes $ 12 in 2 months. Now if the Mutual Fund decides to pay out a dividend of $ 1 to all unit holder, then post the distribution of dividend, the value of the Fund would become to $ 11. Thus if you are say investing on 1-April and know that dividends of $1 would be paid on 5-April [the divided distribution date is published typically weeks in advance], if you are hoping to make $1 in 5 days, that is not going to happen. On 6-April you would get $1, but the value of the fund would now be $11 from the earlier $12. This may not be wise as in some countries you would ending up paying tax on $1. Even in shares, the concept is similar, however the price may get corrected immediately and one may not actually see it going down by $1 due to market dynamics." }, { "docid": "1034", "title": "", "text": "\"What you are describing is a very specific case of the more general principle of how dividend payments work. Broadly speaking, if you own common shares in a corporation, you are a part owner of that corporation; you have the right to a % of all of that corporation's assets. The value in having that right is ultimately because the corporation will pay you dividends while it operates, and perhaps a final dividend when it liquidates at the end of its life. This is why your shares have value - because they give you ownership of the business itself. Now, assume you own 1k shares in a company with 100M shares, worth a total of $5B. You own 0.001% of the company, and each of your shares is worth $50; the total value of all your shares is $50k. Assume further that the value of the company includes $1B in cash. If the company pays out a dividend of $1B, it will now be only worth $4B. Your shares have just gone down in value by 20%! But, you have a right to 0.001% of the dividend, which equals a $10k cash payment to you. Your personal holdings are now $40k worth of shares, plus $10k in cash. Except for taxes, financial theory states that whether a corporation pays a dividend or not should not impact the value to the individual shareholder. The difference between a regular corporation and a mutual fund, is that the mutual fund is actually a pool of various investments, and it reports a breakdown of that pool to you in a different way. If you own shares directly in a corporation, the dividends you receive are called 'dividends', even if you bought them 1 minute before the ex-dividend date. But a payment from a mutual fund can be divided between, for example, a flow through of dividends, interest, or a return of capital. If you 'looked inside' your mutual fund you when you bought it, you would see that 40% of its value comes from stock A, 20% comes from stock B, etc etc., including maybe 1% of the value coming from a pile of cash the fund owns at the time you bought your units. In theory the mutual fund could set aside the cash it holds for current owners only, but then it would need to track everyone's cash-ownership on an individual basis, and there would be thousands of different 'unit classes' based on timing. For simplicity, the mutual fund just says \"\"yes, when you bought $50k in units, we were 1/3 of the year towards paying out a $10k dividend. So of that $10k dividend, $3,333k of it is assumed to have been cash at the time you bought your shares. Instead of being an actual 'dividend', it is simply a return of capital.\"\" By doing this, the mutual fund is able to pay you your owed dividend [otherwise you would still have the same number of units but no cash, meaning you would lose overall value], without forcing you to be taxed on that payment. If the mutual fund didn't do this separate reporting, you would have paid $50k to buy $46,667k of shares and $3,333k of cash, and then you would have paid tax on that cash when it was returned to you. Note that this does not \"\"falsely exaggerate the investment return\"\", because a return of capital is not earnings; that's why it is reported separately. Note that a 'close-ended fund' is not a mutual fund, it is actually a single corporation. You own units in a mutual fund, giving you the rights to a proportion of all the fund's various investments. You own shares in a close-ended fund, just as you would own shares in any other corporation. The mutual fund passes along the interest, dividends, etc. from its investments on to you; the close-ended fund may pay dividends directly to its shareholders, based on its own internal dividend policy.\"" }, { "docid": "370244", "title": "", "text": "Behind the scenes, mutual funds and ETFs are very similar. Both can vary widely in purpose and policies, which is why understanding the prospectus before investing is so important. Since both mutual funds and ETFs cover a wide range of choices, any discussion of management, assets, or expenses when discussing the differences between the two is inaccurate. Mutual funds and ETFs can both be either managed or index-based, high expense or low expense, stock or commodity backed. Method of investing When you invest in a mutual fund, you typically set up an account with the mutual fund company and send your money directly to them. There is often a minimum initial investment required to open your mutual fund account. Mutual funds sometimes, but not always, have a load, which is a fee that you pay either when you put money in or take money out. An ETF is a mutual fund that is traded like a stock. To invest, you need a brokerage account that can buy and sell stocks. When you invest, you pay a transaction fee, just as you would if you purchase a stock. There isn't really a minimum investment required as there is with a traditional mutual fund, but you usually need to purchase whole shares of the ETF. There is inherently no load with ETFs. Tax treatment Mutual funds and ETFs are usually taxed the same. However, capital gain distributions, which are taxable events that occur while you are holding the investment, are more common with mutual funds than they are with ETFs, due to the way that ETFs are structured. (See Fidelity: ETF versus mutual funds: Tax efficiency for more details.) That having been said, in an index fund, capital gain distributions are rare anyway, due to the low turnover of the fund. Conclusion When comparing a mutual fund and ETF with similar objectives and expenses and deciding which to choose, it more often comes down to convenience. If you already have a brokerage account and you are planning on making a one-time investment, an ETF could be more convenient. If, on the other hand, you have more than the minimum initial investment required and you also plan on making additional regular monthly investments, a traditional no-load mutual fund account could be more convenient and less expensive." }, { "docid": "431268", "title": "", "text": "Have you changed how you handle fund distributions? While it is typical to re-invest the distributions to buy additional shares, this may not make sense if you want to get a little cash to use for the home purchase. While you may already handle this, it isn't mentioned in the question. While it likely won't make a big difference, it could be a useful factor to consider, potentially if you ponder how risky is it having your down payment fluctuate in value from day to day. I'd just think it is more convenient to take the distributions in cash and that way have fewer transactions to report in the following year. Unless you have a working crystal ball, there is no way to definitively predict if the market will be up or down in exactly 2 years from now. Thus, I suggest taking the distributions in cash and investing in something much lower risk like a money market mutual fund." }, { "docid": "328341", "title": "", "text": "An LLC does not pay taxes on profits. As regards tax a LLC is treated as a Partnership, but instead of partners they are called members. The LLC is a passthrough entity. As in Partnerships members can have a different percentage ownership to the share of profits. The LLC reports the share of the profits of the members. Then the members pay the tax as an individual. The profit of the LLC is deemed to have been transferred to the members regardless of any funds transferred. This is often the case as the LLC may need to retain the profits for use in the business. Late paying customers may mean there is less cash in the LLC than is available to distribute. The first answer is wrong, only a C corporation files a tax return. All other corporate structures are passthrough entities. The C corporation pays corporation tax and is not required to pass any funds to the shareholders. If the C corporation passes funds to the shareholders this is a dividend, and taxable to the shareholder, hence double taxation." }, { "docid": "350317", "title": "", "text": "Generally, ETFs and mutual funds don't pay taxes (although there are some cases where they do, and some countries where it is a common case). What happens is, the fund reports the portion of the gain attributed to each investor, and the investor pays the tax. In the US, this is reported to you on 1099-DIV as capital gains distribution, and can be either short term (as in the scenario you described), long term, or a mix of both. It doesn't mean you actually get a distribution, though, but if you don't - it reduces your basis." }, { "docid": "260956", "title": "", "text": "I'd be very surprised (but feel free to prove me wrong) if he advised people to pay in physical cash. He probably means to not take out debt. In the world of M&amp;A, the term cash is used a bit differently. You can fund a deal with cash, stock, or a combination of both. However, there are different sources of cash. You can have funds in your bank account, or you can go borrow funds in the debt market. So what this means for this deal is that AMZN shareholders will not be giving up any equity for the acquisition. They will either use cash that is in their bank accounts or go to the debt markets, raise debt, and use the proceeds to pay WFM shareholders. No one shows up with physical cash in either case. It's wired over to the people who will then distribute the money to the shareholders." }, { "docid": "146177", "title": "", "text": "It looks like it has to deal with an expiration of rights as a taxable event. I found this link via google, which states that Not only does the PSEC shareholder have a TAXABLE EVENT, but he has TWO taxable events. The net effect of these two taxable events has DIFFERENT CONSEQUENCES for DIFFERENT SHAREHOLDERS depending upon their peculiar TAX SITUATIONS. The CORRECT STATEMENT of the tax treatment of unexercised PYLDR rights is in the N-2 on page 32, which reads in relevant part as follows: “…, if you receive a Subscription Right from PSEC and do not sell or exercise that right before it expires, you should generally expect to have (1) taxable dividend income equal to the fair market value (if any) of the Subscription Right on the date of its distribution by PSEC to the extent of PSEC’s current and accumulated earnings and profits and (2) a capital loss upon the expiration of such right in an amount equal to your adjusted tax basis (if any) in such right (which should generally equal the fair market value (if any) of the Subscription Right on the date of its distribution by PSEC).” Please note, for quarterly “estimated taxes” purposes, that the DIVIDEND taxable events occur “ON THE DATE OF ITS DISTRIBUTION BY PSEC (my emphasis),” while the CAPITAL LOSS occurs “UPON EXPIRATION OF SUCH RIGHT” (my emphasis). They do NOT occur on 31 December 2015 or some other date. However, to my knowledge, neither of the taxable events he mentions would be taxed by 4/15. If you are worried about it, I would recommend seeing a tax professional. Otherwise I'd wait to see the tax forms sent by your brokerage." }, { "docid": "131224", "title": "", "text": "\"A stock insurance company is structured like a “normal” company. It has shareholders (that are the company's investors), who elect a board of directors, who select the senior executive(s), who manage the people who run the actual company. The directors (and thus the executives and employees) have a legal responsibility to manage the company in a way which is beneficial for the shareholders, since the shareholders are the ultimate owner of the company. A mutual insurance company is similar, except that the people holding policies are also the shareholders. That is, the policyholders are the ultimate owners of the company, and there generally aren't separate shareholders who are just “investing” in the company. These policyholder-shareholders elect the board of directors, who select the senior executive(s), who manage the people who run the actual company. In practice, it probably doesn't really make a whole lot of difference, since even if you're just a \"\"customer\"\" and not an \"\"owner\"\" of the company, the company is still going to want to attract customers and act in a reasonable way toward them. Also, insurance companies are generally pretty heavily regulated in terms of what they can do, because governments really like them to remain solvent. It may be comforting to know that in a mutual insurance company the higher-ups are explicitly supposed to be working in your best interest, though, rather than in the interest of some random investors. Some might object that being a shareholder may not give you a whole lot more rights than you had before. See, for example, this article from the Boston Globe, “At mutual insurance firms, big money for insiders but no say for ‘owners’ — policyholders”: It has grown into something else entirely: an opaque, poorly understood, and often immensely profitable world in which some executives and insiders operate with minimal scrutiny and, no coincidence, often reap maximum personal rewards. Policyholders, despite their status as owners, have no meaningful oversight of how mutual companies spend their money — whether to lower rates, pay dividends, or fund executive salaries and perks — and few avenues to challenge such decisions. Another reason that one might not like the conversion is the specific details of how the current investor-shareholders are being paid back for their investment in the process of the conversion to mutual ownership, and what that might do to the funds on hand that are supposed to be there to keep the firm solvent for the policyholders. From another Boston Globe article on the conversion of SBLI to a mutual company, “Insurer SBLI wants to get banks out of its business,” professor Robert Wright is cautiously optimistic but wants to ensure the prior shareholders aren't overpaid: Robert Wright, a professor in South Dakota who has studied insurance companies and owns an SBLI policy, said he would prefer the insurer to be a mutual company that doesn’t have to worry about the short-term needs of shareholders. But he wants to ensure that SBLI doesn’t overpay the banks for their shares. “It’s fine, as long as it’s a fair price,” he said. That article also gives SBLI's president's statement as to why they think it's a good thing for policyholders: If the banks remained shareholders, they would be likely to demand a greater share of the profits and eat into the dividends the insurance company currently pays to the 536,000 policyholders, about half of whom live in Massachusetts, said Jim Morgan, president of Woburn-based SBLI. “We’re trying to protect the policyholders from having the dividends diluted,” Morgan said. I'm not sure there's an obvious pros/cons list for either way, but I'd think that I'd prefer the mutual approach, just on the principle that the policyholders “ought” to be the owners, because the directors (and thus the executives and employees) are then legally required to manage the company in the best interest of the policyholders. I did cast a Yes vote in my proxy on whether SBLI ought to become a mutual company (I'm a SBLI term-life policyholder.) But policy terms aren't changing, and it'd be hard to tell for sure how it'd impact any dividends (I assume the whole-life policies must be the ones to pay dividends) or company solvency either way, since it's not like we'll get to run a scientific experiment trying it out both ways. I doubt you'd have a lot of regrets either way, whether it becomes a mutual company and you wish it hadn't or it doesn't become one and you wish it had.\"" }, { "docid": "125140", "title": "", "text": "\"If you elect to have the company treated as an S corp, the profits/losses of the company will pass through to the shareholders (i.e. you) on a Schedule K-1 form every year. These amounts on the Schedule K-1 are taxable whether or not the company actually distributed the money to you. Typically, the company will distribute profits to the shareholders because they will have to pay taxes on this amount. https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/Small-Business-Taxes/What-is-a-Schedule-K-1-Tax-Form-/INF19204.html So the money held in the company's bank accounts won't appear on your taxes per se, but the profits/losses as reported on the company's tax return will pass through to you on the Schedule K-1. Typically these amounts are taxed as income. Your tax accountant can advise you on how much money you can/should take through regular payroll and how much can be distributed as a shareholder, as well as help you prepare the corporate tax returns and schedule(s) K-1 every year. There are tax advantages to taking money out of the company through distributions instead of payroll, but the amounts can be scrutinized and subject to a criterion of \"\"reasonable compensation\"\", hence my recommendation for a tax accountant.\"" }, { "docid": "308255", "title": "", "text": "Let me first start off by saying that you need to be careful with an S-Corp and defined contribution plans. You might want to consider an LLC or some other entity form, depending on your state and other factors. You should read this entire page on the irs site: S-Corp Retirement Plan FAQ, but here is a small clip: Contributions to a Self-Employed Plan You can’t make contributions to a self-employed retirement plan from your S corporation distributions. Although, as an S corporation shareholder, you receive distributions similar to distributions that a partner receives from a partnership, your shareholder distributions aren’t earned income for retirement plan purposes (see IRC section 1402(a)(2)). Therefore, you also can’t establish a self-employed retirement plan for yourself solely based on being an S corporation shareholder. There are also some issues and cases about reasonable compensation in S-Corp. I recommend you read the IRS site's S Corporation Compensation and Medical Insurance Issues page answers as I see them, but I recommend hiring CPA You should be able to do option B. The limitations are in place for the two different types of contributions: Elective deferrals and Employer nonelective contributions. I am going to make a leap and say your talking about a SEP here, therefore you can't setup one were the employee could contribute (post 1997). If your doing self employee 401k, be careful to not make the contributions yourself. If your wife is employed the by company, here calculation is separate and the company could make a separate contribution for her. The limitation for SEP in 2015 are 25% of employee's compensation or $53,000. Since you will be self employed, you need to calculate your net earnings from self-employment which takes into account the eductible part of your self employment tax and contributions business makes to SEP. Good read on SEPs at IRS site. and take a look at chapter 2 of Publication 560. I hope that helps and I recommend hiring a CPA in your area to help." }, { "docid": "511559", "title": "", "text": "\"While nothing is guaranteed - any stock market or country could collapse tomorrow - if you have a fairly long window (15+ years is certainly long), ETFs are likely to earn you well above inflation. Looking at long term ETFs, you typically see close to 10% annual growth over almost any ten year period in the US, and while I don't know European indexes, they're probably well above inflation at least. The downside of ETFs is that your money is somewhat less liquid than in a savings account, and any given year you might not earn anything - you easily could lose money in a particular year. As such, you shouldn't have money in ETFs that you expect to use in the next few months or year or even a few years, perhaps. But as long as you're willing to play the long game - ie, invest in ETF, don't touch it for 15 years except to reinvest the dividends - as long as you go with someone like Vanguard, and use a very low expense ratio fund (mine are 0.06% and 0.10%, I believe), you are likely in the long term to come out ahead. You can diversify your holdings - hold 10% to 20% in bond funds, for example - if you're concerned about risk; look at how some of the \"\"Target\"\" retirement funds allocate their investments to see how diversification can work [Target retirement funds assume high risk tolerance far out and then as the age grows the risk tolerance drops; don't invest in them, but it can be a good example of how to do it.] All of this does require a tolerance of risk, though, and you have to be able to not touch your funds even if they go down - studies have repeatedly shown that trying to time the market is a net loss for most people, and the best thing you can do when your (diverse) investments go down is stay neutral (talking about large funds here and not individual stocks). I think this answers 3 and 4. For 1, share price AND quantity matter (assuming no splits). This depends somewhat on the fund; but at minimum, funds must dividend to you what they receive as dividends. There are Dividend focused ETFs, which are an interesting topic in themselves; but a regular ETF doesn't usually have all that large of dividends. For more information, investopedia has an article on the subject. Note that there are also capital gains distributions, which are typically distributed to help offset capital gains taxes that may occur from time to time with an ETF. Those aren't really returns - you may have to hand most or all over to the IRS - so don't consider distributions the same way. The share price tracks the total net asset value of the fund divided by the number of shares (roughly, assuming no supply/demand split). This should go up as the stocks the ETF owns go up; overall, this is (for non-dividend ETFs) more often the larger volatility both up and down. For Vanguard's S&P500 ETF which you can see here, there were about $3.50 in dividends over 2014, which works out to about a 2% return ($185-$190 share price). On the other hand, the share price went from around $168 at the beginning of 2014 to $190 at the end of 2014, for a return of 13%. That was during a 'good' year for the market, of course; there will be years where you get 2-3% in dividends and lose money; in 2011 it opened at 116 and closed the year at 115 (I don't have the dividend for that year; certainly lower than 3.5% I'd think, but likely nonzero.) The one caveat here is that you do have stock splits, where they cut the price (say) in half and give you double the shares. That of course is revenue neutral - you have the same value the day after the split as before, net of market movements. All of this is good from a tax point of view, by the way; changes in price don't hit you until you sell the stock/fund (unless the fund has some capital gains), while dividends and distributions do. ETFs are seen as 'tax-friendly' for this reason. For 2, Vanguard is pretty good about this (in the US); I wouldn't necessarily invest monthly, but quarterly shouldn't be a problem. Just pay attention to the fees and figure out what the optimal frequency is (ie, assuming 10% return, what is your break even point). You would want to have some liquid assets anyway, so allow that liquid amount to rise over the quarter, then invest what you don't immediately see a need to use. You can see here Vanguard in the US has no fees for buying shares, but has a minimum of one share; so if you're buying their S&P500 (VOO), you'd need to wait until you had $200 or so to invest in order to invest additional funds.\"" }, { "docid": "209838", "title": "", "text": "The short answer is that you would want to use the net inflow or net outflow, aka profit or loss. In my experience, you've got a couple different uses for IRR and that may be driving the confusion. Pretty much the same formula, but just coming at it from different angles. Thinking about a stock or mutual fund investment, you could project a scenario with an up-front investment (net outflow) in the first period and then positive returns (dividends, then final sale proceeds, each a net inflow) in subsequent periods. This is a model that more closely follows some of the logic you laid out. Thinking about a business project or investment, you tend to see more complicated and less smooth cashflows. For example, you may have a large up-front capital expenditure in the first period, then have net profit (revenue less ongoing maintenance expense), then another large capital outlay, and so on. In both cases you would want to base your analysis on the net inflow or net outflow in each period. It just depends on the complexity of the cashflows trend as to whether you see a straightforward example (initial payment, then ongoing net inflows), or a less straightforward example with both inflows and outflows. One other thing to note - you would only want to include those costs that are applicable to the project. So you would not want to include the cost of overhead that would exist even if you did not undertake the project." }, { "docid": "312821", "title": "", "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.\"" }, { "docid": "193485", "title": "", "text": "\"A nondividend distribution is typically a return of capital; in other words, you're getting money back that you've contributed previously (and thus would have been taxed upon in previous years when those funds were first remunerated to you). Nondividend distributions are nontaxable, so they do not represent income from capital gains, but do effect your cost basis when determining the capital gain/loss once that capital gain/loss is realized. As an example, publicly-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) generally distribute a return of capital back to shareholders throughout the year as a nondividend distribution. This is a return of a portion of the shareholder's original capital investment, not a share of the REITs profits, so it is simply getting a portion of your original investment back, and thus, is not income being received (I like to refer to it as \"\"new income\"\" to differentiate). However, the return of capital does change the cost basis of the original investment, so if one were to then sell the shares of the REIT (in this example), the basis of the original investment has to be adjusted by the nondividend distributions received over the course of ownership (in other words, the cost basis will be reduced when the shares are sold). I'm wondering if the OP could give us some additional information about his/her S-Corp. What type of business is it? In the course of its business and trade activity, does it buy and sell securities (stocks, etc.)? Does it sell assets or business property? Does it own interests in other corporations or partnerships (sales of those interests are one form of capital gain). Long-term capital gains are taxed at rates lower than ordinary income, but the IRS has very specific rules as to what constitutes a capital gain (loss). I hate to answer a question with a question, but we need a little more information before we can weigh-in on whether you have actual capital gains or losses in the course of your S-Corporation trade.\"" }, { "docid": "287537", "title": "", "text": "You do realize that the fund will have management expenses that are likely already factored into the NAV and that when you sell, the NAV will not yet be known, right? There are often fees to run a mutual fund that may be taken as part of managing the fund that are already factored into the Net Asset Value(NAV) of the shares that would be my caution as well as possible fee changes as Dilip Sarwate notes in a comment. Expense ratios are standard for mutual funds, yes. Individual stocks that represent corporations not structured as a mutual fund don't declare a ratio of how much are their costs, e.g. Apple or Google may well invest in numerous other companies but the costs of making those investments won't be well detailed though these companies do have non-investment operations of course. Don't forget to read the fund's prospectus as sometimes a fund will have other fees like account maintenance fees that may be taken out of distributions as well as being aware of how taxes will be handled as you don't specify what kind of account these purchases are being done using." } ]

[ { "docid": "53544", "title": "", "text": "A matching pension scheme is like free money. No wait, it actually IS free money. You are literally earning 100% interest rate on that money the instant you pay it in to the account. That money would have to sit in your credit card account for at least five years to earn that kind of return; five years in which the pension money would have earned an additional return over and above the 100%. Mathematically there is no contest that contributing to a matching pension scheme is one of the best investment there is. You should always do it. Well, almost always. When should you not do it?" } ]

[ { "docid": "379911", "title": "", "text": "\"The error in the example is here: \"\"Now, if you contribute 5% to a Roth 401(k), your employer would match your after-tax 5% contribution. If the tax rate is 25%, that would be 5% of $60,000, which is $3,000. However, that $3,000 is put in to a traditional 401(k), so it is taxed when withdrawn. Assuming the tax rate is still 25% when you withdraw, you are only getting $2,250. Essentially you are giving up $750 of free money in this case.\"\" You set your contribution to Roth 401k as a function of the gross, 80,000. You choose 5% and contribute 4000 Your employer matches 4000. At the end of the year, your taxable income to the IRS is 80000, and you pay 30% or 24000. You have 80K-4K-24K to live on, or 52K If you chose the alternate regular 401k,then you contribute 4K, your income to the IRS is (80-4=) 76k, and you pay 30%, 22.8K in tax. You have 80-4-22.8 or 53.2K to live on. Or, to come at it the other way, you have 4000*30% =1200 extra tax reduction in your income this year. If the extra income in 401k versus extra current year tax in Roth IRA means you have to reduce less, like 2800K to the roth so you maintain a 53.2K lifestyle, then yes, the Roth IRA match is reduced. If you have the cash flow to prepay the current year tax and maximum-match contribution, you will get the full match based on your gross income.\"" }, { "docid": "333219", "title": "", "text": "\"All of the provided advice is great, but a slightly different viewpoint on debt is worth mentioning. Here are the areas that you should concentrate your efforts and the (rough) order you should proceed. Much of the following is predicated upon your having a situation where you need to get out of debt, and learn to better budget and control your spending. You may already have accomplished some of these steps, or you may prioritize differently. Many people advise prioritizing contributing to a 401(k) savings plan. But with the assumption that you need advise because you have debt trouble, you are probably paying absurd interest rates, and any savings you might have will be earning much lower rates than you are paying on consumer debt. If you are already contributing, continue the plan. But remember, you are looking for advice because your financial situation is in trouble, so you need to put out the fire (your present problem), and learn how to manage your money and plan for the future. Compose a budget, comprised of the following three areas (the exact percentages are fungible, fit them to your circumstances). Here is where planning can get fun, when you have freed yourself from debt, and you can make choices that resonate with your individual goals. Once you have \"\"put out the fire\"\" of debt, then you should do two things at the same time. As you pay off debt (and avoid further debt), you will find that saving for both independence and retirement become easier. The average American household may have $8000+ credit card debt, and at 20-30%, the interest payments are $150-200/month, and the average car payment is nearly $500/month. Eliminate debt and you will have $500-800/month that you can comfortably allocate towards retirement. But you also need to learn (educate yourself) how to invest your money to grow your money, and earn income from your savings. This is an area where many struggle, because we are taught to save, but we are not taught how to invest, choose investments wisely and carefully, and how to decide our goals. Investing needs to be addressed separately, but you need to learn how. Live in an affordable house, and pay off your mortgage. Consider that the payment on a mortgage on even a modest $200K house is over $1000/month. Combine saving the money you would have paid towards a mortgage payment with the money you would have paid towards credit card debt or a car loan. Saving becomes easy when you are freed from these large debts.\"" }, { "docid": "244692", "title": "", "text": "\"One can generalize on Traditional vs Roth flavors of accounts, I suggest Roth for 15% money and going pretax to avoid 25% tax. If the student loan is much over 4%, it may make sense to put it right after emergency fund. For emergency fund priority - I'm assuming EF really requires 2 phases, the $2500 broken transmission/root canal bill, and the lose your job, or need a new roof level bills. I'm in favor of doing what let's you sleep well. I'm also quick to point out that if you owe $2500 at 18%, yet have $2500 in your emergency fund, you're really throwing away $450 in interest each year. There's an ongoing debate of \"\"credit card as emergency fund.\"\" No, I don't claim that your cards should be considered an emergency fund, per se, but I would prioritize knocking off the 18% debt as a high priority. Once that crazy interest debt is gone, fund the ER, and find a balance for savings and the next level ER, the 6-9mo of expenses one. One can choose to fund a Roth IRA, but keep the asset out of retirement calculations. It's simply an emergency account returning tax free interest, and if never used, it eventually is retirement money. A Roth permits withdrawal of deposited funds with no tax or penalty, just tracking it each year. This actually rubs some people the wrong way as it sounds like tapping your retirement account for emergencies. For my purpose, it's a tax free emergency fund. Not retirement, unless and until you are saving so much in the 401(k) you need more tax favored retirement money. I wrote an article some time ago, the Roth Emergency Fund which went into a bit more detail. Last - keep in mind, this is my opinion. I can intelligently argue my case, but at some point, it's up to the individual to do what feels right. Paying 18% debt off a bit slower, say 4 years instead of 3, in favor of funding the matched 401(k), to me, you run the numbers, watch the 401(k) balance grow by 2X your pretax deposits, and see that in year 3, your retirement account is jump-started and far, far more than your remaining 18% cards. Those who feel the opposite and wish to be debt free first are going to do what they want. And the truth is, if this lets you sleep better at night, I'm in favor of it.\"" }, { "docid": "341493", "title": "", "text": "\"Another consideration is that you are going to wind up with money in the \"\"regular\"\" 401(k) no matter which one you contribute to. The employer match can't go into the Roth 401(k). So all employer matching funds go in with pre-tax dollars and will be deposited in a normal 401(k) account. Edit from JoeTaxpayer - 2013 brought with it the Roth 401(k) conversion the ability to convert from the traditional pretax side of your 401(k) account to the Roth side.\"" }, { "docid": "481793", "title": "", "text": "I moved from contributing 10% to maxing as my salary rose over the course of three years after graduation. Because of my raises, my monthly take home still increased, so it was a pretty painless way to increase my 401(k) contribution and also avoid lifestyle inflation. That said, I would not do it if you have any credit card debt, school loans, or an auto loan. Pay that off first. Then work on maxing the 401(k). Personally I rate owning a home behind that, but that's partially because I'm in an area where the rent ratios are barely on the side of buying, so I don't find buying to be a pressing matter. One thing to investigate is if your company offers a Roth 401(k) option. It's a nice option where you can go Roth without worrying about income limits. My personal experience does not include a Roth IRA because when I still qualified for one I didn't know much about them, and now that I know about them I have the happy issue of not qualifying." }, { "docid": "457945", "title": "", "text": "Depends upon the debt cost. Assuming it is consumer debt or credit card debt, it is better to pay that off first, it is the best investment you can make. Let's say it is credit card debt. If you pay 18% interst and have for example a $1,000 amount. If you pay it off you save $180 in interest ($1,000 times 18%). You would have to earn 18% on 1,000 to generate $180 if it was in aninvestment. Here is a link discussing ways of reducing debt Once you have debt paid off you have the cashflow to begin building wealth. The key is in the cashflow." }, { "docid": "507476", "title": "", "text": "If you're simply trading with your own money and have not incorporated, then you are not eligible for a solo 401(k). Nerdwallet has an excellent Q&A on the topic here for example. Solo 401(k) is only allowed to be funded with earned income, and capital gains are not earned income. From the IRS page on One Participant 401(k) plans: Elective deferrals up to 100% of compensation (“earned income” in the case of a self-employed individual) up to the annual contribution limit Earned income is defined by the IRS here: But not including: Even more clearly, that page notes: There are two ways to get earned income: You work for someone who pays you or You own or run a business or farm Capital gains are certainly neither of these. Now, I have read several articles suggesting one way to go about using the Solo 401k. All of them suggest that you would need to incorporate in some fashion that would require a Schedule C tax return, though, and be trading with the company's money rather than your own, and then pay yourself a wage from that. In that case you would be eligible for a Solo 401(k), and you might even be better off as a result of all that maneuvering (even though you'll be taxed at a higher rate for any income you do keep, likely, and have to pay self-employment tax)." }, { "docid": "403934", "title": "", "text": "An activity which can help improve your credit score and actually make you money is stoozing. It's a little complicated but can be beneficial to do. Using either a credit card which allows fee free money withdrawals from cashpoints or building up debt using your credit card gives you access to your credit amount. You then use a long term 0% balance transfer card to transfer the debt which you pay off at the minimum rate. It's 0% so no costs are associated except for the initial fee paid for the balance transfer amount. The money that would have been used to pay off the credit amount (or money withdrawn from a cashpoint) can then be deposited in a savings account so you are now earning interest on the credit balance. Continuing to make monthly minimum payments via direct debit will help improve your credit rating and the savings money will earn interest. (it is also available if you suddenly need to pay off the 0% card)" }, { "docid": "301616", "title": "", "text": "The managers of the 401(k) have to make their money somewhere. Either they'll make it from the employer, or from the employees via the expense ratio. If it's the employer setting up the plan, I can bet whose interest he'll be looking after. Regarding your last comment, I'd recommend looking outside your 401(k) for investing. If you get free money from your employer for contributing to your 401(k), that's a plus, but I wouldn't -- actually, I don't -- contribute anything beyond the match. I pay my taxes and I'm done with it." }, { "docid": "79888", "title": "", "text": "This is called an in-plan Roth conversion and is discussed by the IRS here. If your 401(k) has a Roth option then it likely also has a provision to convert pre-tax dollars, but you'll have to check with the administrator to be sure. They could also potentially limit the type of money that can be converted. But most likely you should be able to convert any amount you want, and since it's all pre-tax (your contributions, employer matching, and earnings), it doesn't really matter which money is converted because it's all equivalent. One caveat is you won't able to convert any employer matching that hasn't fully vested." }, { "docid": "79363", "title": "", "text": "Mathwise, I absolutely agree with the other answers. No contest, you should keep getting the match. But, just for completeness, I'll give a contrarian opinion that is generally not very popular, but does have some merit. If you can focus on just one main financial goal at a time, and throw every extra dollar you have at that one focus (i.e., getting out of debt, in your case), you will make better progress than if you're trying to do too many things at once. Also, there something incredibly freeing about being out of debt that has other beneficial impacts on your life. So, if you can bring a lot of focus to the credit card debt and get it paid off quickly, it may be worth deferring the 401(k) investing long enough to do that, even though it doesn't make as much mathematical sense. (This is essentially what Dave Ramsey teaches, BTW.)" }, { "docid": "127664", "title": "", "text": "\"Your employment status is not 100% clear from the question. Normally, consultants are sole-proprietors or LLC's and are paid with 1099's. They take care of their own taxes, often with schedule C, and they sometimes can but generally do not use \"\"employer\"\" company 401(k). If this is your situation, you can contact any provider you want and set up your own solo 401(k), which will have great investment options and no fees. I do this, through Fidelity. If you are paid with a W2, you are not a consultant. You are an employee and must use your employer's 401(k). Figure out what you are. If you are a consultant, open a solo 401(k) at the provider of your choice. Make sure beforehand that they allow incoming rollovers. Roll all of your previous 401(k)s and IRA's into it. When you have moved your 401(k) to a better provider, you won't be paying any extra fees, but you will not recoup any fees your original provider charged. I'm not sure why you mention a Roth IRA. If you try to roll your 401(k) into a Roth instead of a traditional IRA or 401(k), be aware that you will be taxed on everything you roll. ---- Edit: a little info about IRA's in response to your comment ---- Tax advantaged retirement accounts come in two flavors: one is managed by your company and the money is taken out of your paycheck. This is usually a 401(k) or 403(b). You can contribute up to $18K per year and your company can also contribute to it. The other flavor is an IRA. You can contribute $5,500 per year to this for you and $5,500 for your spouse. These are outside of your company and you make the deposits yourself. You choose your own provider, so competition has driven prices way down. You can have both a 401(k) and an IRA and contribute the max to both (though at high incomes you lose the ability to deduct IRA contributions). These accounts are tax advantaged because you only pay taxes once. With a regular brokerage account, you pay income tax in the year in which you earn money, then you pay tax every year on dividends and any capital gains that have been realized by selling. There are two types of tax-advantaged accounts: Traditional IRA or Traditional 401(k). You do not pay income tax on this money in the year you earn it, nor do you pay capital gains tax. Instead you pay tax only in the year in which you take the money out (in retirement). Roth IRA or Roth 401(k). You do pay income tax on money on this money in the year in which you earn it. But then you don't pay tax on any gains or withdrawals ever again. When you leave your job (and sometimes at other times) you can move your money out of a 401(k) into your IRA, where you can do a better job managing it. You can also move money from your IRA into a 401(k) if your 401(k) provider will allow you to. Whether traditional or Roth is better depends on your tax rate now and your tax rate at retirement. However, if you choose to move money from a traditional account into a Roth account, you must pay tax on it in that year as if it was income because traditional and Roth accounts are taxed at different times. For that reason, if you are just trying to move money out of your 401(k) to save on fees, the logical place to put it is in a traditional IRA. Moving money from a traditional to a Roth may make sense, for example, if your tax rate is temporarily low this year, but that would be a separate decision from the one you are looking at. You can always roll your traditional IRA into a Roth later if that does become the case. Otherwise, there's no reason to think your traditional 401(k) should be rolled into a Roth IRA according to what you have described.\"" }, { "docid": "57526", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, this is restricted by law. In plain language, you can find it on the IRS website (under the heading \"\"When Can a Retirement Plan Distribute Benefits?\"\"): 401(k), profit-sharing, and stock bonus plans Employee elective deferrals (and earnings, except in a hardship distribution) -- the plan may permit a distribution when you: •terminate employment (by death, disability, retirement or other severance from employment); •reach age 59½; or •suffer a hardship. Employer profit-sharing or matching contributions -- the plan may permit a distribution of your vested accrued benefit when you: •terminate employment (by death, disability, retirement or other severance from employment); •reach the age specified in the plan (any age); or •suffer a hardship or experience another event specified in the plan. Form of benefit - the plan may pay benefits in a single lump-sum payment as well as offer other options, including payments over a set period of time (such as 5 or 10 years) or a purchased annuity with monthly lifetime payments. Source: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/when-can-a-retirement-plan-distribute-benefits If you want to actually see it in the law, check out 26 USC 401(k)(2)(B)(i), which lists the circumstances under which a distribution can be made. You can get the full text, for example, here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/401 I'm not sure what to say about the practice of the company that you mentioned in your question. Maybe the law was different then?\"" }, { "docid": "350082", "title": "", "text": "I know of no way to answer your question without 'spamming' a particular investment. First off, if you are a USA citizen, max out your 401-K. Whatever your employer matches will be an immediate boost to your investment. Secondly, you want your our gains to be tax deferred. A 401-K is tax deferred as well as a traditional IRA. Thirdly, you probably want the safety of diversification. You achieve this by buying an ETF (or mutual fund) that then buys individual stocks. Now for the recommendation that may be called spamming by others : As REITs pass the tax liability on to you, and as an IRA is tax deferred, you can get stellar returns by buying a mREIT ETF. To get you started here are five: mREITs Lastly, avoid commissions by having your dividends automatically reinvested by using that feature at Scottrade. You will have to pay commissions on new purchases but your purchases from your dividend Reinvestment will be commission free. Edit: Taking my own advice I just entered orders to liquidate some positions so I would have the $ on hand to buy into MORL and get some of that sweet 29% dividend return." }, { "docid": "353625", "title": "", "text": "\"For easy math, say you are in the 25% tax bracket. A thousand deposited dollars is $750 out of your pocket, but $2000 after the match. Now, you say you want to take the $750 and pay down the card. If you wait a year (at 20%) you'll owe $900, but have access to borrow a full $1000, at a low rate, 4% or so. The payment is less than $19/mo for 5 years. So long as one is comfortable juggling their debt a bit, the impact of a fully matched 401(k) cannot be beat. Keep in mind, this is a different story than those who just say \"\"don't take a 401(k) loan.\"\" Here, it's the loan that offers you the chance to fund the account. If you are let go, and withdraw the money, even at the 25% rate, you net $1500 less the $200 penalty, or $1300 compared to the $750 you are out of pocket. If you don't want to take the loan, you're still ahead so long as you are able to pay the cards over a reasonable time. I'll admit, a 20% card paid over 10+ years can still trash a 100% return. This is why I add the 401(k) loan to the mix. The question for you - jldugger - is how tight is the budget? And how much is the match? Is it dollar for dollar on first X%?\"" }, { "docid": "526383", "title": "", "text": "First off, great job on your finances so far. You are off on the right foot and have some sense of planning for the future. Also, it is a great question. First, I agree with @littleadv. Take advantage of your employer match. Do not drop your 401(k) contributions below that. Also, good job on putting your contributions into the Roth account. Second, I would ask: Are you out of debt? If not, put all your extra income towards paying off debt, and then you can work your plan. Third, time to do some math. What will your business look like? How much capital would you need to get started? Are there things you can do now on a part-time basis to start this business or prepare you to start the business? Come up with a figure, find some mutual funds that have a low beta, and back out how much money you need to save per month, so you have around that total. Then you have a figure. e.g. Assume you need $20,000, and you find a fund that has done 8% over the past 20 years. Then, you would need to save about $110/month to be ready to go in 10 years, or $273/month to go in about 5 years. (It's a time value of money calculation.) The house is really a long way off, but you could do the same kind of calculation. I feel that you think your income, and possibly locale, will change dramatically over the next few years. It might not be bad to double what you are saving for the business, and designate one half for the house." }, { "docid": "406561", "title": "", "text": "\"The limit on SEP IRA is 25%, not 20%. If you're self-employed (filing on Schedule C), then it's taken on net earning, which in your example would be 25% of $90,000. (https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-for-self-employed-people) JoeTaxpayer is correct as regards the 401(k) limits. The elective deferrals are per person - That's a cap in sum across multiple plans and across both traditional and Roth if you have those. In general, it's actually across other retirement plan types too - See below. If you're self-employed and set-up a 401(k) for your own business, the elective deferral is still aggregated with any other 401(k) plans in which you participate that year, but you can still make the employer contribution on your own plan. This IRS page is current a pretty good one on this topic: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans Key quotes that are relevant: The business owner wears two hats in a 401(k) plan: employee and employer. Contributions can be made to the plan in both capacities. The owner can contribute both: •Elective deferrals up to 100% of compensation (“earned income” in the case of a self-employed individual) up to the annual contribution limit: ◦$18,000 in 2015 and 2016, or $24,000 in 2015 and 2016 if age 50 or over; plus •Employer nonelective contributions up to: ◦25% of compensation as defined by the plan, or ◦for self-employed individuals, see discussion below It continues with this example: The amount you can defer (including pre-tax and Roth contributions) to all your plans (not including 457(b) plans) is $18,000 in 2015 and 2016. Although a plan's terms may place lower limits on contributions, the total amount allowed under the tax law doesn’t depend on how many plans you belong to or who sponsors those plans. EXAMPLE Ben, age 51, earned $50,000 in W-2 wages from his S Corporation in 2015. He deferred $18,000 in regular elective deferrals plus $6,000 in catch-up contributions to the 401(k) plan. His business contributed 25% of his compensation to the plan, $12,500. Total contributions to the plan for 2015 were $36,500. This is the maximum that can be contributed to the plan for Ben for 2015. A business owner who is also employed by a second company and participating in its 401(k) plan should bear in mind that his limits on elective deferrals are by person, not by plan. He must consider the limit for all elective deferrals he makes during a year. Notice in the example that Ben contributed more that than his elective limit in total (his was $24,000 in the example because he was old enough for the $6,000 catch-up in addition to the $18,000 that applies to everyone else). He did this by declaring an employer contribution of $12,500, which was limited by his compensation but not by any of his elective contributions. Beyond the 401(k), keep in mind that elective contributions are capped across different types of retirement plans as well, so if you have a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k), your total contributions across those plans are also capped. That's also mentioned in the example. Now to the extent that you're considering different types of plans, that's a whole question in itself - One that might be worth consulting a dedicated tax advisor. A few things to consider (not extensive list): As for payroll / self-employment tax: Looks like you will end up paying Medicare, including the new \"\"Additional Medicare\"\" tax that came with the ACA, but not SS: If you have wages, as well as self-employment earnings, the tax on your wages is paid first. But this rule only applies if your total earnings are more than $118,500. For example, if you will have $30,000 in wages and $40,000 in selfemployment income in 2016, you will pay the appropriate Social Security taxes on both your wages and business earnings. In 2016, however, if your wages are $78,000, and you have $40,700 in net earnings from a business, you don’t pay dual Social Security taxes on earnings more than $118,500. Your employer will withhold 7.65 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your $78,000 in earnings. You must pay 15.3 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your first $40,500 in self-employment earnings and 2.9 percent in Medicare tax on the remaining $200 in net earnings. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10022.pdf Other good IRS resources:\"" }, { "docid": "301194", "title": "", "text": "\"I assume you get your information from somewhere where they don't report the truth. I'm sorry if mentioning Fox News offended you, it was not my intention. But the way the question is phrased suggests that you know nothing about what \"\"pension\"\" means. So let me explain. 403(b) is not a pension account. Pension account is generally a \"\"defined benefit\"\" account, whereas 403(b)/401(k) and similar - are \"\"defined contribution\"\" accounts. The difference is significant: for pensions, the employer committed on certain amount to be paid out at retirement (the defined benefit) regardless of how much the employee/employer contributed or how well the account performed. This makes such an arrangement a liability. An obligation to pay. In other words - debt. Defined contribution on the other hand doesn't create such a liability, since the employer is only committed for the match, which is paid currently. What happens to your account after the employer deposited the defined contribution (the match) - is your problem. You manage it to the best of your abilities and whatever you have there when you retire - is yours, the employer doesn't owe you anything. Here's the problem with pensions: many employers promised the defined benefit, but didn't do anything about actually having money to pay. As mentioned, such a pension is essentially a debt, and the retiree is a debt holder. What happens when employer cannot pay its debts? Employer goes bankrupt. And when bankrupt - debtors are paid only part of what they were owed, and that includes the retirees. There's no-one raiding pensions. No-one goes to the bank with a gun and demands \"\"give me the pension money\"\". What happened was that the employers just didn't fund the pensions. They promised to pay - but didn't set aside any money, or set aside not enough. Instead, they spent it on something else, and when the time came that the retirees wanted their money - they didn't have any. That's what happened in Detroit, and in many other places. 403(b) is in fact the solution to this problem. Instead of defined benefit - the employers commit on defined contribution, and after that - it's your problem, not theirs, to have enough when you're retired.\"" }, { "docid": "422979", "title": "", "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." } ]

[ { "docid": "202768", "title": "", "text": "Nope, take the match. I cannot see not taking the match unless you don't have enough money to cover the bills. Every situation is different of course, and if the option is to missing minimum payments or other bills in order to get the match, make your payments. But in all other circumstances, take the match. My reasoning is, it is hard enough to earn money so take every chance you can. If you save for retirement in the process, all the better." } ]

[ { "docid": "403934", "title": "", "text": "An activity which can help improve your credit score and actually make you money is stoozing. It's a little complicated but can be beneficial to do. Using either a credit card which allows fee free money withdrawals from cashpoints or building up debt using your credit card gives you access to your credit amount. You then use a long term 0% balance transfer card to transfer the debt which you pay off at the minimum rate. It's 0% so no costs are associated except for the initial fee paid for the balance transfer amount. The money that would have been used to pay off the credit amount (or money withdrawn from a cashpoint) can then be deposited in a savings account so you are now earning interest on the credit balance. Continuing to make monthly minimum payments via direct debit will help improve your credit rating and the savings money will earn interest. (it is also available if you suddenly need to pay off the 0% card)" }, { "docid": "335991", "title": "", "text": "I would always suggest rolling over 401(k) plans to traditional IRAs when possible. Particularly, assuming there is enough money in them that you can get a fee-free account at somewhere like Fidelity or Vanguard. This is for a couple of reasons. First off, it opens up your investment choices significantly and can allow you significantly reduced expenses related to the account. You may be able to find a superior offering from Vanguard or Fidelity to what your employer's 401(k) plan allows; typically they only allow a small selection of funds to choose from. You also may be able to reduce the overhead fees, as many 401(k) plans charge you an administrative fee for being in the plan separate from the funds' costs. Second, it allows you to condense 401(k)s over time; each time you change employers, you can rollover your 401(k) to your regular IRA and not have to deal with a bunch of different accounts with different passwords and such. Even if they're all at the same provider, odds are you will have to use separate accounts. Third, it avoids issues if your employer goes out of business. While 401(k) plans are generally fully funded (particularly for former employers who you don't have match or vesting concerns with), it can be a pain sometimes when the plan is terminated to access your funds - they may be locked for months while the bankruptcy court works things out. Finally, employers sometimes make it expensive for you to stay in - particularly if you do have a very small amount. Don't assume you're allowed to stay in the former employer's 401(k) plan fee-free; the plan will have specific instructions for what to do if you change employers, and it may include being required to leave the plan - or more often, it could increase the fees associated with the plan if you stay in. Getting out sometimes will save you significantly, even with a low-cost plan." }, { "docid": "103093", "title": "", "text": "Staying with your numbers - a 7% long term return will have a tax of 15% (today's long term cap gain tax) resulting in a post tax of 5.95%. On the other hand, even if the student loan interest remains deductible, it's subject to phaseout and a really successful grad will quickly lose the deduction. There's a similar debate regarding mortgage debt. When I've commented on my 3.5% mortgage costing 2.5% post tax, there's no consensus agreeing that this loan should remain as long as possible in favor of investing in the market for its long term growth. And in this case the advantage is a full 3.45%/yr. While I've made my decision, Ben's points remain, the market return isn't guaranteed, while that monthly loan payment is fixed and due each month. In the big picture, I'd prioritize to make deposits to the 401(k) up to the match, if offered, pay down any higher interest debt such as credit cards, build an emergency account, and then make extra payments to the student loan. Keep in mind, also - if buying a house is an important goal, the savings toward the downpayment might take priority. Student Loans and Your First Mortgage is an article I wrote which describes the interaction between that loan debt and your mortgage borrowing ability. It's worth understanding the process as paying off the S/L too soon can impact that home purchase." }, { "docid": "333219", "title": "", "text": "\"All of the provided advice is great, but a slightly different viewpoint on debt is worth mentioning. Here are the areas that you should concentrate your efforts and the (rough) order you should proceed. Much of the following is predicated upon your having a situation where you need to get out of debt, and learn to better budget and control your spending. You may already have accomplished some of these steps, or you may prioritize differently. Many people advise prioritizing contributing to a 401(k) savings plan. But with the assumption that you need advise because you have debt trouble, you are probably paying absurd interest rates, and any savings you might have will be earning much lower rates than you are paying on consumer debt. If you are already contributing, continue the plan. But remember, you are looking for advice because your financial situation is in trouble, so you need to put out the fire (your present problem), and learn how to manage your money and plan for the future. Compose a budget, comprised of the following three areas (the exact percentages are fungible, fit them to your circumstances). Here is where planning can get fun, when you have freed yourself from debt, and you can make choices that resonate with your individual goals. Once you have \"\"put out the fire\"\" of debt, then you should do two things at the same time. As you pay off debt (and avoid further debt), you will find that saving for both independence and retirement become easier. The average American household may have $8000+ credit card debt, and at 20-30%, the interest payments are $150-200/month, and the average car payment is nearly $500/month. Eliminate debt and you will have $500-800/month that you can comfortably allocate towards retirement. But you also need to learn (educate yourself) how to invest your money to grow your money, and earn income from your savings. This is an area where many struggle, because we are taught to save, but we are not taught how to invest, choose investments wisely and carefully, and how to decide our goals. Investing needs to be addressed separately, but you need to learn how. Live in an affordable house, and pay off your mortgage. Consider that the payment on a mortgage on even a modest $200K house is over $1000/month. Combine saving the money you would have paid towards a mortgage payment with the money you would have paid towards credit card debt or a car loan. Saving becomes easy when you are freed from these large debts.\"" }, { "docid": "559370", "title": "", "text": "First, what country are you in? Canada doesn't offer a mortgage interest tax deduction, the US does. This changes the math a bit, and in the US, the current after tax cost of a mortgage is below our long term inflation rate. Is the mortgage your only debt? I've seen people religiously pay extra each month to their 6% mortgage while carrying 18% interest debt on credit cards. Next, there are company matched retirement plans, in the US, a 401(k) plan, where if you put up to 6% or so of your pay into the account, it's effectively doubled upon deposit. I'd be sure not to miss such an opportunity. After these considerations, prepaying is equal to buying a risk free fixed instrument. If that appeals to you, and you've considered the above first, go for it. Keep in mind, money paid to the mortgage isn't easily borrowed back, short of a HELOC. I'd strongly advise that your emergency fund be fully funded (6 months worth of spending) before starting to make extra mortgage payments." }, { "docid": "350082", "title": "", "text": "I know of no way to answer your question without 'spamming' a particular investment. First off, if you are a USA citizen, max out your 401-K. Whatever your employer matches will be an immediate boost to your investment. Secondly, you want your our gains to be tax deferred. A 401-K is tax deferred as well as a traditional IRA. Thirdly, you probably want the safety of diversification. You achieve this by buying an ETF (or mutual fund) that then buys individual stocks. Now for the recommendation that may be called spamming by others : As REITs pass the tax liability on to you, and as an IRA is tax deferred, you can get stellar returns by buying a mREIT ETF. To get you started here are five: mREITs Lastly, avoid commissions by having your dividends automatically reinvested by using that feature at Scottrade. You will have to pay commissions on new purchases but your purchases from your dividend Reinvestment will be commission free. Edit: Taking my own advice I just entered orders to liquidate some positions so I would have the $ on hand to buy into MORL and get some of that sweet 29% dividend return." }, { "docid": "536262", "title": "", "text": "\"littleadv's first comment - check the note - is really the answer. But your issue is twofold - Every mortgage I've had (over 10 in my lifetime) allows early principal payments. The extra principal can only be applied at the same time as the regular payment. Think of it this way - only at that moment is there no interest owed. If a week later you try to pay toward only principal, the system will not handle it. Pretty simple - extra principal with the payment due. In fact, any mortgage I've had that offered a monthly bill or coupon book will have that very line \"\"extra principal.\"\" By coincidence, I just did this for a mortgage on my rental. I make these payments through my bank's billpay service. I noted the extra principal in the 'notes' section of the virtual check. But again, the note will explicitly state if there's an issue with prepayments of principal. The larger issue is that your friend wishes to treat the mortgage like a bi-weekly. The bank expects the full amount as a payment and likely, has no obligation to accept anything less than the full amount. Given my first comment above here is the plan for your friend to do 99% of what she wishes: Tell her, there's nothing magic about bi-weekly, it's a budget-clever way to send the money, but over a year, it's simply paying 108% of the normal payment. If she wants to burn the mortgage faster, tell her to add what she wishes every month, even $10, it all adds up. Final note - There are two schools of thought to either extreme, (a) pay the mortgage off as fast as you can, no debt is the goal and (b) the mortgage is the lowest rate you'll ever have on borrowed money, pay it as slow as you can, and invest any extra money. I accept and respect both views. For your friend, and first group, I'm compelled to add - Be sure to deposit to your retirement account's matched funds to gain the entire match. $1 can pay toward your 6% mortgage or be doubled on deposit to $2 in your 401(k), if available. And pay off all high interest debt first. This should stand to reason, but I've seen people keep their 18% card debt while prepaying their mortgage.\"" }, { "docid": "171196", "title": "", "text": "The best option for maximizing your money long-term is to contribute to the 401(k) offered by your employer. If you park your inheritance in a savings account you can draw on it to augment your income while you max out your contributions to the 401(k). You will get whatever the employer matches right off the bat and your gains are tax deferred. In essence you will be putting your inheritance into the 401(k) and forcing your employer to match at whatever rate they do. So if your employer matches at 50 cents on the dollar you will turn your 50 thousand into 75 thousand." }, { "docid": "493578", "title": "", "text": "\"If you're willing to do a little more work and bookkeeping than just putting money into the 401(k) I would recommend the following. I note that you said you chose some funds based on performance since the expense ratios are all high. I would recommend against chasing performance because active funds will almost always falter; honor the old saw: \"\"past performance is no guarantee of future returns\"\". Assuming the cash in your Ally account is an emergency fund, I would use it to pay off your credit card debt to avoid the interest payments. Use free cash flow in the coming months to bring the emergency fund balance back up to an acceptable level. If the Ally account is not an emergency fund, I would make it one! With no debt and an emergency fund for 3-12 months of living expenses (pick your risk tolerance), then you can concentrate on investing. Your 401(k) options are unfortunately pretty poor. With those choices I would invest this way: Once you fill up your choice of IRA, then you have the tougher decision of where to put any extra money you have to invest (if any). A brokerage account gives you the freedom of investment choices and the ability to easily pull out money in the case of a dire emergency. The 401(k) will give you tax benefits, but high fund expenses. The tax benefits are considerable, so if I were at a job where I plan on moving on in a few years, I'd fund the 401(k) up to the max with the knowledge that I'd roll the 401(k) into a rollover IRA in the (relatively) short term. If I saw myself staying at the employer for a long time (5+ years), I'd probably take the taxable account route since those high fund fees will add up over time. One you start building up a solid base, then I might look into having a small allocation in one of my accounts for \"\"play money\"\" to pick individual stocks, or start making sector bets.\"" }, { "docid": "296405", "title": "", "text": "\"Many employees don't contribute enough to maximize the match, so the cost to the employer is not the same. Under the 50% of 6% strategy an employee contributing 5% would get a 2.5% match not a 3% and that saves the company 0.5%. @TTT provided an excellent link in the comments below to a study titled \"\"How much employer 401(k) matching contributions do employees leave on the table?\"\" performed by Financial Engines, an independent financial advisory service. The information meaningful to this answer is on Page 5 (Page 7 of the PDF): 4,378,445 eligible employees were included in the study 1,077,775 of the eligible employees did not contribute enough for the full match; of them, 285,386 Received zero match funds 792,389 Received some match funds, but not the full match available So 792,389 or 18% of the employees studied contributed in to employer 401(k) plans but not enough to maximize their available match.\"" }, { "docid": "3104", "title": "", "text": "\"To answer the first part of your question: yes, I've done that! I did even a bit more. I once had a job that I wasn't sure I'd keep and the economy wasn't great either. In case my next employer wouldn't let me contribute to a 401(k) from day one, and because I didn't want to underfund my retirement and be stuck with a higher tax bill - I \"\"front-loaded\"\" my 401(k) contributions to be maxed out before the end of the year. (The contribution limits were lower than $16,500/year back then :-)) As for the reduced cash flow - you need of course a \"\"buffer\"\" account containing several months worth of living expenses to afford maxing out or \"\"front-loading\"\" 401(k) contributions. You should be paying your bills out of such buffer account and not out of each paycheck. As for the reduced cash flow - I think large-scale 401(k)/IRA contributions can crowd out other long-term saving priorities such as saving for a house down payment and the trade-off between them is a real concern. (If they're crowding out basic and discretionary consumer expenses, that's a totally different kind of problem, which you don't seem to have, which is great :-)) So about the trade-off between large-scale 401(k) contributions and saving for the down payment. I'd say maxing out 401(k) can foster the savings culture that will eventually pay its dividends. If, after several years of maxing out your 401(k) you decide that saving for the house is the top priority, you'll see money flow to the money-market account marked for the down payment at a substantial monthly rate, thanks to that savings culture. As for the increasing future earnings - no. Most people I've known for a long time, if they saved 20% when they made $20K/year, they continued to save 20% or more when they later made $100K/year. People who spent the entire paycheck while making $50K/year, always say, if only I got a raise to $60K/year, I'd save a few thousand. But they eventually graduate to $100K/year and still spend the entire paycheck. It's all about your savings culture. On the second part of your question - yes, Roth is a great tool, especially if you believe that the future tax rates will be higher (to fix the long-term budget deficits). So, contributing to 401(k) to maximize the match, then max out Roth, as others suggested, is a great advice. After you've done that, see what else you can do: more 401(k), saving for the house, etc.\"" }, { "docid": "231662", "title": "", "text": "\"Before anything, I see that no one mentioned the one thing about 401(k) accounts that's just shy of magic - The matching deposit. In 2015, 42% of companies offered a dollar for dollar match on deposits. Can't beat that. (Note - to respond to Xalorous' comment, the $18K OP deposits can be nearly any percent of his income. The typical match is 'up to' 6% of gross income. If that's the case, the 401(k) deposits are doubled. But say he makes $100K. The $18K deposit will see a $6K match. This adds a layer of complexity to the answer that I preferred to avoid, as I show with no match at all, and no change in tax brackets, the deferral alone shows value to the investor.) On to the main answer - Let's pull out a spreadsheet - We start with $10,000, and assume the 25% bracket. This gives a choice of $10,000 in the 401(k) or $7500 in the taxable account. Next, let 20 years pass, with 10% return each year. The 401(k) sees the full 10% and after 20 years, $67K. The taxable account owner waits to get the 15% cap gain rate and adjusts portfolio, thus seeing an 8.5% return each year and carrying no ongoing gains. After 20 years of 8.5% returns, he has $38K net. The 401(k) owner on withdrawal pays the 25% tax and has $50K, still more than 25% more money that the taxable account. Because transactions within the account were all tax deferred. EDIT - With respect to davmp's comment, I'll offer the other extreme - In his comment, he (rightly) objected that I chose to trade every year, although I did assign the long term 15% cap gain rate, he felt the annual trade was my attempt to game the analysis. Above, I offer his extreme case, a 10% return each year, no trade, no dividend. Just a cap gain at the end. The 401(k) still wins. I also left the tax (on the 401(k)) at withdrawal at 25%, when in fact, much, if not all will be taxed at 15% or lower, which would put the net at $57K or 30% above the taxable account final withdrawal. The next issue I'd bring up is that the 401(k) is taken out at the top (marginal) tax rate, e.g. a single filer with taxable income over $37,650 (in 2016) would save 25% on that 401(k) deduction. Of course if the deduction pulls you under that line, I'd go Roth or taxable. But, withdrawals start at zero. Today, a single retiree has a standard deduction ($4050) and exemption ($6300) for a total $10,350 \"\"zero bracket\"\" with the next $9275 taxed at 10%. This points to needing $500K in pre tax accounts before withdrawals each year would get you past the 10% bracket. (This comes from the suggestion of using 4% as an annual withdrawal rate). Last - the tax discussion has 2 major points in time, deposit and withdrawal, of course. But, the answers here all ignore all the time in between. In between, you see that for any number of reasons, you'll drop from the 25% bracket to 15% that year. That's the time to convert a bit of money to Roth and 'top off' the 15% bracket. It can happen due to job loss, marriage with new spouse either not working or having lower income, new baby, house purchase, etc. Or in-between, a disability put you out of work. That permits you to take money out with no penalty, and little chance of paying even the 25% that you paid going in. This, from personal experience with a family member, funded a 401(k) with 28% money. Then divorced and disabled, able to take the $10K/yr to supplement worker's comp (non taxed) income.\"" }, { "docid": "463892", "title": "", "text": "Your employer's matching contribution is calculated based on the dollar amounts you end up putting in. The nature of your 401(k) contribution—whether pre-tax or Roth after-tax—doesn't matter with respect to how their match gets calculated, and their match always goes into a pre-tax account, even if you are contributing after-tax. The onus is on you to choose a contribution amount that maximizes your employer match regardless of the nature of your contribution. Maximizing your employer match using Roth after-tax contributions will eat up more of your annual gross salary, but as long as you are willing to do that then you won't leave free employer match money on the table. Roth after-tax contributions don't get the tax deduction inherent in a pre-tax contribution. The tradeoff is that you end up with less take-home pay per period if you contribute the same number of dollars on a Roth after-tax basis to your 401(k) as opposed to on a pre-tax basis. For instance, to make a maximum $18,000 Roth after-tax contribution to a 401(k), it's going to cost you a lot more than $18,000 of your annual gross salary to net the same $18,000 number. (On the flip side, the Roth money is worth more in retirement than pre-tax money, because it won't be subject to taxes then.) However, 401(k) plan contribution amounts are almost always expressed as a percentage of gross salary, i.e. in pre-tax terms, even when electing to make after-tax contributions! So when electing after-tax, one is implicitly accepting that the contribution will cost more than the percentage of gross salary, because you'll need to pay the tax on a gross amount that would yield the same number of dollars but as an after-tax amount." }, { "docid": "422979", "title": "", "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." }, { "docid": "127664", "title": "", "text": "\"Your employment status is not 100% clear from the question. Normally, consultants are sole-proprietors or LLC's and are paid with 1099's. They take care of their own taxes, often with schedule C, and they sometimes can but generally do not use \"\"employer\"\" company 401(k). If this is your situation, you can contact any provider you want and set up your own solo 401(k), which will have great investment options and no fees. I do this, through Fidelity. If you are paid with a W2, you are not a consultant. You are an employee and must use your employer's 401(k). Figure out what you are. If you are a consultant, open a solo 401(k) at the provider of your choice. Make sure beforehand that they allow incoming rollovers. Roll all of your previous 401(k)s and IRA's into it. When you have moved your 401(k) to a better provider, you won't be paying any extra fees, but you will not recoup any fees your original provider charged. I'm not sure why you mention a Roth IRA. If you try to roll your 401(k) into a Roth instead of a traditional IRA or 401(k), be aware that you will be taxed on everything you roll. ---- Edit: a little info about IRA's in response to your comment ---- Tax advantaged retirement accounts come in two flavors: one is managed by your company and the money is taken out of your paycheck. This is usually a 401(k) or 403(b). You can contribute up to $18K per year and your company can also contribute to it. The other flavor is an IRA. You can contribute $5,500 per year to this for you and $5,500 for your spouse. These are outside of your company and you make the deposits yourself. You choose your own provider, so competition has driven prices way down. You can have both a 401(k) and an IRA and contribute the max to both (though at high incomes you lose the ability to deduct IRA contributions). These accounts are tax advantaged because you only pay taxes once. With a regular brokerage account, you pay income tax in the year in which you earn money, then you pay tax every year on dividends and any capital gains that have been realized by selling. There are two types of tax-advantaged accounts: Traditional IRA or Traditional 401(k). You do not pay income tax on this money in the year you earn it, nor do you pay capital gains tax. Instead you pay tax only in the year in which you take the money out (in retirement). Roth IRA or Roth 401(k). You do pay income tax on money on this money in the year in which you earn it. But then you don't pay tax on any gains or withdrawals ever again. When you leave your job (and sometimes at other times) you can move your money out of a 401(k) into your IRA, where you can do a better job managing it. You can also move money from your IRA into a 401(k) if your 401(k) provider will allow you to. Whether traditional or Roth is better depends on your tax rate now and your tax rate at retirement. However, if you choose to move money from a traditional account into a Roth account, you must pay tax on it in that year as if it was income because traditional and Roth accounts are taxed at different times. For that reason, if you are just trying to move money out of your 401(k) to save on fees, the logical place to put it is in a traditional IRA. Moving money from a traditional to a Roth may make sense, for example, if your tax rate is temporarily low this year, but that would be a separate decision from the one you are looking at. You can always roll your traditional IRA into a Roth later if that does become the case. Otherwise, there's no reason to think your traditional 401(k) should be rolled into a Roth IRA according to what you have described.\"" }, { "docid": "240373", "title": "", "text": "\"Just like all employee benefits there is a focus on removing or limiting owners of businesses' ability to abuse tax preferences under the guise of an employee benefit. As you point out there is an overall plan maximum 401(k) for employer contributions and match contributions. There is a nondiscrimination test for FSA programs (there is also a nondiscrimination test for medical plans under sections 125 and 105(h)). Employer contributions are counted toward the total of HSA contributions. Why an HSA has a different maximum arrangement than 401(k) is anyone's guess. But the purpose of the limit is to prevent owners of companies from setting up plans that do little more than funnel tax free funds to themselves. An owner/employee could pay themselves a wage, contribute the maximum, then have the \"\"employer\"\" also match the maximum, so there are limits in place.\"" }, { "docid": "422142", "title": "", "text": "The long term growth is not 6.5%, it's 10% give or take. But, that return comes with risk. A standard deviation of 14%. Does the 401(k) have a match? And are you getting the full match? If no match, or you already top it off, the 6.5% is a rate that I'd be happy to get on my money. So, I would pay it off faster. My highest rate debt is my 3.5% mortgage, which is 2.5% after tax. At 2.5%, I prefer to be a borrower, as that gap 2.5%-10% is pretty appealing, long term." }, { "docid": "69774", "title": "", "text": "\"I am failing to see why would a person get an IRA, instead of just putting the same amount of money into a mutual fund (like Vanguard) or something like that. Well, this isn't a meaningful distinction. The mutual fund may or may not be in an IRA. Similarly, the mutual fund may or may not be in a 401(k), however. So I'm going to treat your question as if it's \"\"why would a person get a mutual fund (like Vanguard) or something like that in an IRA, instead of just putting the same amount of money into the same mutual fund in a 401(k).\"\" Same mutual fund, same amount of money, narrowing your question to the difference between the two types of accounts, as stated in your question's title. Others have answered that to the extent that you really have no choice other than \"\"pick which type of account to use for a given bundle of money\"\", other than nobody having mentioned the employer match. Even if there were no other difference at all in tax treatment, it's pretty typical that 401(k) contributions will be matched by free money from the employer. No IRA can compete with that. But, that's not the only choice either: Many of us contribute to both the 401(k) and the IRA. Why? Because we can. I'm not suggesting that just-anybody can, but, if you max out the employer matching in the 401(k), or if you max out the tax-advantaged contribution limit in the 401(k), and you still have more money that you want to save in a tax-advantaged retirement account this year, you can do so. The IRA is available, it's not \"\"instead-of\"\" the 401(k).\"" }, { "docid": "341493", "title": "", "text": "\"Another consideration is that you are going to wind up with money in the \"\"regular\"\" 401(k) no matter which one you contribute to. The employer match can't go into the Roth 401(k). So all employer matching funds go in with pre-tax dollars and will be deposited in a normal 401(k) account. Edit from JoeTaxpayer - 2013 brought with it the Roth 401(k) conversion the ability to convert from the traditional pretax side of your 401(k) account to the Roth side.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "353625", "title": "", "text": "\"For easy math, say you are in the 25% tax bracket. A thousand deposited dollars is $750 out of your pocket, but $2000 after the match. Now, you say you want to take the $750 and pay down the card. If you wait a year (at 20%) you'll owe $900, but have access to borrow a full $1000, at a low rate, 4% or so. The payment is less than $19/mo for 5 years. So long as one is comfortable juggling their debt a bit, the impact of a fully matched 401(k) cannot be beat. Keep in mind, this is a different story than those who just say \"\"don't take a 401(k) loan.\"\" Here, it's the loan that offers you the chance to fund the account. If you are let go, and withdraw the money, even at the 25% rate, you net $1500 less the $200 penalty, or $1300 compared to the $750 you are out of pocket. If you don't want to take the loan, you're still ahead so long as you are able to pay the cards over a reasonable time. I'll admit, a 20% card paid over 10+ years can still trash a 100% return. This is why I add the 401(k) loan to the mix. The question for you - jldugger - is how tight is the budget? And how much is the match? Is it dollar for dollar on first X%?\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "242529", "title": "", "text": "\"IRA is not always an option. There are income limits for IRA, that leave many employees (those with the higher salaries, but not exactly the \"\"riches\"\") out of it. Same for Roth IRA, though the MAGI limits are much higher. Also, the contribution limits on IRA are more than three times less than those on 401K (5K vs 16.5K). Per IRS Publication 590 (page 12) the income limit (AGI) goes away if the employer doesn't provide a 401(k) or similar plan (not if you don't participate, but if the employer doesn't provide). But deduction limits don't change, it's up to $5K (or 100% of the compensation, the lesser) even if you're not covered by the employers' pension plan. Employers are allowed to match the employees' 401K contributions, and this comes on top of the limits (i.e.: with the employers' matching, the employees can save more for their retirement and still have the tax benefits). That's the law. The companies offer the option of 401K because it allows employee retention (I would not work for a company without 401K), and it is part of the overall benefit package - it's an expense for the employer (including the matching). Why would the employer offer matching instead of a raise? Not all employers do. My current employer, for example, pays above average salaries, but doesn't offer 401K match. Some companies have very tight control over the 401K accounts, and until not so long ago were allowed to force employees to invest their retirement savings in the company (see the Enron affair). It is no longer an option, but by now 401K is a standard in some industries, and employers cannot allow themselves not to offer it (see my position above).\"" }, { "docid": "422421", "title": "", "text": "First, read my answer here: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing For me, the answer to your question comes down to how badly you want to get rid of your student loan debt. I recommend that you get rid of it as fast as possible, and that you sacrifice a little in your budget temporarily to make that happen. If that is what you want, here is what I would do. Following the steps in my other answer, I would pay off the student loans first. Cash out your non-retirement growth fund to jump start that, then challenge yourself to take as much of your paycheck as you can and throw it at the debt. Figure out how many months it will take before the debt is gone. Once the debt is gone, you won't have those monthly payments anymore and you won't be continually losing money in interest to the bank. At that point, you can build up your cash savings, invest in your employer's 401(k) plan for retirement, and start saving toward other long-term saving goals (car, house, etc.) To address some of your other concerns: If you cash out the non-retirement fund, you'll probably owe some capital gains tax. (Although, on a $3k investment, the long term rate won't add up to very much, depending on your tax bracket and cost basis.) You can't use the money from your non-retirement fund to invest in your 401(k). You can only contribute to your 401(k) via payroll deduction. To explicitly answer your question, your non-retirement fund is not bound by the limitations of retirement funds, meaning that you can cash it out and use it however you like without penalty, only paying perhaps a few hundred dollars of capital gains tax at tax time next year. Think of it as another source of cash for you." }, { "docid": "395376", "title": "", "text": "Withdrawing from your 401(k) may include a 10% withdrawal penalty. There are ways to avoid the withdrawal penalty for early disbursements. The idea is to reduce your interest expense by leveraging free loans (0% APR purchases). This will help you pay down your debt more. If you have 0% APR on purchases, you can make purchases on things you already buy. Then use that money towards other debt, while making monthly payments on the 0% APR card. This way, you pay off the credit card before the 0% APR changes. You can then rinse and repeat on another 0% APR card offer. If your credit score is 800, you can do this multiple times. Citi Simplicity gives you 18 months 0% APR. Chase Slate and Chase Freedom gives you 15 months 0% APR. Others typically give you 12 months or less." }, { "docid": "301194", "title": "", "text": "\"I assume you get your information from somewhere where they don't report the truth. I'm sorry if mentioning Fox News offended you, it was not my intention. But the way the question is phrased suggests that you know nothing about what \"\"pension\"\" means. So let me explain. 403(b) is not a pension account. Pension account is generally a \"\"defined benefit\"\" account, whereas 403(b)/401(k) and similar - are \"\"defined contribution\"\" accounts. The difference is significant: for pensions, the employer committed on certain amount to be paid out at retirement (the defined benefit) regardless of how much the employee/employer contributed or how well the account performed. This makes such an arrangement a liability. An obligation to pay. In other words - debt. Defined contribution on the other hand doesn't create such a liability, since the employer is only committed for the match, which is paid currently. What happens to your account after the employer deposited the defined contribution (the match) - is your problem. You manage it to the best of your abilities and whatever you have there when you retire - is yours, the employer doesn't owe you anything. Here's the problem with pensions: many employers promised the defined benefit, but didn't do anything about actually having money to pay. As mentioned, such a pension is essentially a debt, and the retiree is a debt holder. What happens when employer cannot pay its debts? Employer goes bankrupt. And when bankrupt - debtors are paid only part of what they were owed, and that includes the retirees. There's no-one raiding pensions. No-one goes to the bank with a gun and demands \"\"give me the pension money\"\". What happened was that the employers just didn't fund the pensions. They promised to pay - but didn't set aside any money, or set aside not enough. Instead, they spent it on something else, and when the time came that the retirees wanted their money - they didn't have any. That's what happened in Detroit, and in many other places. 403(b) is in fact the solution to this problem. Instead of defined benefit - the employers commit on defined contribution, and after that - it's your problem, not theirs, to have enough when you're retired.\"" }, { "docid": "352908", "title": "", "text": "You might also want to talk directly to a bank. If your credit report is clean, they may have some discretion in making the loan. Note - the 'normal' fully qualified loan has two thresholds, 28% (of monthly income) for housing costs, 36% for all debt servicing. A personal, disclosed loan from a friend/family which is not secured against the house, would count as part of the other debt, as would a credit card. While I don't recommend using a credit card for this purpose, the debt fits in that 28-36 gap. As Kevin points out below, not all paths are equally advisable. Nor are rules of thumb always true. Not having the OP's full details, income, assets, price of house, etc, this is just a list of things to consider. The use of a 401(k) loan in the US can be a great idea for some, bad mistake for others. This format doesn't make it easy to go into great detail, and I'm sure the 401(k) loan issue has been asked and answered in other questions. With respect to Kevin, if he wrote 'usually', I'd agree, but never say 'never.'" }, { "docid": "103093", "title": "", "text": "Staying with your numbers - a 7% long term return will have a tax of 15% (today's long term cap gain tax) resulting in a post tax of 5.95%. On the other hand, even if the student loan interest remains deductible, it's subject to phaseout and a really successful grad will quickly lose the deduction. There's a similar debate regarding mortgage debt. When I've commented on my 3.5% mortgage costing 2.5% post tax, there's no consensus agreeing that this loan should remain as long as possible in favor of investing in the market for its long term growth. And in this case the advantage is a full 3.45%/yr. While I've made my decision, Ben's points remain, the market return isn't guaranteed, while that monthly loan payment is fixed and due each month. In the big picture, I'd prioritize to make deposits to the 401(k) up to the match, if offered, pay down any higher interest debt such as credit cards, build an emergency account, and then make extra payments to the student loan. Keep in mind, also - if buying a house is an important goal, the savings toward the downpayment might take priority. Student Loans and Your First Mortgage is an article I wrote which describes the interaction between that loan debt and your mortgage borrowing ability. It's worth understanding the process as paying off the S/L too soon can impact that home purchase." }, { "docid": "499606", "title": "", "text": "To answer your question: As far as what's available in addition to your 401(k) at work (most financial types will say to contribute up to the match first), you may qualify for a Roth IRA (qualification is based on income), if not, then you may have to go with a Traditional IRA. You and your husband can each have one and contribute up to the limit each year. After that, you could get just a straight up mutual fund, and/or contribute up to limit on your 401(k). My two cents: This may sound counter-intuitive (and I'm sure some folks will disagree), but instead of contributing to your 401(k) now, take whatever that amount is, and use it to pay extra on the car loan. Also take the extra being paid on the mortgage and pay it on the car loan too. Once the car loan is paid off, then set aside 15% of your gross income and use that amount to start your retirement investing. Any additional money beyond this can then go into the mortgage. Once it's paid off, then you can take the extra you were paying, plus the mortgage and invest that amount into mutual funds. You may want to check out Chris Hogan's Retire Inspired book or podcast as well." }, { "docid": "69774", "title": "", "text": "\"I am failing to see why would a person get an IRA, instead of just putting the same amount of money into a mutual fund (like Vanguard) or something like that. Well, this isn't a meaningful distinction. The mutual fund may or may not be in an IRA. Similarly, the mutual fund may or may not be in a 401(k), however. So I'm going to treat your question as if it's \"\"why would a person get a mutual fund (like Vanguard) or something like that in an IRA, instead of just putting the same amount of money into the same mutual fund in a 401(k).\"\" Same mutual fund, same amount of money, narrowing your question to the difference between the two types of accounts, as stated in your question's title. Others have answered that to the extent that you really have no choice other than \"\"pick which type of account to use for a given bundle of money\"\", other than nobody having mentioned the employer match. Even if there were no other difference at all in tax treatment, it's pretty typical that 401(k) contributions will be matched by free money from the employer. No IRA can compete with that. But, that's not the only choice either: Many of us contribute to both the 401(k) and the IRA. Why? Because we can. I'm not suggesting that just-anybody can, but, if you max out the employer matching in the 401(k), or if you max out the tax-advantaged contribution limit in the 401(k), and you still have more money that you want to save in a tax-advantaged retirement account this year, you can do so. The IRA is available, it's not \"\"instead-of\"\" the 401(k).\"" }, { "docid": "345895", "title": "", "text": "\"I have never double-answered till now. This loan can't be taken out of context. By the way, how much is it? What rate? \"\"Debt bad.\"\" Really? Line the debt up. This is the highest debt you have. But, you work for a company that offers a generous match, i.e. the match to your 401(k). Now, it's a choice, pay off 6% debt or deposit that money to get an immediate 100% return. Your question has validity. In the end, we can tell you when to pay off the debt. After - The issue is that you are quoting a third party without having the discussion or ever being privy to it. In court, this is called 'hearsay.' The best we can do is offer both sides of the issue and priority for the payments. Welcome to Money.SE, nice first question.\"" }, { "docid": "255277", "title": "", "text": "When you leave an employer, 401(k) loans are immediately due (or within 30 days or 60 days). So maybe they are waiting to see if you will pay off your loan. If you wanted to transfer the loan as well, you need to talk to your new 401(k) plan administrator to find out if this even possible. If they say No and you don't pay off the loan, it will count as a premature distribution from your old 401(k) plan and possibly be subject to excise tax in addition to income tax." }, { "docid": "79363", "title": "", "text": "Mathwise, I absolutely agree with the other answers. No contest, you should keep getting the match. But, just for completeness, I'll give a contrarian opinion that is generally not very popular, but does have some merit. If you can focus on just one main financial goal at a time, and throw every extra dollar you have at that one focus (i.e., getting out of debt, in your case), you will make better progress than if you're trying to do too many things at once. Also, there something incredibly freeing about being out of debt that has other beneficial impacts on your life. So, if you can bring a lot of focus to the credit card debt and get it paid off quickly, it may be worth deferring the 401(k) investing long enough to do that, even though it doesn't make as much mathematical sense. (This is essentially what Dave Ramsey teaches, BTW.)" }, { "docid": "210972", "title": "", "text": "\"Getting a mortgage for the interest write-off is like buying packs of baseball cards for the gum. That said, I'd refer you to The correct order of investing as much of that question really overlaps with this. This question boils down to priorities, the best use of the funds. There are those who suggest that a mortgage brings risk. Of course it does, just not for the borrower, the risk is borne by the lender. Risk comes from lack of liquidity. Say your girlfriend buys the house with cash, and leaves little reserve. She loses her job, and it's great that she has no mortgage. But she does have every other cost life brings, including a tax bill that can turn into a house getting foreclosed on. The details that you didn't disclose are those needed to look at the rest of the \"\"priorities\"\" list. A fully funded 401(k) with appropriate balance, and no other debt? And a 1 year emergency fund? I wouldn't argue against buying the house with cash. No real savings and passing on the 401(k) matched deposit? I'd think carefully about the longterm impact of the cash purchase.\"" }, { "docid": "526383", "title": "", "text": "First off, great job on your finances so far. You are off on the right foot and have some sense of planning for the future. Also, it is a great question. First, I agree with @littleadv. Take advantage of your employer match. Do not drop your 401(k) contributions below that. Also, good job on putting your contributions into the Roth account. Second, I would ask: Are you out of debt? If not, put all your extra income towards paying off debt, and then you can work your plan. Third, time to do some math. What will your business look like? How much capital would you need to get started? Are there things you can do now on a part-time basis to start this business or prepare you to start the business? Come up with a figure, find some mutual funds that have a low beta, and back out how much money you need to save per month, so you have around that total. Then you have a figure. e.g. Assume you need $20,000, and you find a fund that has done 8% over the past 20 years. Then, you would need to save about $110/month to be ready to go in 10 years, or $273/month to go in about 5 years. (It's a time value of money calculation.) The house is really a long way off, but you could do the same kind of calculation. I feel that you think your income, and possibly locale, will change dramatically over the next few years. It might not be bad to double what you are saving for the business, and designate one half for the house." }, { "docid": "350082", "title": "", "text": "I know of no way to answer your question without 'spamming' a particular investment. First off, if you are a USA citizen, max out your 401-K. Whatever your employer matches will be an immediate boost to your investment. Secondly, you want your our gains to be tax deferred. A 401-K is tax deferred as well as a traditional IRA. Thirdly, you probably want the safety of diversification. You achieve this by buying an ETF (or mutual fund) that then buys individual stocks. Now for the recommendation that may be called spamming by others : As REITs pass the tax liability on to you, and as an IRA is tax deferred, you can get stellar returns by buying a mREIT ETF. To get you started here are five: mREITs Lastly, avoid commissions by having your dividends automatically reinvested by using that feature at Scottrade. You will have to pay commissions on new purchases but your purchases from your dividend Reinvestment will be commission free. Edit: Taking my own advice I just entered orders to liquidate some positions so I would have the $ on hand to buy into MORL and get some of that sweet 29% dividend return." }, { "docid": "525322", "title": "", "text": "\"The same author wrote in that article “they have a trillion? Really?” But that’s what happens when ten million dollars compounds at 2% over 200 years. Really? 2% compounded over 200 years produces a return of 52.5X, multiply that by 10M and you have $525 million. The author is off by a factor of nearly 2000 fold. Let's skip this minor math error. The article is not about 401(k)s. His next line is \"\"The whole myth of savings is gone.\"\" And the article itself, \"\"10 Reasons You Have To Quit Your Job In 2014\"\" is really a manifesto about why working for the man is not the way to succeed long term. And in that regard, he certainly makes good points. I've read this author over the years, and respect his views. 9 of the 10 points he lists are clear and valuable. This one point is a bit ambiguous and falls into the overgeneraluzation \"\"Our 401(k) have failed us.\"\" But keep in mind, even the self employed need to save, and in fact, have similar options to those working for others. I have a Solo 401(k) for my self employment income. To be clear, there are good 401(k) accounts and bad. The 401(k) with fees above 1%/yr, and no matching, awful. The 401(k) I have from my job before I retired has an S&P index with .02%/yr cost. (That's $200/$million invested per year.) The 401(k) is not dead.\"" }, { "docid": "59327", "title": "", "text": "Every $1,000 you use to pay off a 26% interest rate card saves you $260 / year. Every $1,000 you use to pay off a 23% interest rate card saves you $230 / year. Every $1,000 you put in a savings account earning ~0.5% interest earns you $5 / year. Having cash on hand is good in case of emergencies, but typically if your debt is on high interest credit cards, you should consider paying off as much of it as possible. In your case you may want to keep only some small amount (maybe $500, maybe $1000, maybe $100) in cash for emergencies. Paying off your high interest debt should be a top priority for you. You may want to look on this site for help with budgeting, also. Typically, being in debt to credit card companies is a sign of living beyond your means. It costs you a lot of money in the long run." }, { "docid": "244692", "title": "", "text": "\"One can generalize on Traditional vs Roth flavors of accounts, I suggest Roth for 15% money and going pretax to avoid 25% tax. If the student loan is much over 4%, it may make sense to put it right after emergency fund. For emergency fund priority - I'm assuming EF really requires 2 phases, the $2500 broken transmission/root canal bill, and the lose your job, or need a new roof level bills. I'm in favor of doing what let's you sleep well. I'm also quick to point out that if you owe $2500 at 18%, yet have $2500 in your emergency fund, you're really throwing away $450 in interest each year. There's an ongoing debate of \"\"credit card as emergency fund.\"\" No, I don't claim that your cards should be considered an emergency fund, per se, but I would prioritize knocking off the 18% debt as a high priority. Once that crazy interest debt is gone, fund the ER, and find a balance for savings and the next level ER, the 6-9mo of expenses one. One can choose to fund a Roth IRA, but keep the asset out of retirement calculations. It's simply an emergency account returning tax free interest, and if never used, it eventually is retirement money. A Roth permits withdrawal of deposited funds with no tax or penalty, just tracking it each year. This actually rubs some people the wrong way as it sounds like tapping your retirement account for emergencies. For my purpose, it's a tax free emergency fund. Not retirement, unless and until you are saving so much in the 401(k) you need more tax favored retirement money. I wrote an article some time ago, the Roth Emergency Fund which went into a bit more detail. Last - keep in mind, this is my opinion. I can intelligently argue my case, but at some point, it's up to the individual to do what feels right. Paying 18% debt off a bit slower, say 4 years instead of 3, in favor of funding the matched 401(k), to me, you run the numbers, watch the 401(k) balance grow by 2X your pretax deposits, and see that in year 3, your retirement account is jump-started and far, far more than your remaining 18% cards. Those who feel the opposite and wish to be debt free first are going to do what they want. And the truth is, if this lets you sleep better at night, I'm in favor of it.\"" }, { "docid": "426215", "title": "", "text": "\"Understand your own risk tolerance and discipline. From Moneychimp we can see different market results - This is a 15 year span, containing what was arguably one of the most awful decades going. A full 10 year period with a negative return. Yet, the 15 year return was a 6.65% CAGR. You'd net 5.65% after long term cap gains. Your mortgage is likely costing ~4% or 3% after tax (This is not applicable to my Canadian friends, I understand you don't deduct interest). In my not so humble opinion, I'd pay off the highest rate debts first (unlike The David followers who are happy to pay off tens of thousands of dollars in 0% interest debt before the large 18% debt) and invest at the highest rate I'd get long term. The problem is knowing when to flip from one to the other. Here's food for thought - The David insists on his use of the 12% long term market return. The last 100 years have had an average 11.96% return, but you can't spend average, the CAGR, the real compound rate was 10.06%. Why would he recommend paying off a sub 3% loan while using 12% for his long term planning (All my David remarks are not applicable to Canadian members, you all probably know better than to listen to US entertainers)? I am retired, and put my money where my mouth is. The $200K I still owe on my mortgage is offset by over $400K in my 401(k). The money went in at 25%/28% pretax, has grown over these past 20 years, and comes out at 15% to pay my mortgage each month. No regrets. Anyone starting out now, and taking a 30 year mortgage, but putting the delta to a 15 year mortgage payment into their 401(k) is nearly certain to have far more in the retirement account 15 years hence than their remaining balance on the loan, even after taxes are considered. Even more if this money helps them to get the full matching, which too many miss. All that said, keep in mind, the market is likely to see a correction or two in the next 15 years, one of which may be painful. If that would keep you up at night, don't listen to me. If a fixed return of 4% seems more appealing than a 10% return with a 15% standard deviation, pay the mortgage first. Last - if you have a paid off house but no job, the town still wants its property tax, and the utilities still need to be paid. If you lose your job with $400K in your 401(k)/IRA but have a $200K mortgage, you have a lot of time to find a new job or sell the house with little pressure from the debt collectors. (To answer the question in advance - \"\"Joe, at what mortgage rate do you pay it off first?\"\" Good question. I'd deposit to my 401(k) to grab matching deposits first, and then if the mortgage was anywhere north of 6%, prioritize that. This would keep my chances at near 100% of coming out ahead.)\"" }, { "docid": "489729", "title": "", "text": "What's missing in your question, so Kate couldn't address, is the rest of your financial picture. If you have a fully funded emergency account, are saving for retirement, and have saved up the $15K for the car, buy in cash. If you tell me that if the day after you buy the car in cash, your furnace/AC system dies, that you'd need to pay for it with an $8K charge to a credit card, that's another story. You see, there's more than one rate at play. You get close to zero on you savings today. You have a 1.5% loan rate available. But what is your marginal cost of borrowing? The next $10K, $20K? If it's 18% on a credit card, I personally would find value in borrowing at sub-2.5% and not depleting my savings. On the other side, the saving side, does your company offer a 401(k) with company match? I find too many people obsessing over their 6% debt, while ignoring a 100% match of 4-6% of their gross income. For what it's worth, trying to place labels on debt is a bit pointless. Any use of debt should be discussed 100% based on the finances of the borrower." } ]